Was all set to get the Sony RX100 III . . : And then I saw the Panasonic FZ 1000. Tremendous difference in physical size, but same sensor size. I shoot mostly landscapes and macro, but...

RWCRNC Loc: Pennsylvania

And then I saw the Panasonic FZ 1000. Tremendous difference in physical size, but same sensor size. I shoot mostly landscapes and macro, but I have a DSLR and macro lens and will continue to use that for macro.
The lens on the Sony looks better.
Rarely shoot video, but the video capabilities look interesting on the Panasonic.
Would you get the Panasonic for the reach (25-400mm) or the Sony (24-70mm) with the better lens?
Decisions, decisions????

amehta Loc: Boston

RWCRNC wrote:

And then I saw the Panasonic FZ 1000. Tremendous difference in physical size, but same sensor size. I shoot mostly landscapes and macro, but I have a DSLR and macro lens and will continue to use that for macro.
The lens on the Sony looks better.
Rarely shoot video, but the video capabilities look interesting on the Panasonic.
Would you get the Panasonic for the reach (25-400mm) or the Sony (24-70mm) with the better lens?
Decisions, decisions????

You won't get the Panasonic until August, it seems.

To add to the mess, there's the Sony DSC-RX10. More expensive, but pretty impressive. And the Canon G1 X Mark II.

sloscheider Loc: Minnesota

Go here and take a look - in comparisons it looks like the Panasonics Jpeg processing is better than the Sony...

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/6

RWCRNC Loc: Pennsylvania

amehta wrote:

You won't get the Panasonic until August, it seems.

To add to the mess, there's the Sony DSC-RX10. More expensive, but pretty impressive. And the Canon G1 X Mark II.

Thank you for your reply. I looked at both of those, but really want a VF. Would prefer a Canon, but VF is optional to the tune of $300.
I am going to try to be patient and wait until both have some users reviews. It will be tough though. Don't really NEED it until a visit to mom in Houston in October.
Thanks again.

RWCRNC Loc: Pennsylvania

sloscheider wrote:

Go here and take a look - in comparisons it looks like the Panasonics Jpeg processing is better than the Sony...

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/6

Thank you

amehta Loc: Boston

RWCRNC wrote:

Thank you for your reply. I looked at both of those, but really want a VF. Would prefer a Canon, but VF is optional to the tune of $300.
I am going to try to be patient and wait until both have some users reviews. It will be tough though. Don't really NEED it until a visit to mom in Houston in October.
Thanks again.

Oh, that means several months of checking things out but not yet buying, have fun! :evil:

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

RWCRNC wrote:

And then I saw the Panasonic FZ 1000. Tremendous difference in physical size, but same sensor size. I shoot mostly landscapes and macro, but I have a DSLR and macro lens and will continue to use that for macro.
The lens on the Sony looks better.
Rarely shoot video, but the video capabilities look interesting on the Panasonic.
Would you get the Panasonic for the reach (25-400mm) or the Sony (24-70mm) with the better lens?
Decisions, decisions????

I'd get the Sony for the lens and the weight difference. I've been using the Sony RX100 M2 for 6 months and I really like it. One of the reasons I purchased it was because it is so light and small for a camera with such and impressive lens and sensor. The M3 only weighs about 1 ounce more then the M2 - 10.2 ounces. You hardly know it's there.

bvargas Loc: Palm Harbor, Florida

I use the Leica V-Lux-4 which is almost the same as the Panasonic Lumix FZ-200. I am very happy with the results.
Both have Leica Lens 25mm-600mm at a constant f2.8.
What more do you want, especially if you are not doing Professional work. This is the perfect camera for Travel & all around fun shots & you do not have to spend a lot for extra lenses. You have all you need. Check it out. I have done a wedding with it and shot over 1000 images, and the Bride, Groom & family, loved them. What more can I say. I am a retired Wedding Photographer of 50 years in business. BV

RWCRNC Loc: Pennsylvania

mfeveland wrote:

I'd get the Sony for the lens and the weight difference. I've been using the Sony RX100 M2 for 6 months and I really like it. One of the reasons I purchased it was because it is so light and small for a camera with such and impressive lens and sensor. The M3 only weighs about 1 ounce more then the M2 - 10.2 ounces. You hardly know it's there.

I really like the Sony. I plan to wait until I can read some user reviews on the Panasonic
Thank you for your input.

RWCRNC Loc: Pennsylvania

bvargas wrote:

I use the Leica V-Lux-4 which is almost the same a... (show quote)

Thank you for your input. I almost bought the FZ 200 6 months ago. The new FZ1000 has a bigger sensor and bigger pixels, which as I understand it , affects IQ.

amehta Loc: Boston

RWCRNC wrote:

Thank you for your input. I almost bought the FZ 200 6 months ago. The new FZ1000 has a bigger sensor and bigger pixels, which as I understand it , affects IQ.

Size matters! :-D

RWCRNC Loc: Pennsylvania

amehta wrote:

Size matters! :-D

LOL

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

RWCRNC wrote:

And then I saw the Panasonic FZ 1000. Tremendous difference in physical size, but same sensor size. I shoot mostly landscapes and macro, but I have a DSLR and macro lens and will continue to use that for macro.
The lens on the Sony looks better.
Rarely shoot video, but the video capabilities look interesting on the Panasonic.
Would you get the Panasonic for the reach (25-400mm) or the Sony (24-70mm) with the better lens?
Decisions, decisions????

I'm curious... if you already have a DSLR, why would you want the Panasonic FZ1000, which is nearly the size and weight of a typical DSLR? I think it would make more sense to get the Sony as you would then have a lighter, more compact alternative to the DSLR - for those times you want less bulk to carry.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

RWCRNC wrote:

And then I saw the Panasonic FZ 1000. Tremendous difference in physical size, but same sensor size. I shoot mostly landscapes and macro, but I have a DSLR and macro lens and will continue to use that for macro.
The lens on the Sony looks better.
Rarely shoot video, but the video capabilities look interesting on the Panasonic.
Would you get the Panasonic for the reach (25-400mm) or the Sony (24-70mm) with the better lens?
Decisions, decisions????

Don't bet on the Sony lens being better. They make pretty good stuff but... Panasonic has a tendency to use Leica glass and makes outstanding lenses. My 8-year-old Panasonic Lumix FZ-30 bridge camera has a better lens with Leica glass than came with my 3-year-old Sony Alpha 55 kit. The Panasonic is also better glass than the Minolta 28-100mm film camera lens I bought for my Sony.

I also have a $950 Panasonic G 7-14mm lens on my Olympus PEN and it is hands down better than the $650 Sigma 8-16mm on my Sony. Just sayin'... don't dis' Panasonic lenses without comparing and doing some intense web research. They make some seriously fine glass and I've never seen a review of a Panasonic bridge camera that didn't agree with that statement. That's not to say every Panasonic bridge camera itself had stellar low light performance but the lenses always get praised.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

sloscheider wrote:

Go here and take a look - in comparisons it looks like the Panasonics Jpeg processing is better than the Sony...

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/6

I don't see much difference except for the higher ISO shots in raw. The Pany edges out the Sony.