Panasonic FZ1000 Review - Exposure

23/08/2019 Panasonic FZ1000 Review - Exposure
Ad
Joburg Wife Turns From Rags To Riches
SM-Invest
LEARN MORE
Panasonic FZ1000 Exposure

Camera Reviews / Panasonic Cameras / Lumix Point & hoot
Jump to review page... ▼
Panasonic FZ1000 Image Qualit

Color
aturation & Hue Accurac
Aout average saturation levels, with slightl elow average hue accurac.
In the diagram aove, the squares show the original color, and the circles show
the color that the camera captured. More saturated colors are located toward
the peripher of the graph. Hue changes as ou travel around the center. Thus,
hue-accurate, highl saturated colors appear as lines radiating from the center.
Click for a larger image.
aturation. Overall, mean saturations levels are aout average from the
Panasonic FZ1000 using default settings, at 9.7% oversaturated. The FZ1000
pushes dark lues and greens quite a it, ut onl oversaturates red and orange
 small amounts, and it undersaturates ellow and aqua tones moderatel. Most
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-fz1000/panasonic-fz1000A5.HTM 1/24
consumer digital cameras produce color that's more highl saturated (more
intense) than found in the original sujects. This is simpl ecause most people
like their color a it righter than life.
kin tones. Here, the Panasonic FZ1000 did fairl well, producing reasonal
natural-looking Caucasian skin tones that were a it on the warm side, though
the can sometimes appear overl pink or a it ellow depending on the amient
lighting. Where oversaturation is most prolematic is on Caucasian skin tones,
as it's ver eas for these "memor colors" to e seen as too right, too pink, too
ellow, etc.
Hue. The Panasonic FZ1000 shifts can toward lue  quite a it, ut most other
shifts like red toward orange, orange toward ellow, and ellow toward green are
 small amounts. The can to lue shift is ver common among the digital
cameras we test; we think it's a delierate choice  camera engineers to
produce etter-looking sk colors. The FZ1000's handling of ellows is one of its
weaknesses: Yellows are undersaturated, and shifted slightl toward green. With
a mean "delta-C" color error of 5.87 after correction for saturation, hue accurac
is slightl elow average, ut still prett good overall since there are no major
shifts in one particular color except for can (quite common). Hue is "what color"
the color is.
ensor
xposure and White alance
Indoors, incandescent lighting
The Auto setting produced cool results and Incandescent was quite warm.
Manual was prett accurate, just slightl cool. No exposure compensation
required.
Auto White alance Incandescent White alance
0 V 0 V
Manual White alance
0 V
Indoors, under normal incandescent lighting, color alance was cool and
magenta with the Auto white alance setting, while results with the Incandescent
setting were ver warm and orange. The Manual setting was  far the most
accurate, just slightl on the cool side with a ver minor can shift. (Note: The
FZ1000 also has a Kelvin Temperature White alance option, however we did not
test that mode.) The Panasonic FZ1000 required no exposure compensation
while most cameras require aout +0.3 V for this scene, so the camera
performed etter than average in terms of exposure here. (Our test lighting for
this shot is a mixture of 60 and 100 watt household incandescent uls, a prett
ellow light source, ut a ver common one in tpical home settings here in the
U..)
ee thumnails of all test images
Resolution
Ver high resolution, ~2,500 to ~2,600 lines of strong detail from JPGs, a little
higher from RAW.
In-camera JPG: In-camera JPG:
trong detail to trong detail to
~2,600 lines horizontal ~2,500 lines vertical
ACR converted RAW: ACR converted RAW:
trong detail to trong detail to
~2,700 lines horizontal ~2,600 lines vertical
In-camera JPGs of our laorator resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line
patterns down to aout 2,600 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction,
and aout 2,500 lines per picture height in the vertical direction. ome ma
argue for more, ut aliasing artifacts start to interfere at that point. Complete
extinction of the pattern didn't occur until aout 3,200 to 3,400 lines. Adoe
Camera Raw produced slightl etter results, aout 100 lines more in oth
directions, and complete extinction of the pattern didn't occur efore the limits of
our chart, ut color moiré was more visile. Use these numers to compare with
other cameras of similar resolution, or use them to see just what higher
resolution can mean in terms of potential detail.
ee thumnails of all test images
harpness & Detail
Crisp images with ver good detail, ut some sharpening artifacts are visile.
Moderate noise reduction at ase IO.
Good definition of high-contrast utle detail: Hair
elements here with moderate Noise suppression tends to lur
sharpening haloes. detail in areas of sutle contrast.
harpness. The FZ1000 produces ver crisp, sharp looking images ut with
some ovious sharpening haloes around high contrast transitions, as can e
seen around the lines and text in the crop aove left. dge enhancement creates
the illusion of sharpness  enhancing colors and tones right at the edge of a
rapid transition in color or tone.
Detail. The crop aove right shows good detail for the class of camera, with
moderate levels noise suppression in the darkest areas of the mannequins's hair,
and almost no chroma noise. A few individual strands are smudged together in
areas of low contrast at ase IO, ut performance here is actuall quite good
considering the size and resolution of the sensor. Noise-suppression sstems in
digital cameras tend to flatten-out detail in areas of sutle contrast. The effects
can often e seen in shots of human hair, where the individual strands are lost
and an almost "watercolor" look appears.
RAW vs In-Camera JPGs
As noted aove the Panasonic FZ1000 produces sharp, crisp and clean images.
Let's see how an Adoe Camera Raw conversion at ase IO compares.
ase IO (125)
Camera JPG, defaults RAW via Adoe Camera Raw
In the tale aove, we compare an in-camera JPG taken at ase IO using
default noise reduction and sharpening (on the left) to a matching RAW file
