Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
FZ1000 is a fail
274 views
Skip to first unread message
HerHusband
Feb 12, 2015, 12:17:08 AM2/12/15
to
As some of you know, I recently picked up a Panasonic FZ1000 for filming
video. I've had a few days to experiment with it, trying different
settings, and generally just getting a feel for it.
On the plus side, the 4K video captures good detail that even looks good
when downsized to 1080p. Indoors the large sensor really excels at
capturing video in dimly lit spaces.
On the negative, the overall image quality didn't "wow" me as much as I
thought it would compared to my old TM700. I guess I expected a drastic
improvement, but instead it was just a marginal step up.
While I usually don't worry much about audio quality in my videos, the
FZ1000 has noticeably weaker sound quality. Worse yet, the camera makes
some kind of grinding noise (from the OIS I think) that can be heard quite
loudly on the audio track.
The lens at full wide angle is still narrower than the TM700, which wasn't
all that wide to start with.
The FZ1000 is touted as having really fast focus, but I have encountered
several situations where it wouldn't focus at all. My old TM700 has no
problem with those same situations.
Worst of all is the zoom lever. There's no way to do a nice slow zoom in or
out, and the zoom seems "jumpy" even at the faster speed.
Considering the negatives, and the fact it's a much heavier and bulkier
camera, I have decided to return the FZ1000.
If anything, it makes me appreciate my TM700 more. However, I will be
keeping an eye on the upcoming VX870 camcorder, as that one looks promising
for video.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
video. I've had a few days to experiment with it, trying different
settings, and generally just getting a feel for it.
On the plus side, the 4K video captures good detail that even looks good
when downsized to 1080p. Indoors the large sensor really excels at
capturing video in dimly lit spaces.
On the negative, the overall image quality didn't "wow" me as much as I
thought it would compared to my old TM700. I guess I expected a drastic
improvement, but instead it was just a marginal step up.
While I usually don't worry much about audio quality in my videos, the
FZ1000 has noticeably weaker sound quality. Worse yet, the camera makes
some kind of grinding noise (from the OIS I think) that can be heard quite
loudly on the audio track.
The lens at full wide angle is still narrower than the TM700, which wasn't
all that wide to start with.
The FZ1000 is touted as having really fast focus, but I have encountered
several situations where it wouldn't focus at all. My old TM700 has no
problem with those same situations.
Worst of all is the zoom lever. There's no way to do a nice slow zoom in or
out, and the zoom seems "jumpy" even at the faster speed.
Considering the negatives, and the fact it's a much heavier and bulkier
camera, I have decided to return the FZ1000.
If anything, it makes me appreciate my TM700 more. However, I will be
keeping an eye on the upcoming VX870 camcorder, as that one looks promising
for video.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
Smarty
Feb 12, 2015, 9:45:02 AM2/12/15
to
eventually replaced the TM700, the XC920. I entirely agree with your
comments and observations.
I never bought the FZ1000 expecting it to be a replacement for a
camcorder, however, and am not at all surprised that it does not zoom as
well as the camcorder, does not focus as well as the camcorder under
some circumstances, and has audio pickup of camera noise under some
circumstances.
The FZ1000 is a fantastic still camera, does really beautiful 4K UHD
video, and has numerous other benefits which make it well worth the cost.
Did you really buy the FZ1000 with the intention of replacing a
camcorder? If so, I think this was an unrealistic expectation.
HerHusband
Feb 12, 2015, 10:25:56 AM2/12/15
to
> I also own both the Panny FZ1000 as well as the Panny camcorder which
> eventually replaced the TM700, the XC920. I entirely agree with your
> comments and observations.
> I never bought the FZ1000 expecting it to be a replacement for a
> camcorder, however, and am not at all surprised that it does not zoom
> as well as the camcorder, does not focus as well as the camcorder
> under some circumstances, and has audio pickup of camera noise under
> some circumstances.
The focus really surprised me. On several occasions it just will not focus
> eventually replaced the TM700, the XC920. I entirely agree with your
> comments and observations.
> I never bought the FZ1000 expecting it to be a replacement for a
> camcorder, however, and am not at all surprised that it does not zoom
> as well as the camcorder, does not focus as well as the camcorder
> under some circumstances, and has audio pickup of camera noise under
> some circumstances.
at all. I have to point it at something else to get it to focus and move
back to the original subject. Sometimes it will focus, other times it just
gets blurry again. It honestly has the worst focus of any camera I have
used for video.
The camera noise, which I assume has something to do with the OIS, was much
louder than I expected too. I mostly film nature scenes outdoors and could
barely hear the birds over that weird grinding/warbling sound.
> The FZ1000 is a fantastic still camera, does really beautiful 4K UHD
> video, and has numerous other benefits which make it well worth the
> cost.
for basic pictures. We also have an LX7 that is lighter, and much more
compact. It is "good enough" for our needs. We're just point-and-shoot
amateurs, not professional photographers.
> Did you really buy the FZ1000 with the intention of replacing a
> camcorder? If so, I think this was an unrealistic expectation.
sensor. I have filmed video with a few still cameras, including the LX7, so
I thought I could live with the drawbacks of the form factor. But, there
were just more negatives than I was expecting. Live and learn... :)
I'm sure it would be a great video camera for certain situations, but not
for the things and places I like to record.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
David Ruether
Feb 12, 2015, 12:52:01 PM2/12/15
to
"HerHusband" <unk...@unknown.com> wrote in message news:
XnsA43F4B969A...@213.239.209.88:
> > I also own both the Panny FZ1000 as well as the Panny camcorder which
> > eventually replaced the TM700, the XC920. I entirely agree with your
> > comments and observations.
> > I never bought the FZ1000 expecting it to be a replacement for a
> > camcorder, however, and am not at all surprised that it does not zoom
> > as well as the camcorder, does not focus as well as the camcorder
> > under some circumstances, and has audio pickup of camera noise under
> > some circumstances.
use, most of what I shoot with them now is stills. Except for
using the Panasonic 7-14mm lens on these bodies, I cannot
(with any of my MANY other lenses for these cameras) get
acceptable zooms while shooting video (even with the "PZ"
lenses, using the zoom lever on the G5/G6). Both exposure and
focus "bobble" disturbingly, and the zooming rate is too fast
even with the zooming rate set at the lowest speed in the
menus. In terms of image quality, though, these still cameras
can provide footage that is superior in image quality to what
the excellent TM700 could provide.
> The focus really surprised me. On several occasions it just will not focus
> at all. I have to point it at something else to get it to focus and move
> back to the original subject. Sometimes it will focus, other times it just
> gets blurry again. It honestly has the worst focus of any camera I have
> used for video.
>
> The camera noise, which I assume has something to do with the OIS, was much
> louder than I expected too. I mostly film nature scenes outdoors and could
> barely hear the birds over that weird grinding/warbling sound.
the sound and focus issues are likely from the same source:
a defective lens focus mechanism. I always check cameras and
lenses upon purchase, and often find defects, regardless of
brand. I've learned that "new" does NOT mean "perfect!" 8^(
This is especially with lenses, which FAR too often show
defects.
