I needed to shoot some samples for a specific style of shooting buildings. I had a request from a client who wanted to incorporate these kinds of images to their website. I also wanted to give the Panasonic bridge camera a "Jpeg" workout. I find that the Panasonic fz1000 shoots files that are a little flat and need to be sharpened a bit in Lightroom. But that's fine. It beats over sharpened files which can't be pulled back and the lower saturation also gives me a lot more options in post processing.
Many of the buildings here I've photographed many times. Some are brand new because the buildings are brand new. I used a circular polarizer for every shot. Mostly to make the sky look interesting; it was a flat sky day here in Austin today.
I walked through the Austin downtown for about an hour and a half. It was enough to get the shots I needed. I have lots of others I've already shot but it's always nice to add more. And it's nice to see what this camera, with its long reach, can do on subjects I've already shot with other cameras.
I'm very happy with the results from this $749 camera. Big fun.
One other observation: The battery lasts longer than the review I've read indicate it would.
8 comments:
The pix just don't seem as sharp as the ones you post from the Nikon or Olympus equipment. There may be a bit of moire also. Of course the fault could be in the computers at either end. How do the photos look on your studio computer? I was thinking of getting a Sony super-compact with a so-called one-inch sensor, but will put that purchase on hold for now.
Great shots. Is the corner vignetting intentional, the result of the CP or a lens issue? Not that it takes away from the images, just curious.
Hi Gary and Jon, Let me answer your questions in one go. To Jon: The vignetting is a result of the thickness of the circular polarizing filter only. I didn't notice it while shooting. I'll remove it in post before presenting the images to my client.
To Gary: When I zoom in on the images there is plenty of sharply defined detail. The processing is different from the processing in the Olympus cameras in that I'm not seeing as much of a sharply defined intersection at different tones. On a monitor, and when viewing at 100%, the images seem equally detailed but with fewer sharpening effects. (good or bad).
I remember this phenomenon happening a lot when we moved from 12 megapixel cameras to 22-24 megapixel cameras. They looked great at 100% but never looked as sharp when viewed small, as these are. The images I upload to the blog are about 2100 pixels at their longest.
If there is moire I think it must be a screen interference pattern with the monitor because I don't see it at 100% nor do I see it at the normal display size on the monitor. This is the scary part of sharing information via images on the web. Everyone's set up is different and the sizing to support both desktops and mobile devices is trickier.
After reading your comments I grabbed one of the images and made an 11x17 inch print just to see what the file looked like when printed. While there are differences in depth of field vis-a-vis a Nikon D810 with similar angles of view there isn't a vast and obvious difference in sharpness or resolution. Given that my comparison image was from a Sigma Art lens I actually expected to see more difference.
I think we collectively have a reticence to apply a lot of sharpening to what we perceive to be more "delicate" files from the smaller sensor cameras. Since the pixels are smaller there is always a trade off with noise. Increasing sharpness results, sometimes, in increasing the base noise levels which also reduces detail.
But in these cases, shot mostly at ISO 125 I'm not sure anything but the residual reticence comes into play.
My advice, when selecting cameras, is to take a memory card to the store, take the camera outside and shoot with it. Take the card home and see what you get in post processing.
My take is that the files are great. Especially from such a small sensor. My underlying belief, stated many times, is that it takes weeks of diligent use to become conversant with a camera and that includes not only knowing where the buttons are but also knowing how the files respond best to post processing.
All my post processing so far has been in Lightroom (just previous to the exuberantly damaged version) CC. I am sure that if I processed using DXO or Capture One I would get a much higher initial feeling of acuity in the photographs.
While these cameras yield good, sharp images it can be a bit ingenuous to compare the output with an ART lens on a 36 megapixel, full frame camera that doesn't use an AA filter......
My first reaction was similar to Gary's: all the shots seen as inline images on a 264 ppi iPad screen looked soft or lacking detail.
The same shots, after clicking through to the group, looked crisp and seemed to show plenty of detail when seen larger. The earlier graffiti wall series left me uncertain, as most of the subject matter is spray paint which has no defined edge.
I wonder if the building shots look as crisp as they do because of the very harsh lighting, with edge contrast enhanced by the polarizer?
I hope you have time to do more with this camera, in various conditions and locations. I'd love to find an affordable camera with one good zoom lens capable of producing a 12 X 18" print that meets or beats the output of micro 4/3rds.
"Lightroom (just previous to the exuberantly damaged version) CC"
LOL! Best description of that update I've seen.
The Lumix FZ1000 and Sony RX-10 probably use the same 1" sensor. I've been using an RX-10 for a few months and have been pleased with the results. Any problems I've encountered have been the result of the photographer and not the camera. As long as the user realizes they are not FF DSLRs, there shouldn't be any disappointment in the results.
I had narrowed my search for a small travel camera to these two and had to choose only one. Wish I could combine my favorite features from each and create the FZ-RX-1000-10.
DavidB
Michael, you are right. I didn't know you could click through to the group. The images look much sharper.
Post a Comment