converted with Adoe Camera Raw 8.6 using default noise reduction with strong
ut tight unsharp masking applied in Photoshop (in this case 300% UM with a
radius of 0.5 pixels and a threshold of 0).
As ou can see, ACR produced additional detail that isn't present in the JPG
from the camera, though the FZ1000's JPG rendering is prett good here at
ase IO. The iggest increase in detail is in the faric crop, where ACR was ale
to resolve much of the thread pattern in the red-leaf swatch which the camera's
JPG engine presumal treats as noise, and ACR also did a it etter
reproducing fine detail in the pink faric, as well as more accurate color. ut as is
usuall the case, more noise can e seen in the RAW conversion particularl in
flat areas as shown in the ottle crop, thanks to ACR's light default noise
reduction and the relativel strong sharpening required to keep RAW images
crisp-looking. You can of course appl stronger noise reduction (default ACR NR
used here) to arrive at our ideal noise versus detail tradeoff. ottom line: As is
almost alwas the case, ou can do noticeal etter than the camera with a
good RAW converter, provided ou're willing to appl our own noise reduction
and sharpening to taste.
IO & Noise Performance
Ver good high IO performance for its class.
Default High IO Noise Reduction
IO 80 IO 125 IO 200
IO 400 IO 800 IO 1600
IO 3200 IO 6400 IO 12,800
IO 25,600
IO 80s through 200 produce similar results, with detailed, crisp images
containing low levels of fine-grained luma noise and almost no chroma noise. IO
400 shows a ver minor drop in image qualit as noise reduction ramps, ut fine
detail is still quite good. IO 800 shows another small step down in detail ut still
ver good overall image qualit, though fine-grained luminance noise is more
visile in some flatter areas. IO 1600 is noticeal softer thanks to stronger
noise reduction and more visile luma noise, ut chroma noise is still fairl low. At
IO 3200, image qualit takes a larger hit with higher noise, oth luma and
chroma, and the camera's aggressive sharpening produces images with a
somewhat crstalline look. Image qualit drops off ver quickl from here, with
IOs 6400 through 25,600 eing quite nois with strong luma noise and chroma
lotching.
Overall, though, high IO performance is much etter than average for a long
zoom. We're of course pixel-peeping to an extraordinar extent here, since 1:1
images on an LCD screen often have little to do with how those same images will
appear when printed. ee the Print Qualit section elow for our evaluation of
maximum print sizes at each IO setting.
Dnamic Range Analsis (RAW mode)
While we once performed our own dnamic range measurements ased on in-
camera JPGs as well as converted RAW images (when the camera was
supported  Adoe Camera Raw), we've switched to using DxO Las' results
from their DxOMark wesite. As technolog advanced, the dnamic range of
modern high-end cameras in some cases exceeded the range of the touffer
T4110 densit scale that we used for our own measurements. DxO's approach
ased on RAW data efore demosaicing is also more revealing, ecause it
measures the fundamental dnamic range of the sensor, irrespective of whatever
processing is applied to JPGs, or to RAW data  off-the-shelf conversion
software.
In the following, we use DxO's "Print" dnamic range results, which are scaled
ased on camera resolution. As the name suggests, this scaling corresponds to
the situation in which ou print at a given size, regardless of how man
megapixels the camera might have. (In other words, if ou've decided to make a
13x19 inch print, that's the size ou're printing, whether the camera's resolution is
16 or 300 megapixels.) For the technicall-minded, ou can find a discussion of
the reasoning ehind this here on the DxOMark wesite. Also note that DxO
Las uses a signal-to-noise (NR) threshold of 1 when defining the lower
oundar of acceptale luminance noise in their dnamic range measurements,
which corresponds to the "Low Qualit" threshold of the Imatest software we
used to use for this measurement.
Here, we compare the FZ1000's dnamic range (in orange) to its closest rival, the
on RX10 (red) which features a similar if not the same sensor, and to the
Panasonic FZ200 (ellow), an older superzoom ased on a much smaller and
more common 1/2.3" sensor size. You can alwas compare other models on
DxOMark.com.
As ou can see from the aove graph (click for a larger image), the Panasonic
FZ1000's dnamic range isn't quite as good as the on RX10's at low or high
IOs, ranging from aout 11.7 V at the lowest IO, to just over 5 V at the
highest (and oddl, the highest IO setting of 25,600 measured less sensitive
than the 12,800 setting). The on RX10 which uses a similar sensor managed
12.6 V at its lowest IO, and 6.85 at its highest, though the two 1-inch sensors
are fairl evenl matched etween IO 400 and 1600 in terms of dnamic range.
Not surprisingl, compared to the Panasonic FZ200 the FZ1000 offers
significantl etter dnamic range across all IOs the have in common, with up
to aout a 1-2/3 V advantage, ut keep in mind the FZ200's significantl lower
12-megapixel resolution also puts it at a disadvantage when comparing "printed"
results like these to the two 20-megapixel models.
Click here to visit the DxOMark page for the Panasonic FZ1000 for more of their
test results and additional comparisons.
uilt-in Flash Test Results
Coverage, xposure and Range
Good flash performance overall.
Coverage, Wide Angle (IO 200, f/2.8)
Coverage. Flash coverage was a little narrow at wide angle, leaving dim corners
and vertical edges in our flash coverage test image, ut not as ad as some
cameras we've tested. We no longer test flash coverage at telephoto, as it is
invarial etter, making wide angle the worst case scenario.
Full Auto (IO 125, f/3.8)
xposure. Our Indoor Portrait test scene came out quite right in auto mode, and
the camera didn't have to oost IO from the ase of 125. It also used a decentl
quick shutter speed of 1/60s. (ome cameras reduce shutter speed to 1/40s or
elow when using the flash, which can e prolematic and lead to suject
motion lur.)
ManufacturerSpecified Flash Range
Telephoto