> > The FZ1000 is a fantastic still camera, does really beautiful 4K UHD
> > video, and has numerous other benefits which make it well worth the
> > cost.
> I'm sure it's a great still camera, but I don't really need that quality
> for basic pictures. We also have an LX7 that is lighter, and much more
> compact. It is "good enough" for our needs. We're just point-and-shoot
> amateurs, not professional photographers.
in most ways important to me for stills, but I do not like
its video image quality much - my other cameras are FAR better
for video image quality.
> > Did you really buy the FZ1000 with the intention of replacing a
> > camcorder? If so, I think this was an unrealistic expectation.
point where it is hard to find the camera buried in the
collection of externally-added pieces...;-)
> Probably, but it was about the only option for 4K video with a large
> sensor. I have filmed video with a few still cameras, including the LX7, so
> I thought I could live with the drawbacks of the form factor. But, there
> were just more negatives than I was expecting. Live and learn... :)
compact - and it has a sensor that is larger than the FZ1000's.
I have not tried it, though...
> I'm sure it would be a great video camera for certain situations, but not
> for the things and places I like to record.
>
> Anthony Watson
were solved... Unfortunately, if you like to zoom while
shooting (and I do...!;-), "still-cameras-that-also-shoot-
video" do not do this very well unless "rigged", and also
are used with suitable lenses for this purpose. Darn!;-)
The alternative is to use suitable lenses on still cameras
that can be zoomed and focused well manually, and also to
have excellent VFs (and with VF "focus-peaking" available).
This can work well - but there are a lot of "ifs" involved
in making it useful! For me, the best solution is now
"foot-zooming" while using wide-angle lenses and smallish
apertures - with manually presetting the focus to cover
what I'm shooting while moving. This works well for me,
but it eliminates the long, slow pan-tilt-zoom shot to/from
various things I'm shooting, something I would still like
to be able to do...
--DR
HerHusband
Feb 12, 2015, 2:19:27 PM2/12/15
to
David,
> These sound to me like you had a defective camera, and both
> the sound and focus issues are likely from the same source:
> a defective lens focus mechanism.
That could be. I bought a returned camera to save a few dollars, and it
wasn't packaged all that great when I received it. Still, everything
looked new out of the box.
That said, I have read many similar reports regarding the background
noise. Just holding the camera close you can hear the OIS doing it's
business in there.
> I consider my LX7 to be nearly the equal of my other cameras
> in most ways important to me for stills, but I do not like
> its video image quality much - my other cameras are FAR better
> for video image quality.
We have been quite happy with our LX7 for stills. I made a short indoor
video with it when we got it and was rather impressed. But later videos
outdoors did not look so good. It's not bad for shooting little bits of
secondary video, but not something I would want as my main video camera.
> The new LX100 can also shoot good 4K video, and it is quite
> compact - and it has a sensor that is larger than the FZ1000's.
I debated between the LX100 and FZ1000, but opted for the FZ1000. It was
supposed to be better oriented to video and had a better zoom. It cost a
bit less too.
The FZ1000 was my first large sensor camera of any kind. Indoors in dim
lighting the shots looked awesome. Outdoors in decent light, I couldn't
see any major differences from my small sensor cameras. I guess theres
more to image quality than sensor size.
> Unfortunately, if you like to zoom while shooting (and I do...!;-),
> "still-cameras-that-also-shoot-video" do not do this very well
Yep, I basically already knew that from filming with my LX7 and TS2
waterproof camera. But, the FZ1000 didn't work out the way I had hoped. I
will probably stick with the traditional camcorder format.
> the best solution is now "foot-zooming" while using wide-angle lenses
> and smallish apertures - with manually presetting the focus to cover
> what I'm shooting while moving. This works well for me, but it
> eliminates the long, slow pan-tilt-zoom shot to/from various things
> I'm shooting, something I would still like to be able to do...
If you're downsizing 4K to 1080p, one option is to film wide angle and
perform the zoom, tilt, or pan in your video editor. I saw a demo of this
technique somewhere on YouTube and it looked nice. I tend to process my
video before editing, so this probably wouldn't work well for me.
Besides, sometimes I don't know I want to zoom in on something until I'm
on location. :)
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
> These sound to me like you had a defective camera, and both
> the sound and focus issues are likely from the same source:
> a defective lens focus mechanism.
wasn't packaged all that great when I received it. Still, everything
looked new out of the box.
That said, I have read many similar reports regarding the background
noise. Just holding the camera close you can hear the OIS doing it's
business in there.
> I consider my LX7 to be nearly the equal of my other cameras
> in most ways important to me for stills, but I do not like
> its video image quality much - my other cameras are FAR better
> for video image quality.
video with it when we got it and was rather impressed. But later videos
outdoors did not look so good. It's not bad for shooting little bits of
secondary video, but not something I would want as my main video camera.
> The new LX100 can also shoot good 4K video, and it is quite
> compact - and it has a sensor that is larger than the FZ1000's.
supposed to be better oriented to video and had a better zoom. It cost a
bit less too.
The FZ1000 was my first large sensor camera of any kind. Indoors in dim
lighting the shots looked awesome. Outdoors in decent light, I couldn't
see any major differences from my small sensor cameras. I guess theres
more to image quality than sensor size.
> Unfortunately, if you like to zoom while shooting (and I do...!;-),
Yep, I basically already knew that from filming with my LX7 and TS2
waterproof camera. But, the FZ1000 didn't work out the way I had hoped. I
will probably stick with the traditional camcorder format.
> the best solution is now "foot-zooming" while using wide-angle lenses
> and smallish apertures - with manually presetting the focus to cover
> what I'm shooting while moving. This works well for me, but it
> eliminates the long, slow pan-tilt-zoom shot to/from various things
> I'm shooting, something I would still like to be able to do...
perform the zoom, tilt, or pan in your video editor. I saw a demo of this
technique somewhere on YouTube and it looked nice. I tend to process my
video before editing, so this probably wouldn't work well for me.
Besides, sometimes I don't know I want to zoom in on something until I'm
on location. :)
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
David Ruether
Feb 12, 2015, 4:16:23 PM2/12/15
to
XnsA43F732DD8...@213.239.209.88:
mechanics and electronics, problems are comparatively
rare. Lenses on the other hand, often have defects
(mostly acquired during the manufacturing process).
Lens sample variation is an unfortunate reality...
> That said, I have read many similar reports regarding the background
> noise. Just holding the camera close you can hear the OIS doing it's
> business in there.
There is much nonsense on the 'net; all of my AF lenses
can be heard while focusing if I'm near enoug, but the
relevant test is whether or not the camera can be heard
beyond a foot or two - and for video, if the camera noises
can be heard on the audio track with the gain set at
normal levels...
> > I consider my LX7 to be nearly the equal of my other cameras
> > in most ways important to me for stills, but I do not like
> > its video image quality much - my other cameras are FAR better
> > for video image quality.
> We have been quite happy with our LX7 for stills. I made a short indoor
> video with it when we got it and was rather impressed. But later videos
> outdoors did not look so good. It's not bad for shooting little bits of
> secondary video, but not something I would want as my main video camera.
