Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Jonathan Wienke on March 18, 2006, 12:35:04 pm

Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on March 18, 2006, 12:35:04 pm
As many of you know, I joined the US Army back in January, and while I love my 1Ds and 1D-MkII DSLRs and the accompanying collection of L glass, there are times when they are simply too much to carry with regard to weight or bulk. So I'm looking for a compact camera with the following characteristics:

Must Have:
Size small enought to fit in a pocket without making a prominent bulge or lump. This disqualifies most of the SLR-styled fixed-lens cameras.

Manual, aperture priority, and shutter priority modes.

5-8 decent quality megapixels.

Sturdy build.

Highly Desirable:
RAW capture. This obviates most color and white balance problems, as they can be handled by the RAW converter and not the camera.

Compact Flash or SD/MMC memory card.

Wide zoom range lens with minimal aberrations.

Compatibility with accessories I already own (flashes, batteries, etc), mostly Canon stuff.

Responsive autofocus and handling (minimal shutter lag, fast shooting rate, etc).

Decent high-ISO capability. Yeah, I know a pocket camera isn't going to be in the same league as the 1D-MkII at ISO 800, but I'd like something at least near the top of the market segment.

Decent dynamic range capability.


I intend to use it to shoot a variety of subject matter (action and low-light stuff especially) when I'm out in the field or in circumstances where carrying a full DSLR kit is impractical or inadvisable or forbidden. I know I can't have 1D-MkII + L glass collection capability in a pocket sized package, but I'd like to get as much as possible. Any suggestions?
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: bob mccarthy on March 18, 2006, 02:54:50 pm
Sounds like your doing well in your new profession. Congrat's.

I have gone through the same exercise. All the P&S have small noisy chips, better ones are the Oly, which I ended buying for my wife. 6070 (or something like that). For all its faults, DP Review does a good job of testing cameras, I'd look around there.

For me, I ended up using a film camera. Old M-2 taken out of mothballs. At the 5-6 mpxl range film and digital are close enough. Down side is time and processing.

Costly side is the Epson rangefinder. Lots of new and used lenses to play with. If they ever get a higher density chip, Id be tempted to reretire the M-2.

I really don't think there is a perfect solution yet.

Bob
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on March 18, 2006, 02:58:47 pm
Talk about timing. I'm on the hunt for the same thing and my requirements are in line with yours.

I'm still in the middle of my research but I am leaning toward the Panasonic LX1. The one thing that is a drawback on that camera though is the lens ring. It adds almost a half-inch to the thickness which would create a bulge (I will be making a trip to LA to play with the cameras in person soon). I'd prefer a camera that is completely flat (such as the Nikon S5) but have not been impressed with what is available and Sony is definitely out of the question for me.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: DarkPenguin on March 18, 2006, 03:08:11 pm
Take a look at the Fuji F30.  I think it has more of the F11's manual controls and it is supposed to be better at high ISO than the F10/F11.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: framah on March 18, 2006, 05:18:58 pm
I got a Canon G6 Power shot for just what you mentioned. It is a 7.1 mp and raw and most of what I am used to on my bigger Canons. Takes the same battery as my 10D,  uses CF card. Not sure what is Canons next generation of this camera but you might actually find it still being sold.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Pelao on March 19, 2006, 09:43:09 am
I too am on this search. The only camera that meets most of the criteria is the Panasonic LX 1.

In some reviews it receives a hammering for high noise, but I will shoot RAW and can take care of that in processing. I seem to remember there was a LL article about this camera somewhere.

The lens does bulge a bit, but overly much and the camera is remarkably small and controls seem easy to use, requiring minimal menu scrolling etc. I feel this latter is important because if you do most of your shootong with an SLR you will be used to swift changes to settings. Having to run through several slow steps to make changes will alter your shooting style.

The Canon S70 is another contender. It has been replaced by the S80, but the new one does not shoot RAW!!! The S70 reviews are all great, and it's a really solid camera. There are still S70's available.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: DaveLon on March 19, 2006, 10:13:09 am
Quote
The Canon S70 is another contender. It has been replaced by the S80, but the new one does not shoot RAW!!! The S70 reviews are all great, and it's a really solid camera. There are still S70's available.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60616\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I managed to find a new S70 some months ago (On sale at Henry's in Toronto, Canada) and it does more than a good enough job, shoots RAW and uses CF cards and the 350D battery so works for me.