~32 feet
IO 1000, f/4
Manufacturer pecified Flash Range Test. The Panasonic FZ1000's flash range
is rated at 13.5m or 44 feet at wide angle, and 9.5m or 31 feet at telephoto, with
IO sensitivit set to Auto. As ou can see from the test shot at full telephoto
aove, the Panasonic FZ1000 produced a well-exposed flash target at aout 32
feet, though it oosted IO to 1000 to achieve that result. We shoot this test shot
using the manufacturer-specified camera settings, at the range the compan
claims for the camera, to assess the validit of the specific claims.
Output Qualit
Print Qualit
Good 24 x 36 inch prints at IO 80/125/200; a fairl good 11 x 14 at IO 1600 and
a good 4 x 6 at IO 6400.
IO 80/125 prints are nice and sharp at 24 x
36 inches, with good color reproduction and
general detail. 30 x 40 inch prints are
certainl fine for wall displa purposes as
well.
IO 200 images are also quite good at 24 x
36 inches, an impressive sized print for IO 200 in this class.
IO 400 delivers a ver good 20 x 30 inch print. There is mild softening that
occurs in our test target red swatch and a mild trace of noise in a few shadow
areas, ut still a reall good print.
IO 800 ields a solid 13 x 19 inch print. There is a fairl sustantial loss of
contrast detail in our red swatch, ut that's common for most cameras at this IO
and higher for this class of camera.
IO 1600 produces an 11 x 14 inch print similar to the 13 x 19 at IO 800. Noise is
actuall well-controlled in flatter areas, a nice sized print here all things
considered.
IO 3200 is notoriousl difficult for cameras with relativel small sensors
(compared to AP-C and full-frame), and the FZ1000 succums to the difficulties
like so man others. 8 x 10's here are simpl too lacking in fine detail to make our
"good" grade, likel the result of fairl high noise and aggressive noise reduction
processing, ut we can rate the 5 x 7 inch print good here.
IO 6400 prints a 5 x 7 that almost passes our good grade, ut it's a it dra and
undersaturated to officiall call good, so we'll rate the 4 x 6 inch print good here.
IO 12,800/25,600 settings do not ield good prints and are est avoided.
The Panasonic FZ1000 delivers solidl in the print qualit department up to IO
1600, which is the highest IO we recommend for this sensor size. It slightl
outperforms its iggest competition, the on RX10, at IO 200 and 400  one
print size. Looking side--side, on's default JPG processing generates too
much in the wa of unwanted artifacts, and thus the print size difference. At
higher IOs, however, the RX10 pulls slightl ahead, allowing for one print size
larger at IO 6400 and 12,800. A fairl close race, ut if ou remain at IO 1600
and elow the FZ1000 is the etter choice for JPGs at default settings in print.
The images aove were taken from our standardized test shots. For a collection of more pictorial
photos, see our Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Photo Galler .
Not sure which camera to u? Let our ees e the ultimate judge! Visit our Comparometer(tm) to
compare images from the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 with those from other cameras ou ma
e considering. The proof is in the pictures, so let our own ees decide which ou like est!
Buy the Panasonic FZ1000

