Selling my FZ2500

[Tom Mussatto]

Hate to do it as the video features of this cam are truly amazing but in the end it boils down to image quality. Still images from this cam are really disappointing compared to the FZ1000 and even the FZ300 and FZ200. Color and detail are just not there and bokeh is terrible. I would assume sensor and processor are same as FZ1000 so it must be the glass. I thought it might be possible that I received a bad copy of the cam but in checking others photos from the FZ2500/2000 I am seeing the same thing as I am getting. Hopefully future updates to this series will include higher quality optics.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Tom

There was a post about this on the FB group and most decided that it was the way the lens works. The glass is still Leica but the way it works is different with only internal elements moving when you zoom. There is an answer BTW and that's on your chosen profile change the profile. Make sharpness +5 and drop the Noise Reduction to -5 and you will get an image pretty close to the FZ1000.

To be honest it doesn't affect me as we are only using the FZ2500 for video (mainly live streaming) and it has never produced a still! I have two FZ1000's that I use for stills and also B-Cam video.

For those who only have the FZ2500 the profile change does make a big difference for still.. I guess the extra lens elements make the image slightly softer? I haven't compared video but have you found that the video between the 2500 and 1000 also below par?

[Tom Mussatto]

Chris, I will try those settings and see if it makes a difference. Thanks.

Video images on the FZ2500 go soft on the edges and not on the FZ1000. Those video functions on the FZ2500 are sweet but it's just not worth the loss in image quality for me.

The big advantage for me of using these kinds of cameras is the ability to have a single camera for both stills and video without the need to have changeable lenses. I have a G7 and FZ300 for video and the FZ1000 for stills. The FZ2500 should been the answer to one camera.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Tom

The post was from the French guy on the group on FB and he spotted it soon after he got his camera ..he also suggested that we use "Portrait" profile as this gives you a much nicer bokeh too.

I would say it's worth a shot anyway. I can use my 2500 for stills but it's in a very complex rig to allow live streaming with an XLR audio adapter, encoder and a 4G router so it's a bit heavy for doing stills (must be about 5lbs!!!) so I just carry an FZ1000 with me so I can zap off any stills I need quickly and conveniently!

Just for interest I have one FZ1000 set to the new 2500 profile settings and it's even sharper on stills!!

[Tom Mussatto]

I second the portrait setting for video on the G7. Never tried it for stills.

It's not just the detail that's missing on the FZ2500, it's the overall rendering of image. Just not attractive to my eye but that's subjective I guess. I'll play with it a bit more with settings you suggested but I think I'm probably headed back to a camcorder for video and larger sensor camera for stills. Sold my Z5's a couple years ago hoping to get the small larger sensor cameras to pull double duty. I sometimes walk a few miles a day in sometimes rough country and getting too old to be packing around 6 pound cameras plus the extra gear they require. I'm more than satisfied with stills and video from the G7 so may pick up another one or G85, deal with the hazzle of interchangeable lenses, and dump everything else.

Thanks for the suggestions.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Tom

One of my reasons I went the Panasonic route was the incredible sharpness of the Leica glass but secondly I really got tired of cleaning sensors so that was another bridge camera decision ...having a 25-400 ++ is so useful!!

I really don't know if I can handle a small camcorder again! A shoulder mount camera, yes, but a smaller camcorder no. I have become so used to my FZ's with twin handles either side that I think I would now struggle with a conventional camcorder and a SM camera is very bulky!

What does a camcorder have that the FZ1000 doesn't for your type of shoots?? I don't use the 4K Cinema on my FZ2500 (in fact most live stream shoots are 1280x720 cos that format suits the CDN) so any specific 4K shoots are done on my FZ1000's anyway!!

[Roger Gunkel]

I had been seriously considering the FZ2000/2500 since it came out, to replace my pair of FZ1000s. After following various user comments and using my FZ1000s exclusively for video for a couple of years now, I really feel that the extras offered by the later model are not really worth the change. The video quality and photo quality has been superb with the FZ1000 and I have seen nothing to convince me that the FZ2500 will improve my work.

I can narrow down the possible advantages for me to:-
1) Unlimited record time, 2) Built in ND filters, 3) Smooth and controllable zoom.

1) Only relevant for church services, or school performances but easily covered by a B cam that I always use.
2) I already have variable ND filters if I need them that take seconds to attach.
3) Sometimes annoying on the FZ1000, but I don't tend to use much zoom.

I am considering getting another pair of FZ1000s and replacing the DSLRs for stills as although I love my Canons, the FZ1000 takes great stills and is so much more convenient, with no need for lens changes as Chris mentioned. Having 25mm at f2.8 on the wide end is also extremely useful when light is getting lower.

