[Salty]

I don't go for the ultra futuristic, and I'm certainly not a big sony fan. As far as cameras that I've seen that I liked, I enjoy my Canon I picked up recently, though I strongly considered springing for a point and shoot nikon that was insanely thin, had a 3 inch LCD and WiFi.

[Hawkeye_a]

Nikon Coolpix S6(in Australia). ive seen it.. looks nice. not my type tho. I prefer the Canons, and i was thinking of getting myself an IXUS 65 or 800is, until i saw the Leica. Canon makes a fine product as well...i like the design on the ISUX55 and IXUS 60 in particular. But yeah, as thin as the Nikons are...i dont like the look of it. And im actually holding one right now....it' doesnt feel very ergonomic, it's too thin.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by paul w

From what I've seen and heard, Fujifilm has the best high ISO performance with noise of any of the compact cameras. A friend has the F10 and it's clearly in a class of its own. The F30 looks to be its successor and supposedly has excellent lowlight performance.

That's good to know Paul. I use the flash only if absolutely necessary, and on my E-20 always on slow, second shutter and my diary-take-with-me-anywhere cam needs to have good low light abilities. The last Sony we had, until the wife dropped it, was pretty good in that respect.

[RAILhead]

I still love my FZ30, and I've never had any noise issues that couldn't be attibuted to just plain poopr lighting that I didn't correct physically.

However, I will always fall back on my absolute favorites if I have the opportunity:

1. Lomo LC-A+



2. FED5b



3. Keiv-4a



4. My cheap Seagull 105 TLR

[Mastrap]

Yes, I used the Lomo for years and loved it. Those were the days when I had pretty much unlimited access to free processing and film, so it wasn't unusual for me to shoot five or six rolls a day. I cross processed a lot of rolls, with interesting results. I found a whole bunch of old negatives and slides recently, need to get the best of them scanned.

These days I am all about the instant gratification that digital gives. Add to this the sharing capabilities of flickr and it becomes clear why I haven't touched film for ages.

However, we're redoing the basement next year and I have been toying with the idea of building a small darkroom and get back into medium format photography.
I used to have a Seagull, and loved it at the time, no idea what happened to it though.

[RAILhead]

I still do quite a bit of both. I bought a JOBO processor, so I develop my own color (and B&W development is simple). I then batch scan several rolls at a time.

But yeah, film is DEFINITELY slower on the instant result scale, but I just love the saturation you can only get form some films.

Looks like the LX2 review is up over at DPReview. Doesn't look like the Venus III is doing too much better than the older processor:

At ISO 400 it is obvious that Panasonic's engineers have struggled to overcome the serious (and unforgivable) noise issue that blights the LX1. Have they succeeded? Is it an improvement? On the positive side measurable and visible noise is massively reduced and more detail is being retained. It would appear that Panasonic is not doing a lot of noise reduction on the luminance component, but is going 'hell for leather' on chroma (the image looks like it has had some fairly heavy chroma sub sampling). What this means in effect is that you're getting a relatively clean image, but one with very low resolution color information and the classic smearing we've come to associate with the Venus III processor. It reminds me of the 'magic paint' books I had as a child (the ones where you paint with water and color 'magically' appears), with colors running into each other and often disappearing altogether. This spells death to fine, low contrast detail such as foliage and hair. There is also a significant loss of saturation. For a 6x4 inch print there's little need to worry (though the bleeding of colors, particularly reds, is still visible even in small prints) - for anything bigger, forget it.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I still do quite a bit of both. I bought a JOBO processor, so I develop my own color (and B&W development is simple). I then batch scan several rolls at a time.

But yeah, film is DEFINITELY slower on the instant result scale, but I just love the saturation you can only get form some films.

If film and development prices would still be normal I would still be on film. Screw digital. But I just went digital because €10/film+almost the same for development became a bit too expensive. I only used to develop B&W myself. I never did colour myself, too complicated.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Looks like the LX2 review is up over at DPReview. Doesn't look like the Venus III is doing too much better than the older processor:

Hmmm..... ive noticed that the ISO thing is a problem on many cameras in this class. The only cameras that actually handle it well are the new SLRs.

I did find it a little worrying that the reviewer wouldn recommend it to "casual photographers" (Ie me), cause most of the time i'll probably leave the settings to auto-everything, unless im doing landscapes.

