LUMIX FZ1000 user update

[Steve Burkett]

Chris, it's not just a GH4 forum. I believe it covers cameras with GH, and 2 other designation of cameras; so the fact it doesn't say FZ seems to be the only reason not to post there and a poor one at that. I don't think anyone would have shut down Roger for posting in that forum. Especially as there is yet no dedicated forum for the FZ1000.

Any posts to this forum will invite comparisons with other cameras as it is an event and wedding forum and not a dedicated camera forum. The truth is both you and Roger contributed to any discussions on Sony and other camera comparisons in the last thread and only shot it down when you felt you were losing your argument.

You want to discuss use of a camera, post in one of the Panasonic forums regardless whether says FZ or not. Post here and ask for Wedding experiences, and expect comparisons to other cameras. If I launched a GH4 thread, I'd expect users of other similar cameras to respond. I wouldn't take it personally and would welcome the debate. But then I'm not so in love with the GH4 to take criticism of it personally.

[Nigel Barker]

Personally I have no problems with discussing anything in any thread whatever the thread title or the sub-forum. It's a discussion forum & we are discussing & just like a normal conversation it wanders around. I really don't mind having a thread on the Wedding sub-forum about the FZ1000 (or the RX10M2 or C100 or GH4 or whatever). There is always going to be an element of us airing our prejudices & wanting to justify our own purchases but when people express their contrary opinions based on their own prejudices & purchases we shouldn't be surprised or take it to heart.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Nigel

I think Roger still reads the forum but got tired of the constant banter that was totally off subject by GH4 users. Roger posted a couple of very informative threads about his experiences with the cameras that were meant for FZ1000 users ... I totally agree that if he put up a thread called "The FZ1000 is way better than the GH4" or something stupid like that THEN one must expect the flak to fly! but he didn't and it was an honest event experience about how the camera performed at the events he had done. It was immediately hijacked and turned into why he should have bought not only a GH4 but a Sony RX10 ... that was his choice (and mine too) so was totally useless to current FZ users. I'm sure I would have been upset too if my thread had been ripped to threads by people who have never even held the camera in their hand never mind shot with it.

His anger is in this case probably justified but he has assured me that he will keep in touch and post instead on the UK based FZ1000 facebook group which has a huge following.

[Steve Burkett]

Really Chris, you're trying very hard to rewrite history to justify this over reaction. Perhaps you should read back on some of the posts and see just how some of the off topic stuff occurred and you'd see Roger reacting badly to any perceived criticism of the FZ1000. The fact I owned a GH4 played no part in my judgement on this camera. I never suggested in any serious post that Roger should own a GH4. True I suggested it's low light is not going to be as good as a fast prime that I use on a GH4, but that is an observation not a recommendation. I also suggested the RX10 was a better bridge camera than the FZ1000 based on specs, as did many others. Again, observation and debate regarding a similar camera. Threads like this will have them. You're can't dictate people's responses.

Something I posted on the last thread was the suggestion that the easiest way to keep these off topic posts from going far is to not reply to them. Unfortunately Roger rose to the bait each and every time and allowed such discussions to fly. If you go back to page 1, you'll see me respond to your post on why people aren't considering the FZ1000 and I replied that it was more down to specs and the camera not being suitable to many users, despite it being a good camera. A post Roger could have ignored quite easily and chose not to. In fact most of the subsequent nonsense here stems from that 1 post by me and Rogers reply to it. Had Roger ignored my post, this thread might have stayed on topic. It's an example of how forums can get out of hand over the slightest of things and why you should never take it too seriously.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Steve

Fair enough but please don't shoot the messenger! I was simply responding to Nigel about Roger's absence and reasons for no longer posting. There is a lot more to the statement from Clive about spending a few more dollars and getting a Sony .. quite valid from my side but having owned Sony's for 3 years I simply don't like the end result! The IQ although technically good, leaves me cold ... In answer to Noa's question about me praising the EA-50 with a F1.8 Sigma on it, yes I did it was WAY better than the very slow E-Mount F3.5 lens and it seemed like daylight in comparison... then again that was comparing lenses with lenses so it doesn't apply here. At last night's wedding I would have used an F2.8 on the Sony and then my usual setup of two 125W CFL lights bounced back into an umbrella to get a reasonable image ...I did just that on the Panasonic and it was way too much light . in fact it blew the picture out and I had to turn one off!

Surely though if a topic is an information one, we really should either keep it on topic and if it doesn't interest or be applicable to you then just don't post in it. I don't own two Canon C300's so if a post pops up about how awesome they are, I accept it and rather read posts that apply to cameras applicable to my situation ... I thought that was the reason for a post title?

Hopefully Roger will keep us updated

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Surely though if a topic is an information one, we really should either keep it on topic and if it doesn't interest or be applicable to you then just don't post in it. I don't own two Canon C300's so if a post pops up about how awesome they are, I accept it and rather read posts that apply to cameras applicable to my situation ... I thought that was the reason for a post title?