YOUR PURCHA UPPORT THI IT
Panasonic FZ1000
u from Amazon Click to see price
u from Adorama for U$597.99
u from &H Photo for £493.28
All FZ1000 Deals
Comments Community 
1 Login
 Recommend 5 t Tweet f Share
Sort by Newest
Join the discussion…
LOG IN WITH
OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?
Name
BG Davis • 3 months ago • edited

Unless you like to shoot long bursts using RAW,
there doesn't seem to be much reason to buy this
model over the older model, which is cheaper. Or
pay a bit more and get the FZ2500 with more
zoom. It's a shame that Pany decided to do this
minor upgrade instead of coming out with a
successor to the FZ2500, adding some zoom to
that model to bring it up to ~25x. Judging from
online comments on various sites, a lot of people
would buy that. I know I would.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Closs • 6 months ago

Can anyone here help me (if people are still
keeping track of this comments section) I have this
LUMIX model and have tried everything to get the
shutter speed above 1 second as I plan on trying
to photograph the northern lights on my trip to
Sweden this weekend. Needing maybe 10-20
seconds but can’t figure out how. This review was
half the reason I bought this camera as it boasted
up to 60 seconds but now for the life of me Ive
tried all the manual settings I can think of and it
never goes past 1 second. What am I missing?
Zig Weidelich (IR) Mod > Closs

• 6 months ago • edited
Make sure your not using electronic shutter
/ silent mode. With e-shutter, the shutter
speed range is 1s to 1/16000s. With m-
shutter, it's 60s to 1/4000s.
Hope this helps.

1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Hamerlík Barnabás • a year ago

Hi,
Looking for advice here on whether to buy a used

or a new Panasonic FZ1000. I've decided for this
model and I can get a new one at 550EUR or a
used one at 300EUR (3 years old). Anyone here
with experience or opinion on buying this camera
as a used one / prices for repair if anything goes
wrong? Another question: What should I check
carefully before buying the used camera (if at all),
except the obvious (scratches, lens, functionality,
etc.).
Thanks a lot in advance

JC Photography > Hamerlík Barnabás

• 10 months ago
I bought a used camera FZ1000 with
thousands of shots and works perfectly.
Obviously all depends on the last person
who used it! Good luck
Hamerlík Barnabás > JC

Photography • 10 months ago
Thanks a lot :)
Andy • 2 years ago

Is it normal for this to make a constant "Grinding"
sound? Even when it's not being zoomed, or
focused, or anything, just up to my face. It's really
bad when you have it up to your face...
Norberto Esteves > Andy • 2 years ago

