Are these cameras worth it?

[Zaner]

Hello everyone,
I have an interest in the new Panasonic Lumix FZ1000K 4K, and the Sony Cybershot RX10. They both seem to be quite amazing cameras, but they simply lack a high zoom. There is no valid reason, as I can see for the lack of mega-zoom. Just none, other than for the fact that they just wanted more greed, in my opinion. They (I suppose) just want to make sure that they can go on selling DSLR cameras and lenses, and not to have these cameras (which are DSLR quality or better) topple their efforts to make money off of DSLR cameras and their many other high priced goods. Is that all it is, what does everyone else think?

Which of the above would you get? Or, which bridge camera would you get? Any out their that are also DSLR quality?
Thank you,
Zane.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hello everyone,
I have an interest in the new Panasonic Lumix FZ1000K 4K, and the Sony Cybershot RX10. They both seem to be quite amazing cameras, but they simply lack a high zoom. There is no valid reason, as I can see for the lack of mega-zoom. Just none, other than for the fact that they just wanted more greed, in my opinion. They (I suppose) just want to make sure that they can go on selling DSLR cameras and lenses, and not to have these cameras (which are DSLR quality or better) topple their efforts to make money off of DSLR cameras and their many other high priced goods. Is that all it is, what does everyone else think?

Which of the above would you get? Or, which bridge camera would you get? Any out their that are also DSLR quality?
Thank you,
Zane.

Zane, they can put as high a zoom as they want on a bridge camera, not a one of them made will hold a candle to the cheapest DSLR I owned for image quality or for shooting in low light. It's a matter of the size of the sensor inside the camera. The sensors inside a bridge camera are very small compared to a DSLR - the result is they don't do well in low light and they don't produce images that are anywhere near as large or as good in quality as a true DSLR.

It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to sell more cameras of one type or another, it's just a matter of physics.

 

[ronlane]

Panasonic and Sony make camera? It's probably just a plot against you, solely to force you to spend Thousands of dollars on over priced lenses to zoom in where you want to be.


Now, on a serious note. What Robbins said.

 

[lambertpix]

Hello everyone,
I have an interest in the new Panasonic Lumix FZ1000K 4K, and the Sony Cybershot RX10. They both seem to be quite amazing cameras, but they simply lack a high zoom. There is no valid reason, as I can see for the lack of mega-zoom. Just none, other than for the fact that they just wanted more greed, in my opinion. They (I suppose) just want to make sure that they can go on selling DSLR cameras and lenses, and not to have these cameras (which are DSLR quality or better) topple their efforts to make money off of DSLR cameras and their many other high priced goods. Is that all it is, what does everyone else think?

Which of the above would you get? Or, which bridge camera would you get? Any out their that are also DSLR quality?
Thank you,
Zane.

These two cameras actually do have a larger sensor than your typical "superzoom" bridge camera. This DPReview preview has a comparison chart showing the sensor size on these cameras (1") vs. the more common 1/2.3" size on a lot of the lower-end cameras. Robbins is correct that they don't match the sensor size of a DSLR, but they're better than the average bridge camera.

 

[photospher]

Almost all bridge cameras with mega-zooms are useless, i am serious. You never manage to get a high quality image at longer focals, even in good light. In low light they get even worse, you are lucky if you can focus on anything moving. Surely there are some exceptions, but mostly their focal range is limited on the tele side, and that is for a reason.

RX-10 and FZ1000 are two of these exceptions. They both have 1" sensor which are considerably larger than typical compact camera sensors. RX-10 excels with a constant f2.8 fast lens and FZ1000 with 400mm reach.
If you want the extra reach, go for the Panasonic, if you want a fast lens all thorugh the range, get the Sony.
Here is a comparison of two: Sony RX-10 vs Panasonic FZ1000K

 

[Dao]

I bought a Sony RX100 III back in June to replace the Canon G11 that my wife use. I believe it use the same sensor as the RX-10 since both are 1 inch 20Mpx sensor from Sony. I can tell you I was amazed with the RX100 III image quality. I took a photo (head shot) of my wife inside the mall food court (no sun light, just regular mall lighting and no flash) while she sat on the other side of the table. The photo was quite sharp that I can even see her facial hairs from the photo.

