Selling my FZ2500

Chris Harding · April 18th, 2017, 07:32 PM

Hi Tom

To be perfectly honest I think your FZ300 shots are way way better than the FZ1000 ...They just jump out at you so maybe the smaller sensor is better but honestly, the 300 shots are really impressive and the 1000 shots look dull by comparison!

Tom Mussatto · April 18th, 2017, 07:58 PM

Chris, the FZ300 shot was not part of my comparison tests and not a fair comparison as lighting conditions were better and I did some minor tweaking in Lightroom. I had two 2500 and two 1000 straight out of camera shots for comparison. The 300 is great for video but gets noisy at 800 ISO on stills. I can go to 3200 on the 1000.

This is what I can get out of the FZ1000 with a little tweaking in Lightroom. Probably do a little better starting with RAW but I don't fool with those unless I want to print. I haven't been able to get this quality from the FZ2500.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/992313...etaken-public/

Mike Griffiths · April 18th, 2017, 08:06 PM

I've been following this post and would like to add my thoughts. I use the FZ2500 almost exclusively for video and since I've had it it has almost completely replaced my Sony X70 as my video camera. Both when shot in 4K and then downsized to 1080p and on HD the images are very sharp,so much so people comment on it.
I use it for stills too; I normally only shoot at 8 MBJPEG as they are for screen use but when I've shot 17MB raw files I am impreseed by the image.
I think for most people this serves as the best, most useable camera for video and stills at this price. I've seen reviews that compare the lens with the Sony RX10Mkiii and I'm sure that lens is better, but for ease of use and verstility I don't think you can beat the FZ2500.
So unless you are looking to enlarge images way beyond A2 size, I think this camera is fine.
Just my inexpert unquantified comments. :)

Chris Harding · April 18th, 2017, 08:57 PM

Hi Mike

If you are shooting video or stills or both you don't need to be an expert. I think honestly that most of us tend to be "tech heads" and carefully examine every aspect of an image/video for flaws in the hope that we can say the image is "not as good/is better than XXX"

If you are doing video or stills for others they seldom if ever will "pixel peep" and if an image looks good it looks good and that's the end ....both stills and video are considered good NOT by their outstanding resolution or bokeh but by their content. I have shot stills on a Konica Minolta 5mp camera that have left people gasping ...simply because it was an awesome moment and being there at the right time.

Tom takes his photography seriously especially from a technical point of view so to him resolution and sharpness is critical ... As already mentioned in my last post I think his FZ300 shots look way better than his FZ1000 shots (which he favours) where really it could have been the subject and more importantly the natural lighting ... Seriously take a look at his link and tell me that the pic of his dog (FZ300) is not outstanding and his duck pic (FZ1000) is nice but nothing compared to the first one.

Tom Mussatto · April 18th, 2017, 09:22 PM

Chris, you can't compare the FZ300 shots with the FZ1000 and FZ2500 as it was taken under better lighting conditions and processed in Lightroom. The 1000 and 2500 photos were straight out of camera JPEG's.

I actually tend to prefer less sharp images, both video and stills. I set my 1000 at -3 sharpness for stills and -5 for video. What is important (to me) is clean images with good color saturation and resolution (not the same as sharpness), what you call "pop". If you look at the FZ1000 of my Golden Retriever you will notice it is not especially sharp but has good rich color and is clean. I haven't (yet) been able to achieve that with the FZ2500. Could be operator error, bad copy of this model camera, or the camera just can't perform like the FZ1000. Sending mine in for service.

Tom Mussatto · April 18th, 2017, 09:33 PM

Chris, if you want to see a more accurate comparison between the FZ300 and FZ1000 here is a shot of the same beagle. Like the FZ300 shot it has also been slightly tweaked in Lightroom. Both are under good lighting conditions, the FZ300 doesn't do as well as the FZ1000 in less than good lighting. Small sensor gets too noisy.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/992313...etaken-public/

Chris Harding · April 18th, 2017, 09:55 PM

Hi Tom

I STILL like that FZ300 shot better ..it's stunning!! Then again I do agree about sensor size ..on the beagle shot that impressed me the lighting was perfect which makes a huge difference!