Dave S
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: John Camp on March 19, 2006, 01:30:07 pm
The camera you're looking for has been widely discussed on a lot of forums, but does not yet exist AFIK.

The problems are several: you can get most of it, if you accept bulk -- especially a protruding lens. If you can't have bulk, then you can't have some of the other stuff. Somebody mentioned the Epson R-D1, which I have, and it's too big; bigger, with lens attached, than a digital Rebel. So here are three suggestions:

1. Carry a digital Rebel with a body cap, and one of your zooms separately. That'll give you everything you need, if you can find a place to stash the lens.

2. A Pentax Optio 750z. A terrific little camera with a optical view finder, a live twistable LCD (which could be handy in the Army) a 5x zoom and a 7mp chip. The lens retracts, so it's got a flat form, but it is a couple of inches thick. Downside: doesn't do RAW. Does TIFF and a variety of .jpgs.

3. Do what somebody else suggested, and get a 35mm film camera and print out a bunch of order forms from Dwayne's. Shoot it, drop it in the mail, order the Photo CDs with it. You can still push color film to 3200 with less grain than you'll get from small chips at anything close to that speed; and at the other end, a good Canon point'n'shoot film camera loaded with Kodachrome will will match your small-chip slow-speed stuff. And 35mm Canon p&s's are cheap and reliable. Downside: film and x-ray machines if you're going to be traveling a lot.
 
Bottom line: If I were you, I'd look at the Pentax

JC
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: John Camp on March 19, 2006, 01:34:52 pm
Here's a follow-up comment. Do you expect to go to Iraq? If you do, I've shot quite a bit in the deserts of Israel and Jordan (and a bit in Egypt) and there are some things that you *don't* want to do there -- like rely too much on a Pentax-style retracting lens. Too much blowing dust and sand. You need a kit that you can thoroughly clean. In that case, a fixed, sealed, unmoving lens would be a benefit.

JC
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on March 19, 2006, 03:48:04 pm
Quote
I got a Canon G6 Power shot for just what you mentioned. It is a 7.1 mp and raw and most of what I am used to on my bigger Canons. Takes the same battery as my 10D,  uses CF card. Not sure what is Canons next generation of this camera but you might actually find it still being sold.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The G6 is the last in the series and no more G cameras will be made.
Quote
The Canon S70 is another contender. It has been replaced by the S80, but the new one does not shoot RAW!!! The S70 reviews are all great, and it's a really solid camera. There are still S70's available.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60616\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For me, the S70 is too thick. When I say pocket camera, it really needs to fit in a pocket without causing a bulge. Otherwise I will never take it anywhere and the whole point in the camera will be defeated. 1" thick or less. I have a cell phone that is 1" thick and it is enough of a PITA to carry around with me. I don't need a camera that will be thicker than that is.

The problem is that no such camera matches that requirement and provides a decent image that I've seen so far. Either the image quality is poor, performance is lackluster or it lacks manual control or (more often than not) it's too pricey for what it is. Shooting raw is not a concern in this case, just a bonus. The LX1 seems to be the best compromise all around but I'd prefer one completely flat.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 19, 2006, 05:28:56 pm
Hi Jonathan,

You might want to check the Rob Galbraith forum dedicated to compact cameras used by pros. You'll find a lot of insighful info there.

My view is also that your perfect camera is still being designed...  Among the existing offering, some potential contenders are:

- the Fuji F30 when it is released, if high ISO is a priority for you,
- the Fuji E900, unfortunately unavailable in Japan, but highly appreciate by those who have one,
- the Canon Ixus 800 IS (it was due out on March 16th but has been delayed one month). The first compact supposed to offer both optical IS and a reasonable quality at ISO 800 (although probably still far behind Fuji),
- the Ricohs, but high iso is also a dream here,
- the Panasonic LX1, although the amount of noise would probably be too high for you,
- if it were acceptable for you, then I would also consider the NikonP3/P4 that also have image stabilisation.

Shooting RAW with those that allow it appear to be a nightmare though, the save times are very long...

Regards,
Bernard
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on March 20, 2006, 02:04:55 am
I went through this same thought process several months ago (with pretty much the same requirements), did my research, and decided that the best one would be the Fujifilm F30 coming out in May.  Check out its review on DPReview.  Its predecessor, the F10, has considerably less noise than anything else so small.

Lisa

P.S.  I'm on vacation in Japan right now, and checked out the Akihabara electronics stores in Tokyo to see if the F30 is out here yet.  Not yet.  Just the F11.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: HiltonP on March 20, 2006, 10:48:47 am
Dare I suggest the SONY V3 . . . it has a slight software qwirk, but Jonathan's got the savvy to handle that easily enough. The pluses are its quality of lens, durability of construction, manual control features, speed of focus, and compact design.

Alternatively I'd be looking for a CANON S70 . . . I've only heard good reports about it, and Canon's newer, replacement models don't appear to offer the same level of performance (and lack RAW support).

Seen some pretty amazing pics coming from the CANON A620 as well . . .
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on March 22, 2006, 01:51:57 am
I have settled on the LX1 for now. Michael's experience with it convinced me that this was a camera that would fit my needs. Which are mostly for taking pictures of travel and landscapes.

I am impressed by the control offered by the camera, it reminds me of the Leica CM, lots of ueful and intuitive options. With the OIS, I have never felt the need to go above ISO 200, and the noise is there, but cleans up nicely, if you shoot RAW. The lens is nice too.

One other option I did consider was the Ricoh GRD, but the Panasonic, with the good zoom lens, and the OIS, was better for me.

Today, I would give a new Fuji F30 a try, but it still does not have image stabilization, and it does not record RAW files, so...
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Steve West on March 22, 2006, 09:09:57 pm
I'll second the Fuji recommendation.  I have an F10 (no manual controls though), and its ISO 400/800 are quite excellent.  The F11 would have manual controls, and I believe that the F30 will have them too.  I'm not sure you can get an F11 with a US warranty, so you might have to wait for an F30.  

Anyway, the F10 has excellent build quality, and a really nice [metal] built-in shutter for protecting the glass that automatically closes and works perfectly (unlike the Canon A series shutter protectors which are intermittent).

The Fuji E900 would have manual controls and would be well worth a look though it might be a shade too large.

Of course, for your situation, you might want to consider some of the weather resistant cameras like the Oly Stylus cameras.  Don;t know about their high ISO performance though.

JMHO,

Steve W
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Lin Evans on March 24, 2006, 12:54:38 am
If you give up the CF/SD media, you might want to have a look at the Sony DSC-T9.

Tiny shirt pocket size, huge LCD, optical image stabilization, six megapixels, 3x optical zoom, excellent movie mode limited only by storage, excellent higher ISO to ISO 640 (even ISO 640 images are quite usable), 58 meg internal memory plus uses Memory Stick to 2 gigabytes, excellent images....  Very nice package...

Downside: doesn't use CF or SD, flash is fairly weak as with most tiny digicams.

Here's a link to review:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/t9.html (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/t9.html)

Lin
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on March 25, 2006, 11:36:54 am
I'd like to thank everyone for their suggestions; I'll start looking into the suggestions mentioned here. Yes there is a definite possibility I may go to Iraq or Afghanistan, so ruggedness and the ability to thrive in hot and dusty conditions is a definite plus.

Update: The Olympus SP-310 and SP-320 appear to be serious contenders as well, with good build quality, RAW capture, surprisingly good ISO 400 performance (for a digicam at least), a decent lens, manual, aperture priority, and shutter priority modes, and a price around $300. The main downside appears to be that the camera locks up for about 9 seconds after shooting a RAW frame due to the puny buffer size.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: jd1566 on March 29, 2006, 08:43:38 am
Compact high performance camera.  It seems that camera manufacturers have overlooked this niche market.. and are only now really coming out with semi-decent models.  However I think to have something that is close to perfect will require a wait.. Photokina perhaps?

Too many cameras that pretend to be part of this segment have one or other item missing, like real wide angle 28mm (without an add-on lens), Raw capture, a rechargeable battery etc.  Canon even went backwards with their S80 upgrade, taking out a few things that were in the S70.  The G series (which offered everything except a small size) is dead.  What's left?  I think this niche will be filled by the likes of Panasonic, Sony and Casio which all have reasonable pocketable cameras, that just need to become faster or have Raw capture incorporated.