So as far as the sensor goes, the Sony 1 inch sensor point and shoot camera is amazing. ( Of course I think the optics of the RX100 III is also quite good)

 

[Ido]

Clearly, you need to go back to learning the fundamentals, as it seems like you skipped that.

There are only very, very few lenses for interchangeable-lens cameras that have as high a zoom range as these two cameras' lenses, while maintaining their reported high quality. Look at Canon's EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. They both have a zoom ratio of 10.7x, losing to the FZ1000 at both wide and tight ends of the range in 35mm frame equivalence. It probably sounds like a foreign language to you at the moment.

The whole idea of interchangeable-lens cameras, like DSLRs, is that they have interchangeable lenses. You need not be restricted to just one single lens, unlike a fixed-lens camera, so you can have different lenses that cover different focal lengths. They need not even be zoom lenses. Oh, by the way, Panasonic doesn't have any DSLR camera anymore, neither does Sony, though the latter company has some sort of an evolution of that technology. The former has gone completely, 100% mirrorless.

You've probably seen those superzoom cameras with a 50x zoom ratio. That's insane. They achieve that by using a teeny tiny sensor, which in turn allows for very small lenses. The companies use that to make lenses with a huge zoom ratio, at the same size as lenses with a smaller zoom ratio for bigger sensor formats.

The FZ1000 and RX10 have bigger-than-average sensors. I can't say "in that class" because, really, they're in a class of their own. The bigger sensor has many, many advantages -- I won't get into that now -- but it means the lens has to be physically bigger. So a shorter zoom ratio is used - both of them cover the range that most photographers need. Anything beyond those two cameras' zoom range is considered "specialty", as it's really only needed by a smaller group of photographers.

Consumers get attracted to big numbers, and sometimes believe they need that "specialty" range, which may not even seem like anything out of the ordinary - I mean, you get that for less than $400, and in a pocketable package. But those who evolve into self-educated photographers, learn that they don't need that at all, or learn why they must sacrifice some of it towards something that's perhaps more valuable to their photographic needs.

And it's bloody expensive.

 

[Zaner]

Hello everyone,
Here’s what I meant: First, I will say that I am an armature photographer, but one does not need to know a lot about a thing in order to know a lot about how other things work in the world in conjunction with things, such as photography. Here is what I mean; first, I do believe strongly that bridge cameras can, and eventually will take the place of DSLR, and actually, I believe we will eventually move on to hand-held cameras, such as phones, to replace those bridge cameras. The reasons are obvious, it is a natural part of our evolution and technology combined (which will always co-exist). The reasons behind it are obvious too, first, on the technology end, all that is needed to do is to put a premium glass on the camera (or 2 for 3d) and other premium parts too, and smooth out all the bugs, and there you have it. Now, that is obviously the short explanation of the technology part of things. On the other end, we will need to, because we will need (in my opinion) to become minimalist to survive, because there is far too much waste, prolusion, and landfills, and so forth in this world. I think that we will find, that if we dedicate ourselves to becoming minimalist, then so much of our lives will not only become better, but that we will all be healthier, the planet will become much more stable (in every positive possible way), and will live longer. Certainly, we will, as a direct-result not need so many camera lenses, and so many other things. This is not some far-fetched hair-brain, or un-realistic, or unobtainable idea either. These things are within our current grasp, all that is needed is for us to take them, easily actually. So, that is why earlier I had a level of disappointment in the tone of my post here, which is due to the frustration of shoveling out tons of money for cameras and things, while at the same time knowing-full-well that these manufactures can do a lot better, because they know too. That is why I say, that their only goal must be for greed. What else can it be?
I don’t even think that we need to miss out on any lenses (or other things, for that matter), since there are real ways around that too. So, it isn’t laughable the things that I have said before, nor are they now.
Naturally, these are just my opinions, what does everyone else believe?