I did a wedding in a "rustic" venue with just fairy lights strung across the roof with the FZ2500 and I must admit I was impressed ..no extra lighting at all and the image was pretty good Here is a quick link to a 2 minute clip in very dark lighting and bear in mind it's only a 1280x720 stream at only 2mbps bitrate which looks stunning on a tablet but a bit worse on a 23" monitor due to the low bitrate!

https://livestream.com/videohouse/ev...deos/153751890

Maybe your 2500 does have an issue??

Mike Griffiths · April 19th, 2017, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hi Mike

If you are shooting video or stills or both you don't need to be an expert. I think honestly that most of us tend to be "tech heads" and carefully examine every aspect of an image/video for flaws in the hope that we can say the image is "not as good/is better than XXX"

If you are doing video or stills for others they seldom if ever will "pixel peep" and if an image looks good it looks good and that's the end ....both stills and video are considered good NOT by their outstanding resolution or bokeh but by their content. I have shot stills on a Konica Minolta 5mp camera that have left people gasping ...simply because it was an awesome moment and being there at the right time.

Tom takes his photography seriously especially from a technical point of view so to him resolution and sharpness is critical ... As already mentioned in my last post I think his FZ300 shots look way better than his FZ1000 shots (which he favours) where really it could have been the subject and more importantly the natural lighting ... Seriously take a look at his link and tell me that the pic of his dog (FZ300) is not outstanding and his duck pic (FZ1000) is nice but nothing compared to the first one.

Chris, I agree, I looked at Tom's images on my screen, a 27" iMac ( NOT 5k!!) and yes the dog image is better , it wasn't the same subject under the same conditions. But in any event both acceptable shots.I've just shot a traditional Songkran event ( Thai New year) and am really impressed with the detail in close ups- indvidual whiskers- shot in 1080p when shooting a gathering of people participating in the ceremony. So I'll believe the lens is not up to other lenses and maybe the FZ1000 lens is better, but for all practical purposes this FZ2500 is the one for me. Tom, for you it seems that stills are far more important than video so I understand why you want to sell it. Horses for courses?

Chris Harding · April 19th, 2017, 02:24 AM

Thanks Mike

The new cameras have more lens elements and don't retract and expand like the FZ1000 ..maybe the lens is a tad softer. To be honest I'm only doing live stuff with the 2500 at the moment and haven't even tried the 2500 in 4K ..I'll give it a shot sometime but so far I'm happy with both cameras regarding performance and end results

Tom Mussatto · April 19th, 2017, 06:19 AM

Mike, I shoot far more video than stills. Was really hoping the FZ2500 with it's excellent video features would allow a single cam to do both. Other than the edge to edge sharpness of the FZ2500 I have no complaints with it's video. However, it's video isn't any better (to my eye) than the FZ300 which is less than half the cost, is wider at the wide end, has longer zoom, and stabilization better in 4K. Until I get this figured out I'll be back to FZ300 for video and FZ1000 for stills. Really love that littleFZ300 for video.

This was all hand held and many shots are at full zoom. I can't do that with the FZ1000 or FZ2500.

Chris Harding · April 19th, 2017, 10:10 PM

Nice Video Tom but I'm probably also biased as I love blues!! Pity the audio was flaky and it was annoying having people walking in front of the camera.

Yeah the Fz300 does an amazing job at a tiny price but I would suffer at wedding receptions in dingy light!!

Mike Griffiths · April 19th, 2017, 11:46 PM

Hi Tom,
I have never used the FZ300 but it looks like a great camera and good value. I'm used to the 1" sensor on my SonyX70 and it's the same on the FZ2500. I can get 'tripod' like shots most of the time at 480 mm in HD using a monopod and stabilised in FCPX so it works for me that way. In 4K I can go over 1000mm with the iZoom and the quality is acceptable for my needs. As I film plays the 'over 30 sec' restriction is not there and that is really useful, as are the silent zoom and ND filters.
As with any camera there is always a compromise in terms of cost/weight/ image quality/ versatility and so on, but for me the FZ2500 ticks all of the boxes well enough.
If you know anyone who wants to buy a Sony X70 with the 4K upgrade let me know, I must just buy an FZ300 :)

Tom Mussatto · April 20th, 2017, 11:30 AM

I had another go at comparing stills from the FZ2500 and FZ300 this morning. Decided to also do a side by side on video. Since I was taking stills I did not switch to my presets for video on either cam but rather cut back the sharpness to -5 and leave all other settings to my stills mode and use the dedicated video button. Contrast 0, sharpness -5, NR -5, and saturation 0. I shot 1080-60P in camera. Also used auto focus which I would not normally do under these conditions. Because the FZ2500 has the ND filters I was able to use a 1/60 shutter. I did not have a ND filter for the FZ300 at the time so had to use extremely high shutter speed of 1/800 which explains the less than smooth motion and when the drake went air born the motion got quite nasty. The better auto focus on the FZ300 can probably be explained by the smaller sensor and deep DOF, just guessing here. The cameras meter differently but can be easily matched up in post. Using -2/3 exposure comp, setting contrast to +2, and upping saturation slightly on the FZ2500 will get these close in camera. All shots were hand held although I was sitting down somewhat braced.

Chris, although on board audio on the FZ2500 and FZ300 is much better than the FZ1000 it still cannot compete with audio form an external mic which I wasn't using on that Gerald video.

Chris Harding · April 20th, 2017, 06:32 PM

Hi Tom

Good comparison BUT will the average viewer see any difference or for that matter IF you had not marked the cameras, do you think that most tech heads that post here would be able to instantly spot any differences between the two without any explanatory text ? To me both are good and perfectly adequate.

This is obviously something personal that you don't like about the camera and that's fair enough .. surely the simplest thing to do is to sell the FZ2500 and use the FZ300 for video ...most of your video seems to be waterfowl related so lighting is always good enough for the smaller sensor. You could always get yourself a variable ND filter for the FZ300 to compensate for bright lighting!

Tom Mussatto · April 20th, 2017, 06:54 PM

Chris, I think you're misinterpreting my posts. As I said earlier, I have no problem with the video from the FZ2500. It's the stills that are flat for me. For several years I always had to use 2 cameras, one for video and one for stills. When the bridge cameras came out I was hoping (still hoping) that I could use a single cam and be satisfied with both the video and stills. Nobody wants the FZ2500 to fill that niche more than me but the stills quality just isn't there. I don't know if it's operator error, camera isn't capable of FZ1000 quality stills, or I have a bad copy. I can't in good conscience sell the camera until I find out. If it's a bad copy then Panasonic will repair or replace and I'll be in hog heaven. If they tell me it's within the specs for this model I'll sell it.

I don't take pictures or shoot video for the average viewer, I take them for my own enjoyment and to sell and want the best I can get at a price I can afford. I have several filters for the FZ300 but was taking stills at the time and didn't have them with me. I take a lot of photos/video of mallards because with their color and quick jerky movements they are excellent subjects to set up cameras. Most of my shooting is done with wildlife.

April 18th, 2017, 07:32 PM	#16
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Hi Tom To be perfectly honest I think your FZ300 shots are way way better than the FZ1000 ...They just jump out at you so maybe the smaller sensor is better but honestly, the 300 shots are really impressive and the 1000 shots look dull by comparison!

April 18th, 2017, 07:58 PM	#17
Tom Mussatto Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: worden, illinois Posts: 76	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Chris, the FZ300 shot was not part of my comparison tests and not a fair comparison as lighting conditions were better and I did some minor tweaking in Lightroom. I had two 2500 and two 1000 straight out of camera shots for comparison. The 300 is great for video but gets noisy at 800 ISO on stills. I can go to 3200 on the 1000. This is what I can get out of the FZ1000 with a little tweaking in Lightroom. Probably do a little better starting with RAW but I don't fool with those unless I want to print. I haven't been able to get this quality from the FZ2500. https://www.flickr.com/photos/992313...etaken-public/

April 18th, 2017, 08:06 PM	#18
Mike Griffiths Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chiang Mai Thailand Posts: 152	Re: Selling my FZ2500 I've been following this post and would like to add my thoughts. I use the FZ2500 almost exclusively for video and since I've had it it has almost completely replaced my Sony X70 as my video camera. Both when shot in 4K and then downsized to 1080p and on HD the images are very sharp,so much so people comment on it. I use it for stills too; I normally only shoot at 8 MBJPEG as they are for screen use but when I've shot 17MB raw files I am impreseed by the image. I think for most people this serves as the best, most useable camera for video and stills at this price. I've seen reviews that compare the lens with the Sony RX10Mkiii and I'm sure that lens is better, but for ease of use and verstility I don't think you can beat the FZ2500. So unless you are looking to enlarge images way beyond A2 size, I think this camera is fine. Just my inexpert unquantified comments. :) __________________ Mike