Yes, it is normal in the FZ1000. I have also
23/08/2019
, Panasonic FZ1000 Review - Exposure
a Nikon P600 and it has the same noise

(FZ1000 is louder). Dont know why... You
can reduce a little bit that sound disabling
the Power OIS.
Marius Galster > Norberto

Esteves • a year ago
It's the motors for the image
stabilization. You can not turn them
off however
Joshua Wells • 2 years ago • edited

I purchased the FZ1000 the week it came out. I
love the camera and have had trouble deciding
what DSLR to upgrade to. Just because the
FZ1000 is so good. I love how quick and light the
camera is. The 4K video is outstanding as well.
The biggest down side I have noticed is shooting
in low light situations. You really have to play with
the settings and even then there is still more noise
than I prefer. Love this FZ1000 as it has been my
first camera. Now, I'm looking to upgrade.
However, I will always keep the FZ1000 as a "b"
camera for major sporting events.
see more
28 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Spinelli Ambrogio • 2 years ago

I do not like that minimum aperture is F 8.0, and I
do not understand why.
Aleksi Lausti > Spinelli Ambrogio

• 2 years ago • edited
The F8 on the FZ1000 is roughly equivalent
to F22 on a 35mm format. More would not
make sense on such a small sensor as the
image quality would suffer terribly because
of diffraction hence F8 is very sensible and
actually even F8.0 is pushing it. I personally
would not go beyond F5.6 on a 1" sensor
in real world use.

Spinelli Ambrogio > Aleksi Lausti

• 2 years ago
But in the camera FZ2000/2500
Panasonic adopted F11.
Aleksi Lausti > Spinelli

Ambrogio • 2 years ago
Possibly because their
diffraction compensation
technology has gotten better
but I actually suspect F11 is
reached with the help of an
internal ND filter rather than
the aperture closing down
further than F8 but who
knows for sure. In any case
the depth of field with F8 on
a 1" is very large indeed. I
would not worry about it too
much. I did quite a bit of
payed professional work with
the FZ1000 just to test it's
capabilities and was very
impressed and so were the
clients.
vercarsen • 3 years ago

I can not decide between Panny FZ1000 and Sony
A6000. I know, sony needs lens and it is not
cheap. But the sensor is 3,2x bigger ! I own Panny
FZ38, little bit old but still very nice pictures. I dont
like DLSR maniacs with tons of equipment. But I
must admit that pictures are very nice. Blurry
background is fantastic. With ultrazoom you need
low F or use a zoom to make a blurry background.
Boessu > vercarsen • 3 years ago • edited

Only the size of the sensor doesn't make it
better than the Pany. It depends on for
what you'll like to use the camera. If you
buy a A6000 and just a Sony Superzoom
18-200 for "always on", you'll have a worse
combination than the FZ1000 gives you (for
a lot less money).
23/08/2019 y Panasonic FZ1000 Review - Exposure
- You'll have less focal length.

- The image quality of the lens will be less
promising compared to the FZ1000 Leica
lens (read the reviews).
- You'll spend more money.
- More weight to carry around.
- You don't gain better aperture with the
A6000, as the FZ1000 looses one aperture
because of the size of the sensor (of
course) but on the other hand wins one
back with the lens. At the end in the
respect of noise, you'll get comparable
results.
The FZ1000 is one of the best travel

cameras you can imagine, comparing to
the other cameras in that area. Since the
FZ2000 /2500 came out and the price
dropped below 700$, a FZ1000 is a hell of
a camera you get for the money you spend.
Of couse if you buy a A6000 and a set of

decent lenses (not Superzooms...) you'll
gain alot more quality. But we're speaking
about lenses which will cost you more than
the A6000 body and interchanging lenses
for the scene. Then they're getting
technically incomparable better pictures in
any way.
So for me an A6000 is a good camera if I

don't plan to use it with a Superzoom only.
Lenses with Aperture better than 3.5, that's
the area of an A6000 where they still makes
alot of sense. But that's a completely
different area than the FZ1000 does get its
targets.
Mahmood • 4 years ago

I just want to use the zf1000 as a video camera for
live shows in a house of worship. So my only
concern is uncompressed 4k hdmi output. Has
anyone tried this for 1+ hour? And what can the
result be? Because we are thinking of rigging up
3-4 of these with blackmagic design ATEM 1 m/e
Kevin • 4 years ago