The ISO thing was a bit worrying, until i scoured the Leica forums, and found someone who posted a shot taken with the DL3(Leica) and the LX1(Panasonic). there was visibly less noise and more detail in the DL3 shot at ISO 400. So i think(hope) that the enhancements that Leice put into the camera will make it more than worthwhile.

Cheers

[paul w]

I don't care who you are - noise means crappy pictures. It's the bottom line of digital photography, unlike grain with film.

I'll take the Fujifilm F30, for example, over any other compact camera for the simple reason that I'm less likey to have noise in my pictures. If I shot only in daylight an 100 ISO situations it wouldn't be an issue, but of course I'm going to shoot indoors. Or in the shade. Who isn't?

From dpreviews review of the F30

"The FinePix F30 offers a tantalizing glimpse of how very different compact cameras would be if all manufacturers put as much effort into developing sensor and processing technology as they do into designing and marketing pretty cameras with features no one ever asked for. Our tests show that the F30's sensor gives you at least a two-stop advantage over the best that conventional CCD technology can offer, and in many cases a three-stop advantage, with ISO 800 output that can rival some cameras at ISO 200."

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by paul w

I don't care who you are - noise means crappy pictures.

Tell that to Vincent LaForet (who has some images in his portfolio that are plagued with noise really bad)

[Hawkeye_a]

Well, i agree noise is noise, so have a look at these pictures......

Pictures posted on the leica user forums by gepetto. similar setting for both. 100% scale
The following image was taken using a Leica D-Lux3 at ISO800

The following was taken using a Panasonic LX1 at ISO 400


Cheers

[Hawkeye_a]

Check it out guys.... someone's posted comparison shots from the Leica and the Panny. Check out the pictures at ISO 800....they look fine to me.
Leica ISO800:



Obviously there's some noise there, but not any worse than the other camer's in it's class. what do u guys think ?

The Panny's colors are over saturated compared to the Leica's imo.
Link

Now if only i can find this to go with the camera....

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by paul w

From dpreviews review of the F30

Thats realy good performance at higher ISOs.... compared to the others.

Is this benchmark a dealbreaker for point n shoot cameras ? cause frankly, i dont think ill be fooling around with this setting all that much.

[paul w]

It's a dealbreaker for ME. It's about which camera gives the best results in the situations I'm most likely to use it. Now, I tend to do a lot of low light photography, and I like my images noise free, if possible.

I also love ergonomics, usability and other features. Some point and shoots have better optics and give better results in other situations. I'm not saying it's the best camera, but for what interests me: noise free shots, it is.

[Hawkeye_a]

Fair enough. i definately agree with you on that....get the camera that'll give u great pics in the situations u find urself taking pictures in.

the reason i went for a Leica D-Lux 3, over the Canon 800is, etc.... is because i want a simple P&S for your everyday(and night) situations, but also have some room to let me fool around with the settings, and get into high end photography...eventually. Why the D-Lux 3 over the Canon's n Fuji's i nthe same class..... design. the Leica is pocketable.....the Canon A710, etc...are pretty bulky.

Having said that, i can see why u picked the Fuji, the performance at high ISOs is definately the best ive seen so far. personally for what im going to be using a camera for, i wont be needing the high ISOs, so it's almost a non issue for me....i would have been satisified with a maximum ISO of 400.

Cheers

[Hawkeye_a]

Here's a novice question for you. ive seen similar pictures at different ISO levels....but apart from the noise and a little differnce in saturation i cant make out any difference. like....ive seen the ISO100,400, 800 and 1600 pictures in the fuji review...and apart from the noise n loss of some detail....i cant make out any difference in color,contrast, white balance, gamma, etc....what gives ?

Climber, i totally understand what you are saying..... but im finding a hard time seeling better clarity/better color of nightshots taken at higher ISOs. I was a bit nervous about the high-ISO handling by the Leica, so i investigated by talking to a couple of my fiends are pro photographers.

Essentially.... if you are planning on shooting at night, without flash, there are SOME marginal advantages to higher ISOs.....but nothing dramatic. And if you do need to take photos in places like toumbs where no flash photography is allowed, or in cockpits at night time, higher ISOs are handy. If that aspect of photography is your primary field (low light, indoors, no flash) then a DSLR (D200, 400D, etc) would give you the best results. But for a pro-sumer looking for a pocketable camera, that can be used in any situation....family, Christmas, indoor, outdoor, ISO rating would be almost irrerelavant 99% of the time.