My experience was similar: indoors, the video was good;
outdoors, well.........., NO!;-) Boosting the saturation
some and the sharpening a bit often improved things some,
but the G5/G6 video is FAR better, even though most of the
specs but for sensor size are the same.
> > The new LX100 can also shoot good 4K video, and it is quite
> > compact - and it has a sensor that is larger than the FZ1000's.
> I debated between the LX100 and FZ1000, but opted for the FZ1000. It was
> supposed to be better oriented to video and had a better zoom. It cost a
> bit less too.
Its controls, etc. are similar to those of the GH4, but
the sensor is smaller and the lens zoom range is FAR
larger, both of which would contribute some to the results
not being as good (among other possibilities...). BTW,
"better" to me when referring to lenses describes image
quality, not zoom range. There is generally an inverse
relationship between range and image quality, which
partly explains why the LX100 has a very limited zoom
range...;-) Both the LX7 and LX100 juggle the features
and compromises to favor image quality and lens speed,
although the results are different. The LX7 favors
greater DOF for a given lens stop (all else being equal);
the LX100 favors less DOF, which is desired by some
photographers, but not by me...;-)
> The FZ1000 was my first large sensor camera of any kind. Indoors in dim
> lighting the shots looked awesome. Outdoors in decent light, I couldn't
> see any major differences from my small sensor cameras. I guess there's
at its optimum stop[s]), my 1/4th-the-area-of-FF-35mm MFT
cameras can produce still images that put many FF sensor
cameras to shame - and the video image-quality surpasses
that of many VERY expensive pro video cameras - BUT, the
lack of good zooming ability is a distinct disadvantage
with my current cameras for video use...! BTW, sensor
resolution can effect video results strongly, with higher
resolution sensors being more difficult to make look good
shooting video (and stills in low light can also suffer
with using higher resolution sensors). Guess why Sony's
newest ($2500) FF-sensor still camera has "only" 12MP?;-)
> > Unfortunately, if you like to zoom while shooting (and I do...!;-),
> > "still-cameras-that-also-shoot-video" do not do this very well
> Yep, I basically already knew that from filming with my LX7 and TS2
> waterproof camera. But, the FZ1000 didn't work out the way I had hoped. I
> will probably stick with the traditional camcorder format.
> > the best solution is now "foot-zooming" while using wide-angle lenses
> > and smallish apertures - with manually presetting the focus to cover
> > what I'm shooting while moving. This works well for me, but it
> > eliminates the long, slow pan-tilt-zoom shot to/from various things
> > I'm shooting, something I would still like to be able to do...
> If you're downsizing 4K to 1080p, one option is to film wide angle and
> perform the zoom, tilt, or pan in your video editor. I saw a demo of this
> technique somewhere on YouTube and it looked nice. I tend to process my
> video before editing, so this probably wouldn't work well for me.
> Besides, sometimes I don't know I want to zoom in on something until I'm
> on location. :)
>
> Anthony Watson
Downsizing 4K to 1080 works very well, and it provides the
opportunity to zoom/pan/stabilize in post, etc., and this
can reduce some other issues, too - BUT, at this point,
the frame rate of cameras that shoot 4K are limited to
what I consider to be the very awkwardly slow 24p and 30p
rates. Motion shot at 60p looks FAR better, and this frame
rate limits acceptable shutter speeds FAR less than do the
slower rates, improving sharpness. I've experimented with
synthesizing the extra frames to get 4K to 60p, and this
can work well and look good with some clips and subjects,
but it can risk everything if serious visual artifacts are
introduced during the processing (which is also VERY slow...).
Fun stuff, though!;-)
BTW, my website is in the process of moving to:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com
I've recently updated the MFT-lens reviews here:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm
I have not yet added two more lenses, one of which is
surprisingly good, the tiny Panasonic 12-32mm. The other
was the 12mm f2 Samyang/Rokinon, returned as unacceptable
after trying three samples (sharp with one of the three,
but all had high levels of CA...).
--DR
> DR wrote:
> > These sound to me like you had a defective camera, and both
> > the sound and focus issues are likely from the same source:
> > a defective lens focus mechanism.
> That could be. I bought a returned camera to save a few dollars, and it
> wasn't packaged all that great when I received it. Still, everything
> looked new out of the box.
These are complex devices, but in terms of the body
> > These sound to me like you had a defective camera, and both
> > the sound and focus issues are likely from the same source:
> > a defective lens focus mechanism.
> That could be. I bought a returned camera to save a few dollars, and it
> wasn't packaged all that great when I received it. Still, everything
> looked new out of the box.
mechanics and electronics, problems are comparatively
rare. Lenses on the other hand, often have defects
(mostly acquired during the manufacturing process).
Lens sample variation is an unfortunate reality...
> That said, I have read many similar reports regarding the background
> noise. Just holding the camera close you can hear the OIS doing it's
> business in there.
can be heard while focusing if I'm near enoug, but the
relevant test is whether or not the camera can be heard
beyond a foot or two - and for video, if the camera noises
can be heard on the audio track with the gain set at
normal levels...
> > I consider my LX7 to be nearly the equal of my other cameras
> > in most ways important to me for stills, but I do not like
> > its video image quality much - my other cameras are FAR better
> > for video image quality.
> We have been quite happy with our LX7 for stills. I made a short indoor
> video with it when we got it and was rather impressed. But later videos
> outdoors did not look so good. It's not bad for shooting little bits of
> secondary video, but not something I would want as my main video camera.
outdoors, well.........., NO!;-) Boosting the saturation
some and the sharpening a bit often improved things some,
but the G5/G6 video is FAR better, even though most of the
specs but for sensor size are the same.
> > The new LX100 can also shoot good 4K video, and it is quite
> > compact - and it has a sensor that is larger than the FZ1000's.
> I debated between the LX100 and FZ1000, but opted for the FZ1000. It was
> supposed to be better oriented to video and had a better zoom. It cost a
> bit less too.
the sensor is smaller and the lens zoom range is FAR
larger, both of which would contribute some to the results
not being as good (among other possibilities...). BTW,
"better" to me when referring to lenses describes image
quality, not zoom range. There is generally an inverse
relationship between range and image quality, which
partly explains why the LX100 has a very limited zoom
range...;-) Both the LX7 and LX100 juggle the features
and compromises to favor image quality and lens speed,
although the results are different. The LX7 favors
greater DOF for a given lens stop (all else being equal);
the LX100 favors less DOF, which is desired by some
photographers, but not by me...;-)
> The FZ1000 was my first large sensor camera of any kind. Indoors in dim
> lighting the shots looked awesome. Outdoors in decent light, I couldn't
> more to image quality than sensor size.