 

[robbins.photo]

There is a world of difference between a DSLR and a bridge camera, just as there is a world of difference between a bridge camera and a cell phone camera. Sorry, but I've seen this argument put forth far to many times to bother trying to debunk it yet again. No, bridge cameras will not replace the DSLR. Not a snowballs chance in hades, just as anyone who's ever shot both and can appreciate the differences between them will tell you.

I suggest you do a lot more additional research and really understand the fundamental differences between them before you make statements like this one. Bottom line is if you are happy with a bridge camera and want to use one and it suits your needs great. By all means buy one and use it. But don't try to justify your choice of a bridge camera by making statements like the one you did above, because your statement just isn't true. Do some research into lens design, sensors, etc - and you'll start to understand why.

Until then I will wish you well, and hope that whatever you do finally choose as a camera suits your needs.

 

[CameraClicker]

Hello everyone,
Here’s what I meant: First, I will say that I am an armature photographer, but one does not need to know a lot about a thing in order to know a lot about how other things work in the world in conjunction with things, such as photography. Here is what I mean; first, I do believe strongly that bridge cameras can, and eventually will take the place of DSLR, and actually, I believe we will eventually move on to hand-held cameras, such as phones, to replace those bridge cameras. The reasons are obvious, it is a natural part of our evolution and technology combined (which will always co-exist). The reasons behind it are obvious too, first, on the technology end, all that is needed to do is to put a premium glass on the camera (or 2 for 3d) and other premium parts too, and smooth out all the bugs, and there you have it. Now, that is obviously the short explanation of the technology part of things. On the other end, we will need to, because we will need (in my opinion) to become minimalist to survive, because there is far too much waste, prolusion, and landfills, and so forth in this world. I think that we will find, that if we dedicate ourselves to becoming minimalist, then so much of our lives will not only become better, but that we will all be healthier, the planet will become much more stable (in every positive possible way), and will live longer. Certainly, we will, as a direct-result not need so many camera lenses, and so many other things. This is not some far-fetched hair-brain, or un-realistic, or unobtainable idea either. These things are within our current grasp, all that is needed is for us to take them, easily actually. So, that is why earlier I had a level of disappointment in the tone of my post here, which is due to the frustration of shoveling out tons of money for cameras and things, while at the same time knowing-full-well that these manufactures can do a lot better, because they know too. That is why I say, that their only goal must be for greed. What else can it be?
I don’t even think that we need to miss out on any lenses (or other things, for that matter), since there are real ways around that too. So, it isn’t laughable the things that I have said before, nor are they now.
Naturally, these are just my opinions, what does everyone else believe?

[h=1]“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”[/h]
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22


I may be crazy, but in school we were told that the Great Lakes Basin exists because ice a couple of miles deep sat on top of it during the ice age, and when the ice melted, it provided the water in the lakes. More recently there has been a lot of news about oil in the Arctic, and dinosaur bones found north west of the oil sands around Fort McMurray. Fort McMurray is not a neighbourhood where you find a lot of large reptiles, because it is not a warm place most summers and winter is fairly brutal. The only conclusions I can draw are that global warming has been happening for quite a while, long before the Industrial Revolution, and it is going to continue unless we find a way to reflect more sunlight back into space. I doubt business' requirement that we consume ever increasing quantities of goods and services is helping, but we seem to have even bigger long term problems. Becoming minimalist will not solve the problem because global warming was going on before mammals were dominant.

As far as sensor size and camera lenses go, until someone discovers a way to alter physics, size will matter, for some things. Larger camera sensors and lenses perform better than small ones. Software and processors are improving, but both can be applied to any size of sensor, so larger sensors continue to out perform smaller ones.