The D-Lux 3 pictures at ISO400 look acceptable. There's a guy on the Leica forum whos shot a few pics at ISO100 and printed em out on 20"X40", which is more than i'd need. Anything bigger than that, i'd probably get a DSLR anyway.

This D-Lux is:
-pocketable
-customiable (next best thing to a DSLR in this aspect)
-P&S

And should provide ample room to explore photography IF i want to. Cheers for your opinions guys, much appreciated.

Is it just me, or do camera exhibit the same cult-phenomenon inherent in the Mac VS PC and gaming console debates ?

[climber]

You got it. The differences are somewhat minor. Especially at ISO400.

Yes, as it relates to Mac vs PC compared to Nikon vs Canon it is kind of a cult thing. But we all know here at MacNN that the PC is the only one of the four that really sucks!

Enjoy your camera, and post some pics.

[Jim Paradise]

My two cents: while I don't own one, I've read a lot of good things about the already-mentioned Fuji Finepix F30 in low light situations. For the price, it seems to offer a lot.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise

My two cents: while I don't own one, I've read a lot of good things about the already-mentioned Fuji Finepix F30 in low light situations. For the price, it seems to offer a lot.

If what you need a compact for is low-light photography, i agree with you.

Getting into the whole digital photography market has educated me on some of the benchmarks that make a camera "good" and for what situations, ISO handling being one of them. The others (to me anyway)....

-Mega Pixels n overall image quality (yes i know the censor size matters as well)
-Zoom(optical)
-Lens
-Macro
-control over settings (for people who want to "get" into photography, like myself)
-battery
-weight/size
-design
-warranty,etc...

And in this very special case....the 16X9 aspect ratio (wide angle lens, 16X9 screen) which no other camera seems to offer.

So yeah the Fugi does perform exceptionally well in the low-light situations, but how about all the other aspects that make a camera ?

Cheers

[Buckaroo]

I think that thing is ugly and a lot of money for nothing.

You DON"T need that camera. A camera does not make the photographer.

Besides, get a SLR. Canon Rebel Xti (400).

[Hawkeye_a]

Fair enough

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I think that thing is ugly and a lot of money for nothing.

You DON"T need that camera. A camera does not make the photographer.

Besides, get a SLR. Canon Rebel Xti (400).

SLRs aren't the best solution for all people. I have two cameras, one little diary cam I can carry with me at all times, and an SLR for serious photography.

[Buckaroo]

Of course you don't need an SLR. I use to own an SLR, but gave it up for a Sony T1. Personally I reommend a quality small camera that you can have with you all the time. I like Sony because the lens doesnt' extend from the flat camera body when you turn it on. It is very portable and takes pretty good pictures.

The most important thing, I have it with me all the time. When those unexpeccted shots appear.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

SLRs aren't the best solution for all people. I have two cameras, one little diary cam I can carry with me at all times, and an SLR for serious photography.

Spot on with that.

The best way to get candid photos, especially in public places, is to not look like a tourist with a huge (comparitively) SLR. An easily pocketable P&S that tooks good pictures will make you unobstusive and less of a target for pan-handlers. Especially if you go to a foreign place, nothing screams "Please! I'm a wonky tourist, please take all my money!" than sporting a giant camera around your neck.

One of the best features that they seem to be phasing out of P&S cameras (esp. Canon) were the fold-out screens. You could look normal and still frame shots holding the camera down by the belt. I've been able to score some very candid shots that way as no one noticed.

[Hawkeye_a]

Just got this camers...first impressions:

Good:
-Beautiful build quality. the metal body feels great to hold, and it's light as well.
-The screen is georgous
-O.I.S. works beautifully
-controls/menus are pretty intuitive
-I love how the flash pops out the top when u want to use it
-It comes with a lens cap , how cool is that ?
-2 year international warranty

Bad:
-no case i know which one i want, but it would have been nice if it came with
-it's made in Japan. not a bad thing by far these days, but i was under the impression they were made in Germany.
-Im having a little trouble getting RAW images to work on the Mac (PS CS2)

I tried to take a couple of pictures of it with a Canon IXUS 900Ti, but they all turned out blurry(i dont know if it had I.S. or not).

So ill be going around town taking pictures, and i'll post em tomorrow sometime. Overall, im really liking this little beauty. The design reminds me of the time when i first unboxed my PowerBook G4 Ti..... minimalist, sleek, smart, timeless and looks like it's carved out of a block of metal. very cool indeed.