There *IS*!!!;-) In good light (and with a good lens used
at its optimum stop[s]), my 1/4th-the-area-of-FF-35mm MFT
cameras can produce still images that put many FF sensor
cameras to shame - and the video image-quality surpasses
that of many VERY expensive pro video cameras - BUT, the
lack of good zooming ability is a distinct disadvantage
with my current cameras for video use...! BTW, sensor
resolution can effect video results strongly, with higher
resolution sensors being more difficult to make look good
shooting video (and stills in low light can also suffer
with using higher resolution sensors). Guess why Sony's
newest ($2500) FF-sensor still camera has "only" 12MP?;-)
> > Unfortunately, if you like to zoom while shooting (and I do...!;-),
> > "still-cameras-that-also-shoot-video" do not do this very well
> Yep, I basically already knew that from filming with my LX7 and TS2
> waterproof camera. But, the FZ1000 didn't work out the way I had hoped. I
> will probably stick with the traditional camcorder format.
> > the best solution is now "foot-zooming" while using wide-angle lenses
> > and smallish apertures - with manually presetting the focus to cover
> > what I'm shooting while moving. This works well for me, but it
> > eliminates the long, slow pan-tilt-zoom shot to/from various things
> > I'm shooting, something I would still like to be able to do...
> If you're downsizing 4K to 1080p, one option is to film wide angle and
> perform the zoom, tilt, or pan in your video editor. I saw a demo of this
> technique somewhere on YouTube and it looked nice. I tend to process my
> video before editing, so this probably wouldn't work well for me.
> Besides, sometimes I don't know I want to zoom in on something until I'm
> on location. :)
>
> Anthony Watson
opportunity to zoom/pan/stabilize in post, etc., and this
can reduce some other issues, too - BUT, at this point,
the frame rate of cameras that shoot 4K are limited to
what I consider to be the very awkwardly slow 24p and 30p
rates. Motion shot at 60p looks FAR better, and this frame
rate limits acceptable shutter speeds FAR less than do the
slower rates, improving sharpness. I've experimented with
synthesizing the extra frames to get 4K to 60p, and this
can work well and look good with some clips and subjects,
but it can risk everything if serious visual artifacts are
introduced during the processing (which is also VERY slow...).
Fun stuff, though!;-)
BTW, my website is in the process of moving to:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com
I've recently updated the MFT-lens reviews here:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm
I have not yet added two more lenses, one of which is
surprisingly good, the tiny Panasonic 12-32mm. The other
was the 12mm f2 Samyang/Rokinon, returned as unacceptable
after trying three samples (sharp with one of the three,
but all had high levels of CA...).
--DR
Smarty
Feb 12, 2015, 5:09:00 PM2/12/15
to
consider it a real substitute for a camcorder. My experiences with it
doing video are very similar to yours, although my focusing performance
is nearly always quite adequate. Noise pick-up can be solved with a
remote mic if that concerns you.
The focusing of the FZ1000 is superb for stills, easily meeting or
exceeding other fast focus cameras I own such as the Sony a6000 (a very
fast focusing camera) as well as DSLRs. Zooming while you shoot is
another thing I virtually never do, so this short-coming is not as big
an issue with me either.
Given a great still camera, a 4K UHD capability, a lot of lens reach,
and a relatively low cost given the feature set, I would not personally
call it a "fail" unless the camera were purchased specifically to
replace a camcorder and used only as such. Even then, with different
technique, the results can and will be superb, even for video.
I agree, BTW, that you may have a faulty camera in the focusing since
this has never been a point of complaint I am aware of from other users
nor have I had this experience myself. It is a bit sluggish compared to
the best camcorders, but not failing in the manner you described.
HerHusband
Feb 12, 2015, 7:02:22 PM2/12/15
to
David,
> There is much nonsense on the 'net; all of my AF lenses
> can be heard while focusing if I'm near enoug, but the
> relevant test is whether or not the camera can be heard
> beyond a foot or two - and for video, if the camera noises
> can be heard on the audio track with the gain set at
> normal levels...
I read a lot of complaints about the cooling fan in the TM700 too, but I
have personally never noticed it in my videos. The FZ1000 noise was much
more significant. It may not be as noticeable if there's voice or other
noises being filmed, but it was really noticeable on a quiet winter day
filming some birds. Well, trees... I couldn't find the birds. :)
> sensor resolution can effect video results strongly
Yep, I don't see the point of high resolution sensors for video when the
end result is only 1920x1080. There has to be some kind of downsizing or
cropping involved.
> at this point, the frame rate of cameras that shoot 4K are limited
> to what I consider to be the very awkwardly slow 24p and 30p rates.
> Motion shot at 60p looks FAR better
My subject matter rarely moves very fast, so 30p is fine with me. :) BluRay
doesn't support 60p in the specs anyway.
Cool, I bookmarked your new site and will add a link on my web site when I
get around to updating it again.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
> There is much nonsense on the 'net; all of my AF lenses
> can be heard while focusing if I'm near enoug, but the
> relevant test is whether or not the camera can be heard
> beyond a foot or two - and for video, if the camera noises
> can be heard on the audio track with the gain set at
> normal levels...
have personally never noticed it in my videos. The FZ1000 noise was much
more significant. It may not be as noticeable if there's voice or other
noises being filmed, but it was really noticeable on a quiet winter day
filming some birds. Well, trees... I couldn't find the birds. :)
> sensor resolution can effect video results strongly
end result is only 1920x1080. There has to be some kind of downsizing or
cropping involved.
> at this point, the frame rate of cameras that shoot 4K are limited
> to what I consider to be the very awkwardly slow 24p and 30p rates.
> Motion shot at 60p looks FAR better
doesn't support 60p in the specs anyway.
Cool, I bookmarked your new site and will add a link on my web site when I
get around to updating it again.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
HerHusband
Feb 12, 2015, 7:22:49 PM2/12/15
to
> Noise pick-up can be solved with a remote mic if that concerns you.
I considered that, but it was extra bulk, and added expense. I don't really
want to lug around pounds of video gear when I'm out hiking. Just more
stuff to whack on a limb or something.
As it is, when people see me using my cheap $20 monopod, they act like I'm
carrying some kind of high end gear or something. Sheesh people, it's a
camera on a stick. If I started adding hoods and external microphones,
they would start looking for the rest of the film crew. :)
That said, it is fun to visit the local wildlife reserve. The serious
birders there lug in huge cameras on giant tripods with lenses the size of
my arm! Them folks is serious...
> Zooming while you shoot is another thing I virtually never do,
> so this short-coming is not as big an issue with me either.
clip zoomed in on an item of interest (flower, waterfall, or whatever),
then slowly zoom out to show the surrounding area. For me this looks nicer
than showing the close-up and cutting to the wide view. Without the zoom,
the two scenes could be anywhere. :)
I often hear that zooming in video is amateurish. That's fine, I'm an
amateur, and nobody really watches my videos but me anyway. I do see a fair
amount of zooming in professional nature shows though.
> I would not personally call it a "fail" unless the camera were
> purchased specifically to replace a camcorder and used only as such.
> with different technique, the results can and will be superb, even for
> video.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
Smarty
Feb 12, 2015, 10:12:35 PM2/12/15
to
underscore the diversity of user needs / expectations as well as the
benefit of buying from dealers with a consumer-focused return policy.
I have also owned the smaller cameras like the LX-7, most recently little
Sony RX100 and Canon superzoom point and shoot, and can appreciate the
virtue of an easy to carry camera when hiking or traveling, so again the
ultimate choice makes sense. Having owned and also profesionally used huge
lenses and pro equipment, I can honestly appreciate the sheer joy and
freedom NOT lugging around a lot of hardware!