Chris, adding a bridge camera to my setup is something I am considering and the FZ1000 being Panasonic does hit some marks for me. Yes my conclusion is that should I go down this route, the rx10 would be a better choice, but it's by no means certain and even reading the initial post in this thread by Roger, I did give it another consideration as it is considerably cheaper and I do wonder if for the minimum use I'd have for it, good enough for my means. It's something I swing back and forth on. If there is a successor and it resolves things like the zoom, then perhaps then I'd make the jump.

However if you want a better reason why other camera threads can be productive, then I can give this excellent example. In the last thread on this camera, over the 13 pages, much was discussed on using this camera, but the issues discussed were not exclusive to this camera. Talk on the ND filter was very useful including ideas on adding a hood to one. As a consequence of those discussions, I now have a hood glued to my ND filter. Something I wouldn't have done if not participating in a thread on this camera. I similarly browse and may even participate in threads on other cameras I don't own for similar reasons.

[Dave Blackhurst]

I read posts about other cameras, and there shouldn't be a "contest"... it just isn't like that!! Reading about the latest greatest "tool" and how people are using it is at least a good part of what makes these forums useful...

There have been so many changes in cameras that it's helpful to hear from people who are trying new and different "gear". If it works for them, and turns out not to work for you, well, these things happen! I've bought a few "popular" cameras and found them lacking for what I wanted, yet others were thrilled with them... I've got a rather substantial pile of extra "grip gear" that I seldom use... some because it seemed like it was a cool thing for someone else, some has been re-sold to someone else who found it useful...

I'd recommend the FZ1000 to someone who shot Panasonic just on grounds that it might be a better match for what they already have/use/are familiar with... even though a Sony would be my first preference. The postings discussing the camera here have solidified that it would be a "safe" recommendation.

I think I suggested the cheap puffer flash diffuser that's been decent for me, and it's "camera agnostic"... sometimes ideas, tricks, or techniques apply to any camera...

I sort of wish I had picked up an FZ1000 just for the inexpensive 4K option that seems to be pretty good in some samples I've seen, and not as good in others.. kinda curious to see what results I'd get! May yet do it just for giggles if the price is right! Funny thing is that while used Sonys seem to be available at reasonable prices (thus reducing the price advantage of the Panny), finding used Panasonics cheap doesn't happen often!


There's no reason to become defensive of your camera/gear choices just because someone else has a "toy" they like better or that they think does a better job for them. If there's something posted that's just flat out wrong, and you can show from your experience why it's wrong, that's one thing, but saying "this camera is better than that camera" is right up the "which is the best camera" maze of alleys.

I own a "few" cameras, a couple for a SINGLE feature that no other camera covers... so it's the "best" camera for that ONE thing, but so-so for others... The "best camera" this year most likely will be beaten by some other camera soon enough, so it's silly to treat it like someone insulted your wife or something!

[Chris Harding]

Thanks Guys

I do agree that there are certain parameters that everyone has that are critical to choosing a camera and having to accept horrible workarounds are not what you want. What everyone chooses is their personal choice. I started off in the 80' with Panasonic and liked them ..there came a stage about 3 years ago when I can honestly say they were (well some models anyway) a load of garbage and I dumped my AC-130's after 3 months of frustration and went to Sony ...Unlike Dave, not my first choice as I simply don't like the look but technically they are brilliant!! I'm sure we don't all drive the same model car either!

I looked very carefully at the FZ before buying and yes there were some things I didn't like and if they affected my shooting style, no I wouldn't have bought them. The zoom is terrible (that's honesty!) but I only use zoom to frame shots so that didn't affect me ...otherwise, like taking a new car for a test drive, you either like it or you don't and if you don't you simply buy one you like. There is nothing wrong with the car you didn't buy.. it runs well, it takes you from A to B, it looks smart BUT you don't like it ..same with cameras. This thread did turn into a "Why would you buy an FZ1000 when you could get a Sony RZ10 for just a little more money?" My answer is simple ...it's a great, even technically better, camera but I don't like the Sony image so why should I buy what I don't like?

[Steve Burkett]

I've had some of my posts go off topic. I admit the rx10 stuff went too far, and I appreciate Rogers intentions for starting this thread. However in a way he was trying to create a forum within a forum and act as its moderator. A conceit too far for some and led to accusations of restricting this thread to users of the camera.

There are ultimately better resources for creating a user group for a certain camera, a thread in a Wedding and Events forum not being one of them. I doubt I'd keep a GH4 user thread on topic and restricted to GH4 users, and I'd blow a blood vessel or two trying.

[Chris Harding]

Thanks Steve

I have again emailed Chris Hurd to see what he can do to help? Been trying since July!!

All that's needs to be done really is just add a "/FZ series" to the current GH/LZ title so people know where to find the discussions. I do agree that camera discussions belong under Panasonic not Weddings and Events unless it's a specific question related to only weddings

I guess Chris is too busy???