Just bought this cam as a b-cam for a food/travel
h It i it bl f t b t d 't thi k
show. It is suitable for cutaways but don't think
that u can use this as an a-cam. The iq is simply
not good enough because of the quality of the
lens. Not good in low light either. At 800 iso it's
already a little noisy for my taste. Don't like the
quality of the stills either. I find that the Sony
Rx100iii takes better stills. High-speed is really just
a toy and cannot be used for broadcast. However,
for wide shots shooting at 4k is super sharp and
the time lapses are excellent quality. I am happy
with the camera because I knew what i was paying
for and it delivered just fine. If u are a doing
professional work this camera is great for
landscapes and time lapse in good lighting. Use a
DSLR for anything else. For the casual user, this is
a great all rounder and is worth the money.
entoman • 4 years ago

I know several people who have actually ditched
their DSLR outfits in favour of using Panasonic
bridge cameras such as this model. All of them are
extremely happy with the results, and swear they
would never go back to a DSLR.
Bridge cameras are lightweight, very portable and

extremely versatile. For people who simply want a
decent quality record of what they see
(birdwatchers, naturalists, travellers) the
Panasonics are hard to beat, and the images they
produce are more than good enough for websites
or viewing on a laptop or tablet.
Some people of course need the extra quality of

an APS-C or full frame DSLR - if you want to enter
photo competitions, or get images published in
books or magazines a DSLR is definitely the only
way to go, but for most people the Panasonic
could be the better choice.
Audi tor > entoman • 4 years ago • edited

You are absolutely right, I sold my nikon
d7000 and canon sx50 hs after I bought
fz1000.
And the images it produces are tack sharp
(as long as you know which aperture to use
at a certain focal length) I watch and edit its
images and video on the wall using my
beamer benq w1070, no problem with the
i
screen size.
12 fps continuous shooting

1 inch sensor 20mpxls
4k
400mm optical zoom is perfect
800mm intelligent zoom is perfect
1600mm digital zoom is bullshit (because it
is digital)
I don't think i'll go back to DSLRs again))

BG Davis • 4 years ago

I am looking for information on the "extended
optical zoom" as it applies to the video mode of
the FZ1000.
What I am after is the resolution of video footage

using the "extended optical zoom" as mentioned
in the manual on page 198.
With the GX7 or GH4, you can get full HD video

(1080p), no resampling, no up- or down-sizing,
just a simple full-resolution sensor crop. Awesome
results and with up to 2.4x the normal zoom range.
With the FZ150 or GH3, you cannot get full HD

video (1080p) with this feature. You will get 720p
or less. (The manual for those cameras does not
tell you this; you have to find out the hard way.)
I need to know if you can shoot full HD (1080p)

video with this feature using the FZ1000. The
manual says nothing either way.
If anyone has occasion to test this out on your

FZ1000I would be very grateful for any results.
Jagganatha • 4 years ago

A second one is fine, the lens is very good and it
all works.
Ignore anybody telling you that its OK in video in
poor light indoors above 400 ISO, because it is
not. In good light it is as good as those uTube
videos you have seen. It has annoyances, like how
long it takes you to change exposure
compensation in stills (also in RAW really only OK
up to 320 ISO- and Silkypix is not as good as Raw
Therapee here, or Lightroom 5.7).
When you realise you get 20MP 400mm RAW
images with 5 axis IS, and can pull endless 8MP
stills at 590mm 35mm equivalent -superb for
birding- the entire thing weighing a lot less than a
400MM IS USML lens! (never mind the 5D body its
on), to get most of the time as good results, and
that at most focal lengths the lens is fine even
wide open, you really need to get one instore from
somebody who doesn't throw stuff around.
I got mine from John Lewis and collected it, and it

was well-packed on just that side where the lens
is, in a well-padded bigger box, thank heaven, so
it survived.
Generally I prefer the IQ from the Sony, but it is as

good as a 7D in its image quality, so....
Jagganatha • 4 years ago • edited

I had to return one because there was a vertical
band of unsharpness at left centre at 400mm and
the entire right-hand border area was no good. At
wide-angle settings it was also poor on the right
side. Even with still life shots and accurate
focussing (a strongpoint with this machine)
everything was lacking resolution. My 8080
Olympus 8MP year dot machine was consistently
superior.
There is a reason. Try watching a uTube FZ1000