April 18th, 2017, 08:57 PM	#19
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Hi Mike If you are shooting video or stills or both you don't need to be an expert. I think honestly that most of us tend to be "tech heads" and carefully examine every aspect of an image/video for flaws in the hope that we can say the image is "not as good/is better than XXX" If you are doing video or stills for others they seldom if ever will "pixel peep" and if an image looks good it looks good and that's the end ....both stills and video are considered good NOT by their outstanding resolution or bokeh but by their content. I have shot stills on a Konica Minolta 5mp camera that have left people gasping ...simply because it was an awesome moment and being there at the right time. Tom takes his photography seriously especially from a technical point of view so to him resolution and sharpness is critical ... As already mentioned in my last post I think his FZ300 shots look way better than his FZ1000 shots (which he favours) where really it could have been the subject and more importantly the natural lighting ... Seriously take a look at his link and tell me that the pic of his dog (FZ300) is not outstanding and his duck pic (FZ1000) is nice but nothing compared to the first one.

April 18th, 2017, 09:22 PM	#20
Tom Mussatto Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: worden, illinois Posts: 76	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Chris, you can't compare the FZ300 shots with the FZ1000 and FZ2500 as it was taken under better lighting conditions and processed in Lightroom. The 1000 and 2500 photos were straight out of camera JPEG's. I actually tend to prefer less sharp images, both video and stills. I set my 1000 at -3 sharpness for stills and -5 for video. What is important (to me) is clean images with good color saturation and resolution (not the same as sharpness), what you call "pop". If you look at the FZ1000 of my Golden Retriever you will notice it is not especially sharp but has good rich color and is clean. I haven't (yet) been able to achieve that with the FZ2500. Could be operator error, bad copy of this model camera, or the camera just can't perform like the FZ1000. Sending mine in for service.

April 18th, 2017, 09:33 PM	#21
Tom Mussatto Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: worden, illinois Posts: 76	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Chris, if you want to see a more accurate comparison between the FZ300 and FZ1000 here is a shot of the same beagle. Like the FZ300 shot it has also been slightly tweaked in Lightroom. Both are under good lighting conditions, the FZ300 doesn't do as well as the FZ1000 in less than good lighting. Small sensor gets too noisy. https://www.flickr.com/photos/992313...etaken-public/

April 18th, 2017, 09:55 PM	#22
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Hi Tom I STILL like that FZ300 shot better ..it's stunning!! Then again I do agree about sensor size ..on the beagle shot that impressed me the lighting was perfect which makes a huge difference! I did a wedding in a "rustic" venue with just fairy lights strung across the roof with the FZ2500 and I must admit I was impressed ..no extra lighting at all and the image was pretty good Here is a quick link to a 2 minute clip in very dark lighting and bear in mind it's only a 1280x720 stream at only 2mbps bitrate which looks stunning on a tablet but a bit worse on a 23" monitor due to the low bitrate! https://livestream.com/videohouse/ev...deos/153751890 Maybe your 2500 does have an issue??

April 19th, 2017, 02:24 AM	#24
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Thanks Mike The new cameras have more lens elements and don't retract and expand like the FZ1000 ..maybe the lens is a tad softer. To be honest I'm only doing live stuff with the 2500 at the moment and haven't even tried the 2500 in 4K ..I'll give it a shot sometime but so far I'm happy with both cameras regarding performance and end results

April 19th, 2017, 06:19 AM	#25
Tom Mussatto Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: worden, illinois Posts: 76	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Mike, I shoot far more video than stills. Was really hoping the FZ2500 with it's excellent video features would allow a single cam to do both. Other than the edge to edge sharpness of the FZ2500 I have no complaints with it's video. However, it's video isn't any better (to my eye) than the FZ300 which is less than half the cost, is wider at the wide end, has longer zoom, and stabilization better in 4K. Until I get this figured out I'll be back to FZ300 for video and FZ1000 for stills. Really love that littleFZ300 for video. This was all hand held and many shots are at full zoom. I can't do that with the FZ1000 or FZ2500. David Gerald on Vimeo

April 19th, 2017, 10:10 PM	#26
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Nice Video Tom but I'm probably also biased as I love blues!! Pity the audio was flaky and it was annoying having people walking in front of the camera. Yeah the Fz300 does an amazing job at a tiny price but I would suffer at wedding receptions in dingy light!!

