Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: FZ1000 Review question  (Read 1818 times)
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 499


WWW
« on: July 05, 2014, 04:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Given that the FZ1000 seems to have quite a powerful processing engine on-board, it seems to me that rapid AF performance and high shutter FPS won't be far behind in that class of camera. Or maybe it's already pretty good, those aspects weren't mentioned in the review. When that happens, especially with this fast a lens, the resulting digicam could satisfy the needs of a lot of amateur sports shooters. The Nikon 1 series is probably there already for many people.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2014, 12:36:35 AM »
ReplyReply

What puts me off this camera is its performance at 400 mm. It's pretty soft, according to Michael. A major part of the attraction of such a camera is to be able to get a 400 mm reach in a relatively light-weight package (and a relatively large sensor for a P&S). However, if the quality of the image at that long reach disappoints, then I lose interest.

The same applies to the new Tamron 150-600 mm which gives an effective 900 mm reach on a DX, or cropped format camera. Wow! Fantastic! I'll order one straight away.

Wait! At 600 mm it's really soft. Oh! No! What's the point?  Sad
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 608


« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2014, 08:56:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I've used a Tamron 150-600 mm and I didn't find it "really soft" at 600mm certainly usable that was my experience.

Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2014, 09:16:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I've used a Tamron 150-600 mm and I didn't find it "really soft" at 600mm certainly usable that was my experience.


We can debate what I meant by the term 'really soft'. My intended meaning was more like, 'in reality' soft, or 'actually' soft, rather than 'very' or 'particularly' or 'unusably' soft.

Most reviews on the internet mention there is a fall-off in sharpness at 600mm, but tend not to dwell upon it.
Only one review I've come across shows a 100% crop of a scene taken at 500mm, interpolated and compared with a 600mm shot of the same scene from the same position, using the same copy of lens. Both shots appear to show the same amount of detail to me.

However, the reviewer didn't compare an interpolated 400mm shot, with either a 500mm shot or 600mm shot. One presumes there would be at least a marginal improvement in captured detail at 500mm or 600mm, compared with 400mm, but how significant that would be, especially when compared with a 400mm shot from the updated Nikkor AF-S 80-400 VR, which is the lens that I use, is an unanswered question.

I get the impression from most of the reviews that there is an underlying assumption that this Tamron lens at 500mm or 600mm must be better (sharper and more detailed) than the nearest equivalent zooms from Canon and Nikon, such as the EF-S 100-400, and AF-S 80-400, but no-one takes the trouble to make a direct comparison, interpolating the 400mm shots. It's a bit like assuming that because a camera has an unprecedentedly high ISO setting, the noise must be lower than in other cameras without the same high-ISO setting.

For Newbies who don't already own a good copy of a Canon 100-400 or Nikon 80-400, and who also shoot jpeg and rely upon in-camera processing, the issue is different. Cropping and interpolating a 400mm shot takes time and skill. The Tamron doesn't have to be 'better' at any particular focal length because the price is already better, or at least better than the price of the Nikkor AF-S 80-400. That may be a sufficient reason to buy the lens.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 608


« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2014, 02:58:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Tamron have always been a more appealing choice for "value" I have to say in general the lenses I've used from them have mostly been very good (at least on the optical level)
I've no real complaints with the lenses I've used or bought.

It's not really a lens most people will buy, but quite good for the money and worth of attention. Having tried one I can't really say the DxO review does the lens justice, but I've found out the hard way that one review is never a good idea basing a choice just on that.

On the Pannie it will be interesting to see how it stacks up when more samples turn up
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad