FZ1000 or Oly E-M5 w/14-150?

Biro

Hall of Famer
Location
Jersey Shore
Real Name
Steve
The search continues for a reasonably light and compact kit for shooting wildlife. Right now, this is an idle discussion for me but I'd like to hear some opinions.

Would you go for the Panasonic FZ1000 or opt for the Zuiko 14-150 zoom lens for an existing Olympus E-M5? The Panasonic has a smaller, one-inch sensor. Its focal range is 25-400mm equivalent. Its maximum aperture is f/2.8-4.0. The Olympus has a larger, four-thirds sensor. Its focal range is 28-300mm equivalent. Its maximum aperture is f/4.0-5.6.

Any thoughts?
 
Location
Milwaukee, WI USA
Real Name
Luke
I would guess that the 1 stop loss in light gathering in the m43 set-up would be made up for by the bigger sensor's better high ISO performance. So really a horse apiece that way. I enjoy a good viewfinder....especially when using longer focal lengths. In the viewfinder contest, the E-M5 handily beats the superzoom.

I would also suggest that 300 or 400mm sometimes just isn't enough for wildlife. When my intent is to shoot wildlife, I usually go out with my 75-300. Do you already have the longer tele lengths covered?
 

demiro

Serious Compacts For Life
I really liked the 14-150mkII on an E-M5. If just shooting wildlife I'd definitely choose that over the FZ1000, which I owned previously. But if you can use more of what the FZ1000 offers then it starts to tilt a bit.
 
Location
Milwaukee, WI USA
Real Name
Luke
Dean, when you say "if you can use more of what the FZ1000 offers then it starts to tilt a bit", what are you referring to? What is the selling point of the FZ1000 over the E-M5 w/ 14-150? And I'm throwing out "slightly more compact" (If that's even applicable) and "no urge to buy other lenses".
 

Biro

Hall of Famer
Location
Jersey Shore
Real Name
Steve
I would also suggest that 300 or 400mm sometimes just isn't enough for wildlife. When my intent is to shoot wildlife, I usually go out with my 75-300. Do you already have the longer tele lengths covered?

This is an excellent point. And it also reminds me that I may have a Panasonic 100-300 telephoto zoom at my disposal. That would be a 600mm eqivalent at f/5.6 at the long end before cropping. That could be the solution right there. No WR, of course, but there's no WR with the FZ1000 either. And there are ways around that.
 

demiro

Serious Compacts For Life
Dean, when you say "if you can use more of what the FZ1000 offers then it starts to tilt a bit", what are you referring to? What is the selling point of the FZ1000 over the E-M5 w/ 14-150? And I'm throwing out "slightly more compact" (If that's even applicable) and "no urge to buy other lenses".

Video and 4K photo mostly. Or if you have a need for another body to avoid swapping lenses.
 
Location
Boston Burbs
Real Name
David
I went through this earlier this year. After settling on an LX100 for my always with me camera I considered selling off my m4/3 for an FZ1000/FZ300. But after thinking about it I stayed with m4/3. The reason? Options and wide, mainly the wide. I couldn't find any real options for going wider than the 25mm on the zooms. With m4/3 there are plenty of options.
 

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Location
Troy, NY
I've thought about the light, portable camera for wildlife photography a lot. I've even tried an Olympus OMD with the 75-300; it just wasn't fast enough for me. The FZ1000 isn't long enough for me either, so I never tried it, but I understand that the IQ is pretty good.

So I keep coming back to either the FZ200 (which I have and use) or the FZ300, which has the same lens and some weather proofing. Both cameras offer f/2.8 throughout the range of 25-600mm (e) and well beyond with digital zoom engaged. I'm satisfied with the IQ that I get.

Canon makes the P900, which has enormous reach, with even more with digital zoom engaged, but it is a much larger and heavier camera.

Cheers, Jock
 
Location
Milwaukee, WI USA
Real Name
Luke
What's the new Canon with the big-ass zoom with no viewfinder? I'm broke, but interested. But I also don't want to buy a full price new camera and then need to add another $250 (or whatever) for the add-on viewfinder. I demand a VF for shooting tele....period
 

demiro

Serious Compacts For Life
...

So I keep coming back to either the FZ200 (which I have and use) or the FZ300, which has the same lens and some weather proofing. Both cameras offer f/2.8 throughout the range of 25-600mm (e) and well beyond with digital zoom engaged. I'm satisfied with the IQ that I get.

Canon makes the P900, which has enormous reach, with even more with digital zoom engaged, but it is a much larger and heavier camera.

Cheers, Jock

Seems like a semi-consensus exists that says a cropped image from the FZ1000 will at least be equal to FZ200 or 300 at full zoom.

The P900 is from Nikon, but same I difference I suppose.
 

demiro

Serious Compacts For Life
What's the new Canon with the big-ass zoom with no viewfinder? I'm broke, but interested. But I also don't want to buy a full price new camera and then need to add another $250 (or whatever) for the add-on viewfinder. I demand a VF for shooting tele....period

G3X. A little tempting to me, but they need to be smarter to get my cash for a camera like that. 600mm needs a VF. I'm done with add-ons.
 

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Location
Troy, NY
Seems like a semi-consensus exists that says a cropped image from the FZ1000 will at least be equal to FZ200 or 300 at full zoom.

Actually, no. Check out this post on Figure of Merit: https://www.photographerslounge.org/threads/30576/

Here's the gist of it:

In trying figure out whether the FZ1000 would offer more reach than the FZ200 for wildlife photography, I stumbled across this thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53848081 which provides a mathematical way of factoring in equivalent focal length and megapixels to compare the "reach" that cameras could have.

The calculation is explained here http://www.digicamhistory.com/Figure of Merit.html but basically it is equivalent focal length squared multiplied by the number of megapixels.

So, for the Fz200, you get 600mm x 600mm x 12 megapixels = 4.320 million

I worked through the math for a variety of configurations, and (if I have the figures right) here are the results (the bigger the number, the better the reach):

FZ200 -- 4.320
FZ1000 -- 3.216
D3300 with 70-300 -- 4.860
Olympus M5 with 100-300 -- 5.760
Nikon D810 with 400mm tele -- 5.760

and the winnah and champeen of da woild:

Nikon 1 V3 with 70-300cx -- 14.580

Cheers, Jock

FZ200, LX100, DxO Optics Pro9
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Lexington, VA
Real Name
Steve
For wildlife shooting, I'd go with the FZ1000 for the lens if you are buying each kit from scratch. Of course, I already have an EM5 so I'd just buy one of the 100-300 zooms. I agree about the G3X. A camera with a zoom that long and no VF? If it has a tilt screen I guess you could shoot waist level.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom