Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000

[Steve Burkett]

Hi Chris, yep 4am. Needed something do. Staying overnight in a hotel after a days filming. 4-5 hours of sleep and I'm wide awake and no editing to keep me busy.

As for your gear you have to remember that with 4K, quality has risen in the video industry. I expect the new Panasonic DX200 to demonstrate the new $4000 standard or whatever price it is. Plus I agree, paying more doesn't lead to better image. Canons new XC10 costs more than the GH4, but not I'd say with an equivalent jump in quality. I'm not a fan of Canon and although I love their colour science and ergonomics, features and price is not so good.

Ultimately it's how you use the gear that counts. The GH4 can be laughed at for his size, one Sony rep at a Wedding I filmed, compared it to a toy camera. However it's the image that ultimately is how you'll be judged.

If I was shooting video and photo I'd go for a bridge camera, probably the rx10 to be honest. Shooting just photo, I'm not sure but probably Nikon's best in the £2000 to £3000 category. I prefer Nikon's image to Canon.

I wouldn't use a bridge camera for pure photo service as its big advantage of offering both functions would be wasted, whereas a dedicated photo camera would be more suited to the job. I shoot video, so I suppose a dedicated video camera would be best. A GH4 may seem not to fit that criteria, but then I think few people are buying it for its photo function.

[Chris Harding]

Hey Steve

Wow you will be tired later I bet!! Yeah I looked at the DVX200 as the 100 was a legend but the $4000 price point is a dream!! It looks closer to GBP3200 without your 20% VAT so down here it going to come out at around AUD$6000 a bit too much for my budget ...If I spend $12K on two cameras I need to charge a whole lot more money to justify the capital cost!! If I want to go fancier it will be a GH4 ... I started in the 80's on Panasonic with a WVP100 camera with a Saticon Tube sensor and a big NV100 recorder ...ahh!! the old days!!! My only deviation was 2013-2015 with the Sony's and I never liked the image ..it just leaves me cold!! Hopefully the DVX200 will stay with the tradition of eye popping images and decent colour ...the only ones I hated were the AC-130's ..they lost the Leica lenses and I'm sure they were made under licence in China as that was when the Tsunami hit Japan ..!! All my others have been Panasonic right thru the M series "all in one" VHS and then the MS series in Super VHS and then onto HMC series ..all brilliant!

Better get some sleep ..if I stay over I have the same issue!!!

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Wow you will be tired later I bet!! Yeah I looked at the DVX200 as the 100 was a legend but the $4000 price point is a dream!!

Nah, got my 5 hours. I'll be fine. I'm considering the DVX200 for corporate work really. May have to wait for price to drop a little. Mind, the lack of constant aperture is a concern. Frankly I'd prefer a AF101 replacement that does 4K. At the moment it's just speculative. I'm still saving for a 2nd GH4 and maybe an RX10. Still on the fence about the latter.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Roger again

Back to stills at receptions? I'm assuming that your flash is non TTL so in Ia mode the camera would try to expose the scene as best as it can since the pop up flash is not released so shutter would be super low (like 1/15th or less?? In this case I'm assuming you expose in manual to just a comfortable setting like the old film cameras ..say 1/60th and F2.8 and then use the flash on manual??? Do you guess what flash power to use or does your flash do a semi auto calculation?? In the old days you set your manual flash according to f stop and it worked ... then again bounce can be tricky so I think I would prefer a TTL flash ..Next wedding I'll use the Nikons at the reception but shoot stills during the photoshoot with the Lumix ..... Maybe I'm just lazy but indoors having a TTL flash is so much easier.

What is your exact methodology using the Lumix at the reception with a manual flash??