The TM700 and its succesors are really fine cameras and remarkably
conpetent, so it will not be easy to find a replacement which dramatically
improves upon it anytime soon unless 4K UHD is an essential feature, in
which case a camcorder replacement most likely will work best for your
needs rather than a bridge still camera with video option.
David Ruether
Feb 13, 2015, 9:51:43 AM2/13/15
to
XnsA43FA3176B...@213.239.209.88:
> The FZ1000 noise was much
> more significant. It may not be as noticeable if there's voice or other
> noises being filmed, but it was really noticeable on a quiet winter day
> filming some birds.
I suspect that this was not normal for this camera...
> Well, trees... I couldn't find the birds. :)
We often joke that the hardest places to find birds are in the
extensive local bird sanctuaries - and that the best place to
find them was at the dumpster that was behind the old Cornell
Ornithology Lab building...;-) www.birds.cornell.edu
> > sensor resolution can effect video results strongly
> Yep, I don't see the point of high resolution sensors for video when the
> end result is only 1920x1080. There has to be some kind of downsizing or
> cropping involved.
Yes, and this is what causes the problems... BTW, the
Panasonic cameras that shoot video include a menu item
that switches video to actual-pixels used (1920x1080),
which is a considerable crop of the 4608x3456 sensors.
This results in high quality video images with a 2.4X
image magnification compared with using the whole sensor
resolution for video - and with their sharp 100-300mm
zoom used at 300mm, it results in a nice-looking FF-35mm
equivalent of a 1440mm lens(!).
> > at this point, the frame rate of cameras that shoot 4K are limited
> > to what I consider to be the very awkwardly slow 24p and 30p rates.
> > Motion shot at 60p looks FAR better
> My subject matter rarely moves very fast, so 30p is fine with me. :) BluRay
> doesn't support 60p in the specs anyway.
It doesn't support it, but we have been able to write
1920x1080-60p 28Mbps AVCHD video to both DVD and Blu-ray
disks - but a recent compatible player is needed to
play these. We bought a Sony 3200 player for $50 that
can play these disks, and, WOW!!!;-) The latest version
of CyberLink PowerDirector (13) can write these from
MP4 files (but I prefer Vegas for making the original
MP4 files...!). The player will also play files from
SD cards and USB thumb drives, but I keep forgetting
to try playing 1920x1080-60p 100Mbps and 200Mbps video
files on these to see if that also works. BTW, you would
need a 1080p TV to best see video (or anything else...),
and these are now often VERY cheap! You ***WILL*** see
the difference! 8^)
> > BTW, my website is in the process of moving to:
> > http://www.david-ruether-photography.com
> Cool, I bookmarked your new site and will add a link on my web site when I
> get around to updating it again.
>
> Anthony Watson
Thanks. I hate having to establish yet another new URL,
but as with the several other times my URL changed since
I first put my site up in 1996, necessity ruled, and here
I am doing it again..... :-(
--DR
> DR wrote:
> > There is much nonsense on the 'net; all of my AF lenses
> > can be heard while focusing if I'm near enough, but the
> > There is much nonsense on the 'net; all of my AF lenses
> > relevant test is whether or not the camera can be heard
> > beyond a foot or two - and for video, if the camera noises
> > can be heard on the audio track with the gain set at
> > normal levels...
> I read a lot of complaints about the cooling fan in the TM700 too, but I
> have personally never noticed it in my videos.
Nor did I...;-)
> > beyond a foot or two - and for video, if the camera noises
> > can be heard on the audio track with the gain set at
> > normal levels...
> I read a lot of complaints about the cooling fan in the TM700 too, but I
> have personally never noticed it in my videos.
> The FZ1000 noise was much
> more significant. It may not be as noticeable if there's voice or other
> noises being filmed, but it was really noticeable on a quiet winter day
> filming some birds.
> Well, trees... I couldn't find the birds. :)
extensive local bird sanctuaries - and that the best place to
find them was at the dumpster that was behind the old Cornell
Ornithology Lab building...;-) www.birds.cornell.edu
> > sensor resolution can effect video results strongly
> Yep, I don't see the point of high resolution sensors for video when the
> end result is only 1920x1080. There has to be some kind of downsizing or
> cropping involved.
Panasonic cameras that shoot video include a menu item
that switches video to actual-pixels used (1920x1080),
which is a considerable crop of the 4608x3456 sensors.
This results in high quality video images with a 2.4X
image magnification compared with using the whole sensor
resolution for video - and with their sharp 100-300mm
zoom used at 300mm, it results in a nice-looking FF-35mm
equivalent of a 1440mm lens(!).
> > at this point, the frame rate of cameras that shoot 4K are limited
> > to what I consider to be the very awkwardly slow 24p and 30p rates.
> > Motion shot at 60p looks FAR better
> My subject matter rarely moves very fast, so 30p is fine with me. :) BluRay
> doesn't support 60p in the specs anyway.
1920x1080-60p 28Mbps AVCHD video to both DVD and Blu-ray
disks - but a recent compatible player is needed to
play these. We bought a Sony 3200 player for $50 that
can play these disks, and, WOW!!!;-) The latest version
of CyberLink PowerDirector (13) can write these from
MP4 files (but I prefer Vegas for making the original
MP4 files...!). The player will also play files from
SD cards and USB thumb drives, but I keep forgetting
to try playing 1920x1080-60p 100Mbps and 200Mbps video
files on these to see if that also works. BTW, you would
need a 1080p TV to best see video (or anything else...),
and these are now often VERY cheap! You ***WILL*** see
the difference! 8^)
> > BTW, my website is in the process of moving to:
> > http://www.david-ruether-photography.com
> Cool, I bookmarked your new site and will add a link on my web site when I
> get around to updating it again.
>
> Anthony Watson
but as with the several other times my URL changed since
I first put my site up in 1996, necessity ruled, and here
I am doing it again..... :-(
--DR
HerHusband
Feb 13, 2015, 4:01:18 PM2/13/15
to
> The TM700 and its succesors are really fine cameras and remarkably
> conpetent, so it will not be easy to find a replacement which
> dramatically improves upon it anytime soon unless 4K UHD is an
> essential feature, in which case a camcorder replacement most likely
> will work best for your needs rather than a bridge still camera with
> video option.
I will be keeping my eye on the upcoming Panasonic VX870 and Sony AX33. 4K
> conpetent, so it will not be easy to find a replacement which
> dramatically improves upon it anytime soon unless 4K UHD is an
> essential feature, in which case a camcorder replacement most likely
> will work best for your needs rather than a bridge still camera with
> video option.
video, big promises, small sensors. Will be interesting to see how they
play out once released in coming weeks.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
David Ruether
Feb 13, 2015, 5:28:41 PM2/13/15
to
XnsA44084706E...@213.239.209.88:
I forgot to ask you if you found the zooming speed
selection in the menus on the FZ1000. On all recent
Panasonic cameras I've tried, there is a choice of
three overall zooming speeds, with further speed
modification being offered by the zoom levers on
cameras that have them - not that that will enable
a slow enough zooming speed for me...;-) Also, the
ring around the lens can be assigned to zooming,
although I've never found this useful for getting
slow AND smooth zooms. BTW, I just saw prices under
$800 for the FZ1000, not TOO bad I guess...