unboxing video.
The lens is packed tight against the flimsy

cardboard that is the left-hand side of the box. It
has absolutely ZERO protection on its long trip
from Japan.
This has been done on purpose

see more
Kevin • 5 years ago • edited

I'm sorry, but to me (viewed at full size) the RX10
images look superior to the FZ1000. On the
"golden hour" shot with the tree, the foliage of the
tree is crisp and detailed on the RX10, where the
FZ1000 shot looks like a smeary watercolor,
particularly toward the top of the tree.
On the wide angle shot, the FZ1000 blew the

highlights in several areas, where the RX10

properly exposed the area. And the bricks on the
buildings again had more detail and were sharper
than the FZ1000.
I'm sure the FZ1000 has some advantages over

the RX10, but to me, image quality is not one of
them.
Audi tor > Kevin • 4 years ago • edited

The only advantage of rx10 over fz1000 is
the in-camera jpg files processing,
otherwise they are both same sensors. i'm
sure the sample pictures you saw were not
properly exposed (the lens of the fz1000 is
not sharp throughout its range, one should
know when and where to use proper
aperture at a certain focal length to get
clear images)
entoman • 5 years ago

Fantastic camera! Kudos to Panasonic! It can't be
more than 3 or 4 years away when the day arrives
that a device like this will have the high ISO image
quality and the build quality of a current-
generation full framer! To get FF quality in a fixed
lens camera as versatile as this would be most
people's dream come true. Unfortunately that time
is still some way off, but at the moment, for 95%
of enthusiast photographers the FZ1000 is already
the perfect camera. Those who need the ultimate
in image quality, or the more specialised lenses,
will of course stick with our beloved Nikons and
Canons, but many will consider the Panasonic as
a second camera, to be used on family holidays or
in situations where using a more "professional-
looking" camera might attract the wrong type of
attention.
Nancy > entoman • 4 years ago

Except for physics. The six-times size of
the full-frame sensor will always blow the
1" sensor away. And four years from now,
the full-frame sensors will be that much
better...
sam > Nancy • 4 years ago

uhmmm he made it clear when he
said 'high ISO image quality of a
"CURRENT" generation full-framer' I
guess you missed that bit.
Jagganath • 5 years ago

I returned my RX10 for one very good reason,
noise. I mean sound. When you are recording
movies I found it impossible to stop hearing the
sound of zooming and focussing from the lens
whether done with the switching by the shutter
button or manually by twisting the lens. Since
Sony would not sell a single pro camcorder if the
sounds I heard registered in the same way on their
footage, what exactly is going on here?
I found out by googling it as a problem, surprised
by the number of responses. Does anybody have
the same problem with this Panasonic?
OL92 > Jagganath • 5 years ago

I have both (bought second hand to test
them) : my RX10 is rather silent and provide
an OK sound without external microphone
even in quiet environnement for family
video. On the other hand, my FZ1000 is
very noisy, and an external micro is
required for video in quiet environnement
even for small family clip.

This is what you get from Raw Therapee at the
shorter focal lengths. It does not have a profile so I
am unable to match your jpeg file using it. I get the
impression that there has to be a lot of in-camera
processing to correct such enormous distortion
and vignetting. Very upset, but glad I discovered it
in time.
⛺
10 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›
Micah > Jagganath • 5 years ago

I'm shocked by two things that are at odds:
A) This is really horrible!
B) This cleans up so well it doesn't matter!
The only issue is with a raw converter that

doesn't do the proper correction. Looks
like Photomate R2 on my phone will give an
uncorrected version, where I see the same
image circle failure above. Here's 1
Photoshop at my defaults, 2 Photomate R2
at it's defaults, 3 Photomate with the best
distortion correction it can muster. With
some futzing, I bet I could get good results
out of even PMR2. And that's just on my
phone!
These are 20mp files. All things considered,

see more
2eyesee > Jagganath • 5 years ago

Canon pulled the same trick with the G7X.
The image circle doesn't even cover the full
sensor at wide angle, allowing them a
greater zoom range than the RX100M3.
Panasonic have done the same here with
the FZ1000, which has allowed them to
produce a lens with greater range than the
RX10.
This all comes at a cost though - poor

image quality at wide angle. The G7X really
suffered compared to the RX100M3 not
just at 24mm but at 28m too (I owned them
both). Looking at this uncorrected image I'd
say you'll get similar results comparing the
FZ1000 to the RX10 at wide angles.
Dave Etchells Mod > 2eyesee

