High-end bridge cameras: Sony RX10, Panasonic FZ1000 etc

Kaidonni said:
I've been entertaining the notion of the Sony RX10 III (and the IV, although it's quite a bit more expensive), and would like to ask how people find the handling of these cameras. I'm after a point and shoot where I don't have to change lenses, with decent reach (480mm or greater), but also something bigger than 1/2.3", which narrows it down to either the Panasonic FZ2000, or the Sony RX10 series. However, they are all heavier and bulkier than the smaller cameras as well.
Click to expand...
I like the handling - it's fairly hefty but sits nice in the hand. Many criticise the menus but I've never had an issue - all the stuff you need for day to day use is easy to find :)
 
ajophotog said:
I have the FZ2000 and it is a very nice and easy to use camera. Everything seems to fall nicely to hand when using it and the menus are a lot better than the Sony. Once you get use to the sony I think it is slightly the better camera of the two but in your hands you might find the panasonic better. I don't think you would be dissapointed in either tbh as they are both superb bridge cameras. I am looking forward to getting my hands back on the Sony as I have missed it.
Click to expand...

dibbly dobbler said:
I like the handling - it's fairly hefty but sits nice in the hand. Many criticise the menus but I've never had an issue - all the stuff you need for day to day use is easy to find :)
Click to expand...
I am a little concerned about the weight - the only camera I've used recently is a Sony SX720HS, which is quite a bit lighter. It's not the same thing, I know, but I tried holding up a 1kg bag of sugar, and wondered how I might be carrying a camera of a similar weight. I'd be using it on holiday, mostly for landscapes, but also for opportunistic wildlife shots that would require zoom (such as a heron standing in front of the Rhinefalls, which was too good an opportunity to pass up).
 
Kaidonni said:
I am a little concerned about the weight - the only camera I've used recently is a Sony SX720HS, which is quite a bit lighter. It's not the same thing, I know, but I tried holding up a 1kg bag of sugar, and wondered how I might be carrying a camera of a similar weight. I'd be using it on holiday, mostly for landscapes, but also for opportunistic wildlife shots that would require zoom (such as a heron standing in front of the Rhinefalls, which was too good an opportunity to pass up).
Click to expand...
I can only speak for my personal experience but I find the weight fine - I generally put it over my shoulder every time I go out for a walk and I barely know it's there :)
 
Kaidonni said:
I am a little concerned about the weight - the only camera I've used recently is a Sony SX720HS, which is quite a bit lighter. It's not the same thing, I know, but I tried holding up a 1kg bag of sugar, and wondered how I might be carrying a camera of a similar weight. I'd be using it on holiday, mostly for landscapes, but also for opportunistic wildlife shots that would require zoom (such as a heron standing in front of the Rhinefalls, which was too good an opportunity to pass up).
Click to expand...
They are a bit weighty but you could look at the smaller 1” sensor cameras like the panasonic tz100, tz200 or one of the Sony rx100 models.
 
Those Dunlin look very striking this time of year Mike, the inflight photo in your previous post is superb.(y)
 
Last edited:
dibbly dobbler said:
I can only speak for my personal experience but I find the weight fine - I generally put it over my shoulder every time I go out for a walk and I barely know it's there :)
Click to expand...

ajophotog said:
They are a bit weighty but you could look at the smaller 1” sensor cameras like the panasonic tz100, tz200 or one of the Sony rx100 models.
Click to expand...

I've got the opportunity to visit a camera shop to try an RX10 IV in person, so I can get a feel for it. They don't have the FZ2000 in-store, but that's almost 200g lighter, so the RX10 IV should still give me an idea what that would be like.

Unfortunately, the other 1" cameras outside of the RX10's or FZ2000 don't offer the zoom reach I'd like to maintain. Ideally, I don't want to go below 480mm as the maximum.
 
Shot with fz2000 + LT-55 fully extended (816mm in 35mm terms) at iso 1600 handheld through a window on a dank day. I didn't think it was too bad all things considered.
I'm looking forward to trying out the LT-55 on the RX10 when it arrives.

Woody by Ajophotog, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
ajophotog said:
Shot with fz2000 + LT-55 fully extended (816mm in 35mm terms) at iso 1600 handheld through a window on a dank day. I didn't think it was too bad all things considered.
I'm looking forward to trying out the LT-55 on the RX10 when it arrives.

Woody by Ajophotog, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I'll be interested to see how the LT55 wotks out with the RX10 Alby! That pic has come out well given the circumstances :)
 
ajophotog said:
With clear image 2x and the 1.7 it will be capable of 2040mm, I bet that will be unusable but without clear image 1020mm might be a goer Mike.
Click to expand...
Hmm. A 55mm convertor on a 72mm lens seems a good recipe for vignetting.
 
Snapsh0t said:
Hmm. A 55mm convertor on a 72mm lens seems a good recipe for vignetting.
Click to expand...
Yes it vignettes on the fz2000 at the wide end but disappears from 140mm and I wouldn't put in on to use it for wider end of the lens. Why would you?
 
dibbly dobbler said:
That's come out remarkably well I think Alby (given the high-ish ISO and tele adapter) - it looks a lot sharper in Flickr than it does on TP
Click to expand...
Yes I thought so too Mike, the conditions weren't ideal either so looking forward to trying some more when I get the chance to get out.
The clearview was awful so will not bother with that. Just took a couple of shots of some guppies which I will pop up in a mo.
 
Last Sunday, i saw my 2nd Red Admiral butterfly of the season, it was nectaring on some Snowdrops. (which is quite unusual).