--DR
selection in the menus on the FZ1000. On all recent
Panasonic cameras I've tried, there is a choice of
three overall zooming speeds, with further speed
modification being offered by the zoom levers on
cameras that have them - not that that will enable
a slow enough zooming speed for me...;-) Also, the
ring around the lens can be assigned to zooming,
although I've never found this useful for getting
slow AND smooth zooms. BTW, I just saw prices under
$800 for the FZ1000, not TOO bad I guess...
--DR
HerHusband
Feb 13, 2015, 8:09:02 PM2/13/15
to
David,
> I forgot to ask you if you found the zooming speed
> selection in the menus on the FZ1000. On all recent
> Panasonic cameras I've tried, there is a choice of
> three overall zooming speeds, with further speed
> modification being offered by the zoom levers on
> cameras that have them - not that that will enable
> a slow enough zooming speed for me...;-)
I could only find one zoom option on the FZ1000, and it had nothing to do
with speed. If I remember correctly, it was to assign a different
function to the zoom lever. I don't know why you would want to do that?
Try as I might, I couldn't get the FZ1000 to zoom slowly or smoothly. It
wouldn't move at all until I pulled the lever back a significant
distance, then it would jump forward and I had to push it back the other
way to slow it down. Basically useless for video. I have that same lever
style on the LX7 and have no difficulty zooming with it (though still not
as slow as I like).
Personally, I wish there was a way to set up a two step zoom. The first
step would be whatever speed you programmed in. The second step would be
full speed. I can't think of a time I've ever wanted to do a variable
speed zoom while filming. I either want a nice gradual zoom, or I want to
zoom as fast as possible to catch something at a distance. The in-between
speeds are useless to me. I usually end up zooming in and out multiple
times on a scene because I bumped the lever a little too far, zooming too
fast, or changing zoom speeds accidentally.
> Also, the ring around the lens can be assigned to zooming,
> although I've never found this useful for getting slow
> AND smooth zooms. BTW,
That was kind of weird on the FZ1000 too. As you turned the ring it moved
in "steps", no matter how smoothly you turned the ring. Again, useless
for video, and I'm not sure why you would want to do that.
> I just saw prices under $800 for the FZ1000, not TOO bad I guess...
I paid $735 for a customer returned model. Plus the $8 to ship it back to
them, of course. :) I see it's selling for $777 on Amazon right now.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
> I forgot to ask you if you found the zooming speed
> selection in the menus on the FZ1000. On all recent
> Panasonic cameras I've tried, there is a choice of
> three overall zooming speeds, with further speed
> modification being offered by the zoom levers on
> cameras that have them - not that that will enable
> a slow enough zooming speed for me...;-)
with speed. If I remember correctly, it was to assign a different
function to the zoom lever. I don't know why you would want to do that?
Try as I might, I couldn't get the FZ1000 to zoom slowly or smoothly. It
wouldn't move at all until I pulled the lever back a significant
distance, then it would jump forward and I had to push it back the other
way to slow it down. Basically useless for video. I have that same lever
style on the LX7 and have no difficulty zooming with it (though still not
as slow as I like).
Personally, I wish there was a way to set up a two step zoom. The first
step would be whatever speed you programmed in. The second step would be
full speed. I can't think of a time I've ever wanted to do a variable
speed zoom while filming. I either want a nice gradual zoom, or I want to
zoom as fast as possible to catch something at a distance. The in-between
speeds are useless to me. I usually end up zooming in and out multiple
times on a scene because I bumped the lever a little too far, zooming too
fast, or changing zoom speeds accidentally.
> Also, the ring around the lens can be assigned to zooming,
> although I've never found this useful for getting slow
> AND smooth zooms. BTW,
in "steps", no matter how smoothly you turned the ring. Again, useless
for video, and I'm not sure why you would want to do that.
> I just saw prices under $800 for the FZ1000, not TOO bad I guess...
them, of course. :) I see it's selling for $777 on Amazon right now.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
David Ruether
Feb 13, 2015, 10:04:23 PM2/13/15
to
XnsA440AE7127...@213.239.209.88:
exposure compensation - and that is the alternative
function available for the zoom lever (and I assume one
would then use the lens ring for zooming...).
> Try as I might, I couldn't get the FZ1000 to zoom slowly or smoothly. It
> wouldn't move at all until I pulled the lever back a significant
> distance, then it would jump forward and I had to push it back the other
> way to slow it down. Basically useless for video.
This may also indicate a malfunction...
> I have that same lever
> style on the LX7 and have no difficulty zooming with it (though still not
> as slow as I like).
It should operate similarly, and should also have a menu
selection for overall zoom rate (but I don't know if the
FZ1000 has that, but it seems likely it would...).
> Personally, I wish there was a way to set up a two step zoom. The first
> step would be whatever speed you programmed in. The second step would be
> full speed. I can't think of a time I've ever wanted to do a variable
> speed zoom while filming. I either want a nice gradual zoom, or I want to
> zoom as fast as possible to catch something at a distance. The in-between
> speeds are useless to me. I usually end up zooming in and out multiple
> times on a scene because I bumped the lever a little too far, zooming too
> fast, or changing zoom speeds accidentally.
Sony and Canon camcorders used to have a Lanc port, and
using a multi-speed Lanc controller with that was nifty!
I used to set the slowest zoom rate on that (plus in the
camera menu selections), then just "mash" the rocker on
the controller to have a nice "crawling" zoom. Unfortunately,
Panasonic doesn't offer a Lanc input... Also in the menus
on Panasonics is a choice of "continuous" or "step" zooming.
It appears that that may have been set for "step" zooming.
Maybe it's worth trying another FZ1000?
> > Also, the ring around the lens can be assigned to zooming,
> > although I've never found this useful for getting slow
> > AND smooth zooms.
>
(they make it easy!;-), so there is not much to lose while
trying another one. Hey, maybe you would be better than I
am with using a lens zoom ring...;-)
--DR
> DR wrote:
> > I forgot to ask you if you found the zooming speed
> > selection in the menus on the FZ1000. On all recent
> > Panasonic cameras I've tried, there is a choice of
> > three overall zooming speeds, with further speed
> > modification being offered by the zoom levers on
> > cameras that have them - not that that will enable
> > a slow enough zooming speed for me...;-)
> I could only find one zoom option on the FZ1000, and it had nothing to do
> with speed. If I remember correctly, it was to assign a different
> function to the zoom lever. I don't know why you would want to do that?
I can see doing that since I use aperture priority with
> > I forgot to ask you if you found the zooming speed
> > selection in the menus on the FZ1000. On all recent
> > Panasonic cameras I've tried, there is a choice of
> > three overall zooming speeds, with further speed
> > modification being offered by the zoom levers on
> > cameras that have them - not that that will enable
> > a slow enough zooming speed for me...;-)
> I could only find one zoom option on the FZ1000, and it had nothing to do
> with speed. If I remember correctly, it was to assign a different
> function to the zoom lever. I don't know why you would want to do that?
exposure compensation - and that is the alternative
function available for the zoom lever (and I assume one
would then use the lens ring for zooming...).