Cheers

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Of course you don't need an SLR. I use to own an SLR, but gave it up for a Sony T1.

Do you mean the DSC-T10?

[RAILhead]

Belay that last post.

I'm thinking of snagging the T10 -- it's frakking 3.5 x 2.2 x 0.8 in!!!11!

[Mastrap]

Nice camera. But I still think I'll be getting the F30, just for the processor.

[IceEnclosure]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

full-blown review, same camera yea?

[Hawkeye_a]

Same components yeah, essentially the same camera. Leica's tweeked the processing (saturation, wb, noise reduction, etc) to give the pictures a different look. here are some comparisons.

Went out yesterday and too these pictures..... auto-everything, lowest-compression-jpeg, taken at around noon.










I'll take some pictures in low-light today evening if i can. thus far, im lovin' the Leica

Cheers

Getting 404 errors when trying to download the pix but the resized images posted here look pretty good. Needless to say, if the low-light shots come out looking good, I'll be very jealous!

Are the neighborhoods always that clean down under? Looks like someone just went through with a broom and a mop.

I picked up a Canon 710 IS the other day for a song ($300) and I luv it. The ability to have 7MP, 6x zoom, manual controls and IS in such a small package that performs well AND also can get lost in your pocket is awesome!

[Hawkeye_a]

Fixinated. sorry about that. i think .Mac has a limit on the file size or something....

So anyway, exported out of iPhoto original compression, 1024X576. I havent had time to get night shots, but will do that by as soon as i can.

And as far as cleanliness of neighbourhoods go, many do look like that, but some are way worse. Also, we're heading into spring so the rains have washed everything out in the past few months. Wait till you see the beaches.

Do you guys reckon a SanDisk Ultra III will be worth it over an Ultra II. i do want to shoot mostly in RAW (cause i can ), but im not sure if the speed difference would make any difference on this camera at the end of the day. Obviously if i had a D80, the Ultra IIIs would make sence.

Cheers

Is there a buffer onboard the camera so you can still take shots while it's writing to the card?

How long does a RAW write to series II card take on your camera?

[RAILhead]

RAW even takes a while on my FZ30, so I shoot max JPEG.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Do you guys reckon a SanDisk Ultra III will be worth it over an Ultra II. i do want to shoot mostly in RAW (cause i can ), but im not sure if the speed difference would make any difference on this camera at the end of the day. Obviously if i had a D80, the Ultra IIIs would make sence.

Cheers

I actually would almost suggest the opposite. I am not experienced with the D80, But I have both the D70 and the D200. Both cameras have a buffer that allows multiple shots regardless of the memory card speed. Once you fill the buffer though, the speed of the card makes more of a difference. I don't think I have ever shot the D200 that fast though. Many people used to (and probably still do) shoot with compact flash hard drives as was found in the ipod mini. These drives are very very slow by comparison.

I think it may make a bit more of a difference on Canons DSLR line. At least the older cameras did not allow the buffer to empty as efficiently as the Nikon does. Or that is what I remember reading a few years ago.

Unless you have a specific need I would get the memory based on warranty, reliability, and price.

[climber]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

RAW even takes a while on my FZ30, so I shoot max JPEG.

Maybe that is one more disadvantage to using that type of camera over a DSLR. My guess is that once you get tired of smelling those chemicals, you will be upgrading.

I have hardly touched my 2-1/4" Rolliflex since getting the D200 and a couple of good lenses. And I am not talking about the 18-200 that was mentioned earlier. That lens is not even close to touching the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8. But then the cost and weight is four times as much.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by climber 

Maybe that is one more disadvantage to using that type of camera over a DSLR. My guess is that once you get tired of smelling those chemicals, you will be upgrading.

I have hardly touched my 2-1/4" Rolliflex since getting the D200 and a couple of good lenses. And I am not talking about the 18-200 that was mentioned earlier. That lens is not even close to touching the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8. But then the cost and weight is four times as much.

The FZ30 is a DSLR. Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30.

[climber]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

The FZ30 is a DSLR. Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30.

Ok then, perhaps someday you will "upgrade" to one that has more choices in lenses.

[RAILhead]

Why? The lens has nothing to do with the processing of RAW images.

[Hawkeye_a]

"processing" of RAW images ? isnt that like an oxymoron ?.. i thought RAW just records directly off the censor.

[climber]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Why? The lens has nothing to do with the processing of RAW images.