Image is not cropped. f/4, ISO-80, 1/800, Aperture Priority. Full zoom (35mm equiv. 400mm) Auto focus, Jpeg, Handheld.
Panny FZ1000/Canon 500D close up lens attached.

P1070466-copy-to-900.jpg
 
Last edited:
Testudo Man said:
Last Sunday, i saw my 2nd Red Admiral butterfly of the season, it was nectaring on some Snowdrops. (which is quite unusual).

Image is not cropped. f/4, ISO-80, 1/800, Aperture Priority. Full zoom (35mm equiv. 400mm) Auto focus, Jpeg, Handheld.
Panny FZ1000/Canon 500D close up lens attached.

View attachment 380931
Click to expand...
Super photo Paul. How do you rate that Canon 500d close up lens?
 
Last edited:
Testudo Man said:
Some unusual fish shots here Alby, the 2nd image is a beauty.
My father used to breed/show Guppies back in the 1970's!
Click to expand...
I have a little tank in my home office room and they've been going for years now, just self propagating.
 
I've now had a chance to try out both the RX10 IV and FZ2000, albeit the latter without a battery in it because there wasn't a demo model available, and I can definitely say the FZ2000 sits better in my hands. The hand grip is more comfortable, and the difference in weight is noticeable (the battery would only have added 50g). The price helps as well - I don't think I'd be as tolerant of the size and weight if I had to pay over £1,000, that's the top end of my budget. It's just that 120mm focal length difference. I've only used the Canon SX720 HS before, which has a range of 24-960mm of focal length (although I found it to be unwieldly handheld above 720mm) - I'm a bit apprehensive of losing all that freedom.
 
Last edited:
ajophotog said:
Super photo Paul. How do you rate that Canon 500d close up lens?
Click to expand...
Thanks Alby.
I rate the Canon 500D (an the 250D) close up lenses very highly. I have both lenses in 52mm an 58mm filter threads. Ive used them extensively for at least 5+ years now.
They work really great, they are not as powerful (magnication/diopter) as the Raynox lenses, so make it easier for working distances to subjects.
I do believe they also come in 72mm and 77mm thread sizes too, but i would think those larger sizes might weigh a fair bit? They are not cheap brand new, but ive bought all of mine 2ndhand from Fleabay/Facefudge etc.

Heres another shot from that same butterfly last Sunday, where it landed on old twigs 1st, before it flew onto the Snowdrops.
I got quite close to the subject for this shot. Image is not cropped. Zoom lens to 73mm (35mm equiv. 200mm). f/4, ISO-80, 1/500.
I should have shot maybe up to f/8 on this, because the wing tips/hindwing edges are not really in focus. But im still learning with the FZ1000.

P1070495-copy-to-800.jpg
 
Last edited:
Testudo Man said:
Thanks Alby.
I rate the Canon 500D (an the 250D) close up lenses very highly. I have both lenses in 52mm an 58mm filter threads. Ive used them extensively for at least 5+ years now.
They work really great, they are not as powerful (magnication/diopter) as the Raynox lenses, so make it easier for working distances to subjects.
I do believe they also come in 72mm and 77mm thread sizes too, but i would think those larger sizes might weigh a fair bit? They are not cheap brand new, but ive bought all of mine 2ndhand from Fleabay/Facefudge etc.

Heres another shot from that same butterfly last Sunday, where it landed on old twigs 1st, before it flew onto the Snowdrops.
I got quite close to the subject for this shot. Image is not cropped. Zoome lens to 73mm (35mm equiv. 200mm). f/4, ISO-80, 1/500.
I should have shot maybe up to f/8 on this, because the wing tips/hindwing edges are not really in focus. But im still learning with the FZ1000.

View attachment 381031
Click to expand...
I have the raynox 250, 150 and 202 but not used them for a while, l will have to dig them out. Another super shot of that red admiral too.
 
ajophotog said:
I have the raynox 250, 150 and 202 but not used them for a while, l will have to dig them out. Another super shot of that red admiral too.
Click to expand...
Yes, i have a couple of Raynox 250's an also the 150. Ive never tried the 202 though.

Thanks Alby, i got real lucky with that butterfly, it was only active for a few minutes, then it flew high up an landed on a Yew tree, closed its wings, then flew around the other side of the tree, an was gone!


Right super large crop for this one, not a very pleasing background either, but its a pic of a Dunnock, which was also in the Grave Yard last Sunday.
I took the 500D close up filter off, zoomed in full. Panny FZ1000. I dont really do Birds anymore, but if a half chance arises, i will give it a go!

P1070668-copy-to-800.jpg
 
Testudo Man said:
Yes, i have a couple of Raynox 250's an also the 150. Ive never tried the 202 though.

Thanks Alby, i got real lucky with that butterfly, it was only active for a few minutes, then it flew high up an landed on a Yew tree, closed its wings, then flew around the other side of the tree, an was gone!


Right super large crop for this one, not a very pleasing background either, but its a pic of a Dunnock, which was also in the Grave Yard last Sunday.
I took the 500D close up filter off, zoomed in full. Panny FZ1000. I dont really do Birds anymore, but if a half chance arises, i will give it a go!

View attachment 381117
Click to expand...
Lovely shot Paul, the square framing suits this dunnock shot perfectly.
The raynox msn 202 is very difficult to use as it has very little DOF, not sure if I could still get any half decent results from it anymore as not used it for 5+ years.
 
Last edited:
Superb shots Mike, I fear you goldeneye is a tufted duck. Those little grebes never seem to come close enough to me when I spot them. Just viewed on flickr and they are both super sharp ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top