> Try as I might, I couldn't get the FZ1000 to zoom slowly or smoothly. It
> wouldn't move at all until I pulled the lever back a significant
> distance, then it would jump forward and I had to push it back the other
> way to slow it down. Basically useless for video.
> I have that same lever
> style on the LX7 and have no difficulty zooming with it (though still not
> as slow as I like).
selection for overall zoom rate (but I don't know if the
FZ1000 has that, but it seems likely it would...).
> Personally, I wish there was a way to set up a two step zoom. The first
> step would be whatever speed you programmed in. The second step would be
> full speed. I can't think of a time I've ever wanted to do a variable
> speed zoom while filming. I either want a nice gradual zoom, or I want to
> zoom as fast as possible to catch something at a distance. The in-between
> speeds are useless to me. I usually end up zooming in and out multiple
> times on a scene because I bumped the lever a little too far, zooming too
> fast, or changing zoom speeds accidentally.
using a multi-speed Lanc controller with that was nifty!
I used to set the slowest zoom rate on that (plus in the
camera menu selections), then just "mash" the rocker on
the controller to have a nice "crawling" zoom. Unfortunately,
Panasonic doesn't offer a Lanc input... Also in the menus
on Panasonics is a choice of "continuous" or "step" zooming.
It appears that that may have been set for "step" zooming.
Maybe it's worth trying another FZ1000?
> > Also, the ring around the lens can be assigned to zooming,
> > although I've never found this useful for getting slow
> > AND smooth zooms.
>
> That was kind of weird on the FZ1000 too. As you turned the ring it moved
> in "steps", no matter how smoothly you turned the ring. Again, useless
> for video, and I'm not sure why you would want to do that.
>
> > BTW, I just saw prices under $800 for the FZ1000, not TOO bad I guess...
> in "steps", no matter how smoothly you turned the ring. Again, useless
> for video, and I'm not sure why you would want to do that.
>
>
> I paid $735 for a customer returned model. Plus the $8 to ship it back to
> them, of course. :) I see it's selling for $777 on Amazon right now.
>
> Anthony Watson
Amazon also pays for return shipping for exchanges and refunds
> I paid $735 for a customer returned model. Plus the $8 to ship it back to
> them, of course. :) I see it's selling for $777 on Amazon right now.
>
> Anthony Watson
(they make it easy!;-), so there is not much to lose while
trying another one. Hey, maybe you would be better than I
am with using a lens zoom ring...;-)
--DR
Smarty
Feb 13, 2015, 10:58:02 PM2/13/15
to
No zoom speed menu choices on the FZ1000, and as Anthony also reported, a
zoom ring lacking a nice smooth vernier control.
Bottom line: NOT a camcorder and most likely 'crippled' by Panasonic to
protect their camcorder sales.
Still a great bargain and a real treat to use.
David Ruether
Feb 14, 2015, 8:10:37 AM2/14/15
to
"Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:mbmh32$4h6$1...@dont-email.me:
> "David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "HerHusband" <unk...@unknown.com> wrote in message news:
> > "HerHusband" <unk...@unknown.com> wrote in message news:
> >>> I forgot to ask you if you found the zooming speed
> >>> selection in the menus on the FZ1000. On all recent
> >>> Panasonic cameras I've tried, there is a choice of
> >>> three overall zooming speeds, with further speed
> >>> modification being offered by the zoom levers on
> >>> cameras that have them - not that that will enable
> >>> a slow enough zooming speed for me...;-)
> >> I could only find one zoom option on the FZ1000, and it had nothing to do
> >> with speed.
> >>> selection in the menus on the FZ1000. On all recent
> >>> Panasonic cameras I've tried, there is a choice of
> >>> three overall zooming speeds, with further speed
> >>> modification being offered by the zoom levers on
> >>> cameras that have them - not that that will enable
> >>> a slow enough zooming speed for me...;-)
> >> I could only find one zoom option on the FZ1000, and it had nothing to do
> >> with speed.
> Sad to confirm:
> No zoom speed menu choices on the FZ1000, and as Anthony also reported, a
> zoom ring lacking a nice smooth vernier control.
>
> Bottom line: NOT a camcorder and most likely 'crippled' by Panasonic to
> protect their camcorder sales.
>
> Still a great bargain and a real treat to use.
Thanks for the info. At least many of Panasonic's recent
> No zoom speed menu choices on the FZ1000, and as Anthony also reported, a
> zoom ring lacking a nice smooth vernier control.
>
> Bottom line: NOT a camcorder and most likely 'crippled' by Panasonic to
> protect their camcorder sales.
>
> Still a great bargain and a real treat to use.
MFT bodies that shoot video do include a zooming-speed
setting in the menus, and this is useful with their two
"PZ" lenses and with the G5 and G6 bodies that have (tiny)
zoom levers on the bodies - but still missing is a truly
slow ("creeping") zoom speed. The only option for getting
this is to add a "cage" and "rods" to the bodies and
external "gears" to the lens zoom rings (or using lenses
that are designed for video, and already include the
gears). Unfortunately, this increases the size and weight
of the gear considerably, defeating one of the main
advantages of using MFT gear... It is worthwhile for some
types of video shooting to use Panasonic MFT still-camera
bodies for shooting video, though, since the resulting
image-quality can be some of the best available for video
regardless of camera and lens price. Panasonic models that
have excellent video image quality are the G5, G6, GX7,
GH3, and especially the GH4 - and the LX100 and FZ1000
can also shoot good-looking video (I have not yet seen
video shot with the tiny GM5, but it is likely excellent).
But, with all, unless "rigged", the slow, smooth zoom
option is missing...
--DR
HerHusband
Feb 14, 2015, 1:28:57 PM2/14/15
to
David,
> It should operate similarly, and should also have a menu
> selection for overall zoom rate (but I don't know if the
> FZ1000 has that, but it seems likely it would...).
I was surprised the zoom rate could not be adjusted.
> Maybe it's worth trying another FZ1000?
Even if some of the features were defective, there were just too many
negatives for me.
1. Size - The FZ1000 is fairly large and heavy compared to my TM700. Not
ideal when hiking, or lugging the camera around for hours.
2. Poor zoom controls. It has a nice long zoom, but no smooth way to go
from full wide to full zoom.
3. Battery compartment is on the bottom. If the battery goes dead while I'm
out hiking, I would have to take the camera off the monopod to change
batteries. Dumb.
4. Recording time is limited to something like 20 minutes, regardless of
how much space you have on the card. While this wouldn't be an issue for
most situations, I do record home improvement projects on occasion to speed
up later in post. I could potentially use the time lapse feature in the
FZ1000 instead, but sometimes I want to take clips from a longer video.
5. Even without the OIS noise, the sound quality was rather poor unless I
added on more external gear.