Chris

[Roger Gunkel]

Hi Chris,

My flash is not TTL which would be a lot easier, but the one I use has variable zoom from 24-105mm and variable speed from 1-1/128. I use the camera in full manual, but prefer that anyway in variable indoor evening lighting. I usually set for ISO125, shutter 50-100th and aperture f2.8-4.00. I normally start with the flash on 1/4 and zoom 70mm and vary the light by altering the angle of the flash. Once I have a good average setting, I can just change the angle, or bounce the flash without having to change much else unless I am zooming in from further away. In that case I would I would use a more direct flash and drop the shutter speed perhaps to 40 or even 30 if the is no movement. I tend to find that once I get into a flow, I have no problems at all, although a TTL flash require less thought. I also find myself using the pop up flash if shooting things like table decorations, sometimes with the mini shield over it.

Did you say you had colour balance problems using an LED? That's not something I have found although I have only used it a couple of times and it required playing with the white balance manually.

Roger

[Chris Harding]

Thanks Roger

The LED light on the camera for guest shots from about 6' away just doesn't cut it ..it tends to blow out the skin tones on the faces but the camera does handle WB very well ..it balances the LED light quite well. Dunno if you know but with all Pannys I have owned if you point the camera first at a white tablecloth and zoom in it will do a correction in around 15 seconds to get the balance right and THEN you can shoot to your hearts content. I think what I did wrong was use Ia mode for my stills so half were shot at 1/15th so were not sharp at all. Maybe what I SHOULD have done was use manual, lock the shutter at 1/60th and keep the lens at F2.8 and then use the LED light's dimmer wheel to dial in some light to get the right exposure??? I don't think using anything but manual will work with a manual flash or LED light as the exposure is read for the whole scene and your faces which are closer than the background get over exposed....My Nikon SB600 does work on the FZ1000 and goes down to 1/64th power so I'll try it in manual next!!

Just for interest both my weddings were shot in MP4 rather than AVCHD and the MP4 files render like lightning compared to AVCHD which seems to be a more compressed format. Speeds up the edit nicely!!

Chris

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Roger, you keep picking on bad professionals to justify your reasons whilst ignoring that there are plenty of good professionals using the same gear to great effect. I see plenty of guests with more expensive gear than yourself, do I think they're getting better photos, no.

So you offered Photography because of the bad ones you saw, how very noble of you. Why not extent this to bad djs, Wedding planners and caterers. Of course the fact that there's money to be made from dual packages, the satisfaction of applying something new and creative after many years working in video, offering something competitive and different to other Video professionals and not working with a Photographer who gets in your way played only a small part in your decision. :)

Now I'm not disagreeing that there are bad Professionals out there, but on the other side of the coin, there are also plenty of damn good ones. Besides I'm not sure what criteria you judge by. What is bad to you could just be a style that is different to your own. You can come across as overly critical of others work and style.

You do tend to oversimplify what I am saying by taking a couple of points and over egging them, although I am sure some of that is down to a tongue in cheek sense of humour and being a bit of a pedant.

I don't keep on picking on bad professionals, but one of the things that tipped me over the edge into adding photography, was filming three weddings in succession with different well equipped photographers, two of whom were downright rude and the other very pleasant. All three were £1500 plus photographers one being just under £2000, but all three couples were unhappy with their photos and asked if they could have copies of ones that I had put on the end of the video. Mine were all frames grabbed from the video and used as a collage of stills from the day with credits and thanks. I thought it odd that all three were unhappy and asked if I could have the link to their photos to see if I could see any obvious problems.

You ask what I consider bad photography and these particular photographers showed various examples of poor photography and/or application. Two of them had told me that there main income was from upper end commercial work. The most expensive one had been asked by the bride to avoid taking shots from one side as she had a very large strawberry birthmark on her face, I even had her on video reminding him. However the birth mark was clearly visible in almost every shot, with all of the romantic poses showing it clearly. I would have at least photoshopped them out. The biggest problem though was that the venue was surrounded with glass windows and a very large number of shots were way too dark, almost silhouettes and not done deliberately. Many shots in normal lighting were overexposed with the dress details burned out and the couple chose only 5 pictures from the ones he had taken. Both of the other photographers had missed important groups that had been asked for, presumably because some hadn't come out even though they were on the video and poses were very amateur, with no attempt to balance bouquets, get the groups standing properly, arranging the dress and lots of very basic stuff. When I enquired of one of the photographers if was going to take any shoe, ring or bouquet shots, or in the car or cake cutting, he told me that his work was artistic and he didn't do 'Cheesy'. The couple obviously didn't agree afterwards.