 

[Ido]

It still doesn't change the fact that big sensor + wide aperture + good sharpness + "huge" zoom = HUGE, HUGE equipment, and VERY EXPENSIVE! No sane person with ordinary paychecks will ever buy such thing. Probably very strong people who can handhold such combination, and/or awfully wealthy photographers, won't buy such thing either.

Big sensor is obviously relative. But any photographer in the target audience for the FZ1000 and RX10 needs a sensor in that size at the very least, for their needs. Same applies for the lens's maximum aperture, and its optical quality. 200mm and 400mm are all that those photographers probably need at the long end, so there's no need to pack more zoom in there, which is basically just marketing talk, as photographers who need longer reach also most likely need good low light performance and exceptional autofocus performance to go along with it.

 

[Vince.1551]

To be a minimalist, start by ditching the use of computers or mobiles.

Second, Corporate greed drives the economy which deliver jobs to people who don't farm to survive and redistributes income.

Third, Choice is important in consumerism.

Fourth, The Invisible Hand is at work - Adam Smith

Fifth Technological advancement relies on what investors are funding. The Ebola vaccine could have been developed decades ago if it were funded.

So ... Technology will develop largely in the direction of basic economic incentives and not based on ideology. If you look back at the inventions in the last century, most if not all, resulted in significant economic and financial benefits...

Conclusion ... Yes, it's worth it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bribrius]

Hello everyone,
Here’s what I meant: First, I will say that I am an armature photographer, but one does not need to know a lot about a thing in order to know a lot about how other things work in the world in conjunction with things, such as photography. Here is what I mean; first, I do believe strongly that bridge cameras can, and eventually will take the place of DSLR, and actually, I believe we will eventually move on to hand-held cameras, such as phones, to replace those bridge cameras. The reasons are obvious, it is a natural part of our evolution and technology combined (which will always co-exist). The reasons behind it are obvious too, first, on the technology end, all that is needed to do is to put a premium glass on the camera (or 2 for 3d) and other premium parts too, and smooth out all the bugs, and there you have it. Now, that is obviously the short explanation of the technology part of things. On the other end, we will need to, because we will need (in my opinion) to become minimalist to survive, because there is far too much waste, prolusion, and landfills, and so forth in this world. I think that we will find, that if we dedicate ourselves to becoming minimalist, then so much of our lives will not only become better, but that we will all be healthier, the planet will become much more stable (in every positive possible way), and will live longer. Certainly, we will, as a direct-result not need so many camera lenses, and so many other things. This is not some far-fetched hair-brain, or un-realistic, or unobtainable idea either. These things are within our current grasp, all that is needed is for us to take them, easily actually. So, that is why earlier I had a level of disappointment in the tone of my post here, which is due to the frustration of shoveling out tons of money for cameras and things, while at the same time knowing-full-well that these manufactures can do a lot better, because they know too. That is why I say, that their only goal must be for greed. What else can it be?
I don’t even think that we need to miss out on any lenses (or other things, for that matter), since there are real ways around that too. So, it isn’t laughable the things that I have said before, nor are they now.
Naturally, these are just my opinions, what does everyone else believe?

hmm.
First you would have to accept that we as humans are aliens. Every other organism on earth lives within its habitat except humans which changes the habitat. We are not of this earth. Then you would have to accept that being not of this earth we will of course never assimilate into our environment. Then you would have to accept that near complete annihilation of the habitat and various species is inevitable. As this is more of a one way ticket. Of course we of current times will most likely be dead by then so no bother (we shall hardly see from the grave). One could ponder a future through our imaginary crystal ball of the future destruction. A survivor of human species perhaps finding a photo amongst the ruins. Perhaps they will place it next to their cave painting and fables will be told about from whence it might have come. Perhaps they will trade it for a tool and use the tool to carve a wheel and the cycle will begin again. Whatever is imagined, I hardly doubt they will be minimalist either except by forced circumstance. Nor do I consider it fathomable they wonder what type of camera the photo originated. However as they may have more than one tool in which they move forward toward progress (or regress). So may you.