On the plus side, the FZ1000 did have great image quality, and 4K video
really gives me some flexibility when editing to 1080p. The image
stabilization was also noticeably better than my TM700, though I'm sure the
extra weight helped with that.
I gave the FZ1000 a try, but the format just didn't work well for me.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
> It should operate similarly, and should also have a menu
> selection for overall zoom rate (but I don't know if the
> FZ1000 has that, but it seems likely it would...).
> Maybe it's worth trying another FZ1000?
negatives for me.
1. Size - The FZ1000 is fairly large and heavy compared to my TM700. Not
ideal when hiking, or lugging the camera around for hours.
2. Poor zoom controls. It has a nice long zoom, but no smooth way to go
from full wide to full zoom.
3. Battery compartment is on the bottom. If the battery goes dead while I'm
out hiking, I would have to take the camera off the monopod to change
batteries. Dumb.
4. Recording time is limited to something like 20 minutes, regardless of
how much space you have on the card. While this wouldn't be an issue for
most situations, I do record home improvement projects on occasion to speed
up later in post. I could potentially use the time lapse feature in the
FZ1000 instead, but sometimes I want to take clips from a longer video.
5. Even without the OIS noise, the sound quality was rather poor unless I
added on more external gear.
On the plus side, the FZ1000 did have great image quality, and 4K video
really gives me some flexibility when editing to 1080p. The image
stabilization was also noticeably better than my TM700, though I'm sure the
extra weight helped with that.
I gave the FZ1000 a try, but the format just didn't work well for me.
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
Gene E. Bloch
Feb 14, 2015, 2:48:08 PM2/14/15
to
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:28:17 +0000 (UTC), HerHusband wrote:
> 4. Recording time is limited to something like 20 minutes, regardless of
> how much space you have on the card. While this wouldn't be an issue for
> most situations, I do record home improvement projects on occasion to speed
> up later in post. I could potentially use the time lapse feature in the
> FZ1000 instead, but sometimes I want to take clips from a longer video.
There is a limitation of 4GB (sometimes even only 2GB) maximum file size
> 4. Recording time is limited to something like 20 minutes, regardless of
> how much space you have on the card. While this wouldn't be an issue for
> most situations, I do record home improvement projects on occasion to speed
> up later in post. I could potentially use the time lapse feature in the
> FZ1000 instead, but sometimes I want to take clips from a longer video.
in FAT32 file systems.
Of course, it is possible to write recording software so that when that
limit is reached, a new file is started seamlessly. Not very many
devices do that, however.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Smarty
Feb 14, 2015, 3:12:42 PM2/14/15
to
limited to 29 minutes and 59 seconds, to allow the camera to be sold
without the additional tax applied to video cameras, The FZ 1000 and most
other still cameras share this limitation.
Gene E. Bloch
Feb 14, 2015, 3:24:44 PM2/14/15
to
Is the limit applied to all cameras regardless of where they are sold?
Smarty
Feb 14, 2015, 3:38:05 PM2/14/15
to
Gene E. Bloch
Feb 14, 2015, 5:05:32 PM2/14/15
to
DPReview is generally pretty helpful, IMO :-)
Gene E. Bloch
Feb 14, 2015, 5:53:55 PM2/14/15
to
the thread.
1. "Published May 18, 2012"
2. "Getting changes made at WTO can be a slow and highly politicized
process..."
I see a connection here :-)
David Ruether
Feb 15, 2015, 12:35:57 AM2/15/15
to
"David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
mbl30m$uvr$1...@dont-email.me:
> "HerHusband" <unk...@unknown.com> wrote in message news:
> XnsA43FA3176B...@213.239.209.88:
> > DR wrote:
> > My subject matter rarely moves very fast, so 30p is fine with me. :)
> > BluRay doesn't support 60p in the specs anyway.
> It doesn't support it, but we have been able to write
> 1920x1080-60p 28Mbps AVCHD video to both DVD and Blu-ray
> disks - but a recent compatible player is needed to
> play these. We bought a Sony 3200 player for $50 that
> can play these disks, and, WOW!!!;-) The latest version
> of CyberLink PowerDirector (13) can write these from
> MP4 files (but I prefer Vegas for making the original
> MP4 files...!). The player will also play files from
> SD cards and USB thumb drives, but I keep forgetting
> to try playing 1920x1080-60p 100Mbps and 200Mbps video
> files on these to see if that also works.
More: the Sony 3200 doesn't have an SD slot, and tonight
> XnsA43FA3176B...@213.239.209.88:
> > DR wrote:
> > My subject matter rarely moves very fast, so 30p is fine with me. :)
> > BluRay doesn't support 60p in the specs anyway.
> It doesn't support it, but we have been able to write
> 1920x1080-60p 28Mbps AVCHD video to both DVD and Blu-ray
> disks - but a recent compatible player is needed to
> play these. We bought a Sony 3200 player for $50 that
> can play these disks, and, WOW!!!;-) The latest version
> of CyberLink PowerDirector (13) can write these from
> MP4 files (but I prefer Vegas for making the original
> MP4 files...!). The player will also play files from
> SD cards and USB thumb drives, but I keep forgetting
> to try playing 1920x1080-60p 100Mbps and 200Mbps video
> files on these to see if that also works.
I tried a USB thumb-drive connected to the Sony player
with 1080-60p 50Mbps and 1080-60p 200Mbps MP4 videos
on it. It played the 50Mbps video fairly well, but had
problems playing the 200Mbps video. Likely 40Mbps would
work well enough, but I think I will stick with 1920x1080
60p 28Mbps AVCHD for both disks (DVDs and Blu-rays) and
USB playback, since that plays reliably and looks very
good...
--DR
Smarty
Feb 17, 2015, 5:24:17 PM2/17/15
to
imposed for non-technical reasons. Most of us would probably pay the
extra few percent tax premium if we could record without this arbitrary
limit. I will admit, however, that my own style of videography NEVER
creates 30+ minute clips, even if a grandchild's recital or school play
or other event is being captured. There are few if any good reasons for
a capture which needs to be this long IMHO, although I certainly can
imagine surveillance or other applications where such long captures are
useful.
paul.l...@gmail.com
Feb 7, 2016, 6:06:00 PM2/7/16
to
Do you still own that FZ1000? And do you also have a lanc controller? If so, could you tell me if you could use that lanc controller to remote control the zoom whilst filming?
Kind regards, Paul.
Kind regards, Paul.
HerHusband
Feb 8, 2016, 12:24:29 AM2/8/16
to
Hi Paul,
> Do you still own that FZ1000? And do you also have a lanc controller?
> If so, could you tell me if you could use that lanc controller to
> remote control the zoom whilst filming?
Nope, sorry. I sold the FZ1000 and bought a Panasonic HC-VX870 camcorder.
Much happier with it.
Take care,
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
> Do you still own that FZ1000? And do you also have a lanc controller?
> If so, could you tell me if you could use that lanc controller to
> remote control the zoom whilst filming?
Much happier with it.
Take care,
Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
Smarty
Feb 14, 2016, 1:46:49 AM2/14/16
to
done manually by the user. Obviously no remote control.
0 new messages