• 5 years ago
Yeah, this is actually becoming more
and more common in fixed-lens
cameras these days; the mfrs are
looking at the lens/sensor/processor
combo as an integrated system
rather than separate components,
and using processing to relax
d i t i t i th ti
design constraints in the optics.
Some of these attempts are more
successful than others; the
FZ1000's processed images come
out surprisingly well, compared to
some others that take the same
approach. The manufacturers make
the tradeoffs they think best; it's
then up to the market to sort out
one from the other, and see whose
tradeoffs ended up the most
successful.

Well, downloading an examining the wide-angle
rose and bikes picture, there is horrific vignetting
on both, and there is also vignetting on the upright
shot of the guy by his tent, so what exactly is
going on- as this if the lens itself makes the

Jump to review page... ▲
CAMRA RVIW COMPAR CAMRA
COMPACT CAMRA COMPAR IMAG
MIRRORL CAMRA PHOTO NW
DLR CAMRA PHOTO OF TH DAY
CANON CAMRA LN RVIW
NIKON CAMRA PRINTR RVIW
ALL RAND T CAMRA
AOUT U CONTACT U ADVRTIING UAG POLICY PRIVACY POLICY
FACOOK TWITTR
Imaging Resource © 1998 - 2019. Material on this site ma not e reproduced, distriuted, transmitted or otherwise used without the prior
written consent of The Imaging Resource.

Panasonic FZ1000 Review - Exposure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Panasonic FZ1000 Review - Exposure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

23/08/2019 Panasonic FZ1000 Review - Exposure

Panasonic FZ1000 Exposure

IO 80 IO 125 IO 200

IO 400 IO 800 IO 1600

IO 3200 IO 6400 IO 12,800

Buy the Panasonic FZ1000

 Recommend 5 t Tweet f Share

Join the discussion…

OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

BG Davis • 3 months ago • edited

Closs • 6 months ago

Zig Weidelich (IR) Mod > Closs

Hope this helps.

Hamerlík Barnabás • a year ago

Looking for advice here on whether to buy a used

Thanks a lot in advance

JC Photography > Hamerlík Barnabás

Hamerlík Barnabás > JC

Andy • 2 years ago

Norberto Esteves > Andy • 2 years ago

a Nikon P600 and it has the same noise

Marius Galster > Norberto

Joshua Wells • 2 years ago • edited

Spinelli Ambrogio • 2 years ago

Aleksi Lausti > Spinelli Ambrogio

in real world use.

Spinelli Ambrogio > Aleksi Lausti

Aleksi Lausti > Spinelli

vercarsen • 3 years ago

Boessu > vercarsen • 3 years ago • edited

- You'll have less focal length.

The FZ1000 is one of the best travel

Of couse if you buy a A6000 and a set of

So for me an A6000 is a good camera if I

Mahmood • 4 years ago

Kevin • 4 years ago

entoman • 4 years ago

Bridge cameras are lightweight, very portable and

Some people of course need the extra quality of

Audi tor > entoman • 4 years ago • edited

12 fps continuous shooting

I don't think i'll go back to DSLRs again))

BG Davis • 4 years ago

What I am after is the resolution of video footage

With the GX7 or GH4, you can get full HD video

With the FZ150 or GH3, you cannot get full HD

I need to know if you can shoot full HD (1080p)

If anyone has occasion to test this out on your

Jagganatha • 4 years ago

I got mine from John Lewis and collected it, and it

Generally I prefer the IQ from the Sony, but it is as

Jagganatha • 4 years ago • edited

There is a reason. Try watching a uTube FZ1000

The lens is packed tight against the ﬂimsy

This has been done on purpose

Kevin • 5 years ago • edited

On the wide angle shot, the FZ1000 blew the

highlights in several areas, where the RX10

I'm sure the FZ1000 has some advantages over

Audi tor > Kevin • 4 years ago • edited

entoman • 5 years ago

Nancy > entoman • 4 years ago

sam > Nancy • 4 years ago

Jagganath • 5 years ago