April 19th, 2017, 11:46 PM	#27
Mike Griffiths Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chiang Mai Thailand Posts: 152	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Hi Tom, I have never used the FZ300 but it looks like a great camera and good value. I'm used to the 1" sensor on my SonyX70 and it's the same on the FZ2500. I can get 'tripod' like shots most of the time at 480 mm in HD using a monopod and stabilised in FCPX so it works for me that way. In 4K I can go over 1000mm with the iZoom and the quality is acceptable for my needs. As I film plays the 'over 30 sec' restriction is not there and that is really useful, as are the silent zoom and ND filters. As with any camera there is always a compromise in terms of cost/weight/ image quality/ versatility and so on, but for me the FZ2500 ticks all of the boxes well enough. If you know anyone who wants to buy a Sony X70 with the 4K upgrade let me know, I must just buy an FZ300 :) __________________ Mike Last edited by Mike Griffiths; April 19th, 2017 at 11:47 PM. Reason: typos

April 20th, 2017, 11:30 AM	#28
Tom Mussatto Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: worden, illinois Posts: 76	Re: Selling my FZ2500 I had another go at comparing stills from the FZ2500 and FZ300 this morning. Decided to also do a side by side on video. Since I was taking stills I did not switch to my presets for video on either cam but rather cut back the sharpness to -5 and leave all other settings to my stills mode and use the dedicated video button. Contrast 0, sharpness -5, NR -5, and saturation 0. I shot 1080-60P in camera. Also used auto focus which I would not normally do under these conditions. Because the FZ2500 has the ND filters I was able to use a 1/60 shutter. I did not have a ND filter for the FZ300 at the time so had to use extremely high shutter speed of 1/800 which explains the less than smooth motion and when the drake went air born the motion got quite nasty. The better auto focus on the FZ300 can probably be explained by the smaller sensor and deep DOF, just guessing here. The cameras meter differently but can be easily matched up in post. Using -2/3 exposure comp, setting contrast to +2, and upping saturation slightly on the FZ2500 will get these close in camera. All shots were hand held although I was sitting down somewhat braced. Chris, although on board audio on the FZ2500 and FZ300 is much better than the FZ1000 it still cannot compete with audio form an external mic which I wasn't using on that Gerald video. Mallard Drake on Vimeo Last edited by Tom Mussatto; April 20th, 2017 at 12:29 PM.

April 20th, 2017, 06:32 PM	#29
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Hi Tom Good comparison BUT will the average viewer see any difference or for that matter IF you had not marked the cameras, do you think that most tech heads that post here would be able to instantly spot any differences between the two without any explanatory text ? To me both are good and perfectly adequate. This is obviously something personal that you don't like about the camera and that's fair enough .. surely the simplest thing to do is to sell the FZ2500 and use the FZ300 for video ...most of your video seems to be waterfowl related so lighting is always good enough for the smaller sensor. You could always get yourself a variable ND filter for the FZ300 to compensate for bright lighting!

April 20th, 2017, 06:54 PM	#30
Tom Mussatto Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: worden, illinois Posts: 76	Re: Selling my FZ2500 Chris, I think you're misinterpreting my posts. As I said earlier, I have no problem with the video from the FZ2500. It's the stills that are flat for me. For several years I always had to use 2 cameras, one for video and one for stills. When the bridge cameras came out I was hoping (still hoping) that I could use a single cam and be satisfied with both the video and stills. Nobody wants the FZ2500 to fill that niche more than me but the stills quality just isn't there. I don't know if it's operator error, camera isn't capable of FZ1000 quality stills, or I have a bad copy. I can't in good conscience sell the camera until I find out. If it's a bad copy then Panasonic will repair or replace and I'll be in hog heaven. If they tell me it's within the specs for this model I'll sell it. I don't take pictures or shoot video for the average viewer, I take them for my own enjoyment and to sell and want the best I can get at a price I can afford. I have several filters for the FZ300 but was taking stills at the time and didn't have them with me. I take a lot of photos/video of mallards because with their color and quick jerky movements they are excellent subjects to set up cameras. Most of my shooting is done with wildlife.