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

I'd recommend the FZ1000 to someone who shot Panasonic just on grounds that it might be a better match for what they already have/use/are familiar with... even though a Sony would be my first preference. The postings discussing the camera here have solidified that it would be a "safe" recommendation.

I would consider getting a fz1000 as imagewise it would complement my gh4 which is why those comparison videos where linked to, only after have seen those video's the camera would not be suitable for my needs and not a "safe recommendation", that comparison was very important to know how the fz1000 preforms in low light and since it was compared to my own camera I know exactly how it does now at a comparible f-stop. This is also very useful for any other gh4 owner that thinks about getting this as a b-camera to know what the limitations are.

It was only made very clearly this info was either not interesting or irrelevant because it was not a problem for it's current owners that started the thread. If you look at it like that then it's better to start your own blog which I would recommend to Roger if he wants to have total control what needs to be censored or not if it's not in line with his opinion and he can even ban users if he is tired of listening to them, however, that's also partially possible here as well as there is a "ignore" option so you don't have to read certain users messages which, as I found out, works very well.

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

At last night's wedding I would have used an F2.8 on the Sony and then my usual setup of two 125W CFL lights bounced back into an umbrella to get a reasonable image ...I did just that on the Panasonic and it was way too much light . in fact it blew the picture out and I had to turn one off!

It's with comments like "my sony would have died!" that you get a topic off topic because you can expect this to be questioned, the way you say it know is much better because it gives existing nex-ea50 users an idea about how the fz1000 would perform under the same circumstances at a f-stop of f2.8, a video ofcourse proving this would be perfect. This is exactly the same info I have been trying to give for a gh4 owner and I think this very valuable for any interested buyer, it's not about this vs that camera like you constantly keep on repeating, it's about providing clear info to provide a better understanding how this camera performs instead of saying "it"s not a problem for me".

[Chris Harding]

Hi Noa

Unless you have both models at the same time it's not easy to do a comparison. I did put a highlight clip on page one of this post and all the footage at the end was shot without any lighting so it's much easier for me. One would expect an APSC camera like the EA-50 to be technically better in low light than a 1" sensor so I guess the signal processing is a whole lot better??

[Roger Gunkel]

Having decided to withdraw from DV info 3 days ago, I have been persuaded to do a U-turn by several very kind, persuasive and supportive emails from members.

Contrary to suggestions, I did not withdraw because of others disagreeing with my views or being over sensitive, but because I felt that a number of comments on this and previous fz1000 threads were becoming very personal and sometimes mocking. As someone who is quite prepared to stand up for himself, the options seemed to be to ignore, respond and risk dragging down the good natured tone of the forum, or withdrawing.

I hope that by returning, the discussions can be kept on the subject rather than personalities involved.

Roger

[Chris Harding]

Nice to have you back Roger

Had two weddings this weekend and the cameras worked very well ..no issues at all!!

[Roger Gunkel]

To cover a number of points, my reasons for posting in the weddings and events forums, was because I bought the cameras specifically for that use and was interested in what others using this comparatively new camera we're finding. The Panasonic thread does not have a section for the FZ cameras which is a shame, as there would be the provision for threads on different adpects of the camera without lumping all together. Steve mentioned the fact that I had started 4 threads on the Fz1000, but to be fair, in the Panasonic section when I looked the other day, there were 13 threads on the first page on the G4 alone, not to mention innumerable threads on other cameras under the Panasonic sub grouping. I hope that Chris Hurd will respond to Chris Hardings request for an FZ grouping.

Regarding low light performance, I fully understand that some feel it important to compare test results between various cameras for the benefit of others that may be considering the camera. From a purely personal point of view, once concerns have been expressed, I feel it equally important to find out how users are managing with the camera in low light. Do improvements in image processing allow manual changes to be made which enhance the low light performance of the camera in the field or are users finding the limitations a problem?

A camera with interchangeable lenses will allow a much faster lens to be used at higher telephoto ranges in low light with a wider aperture setting. I have other lenses for my EOS 550, but one of the reasons for buying the FZ1000 was to do away with the need to carry extra lenses, providing it didn't compromise my ability to get the end results that I needed. That means that I need to be prepared to use extra light if necessary under circumstances where a bigger sensor and faster primes may be sufficient on some other cameras. So far I have only needed to do that on one occasion where all lights were turned out, but unlike Noa, haven't had to film in a candlelight only situation with the FZ1000. The vast majority of my hours at a wedding are in full to medium light conditions where the camera has given excellent results with speed and convenience for video and photography. For me that is why I bought the camera, and the occasional extreme low light situations are something that I use alternatives for if necessary.

I am not in love with the camera and it is certainly not perfect and there are various things also like the lack of a variable creeping zoom that I have to forego, but for sheer flexibility and picture quality it does just what I need, but would not be suitable for many. All other cameras at whatever price have their limitations, whether due to performance, size, audio, lenses etc, and it is always enlightening to find out how others use their cameras.

I may have started this thread aimed at users, but it is not my thread to control and I hope that all opinions can be considered on a respectful basis as expected on the forum.

Roger