So my reasons for adding photography were not to be 'Very Noble' as you rather disparagingly put it, but because I realised that I was perfectly capable of taking what the couple's wanted, which wasn't always what they were getting. I also realised that getting great pictures didn't necessarily mean having top of the range cameras and lenses, rather cameras that were able to achieve what I and my clients wanted, both in content and quality. This also went along with a wider business base, more income per booking and being in total control on the day rather than at the mercy of photographers.

Now I have worked with many superb photographers using a variety of equipment, many of whom I still recommend for top quality work and many of whom recommend me. I have also never disputed that full frame cameras and top end glass will achieve more than I can get with my LUMIX cameras under many circumstances and certainly for top end work. It is also true to say, I think, that many are also equipment enthusiasts and love getting the best gear they can afford and wouldn't dream of working with something like the LUMIX even if it gives good results in the wedding field. For me, speed and convenience are essential, but it must also be coupled with good quality in the market I am working in.

So let me finish this long post by saying that most wedding video and photography is the Macdonalds of professional video and photography. It is the way that many get into filming professionally while still learning to use the equipment well. It is the way that many video and photography courses steer their students into getting work, because there is no other way of starting earning reasonable money from it realistically. Many that start out have aspirations to move into movie making or the commercial world of photography and video and would like to use their wedding work as a way to hone those skills and make cinematic video and artistic photographs. Some charge a great deal of money for these services and aspire to the celebrity, corporate and wealthy end of the market. Those that want to go in that direction need to invest in the sort of equipment that will satisfy potential clients who expect the best in skill and equipment. With weddings, that market is a tiny percentage of the overall wedding market, and the wedding video market itself is a very small percentage of weddings generally. One of the reasons for this is that most couples do not see the value of wedding video and are quite happy to have friends and family take the video and often the photos. Most of those that do want professionals are in the mid to low range of the market which is where most weddings stand and are looking for service providers that can fit in with their comparatively modest budget. As Chris says, investing big money on top end equipment to service the end of the market where the most work is, is not a sound business plan, unless you want to raise your prices to cover the increased costs, or intend to aim at high end work.

Bringing it back to the point of this thread which is using the LUMIX FZ1000, this camera and probably others like it, are able to offer a good end product in the right hands, to the area of the market that people like Chris, me and a few others are happy to supply, without aspiring to take on the role of highly specified professional gear. Cameras like the G3 and G4 are more expensive, but still way off top end and cover a very similar market to the FZ1000. You pays your money and makes yer choice!

Roger

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Thanks Roger

The LED light on the camera for guest shots from about 6' away just doesn't cut it ..it tends to blow out the skin tones on the faces but the camera does handle WB very well ..it balances the LED light quite well. Dunno if you know but with all Pannys I have owned if you point the camera first at a white tablecloth and zoom in it will do a correction in around 15 seconds to get the balance right and THEN you can shoot to your hearts content. I think what I did wrong was use Ia mode for my stills so half were shot at 1/15th so were not sharp at all. Maybe what I SHOULD have done was use manual, lock the shutter at 1/60th and keep the lens at F2.8 and then use the LED light's dimmer wheel to dial in some light to get the right exposure??? I don't think using anything but manual will work with a manual flash or LED light as the exposure is read for the whole scene and your faces which are closer than the background get over exposed....My Nikon SB600 does work on the FZ1000 and goes down to 1/64th power so I'll try it in manual next!!

Just for interest both my weddings were shot in MP4 rather than AVCHD and the MP4 files render like lightning compared to AVCHD which seems to be a more compressed format. Speeds up the edit nicely!!