Well of course it doesn't, and I never said it did. It was you who suggested/complained that your RAW was slow. I assumed you were talking about your camera. Unless you were talking about the amount of work post-processing on your computer. But don't you you use Aperture for photos? So I don't really get that either, as that program is designed around the RAW workflow. If you tend to post process most of your images, you really should be shooting RAW if you can.

As far as interchangeable lenses, I doubt you need an explanation of how that would improve the flexibility of both the camera and a photographers creativity. So far you are apparently happy taking photos with the digital camera you have now. But my guess, based on your recent interest in medium format film, is that someday you will be upgrading.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

"processing" of RAW images ? isnt that like an oxymoron ?.. i thought RAW just records directly off the censor.

The problem is not the camera processing the RAW images (although they do), it is about moving that data quickly off the sensor and onto a flash card fast. RAW images are much bigger and as such take a few more milliseconds to transfer. I think it is a moot point unless you are trying to take continuous shots.

After the picture most cameras are set to review it (on my cameras I turn this feature off to save battery). But that image has to be processed to display on the camera's LCD. Some less expensive/older cameras that are capable of shooting RAW are a bit slow in this regard. Again it is somewhat a moot point, unless you really care how quickly you can scroll through the images. Speeding this up is not going to make a better photo.

[climber]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

The FZ30 is a DSLR. Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30.

I just looked at the specs for this camera. It is not a DSLR. At least not in the traditional sense (DP review agrees with me on this one). It uses an electronic viewfinder. The DSLR's like the Canon Rebel or the Nikon D50 use a mirror and a prism as part of the viewfinder. There are some inherent disadvantages to using the main image sensor as the viewfinder, so the distinction is important. In my mind the biggest problem is the delay between reality and what you see. There is also a bigger delay once you push the shutter.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by climber

The problem is not the camera processing the RAW images (although they do), it is about moving that data quickly off the sensor and onto a flash card fast. RAW images are much bigger and as such take a few more milliseconds to transfer. I think it is a moot point unless you are trying to take continuous shots.

Thats what ive heard as well. if yur doing that continuous shooting thing where u take like 5 shots per second in RAW (like in surf or any sport photography), thats when the ExtremeIII cards would be an advantage over the Ultra IIs.

Theres a beta RAW program-thingy from Adobe for PSCS2(Mac) online for those of you who have th Panny or Leica camera btw.

Cheers

[RAILhead]

Yes, I used processing in a generic term. And yes, the FZ30 uses an EV. I'm mostly trying to figure out why you seemed to want to bag on me and my camera.

Oh well.

[Hawkeye_a]

who me ?

[Hawkeye_a]

Ack. i was out taking some pictures and i accidentally tried to put the lens cap on backwards. I friggon hope that doesnt hurt the lens. this is like the first camera ive owned with a lens cap..... and clue you guys ?

i'm like freaking out

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

who me ?

No, "climber."

[climber]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Yes, I used processing in a generic term. And yes, the FZ30 uses an EV. I'm mostly trying to figure out why you seemed to want to bag on me and my camera.

Oh well.

Relax, I wasn't. I made the comment because you take great photos. You also have a lot of creativity. Hence my prediction about wanting something more.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Ack. i was out taking some pictures and i accidentally tried to put the lens cap on backwards. I friggon hope that doesnt hurt the lens. this is like the first camera ive owned with a lens cap..... and clue you guys ?

i'm like freaking out

In general any good lens is pretty durable. So I would not worry to much. The most fragile part is the coatings on top. You can also bugger up the lens pretty good without a noticeable effect on the images. That said avoid worrying so much that you clean the lens every day. That will over time do more damage.

Many photographers use a high quality UV filter to protect the lens. I do on most of mine. All you need is the thread size. I will try and look it up later.

edit: It Looks like the D-Lux does not have the treads for a filter. I think I would just try and be careful from now on. What does the front element look like right now? Is there a mark or smudge, and how much of the lens does it cover?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Ack. i was out taking some pictures and i accidentally tried to put the lens cap on backwards. I friggon hope that doesnt hurt the lens. this is like the first camera ive owned with a lens cap..... and clue you guys ?

i'm like freaking out

All hope is lost. I'll pay you $20 for it and even pay for the shipping.

Just take some pictures and see if there's any marks on them that look like scratches. I don't know if they make one for that camera or not but you might want to look into getting a UV filter to throw on the lens to protect it from scratches and junk. Wrecking a $20 filter is better than wrecking a lens! (damn, climber beat me to it).