I've also found that the price for a used FZ1000 at the moment is higher than I paid for my two new, so I think that says a lot about the quality of the camera and justifies my faith in the camera originally as an early adopter. I can't see a FZ2000/2500 usurping them.

Roger

[Tom Mussatto]

Chris, spent the morning using both the FZ1000 and FZ2500 with the settings you provided for the FZ2500. It was not even close, the FZ1000 was far superior in image quality, not just detail but in overall rendering of image. My little LX7 with 10 megapixel sensor was better (that little camera has a fantastic lens).

It's still possible that I may have a bad copy of camera and I'm going to send it in to get it checked out,. Even with the negatives of the video features of the FZ1000 that I've talked with you about, to my eye it is far superior to the FZ2500. My suspicion is that it's poor quality glass, or, as you suggested, the way the internals of this lens works. This is a real shame as this is the closest camera in this form factor I've seen that functions like a true video camera. In the end for me image quality is most important.

[Chris Harding]

Thanks Tom

I must do some comparisons between the two I think! Are you comparing both stills and video and does it really make a big difference ? If it's a lens issue then both stills and video should have a marked difference!

I jumped ship about 5 years ago and went to Sony after Panasonic shifted their manufacturing to China (mainly because of the Japan quake issues) ...I upgraded to AC-130 cameras and they were a load of rubbish ... many users had many issues with the AC series,

Now, my FZ1000's are made in Japan BUT my FZ2500 is made in China .... could this be another repeat of what I had with the AC-130 cameras ? I think I'll do a few stills this morning on my FZ1000's and comapre with the same on the FZ2500 ....That way will confirm the theory....

Yeah the zoom is so much better but I can live with the 1000 zoom rather than poor image quality!!

[Tom Mussatto]

Chris, we seem to have followed similar paths. I used Pana DVX100's but didn't care for their early offerings in HD so went with Sony Z5's. Great cams but needed to get away from HDV so sold them. FZ1000, FZ300, G7, GH4, and now FZ2500. All great except for the 2500.

My 1000 was made in Japan, the 2500 in China. Don't know if that makes a difference as my FZ300 was made in China and stellar build quality/performance for a cam at this price point. G7 also made in China and beautiful video, probably the best buy out there if you don't mind investing in a couple good lenses.

I am seeing a very big difference in stills quality between 1000 and 2500. Not so much in video except for those soft images at the edges and when at the farther focal lengths. Not even comfortable selling it until I determine I haven't a bad copy.

[Chris Harding]

Nice to have someone to discuss a possible issue with Tom! The AC-130 fiasco has made me very wary of the products that come out of the China factory .. that was one thing I never checked on the 2500 .... the origin!! I will check a few stills from each camera and see if mine have an issue too. The only plus is that if the 2500 is indeed soft one could sell it and have enough left over to buy a new FZ1000 to replace it!!

[Tom Mussatto]

Chris, one thing you might want to look at when you're comparing the 2 cams in video mode. Take some 4K Photo Mode video and compare the 8 megapixel stills you get from both cams. Be sure and keep your shutter speed up high to reduce blurring in the stills. Pulling stills from video shot at 1/60 shutter probably won't give you best results in this mode. This might be a better way to compare video quality between the 2 cams. Don't look at just detail but also overall image quality.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Tom

I already did two comparison stills below with the FZ1000 and FZ2500 ... Can you tell which is which?

I only realised that having never shot a still with the 2500 before it wasn't set at 3:2 but 16:9 so the aspect is a tad different ... For the pixel peeper yes I'm sure the 2500 is slightly softer but I doubt whether any bride would notice ? I will however so a comparison video but I again doubt whether the average bride is going to be able to say ....that's a soft image. The images are obviously resized to 1200x800 and 1200x675 so I can upload them. Does the issue raise it's ugly head at wide or zoomed in a long way?

[Chris Harding]

I also checked random footage from both cameras shot over the last six months and honestly I cannot see any loss of resolution at all ..even on the edges. Of course we do shoot weddings in MP4 25P Tom and not 4K so maybe it would show up in 4K video especially if you are pulling screen grabs at 8mb from the footage. In a nutshell for my use both cameras are equal so not really an issue for me at all. Besides I'm the worst person to comment as we live stream our weddings at 1280x720 so it makes sense to record the backup to the card at 1280x720 as well so I doubt whether that resolution would show up any softness. The clips I checked were 1080 though but not 4K so yes the camera could quite easily be softer than the FZ1000 but I wouldn't notice it. I will however try my next commercial shoot in UHD and see if I spot any differences.

[Tom Mussatto]

Can't tell much from those photos. I shot about 50 comparisons shots this morning with both cams. Both cams set up same, Standard with all zero's and manual WB. Straight out of camera JPEGs. Wasn't able to upload files to this site, something about missing security tokens. Loaded 4 shots on Flickr.

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