Chris

Hi Chris,

I only use the camera in auto mode in natural light or fairly bright artificial light and for those the auto is excellent. I always switch to manual for lower light, because as you said, the auto mode in IA will default to a slower shutter speed. I have always used manual anyway for lower light so haven't seen it as a problem.
Have you tried playing about with the exposure modes to avoid the overall exposure situation, perhaps centre point?

I agree with you on the MP4, I've changed to shooting all video in MP4 as the quality and sharpness looks pretty much the same, but editing is much faster. I experimented at one of my schools multi camera shoots with a locked off full stage 4K on the FZ1000. It was only 30 minutes and I paralleled it with another video camera taking the same shot in HD. I have been editing the footage today and have found that I have used more crops from the 4K than any other footage. Although my system stutters on the 4K I have been able to take the shots and crops that I want and they look VERY GOOD :-)

Roger

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

You do tend to oversimplify what I am saying

Only cos you write such long posts. One has to pick and choose from the many. At least I had 4am as an excuse for mine. :)

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Only cos you write such long posts. One has to pick and choose from the many. At least I had 4am as an excuse for mine. :)

I think we probably both quite enjoy the sparring, probably time to keep it on track with 'Using The Panasonic FZ1000.' :-)

Roger

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I think we probably both quite enjoy the sparring, probably time to keep it on track with 'Using The Panasonic FZ1000.' :-)

Roger

Actually my biggest issue with this camera and the RX10 is the 29 minute limit. Hacking my GH2s for continuous recordings has paid dividends. I had one in the gallery yesterday and didn't have to worry once about it. I'm planning on getting a 2nd GH4 from Hong Kong for that reason. Yep the risk of using a far off company but worth it for those jobs which aren't timed to 29 minutes.

If I got a bridge camera I'd like it to replace a gh2, but not with that silly clip limit. I understand even exports have it. Why? It's a tax dodge here but not in America. Is a tax dodge suddenly industry standard. Do companies think events are divided by 29 minutes. I have a GH3 and I have to work with it close by rather than remotely, just so I can reset the record. Why do even cheap camcorders have continuous recordings but the moment its shaped like a camera, you suddenly lose this simple ability to press record and leave it running.

[Peter Rush]

Steve it's all down to EU regulations and tax class - Camcorders and DSLRs are taxed differently - the reason they impose the time limit is to stop it being classed as a camcorder and taxed accordingly.

Personally I would rather pay the extra and have no limit - why don't the manufacturers give us the option?

Pete

[Roger Gunkel]

It's an outmoded and outdated tax, what is the point when both cameras and videocams take stills and video!!! Either tax both or neither.

I sympathise over the 29 minute issue Steve as it is a pain on the FZ1000, but only usually for a church service. I do have the remote control app which is pretty good for monitoring the image and zooming, plus stop and start.

Roger

[Steve Burkett]

It just flies in the face of professional gear. I had on Saturday set my GH3 on a light stand, up high to avoid being blocked by a crowded church. Twice I had to disturb guests to lower the camera and restart during the church service. If I explained my reasons, I'd have looked a fool. How can you explain that a camera that cost me originally £1000 is incapable of performing to one that costs only £150. It's all very well Panasonic avoiding a tax, but if they can pay it for a £150 camcorder, surely one worth over 6 times the price should be no problem.

To me it limits the possibility for any bridge camera, from something that sits well in my kit to a camera I can only use if manned throughout. As a replacement to my GH3, a camera like the FZ1000 has potential, but with the clip limit, all I got is 4K and lose a 4/3s sensor for a 1" one.

[Roger Gunkel]

I'm really not sure how or why the tax is applied. I would certainly be prepared to pay extra tax if it enabled the lifting of the 29 min limit. Alternatively, why can't Panasonic and the other manufacturers just have two different versions, one inhibited and one not. It is then up to the purchaser to choose whether they want to pay more for the uninhibited version.

Roger