 |
| B700 |
The first tipping point
In June 2014 Panasonic announced the FZ1000, an all-in-one, bridge style camera shaped like and operating like a medium sized DSLR.
The lens on this camera extends from (equivalent) 25mm at the wide end to 400mm at full zoom, an extremely versatile range.
I bought my first FZ1000 as soon as it became available in Australia and have since abandoned all my interchangeable lens camera (ILC) gear with no regrets.
The minor advantage I might or might not get from an ILC kit in some conditions is far outweighed by the convenience of the FZ1000.
If convenience was all the FZ1000 had to offer I would probably still be using an ILC.
But it also has very good specifications and features, very good picture quality, very good performance including the ability to follow focus on moving subjects and very good ergonomics.
For 50 years prior to the FZ1000 I had mainly used cameras with interchangeable lenses. I lugged large camera bags full of lenses around the countryside and gave myself chronic back pain.
So for me the ability to finally give up all my ILC gear was a major tipping point.
What features which I sometimes want does the FZ1000 lack ?
1. An ultrawide lens setting. In truth I rarely want this so the lack is no hardship. Interior architectural photographers will have a different set of requirements.
2. An ultra long lens capability. This I do want for birds, sport, action and animals either wild or in a zoo. In the good old days of 35mm film 400mm was regarded as an ultra telephoto focal length. But now we can get (equivalent) 2000mm in a consumer camera our expectations have changed.
For the present the most accessible route to ultra tele capability is via one of the small (7.6mm diagonal) sensor superzooms most of which are aimed at the travel/snapshooter crowd and thus have compromises to picture quality and lens quality.
3. Excellent picture quality in low light. This is a moderate limitation of the FZ1000 but I have found that with thoughtful technique at the point of capture and careful processing in adobe Camera Raw, results can be obtained which are easily good enough for family photos.
 |
| B700 |
The second tipping point ?
Please allow me to digress a little here.
I have the benefit of being able to examine hundreds of negatives and transparencies in sizes from 4x5 inch through various medium formats to 35mm (24x36mm actual size). I am able to compare these with photos made in recent years with digital cameras.
My personal equivalence rating is:
Current “full frame” (24 x 36mm) sensors give results equivalent to 4 x5 inch film.
Micro Four Thirds and the better “One inch” sensor cameras give results equivalent to medium format film.
The better models using the so-called 1/2.3 inch sensor (actually 4.55 x 6.17mm) can produce picture quality equivalent to 35mm film.
Readers who disbelieve this might care to view my gallery (my DPR user name is axlotl) on Digital Photography review where you can view full sized JPGs. All my gallery pictures were made with one of these small sensor cameras.
Now here is the thing:
For many years 35mm film was the standard imaging medium. It was good enough for just about everybody and for just about any purpose. It was universal and ubiquitous.
Some of my personal favourite photos were made almost 50 years ago on ASA 400 black and white film (Kodak Tri-X, for those interested). Some of these have been placed in a State Library.
Nobody questions the technical quality of the prints.
 |
| B700 |
Fast forward to 2017 and we now find a curious situation.
The strong impression I have from user forums and photography websites is that cameras using the [1/2.3 inch] sensor are generally regarded as snapshooter’s toys, not for serious consideration by enthusiast and expert photographers.
This idea is of course reinforced by manufacturers and vendors who make more profit from the more expensive cameras which they would prefer you to buy.
In line with this marketing consideration we find that many cameras with the [1/2.3 inch] sensor are deliberately underspecified, to the point, I would say, of being crippled.
Many of these models have a seriously crappy lens with vast zoom range but very poor quality control. Many lack RAW capture and most are grievously short of features, with mediocre picture quality, poor performance and poor ergonomics.
It does not need to be this way.
With the best available sensor, a full set of specifications and features, very fast performance, good ergonomics and a better quality lens than can be found on any current camera with the [1/2.3 inch] sensor, I think the second tipping point could be reached.
At the second tipping point the only camera I would ever need has a [1/2.3 inch] sensor, a 60x zoom ranging from wide to very long, very good picture quality, abundant features, excellent performance and ergonomics.
The lens would be of excellent quality with an aperture wide enough for indoor use and a zoom range sufficient for just about anything.
The model which perhaps comes closest to this at the moment is the Panasonic FZ300 but that camera’s lens is really too short for birds and wildlife and it uses an old, outdated sensor.
I am currently using a Nikon B700 which has a much greater zoom range, decent lens quality and good picture quality but limited (some might say crippled) features, performance and ergonomics.
I have recently been testing a pair of Panasonic FZ70s.
Each of these has an unusably bad lens. One is severely decentered and soft at the wide end, the other is hopelessly unsharp at the long end.
The soon-to-be-released FZ80 uses the same lens so prospects for that camera are not encouraging.
So the second tipping point has not yet arrived for me.
But…..maybe….someday….soonish…?