Another thing... while I was searching for a similar type camera I noticed something.. that Raw file sizes vary greatly between manufacturers, going from Canon with the smallest Raw size to the likes of Fuji with the largest.  Not all Raw files are the same...
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: C4D on March 29, 2006, 11:43:09 am
I use a Leica D-LUX 2 for a my pocket camera, thin, small, and light but also has an excellent build and feel, plus the image quality packs a punch with 8.4 MP and optical image stabilizer with a 2.5 inch LCD screen. My favorite part of this camera is that I can choose different ratio formats 16:9; 3:2; 4:3

The downside is the cost of the Leica name but for a pocket camera the build quality is top notch which is a large advantage for what you are doing
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: rethmeier on March 29, 2006, 07:33:20 pm
The LX-1 and the Leica are identical!
Same factory,you only pay another $400 for the Leica badge!
I've just received a black LX-1 and I love it.
Cheers,
Willem.
N.B I find it almost to small!
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on March 29, 2006, 08:35:36 pm
Mr. Rethmeier and Mark,

Obviously it won't be like a DSLR, but how responsive is the LX1/D-Lux 2 compared to other P&Ss?
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: C4D on March 30, 2006, 11:03:08 am
Quote
The LX-1 and the Leica are identical!
Same factory,you only pay another $400 for the Leica badge!
I've just received a black LX-1 and I love it.
Cheers,
Willem.
N.B I find it almost to small!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I spent the extra $400 because im a snob........... just j/k lol

Dan the shutter lag is actually minimal for a P&S camera, much better then our old G3's
I do agree a bit with rethmeier, the camera is a bit small for my big hands but still has a nice feel to it though
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Dinsmen on March 31, 2006, 05:18:42 pm
Not exactly a pocket camera buth have you considered SONY DSC-R1? I have no direct experience but have heard good things about it.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Andrew Teakle on April 01, 2006, 01:58:13 am
An interesting thread. I read with interest here (and on a few other sites) that the Fujifilm F30 is supposed to have very good hgh ISO performance: usable up to 800. Now this is a little off-topic...

I don't know the actual specs of the F30, but most of the earlier P&S cameras had sensors of 6.6 x 8.8mm. If this is the case for the F30 with 6.1MP, then the pixel density is such that for an APS-C sized sensor (~15mm x 24mm) of this density, there would be 37.8MP, and a FF sensor would have 90.7MP. Now if the same in-camera processing was used to give the same high-ISO performance, but with much larger cache, data transfer etc, you would have a mega super deluxe wonder-camera.  Please correct my assumptions if they are wildly out.

Now, I'm interested to hear why this is not possible/cost-effective, and of course we'd need  much better lenses, storage cards etc to make the most if this performance...but can this sensor technology be upscaled to APS-C or 35mm sensor size? Just a thought.  

Happy shooting,

Andrew
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 01, 2006, 01:59:40 pm
Quote
An interesting thread. I read with interest here (and on a few other sites) that the Fujifilm F30 is supposed to have very good hgh ISO performance: usable up to 800. Now this is a little off-topic...

I don't know the actual specs of the F30, but most of the earlier P&S cameras had sensors of 6.6 x 8.8mm. If this is the case for the F30 with 6.1MP, then the pixel density is such that for an APS-C sized sensor (~15mm x 24mm) of this density, there would be 37.8MP, and a FF sensor would have 90.7MP. Now if the same in-camera processing was used to give the same high-ISO performance, but with much larger cache, data transfer etc, you would have a mega super deluxe wonder-camera. :rolleyes: Please correct my assumptions if they are wildly out.

Now, I'm interested to hear why this is not possible/cost-effective, and of course we'd need  much better lenses, storage cards etc to make the most if this performance...but can this sensor technology be upscaled to APS-C or 35mm sensor size? Just a thought. :)

Happy shooting,

Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The reason why a 37.8MP sensor on a APS-C camera is due to pixel quality. The smaller the photo-sites on the sensor, the less light they can gather and thusly, the lower the image's quality. This is why any 6MP DSLR will produce much better images (given everything else is equal) than any 8MP P&S.

While researching, I looked at sample images from the F10/F11 cameras shot at high ISO (1600) and the deficiencies of the small sensor show in spades. The cameras shoot at high-ISOs but executes extensive (and not that good IMHO) in-camera noise reduction. This results in a "choppy" - I guess would be an appropriate description - image significantly lacking in detail. If the camera could shoot Raw, then better NR could be applied but even then, there just wouldn't be much information in the image compared to what is possible with a DSLR.

Canon is stopping at 8MP for their APS-C cameras which I believe is the most appropriate balance between pixel quality and resolution. Nikon is at 10MP for the D200 and more than pushing the limit IMHO at 12MP for the D2X.

Then there is the issue of lenses. Trying to make lenses that could resolve enough detail to justify a 37MP sensor is just beyond the realm of feasibility. Even if it could be done, the cost of the lens would be astronomical.

Anyway, I ordered up the Panasonic LX1. It should arrive by Tuesday. The Fuji F30 intrigued me but after seeing the high-ISO images from the F10/11 I figured the functionality was just not that useful for my tastes. While it would be nice to merely have access to high-ISOs the image stabilization in the LX1 should prove itself to be much more useful for me. If I need high-ISO performance, I'l use the right tool for the job: my DLSR.

I was also contemplating the Sony F7 despite my distaste for Sony as a company. Ultimately, I decided against it due to those confounded proprietary memory sticks. The camera required the newest version of MS, which means I'd pay out the wazzo for memory I would never be able to use elsewhere. If only Sony would give up their anal-retentive obsession to lock customers into their crap...

I'm sure once Photokina comes around, Panasonic will release the LX2 and it'll be 1/3" thick and everything else I want now. :)
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 05, 2006, 05:29:52 pm
I just got the LX1 (black) yesterday. It is remarkable how small this is considering what you get. Just for kicks. I dusted off my G3 after fiddling with the LX1 a bit and the G3 looked huge in comparison. It's funny.

The responsiveness is very nice for a P&S and the width and hight of it are about as small as I could ever want in a camera. Seriously, if it was any smaller I wouldn't be able to hold the buggard. I would like to see thinner however, particularly in the lens department. I won't be carrying it around in the pocket as the lens with hood makes the thickness 1 2/3" thick for a sizable bulge. This'll due for now however until the market catches up as the image quality/responsiveness/ease-of-use makes up for that. Maybe by Photokina there will be a completely flat Lumix or something else of this caliber at which point I'll trade up.

Being a consumer camera it comes with some goofy features such as "Baby Mode" and "Self Portrait" (for all the budding camera-whores out there). Ha! What fun.

It is a well designed camera in terms of appearance and function. I particularly like how it uses the joystick to set WB, ISO and image quality.

The image quality is very good for a P&S. Very sharp. It does have some issues I've noticed with CR at the wide but it's not bad and as Michael mentioned in his review, it s noisy but it's chroma noise. No issue there. When shooting Raw, it actually shoots RAW+Jpeg which let me compare ACR's rendering to the camera's. I was pleased to see, ACR rendered colors quite closely to the cameras Jpegs so ACR calibration won't be needed.

And for anyone thinking of buying this camera, fast SD cards make a huge difference in performance.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: cgf on April 10, 2006, 07:48:44 am
Quote
I'm sure once Photokina comes around, Panasonic will release the LX2 and it'll be 1/3" thick and everything else I want now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Argh!     And I only just got my LX1...

The only thing I wish it did was auto-bracket when shooting raw.

And you're right re fast SD cards... Extreme-III's (or similar) are the way to go.

Chris.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Chris_T on April 10, 2006, 08:39:51 am
I'm also looking for something similar, and have been researching these: Canon S2 IS (and S3 IS soon), Panansonic Lumix DMC FZ5, Sony H1, Kodak DX740Z, and Minolta Z5, etc. Based on the number of manufacturers and models in this range, there must be a high demand for them. Would like to know how these compare to the models already mentioned.

BTW, I have yet to come across a model in this range that does not lag 8+ sec. when shooting RAW. My take is that this will improve over time when the in camera buffer size is increased.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: cgf on April 10, 2006, 08:45:55 am
Quote
BTW, I have yet to come across a model in this range that does not lag 8+ sec. when shooting RAW. My take is that this will improve over time when the in camera buffer size is increased.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can't comment on those cameras, but could it be the card?

With Sandisk Extreme III SD cards, my LX-1 takes between 2 and 3 seconds to save a raw file.

Chris.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 10, 2006, 10:12:29 am
I bought a LUMIX LX-1 a week ago here in Toronto, looking for roughly the same specs Jonathan stated at the outset of this thread. I think it is a very good camera. It is shirt-pocket despite the lens-bulge - in fact if you store it with the LCD against your body, the lens bulge helps to prevent the camera from falling out of your shirt pocket when you lean forward.

Getting to the substance: the three aspect ratios are nice. The 16:9 at full wide-angle really comes close to panoramic photography with 8.3 MP - not bad. The sharpness and colour rendering (I only judge this from RAW files) are remarkable. At low ISO (80~100) I can get away with a fine A3 (16:9 aspect ratio) not using any noise reduction software. In the 100~200 ISO range, Noise Ninja applied selectively or globally works fine. I haven't tried higher ISO. There is some barrel distortion noticeable on straight lines close-up with wide-angle settings, but this is easily correctable in PSCS2.The little flash it includes has remarkable reach and coverage considering how small it is. The camera packs a large number of the most desirable features for capture and playback that are easy to access, easy to use and they perform well. Battery life is OK at about 250 shots, recharging is compact and convenient. The camera tethers to the computer by USB facilitating easy download of images. The LCD is OK in most situations but quite useless in bright sunlight with highly reflective ambient conditions.

It's not cheap but it's good. Who knows, by the time Photokina rolls around they may announce an improved version with better noise performance at higher ISO and an improved LCD screen, but who knows. In this business one buys now what one needs now and looks at up-grading based on the costs and benefits as and when they appear.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 10, 2006, 01:46:19 pm
In case some might want to know, while looking for a decent cell-phone case (a heckuva chore in itself) I noticed Covertec (http://www.covertec.com/) is selling cases for some P&S cameras that can hang off the belt. Particularly cameras that store flat. I have a Covertec case for my Palm so I can vouch for the quality of materials.

I haven't done any testing on battery life (as in, I haven't paid much attention) but have been doing fine thus far. When I've use it it was in complement to my DSLR (sporadic shooting) filling up almost a gig each time and leaving me with about 2/3 to 1/2 battery life left (IS turned on). I don't look at battery life as an issue though as the batteries are very small and MWave.com is selling third party batteries for the camera at $10 each (http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=AA42960).
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 12, 2006, 02:20:50 am
FIY, I have just bought a Coolpix P4 and am pretty happy so far.

Some quick images taken these past few days in Tokyo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28128708@N00/...57594103107613/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28128708@N00/sets/72057594103107613/)

First impressions:

++++
-----

- VR works great,
- image quality at ISO 50 and 100 is great, good at 200 and poor at ISO 400,
- the AF works fine, even in pretty dark areas, but I only used the central sensor (didn't even try the other modes),
- DR is of course not 5D class, but it is completely usable,
- exposure is overall very accurate, with a slight tendency to underexpose in dark scenes with brights areas (neons for instance). A simple +0.7 exposure compensation could correct that. Day light were overall spot on, the over-exposed images were mostly my own fault... :-)

MINUS
------

- the auto WB works OK in mixed lighting, but had a hard time compensating for the green cast found in predominently neon lightning situations,
- the interface is OK, but could have been made faster to operate rather easily.
->The shutter button is so so, when half pushing for AF lock, I find that I often accidentaly release it.
-> why is there a need to push to the right of the selector to access the aperture control capability when in A mode???
-> why is there only an horizontal panorama assistant when everybody knows that panoramas are short in portrait mode???
- I really miss a wider angle capability (but knew I would),
- the battery life appears to be a potential problem, but the batteries are still on their first charge, it could improve later on,
- distorsion on the wide end is pretty strong, but what can you expect?...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 12, 2006, 09:32:43 am
Bernard, I was really looking forward to seeing your pictures of Tokyo but when I clicked on the link a notice came up from "Flickr" saying "Page not Found".

Cheers,

Mark
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on April 12, 2006, 01:44:07 pm
Quote
Bernard, I was really looking forward to seeing your pictures of Tokyo but when I clicked on the link a notice came up from "Flickr" saying "Page not Found".

It worked fine for me.  Your photos are causing flashbacks to my recent trip there!  

Lisa
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 12, 2006, 02:21:37 pm
OK, I tried again and it worked - must have been an internet glitch between Toronto and Tokyo - fun photographs Bernard and really decent image quality - pure Tokyo; I do enjoy the night photography and do alot of that as well.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 12, 2006, 05:34:41 pm
Lisa and Mark,

Thank you for your kind comments.

It's probably just me who didn't have a realistic image of the level compact digital cameras had reached, but I have to say that I am impressed with the results in pretty difficult shooting conditions.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on April 12, 2006, 06:36:29 pm
Quote
It's probably just me who didn't have a realistic image of the level compact digital cameras had reached, but I have to say that I am impressed with the results in pretty difficult shooting conditions.

I'm planning to get a digicam myself soon, and am trying to decide between a Panasonic LX1 and a Fujifilm F30.  It's good to see that one can take decent images with a digicam!

Lisa
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 12, 2006, 07:07:04 pm
Lisa, for me that choice is easy. The Panasonic makes RAW captures and the Fuji doesn't. To me that means a whole lot before looking any further. Panasonic has 8.1 MP at 16:9 aspect ratio, 2 more aspect ratios and a Leica lens. Panasonic is 6.3 MP, two aspect ratios and not a Leica lens. I haven't seen any comparison between the two re image quality (esp noise), but the LX-1 based on my use of it over the past couple of weeks really produces nice images.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 12, 2006, 07:18:28 pm
Mark and Lisa,

Yep, those 2 were also on my short list but:

- I found Panasonic sensors to be even noisier than Sony ones. What is your experience Mark? Besides, I end up cropping many images to a more square format, 8 MP in panorama means 6 in 4/3...
- For my predominently landscape usage, VR and low ISO is probably more interesting than high ISO quality without VR, this helped me decide against the F30. The results I am getting for night shots confirm this initial intuition.

I actually used to own a F10 (for only 2 months), but it died from water exposure. I didn't really like the way Fuji handled these matters.

Nonetheless, I had the chance to play with a F30 during the PIE show in Tokyo a month ago, and the image quality at ISO 1600 is probably better than that of the Coolpix P4 at 400 ISO.

I might get one for party usage after all. Those are very small investements compared to pro lenses/bodies. Having a back up of the back up of the back up might be wise.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 12, 2006, 07:36:30 pm
Bernard, I can't speak for Sony or Fuji sensors because I have no direct experience using them, but I can talk about the LX-1. As I'm sure you know well, noise is a very slippery business. Now you see it, now you don't.

With the Panasonic, even at 100 ISO, on the monitor I can see traces of noise when the image is pumped up to 100% and I look at low light areas. At 200 it becomes a bit more pronounced. I haven't tried higher ISOs yet.

Printed on an A3 the noise at 100 is truly hard to see, but if you really look you'll find it in the usual places where it would occur. So I did a test - I took one image that showed traces of noise on the computer monitor, duplicated the background layer, treated that layer with Noise Ninja, checked on the monitor that Noise Ninja actually ninja-ed the noise, then ran a print with the Noise Ninja layer on and another one with it off. A few people on whom I tested these prints couldn't tell the difference between them, until I pointed out that one was a bit sharper than the other - and of course I could have repaired that too with a bit of sharpening on the ninja-ed version.

So yes, this camera has a reputation of being a bit noisy, and I probably won't like what I get at higher ISOs, but the reasons I haven't been fussed about the higher ISOs or the noise is that I seldom need to shoot at high ISO, and we have a battery of techniques for dealing with noise globally or selectively when we need to.

I read all the reviews about LX-1 noise and decided for me having a RAW image format more than compensates for dealing with a bit of noise. Anyhow, as you say about back-ups, this is not my primary camera. The 1Ds is still there for the real serious stuff.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: boku on April 12, 2006, 08:42:44 pm
I've been lurking on this thread since Jonathan started it. Seems we both wanted the same animal.

I just ordered the LX-1. I'm OK with ISO100. It's an all-day pocket camera. I can work with the noise and lens distortion where needed.

You people are draining my bank account.      
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 12, 2006, 09:27:04 pm
Bank account? What's that...................
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on April 12, 2006, 09:29:54 pm
I haven't made any decision yet; I went off on a tangent and got a Samsung SC-X105L Sport Camcorder (http://desktopvideo.about.com/od/equipment/gr/SCX105L_RO.htm), which does a surprisingly good job of shooting video from a unit about the size of a pack of cigarettes. I got it for $200 at Best Buy (it was a returned item and discontinued so I got a double discount) so I've blown my discretionary income for a while. It has 512MB of internal memory and a Memory Stick slot, and is truly small enough to carry in a pocket anywhere. But I still want to get a decent compact still camera some day...
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 12, 2006, 10:13:47 pm
Use it well Jonathan - and thanks for starting this interesting thread. It was interesting to see how many people with relatively expensive gear were of the same mindset having bought or intending to buy one of these new generation shirt-pocket digicams.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: DiaAzul on April 13, 2006, 02:57:27 am
Quote
I've been lurking on this thread since Jonathan started it. Seems we both wanted the same animal.

I just ordered the LX-1. I'm OK with ISO100. It's an all-day pocket camera. I can work with the noise and lens distortion where needed.

You people are draining my bank account.     
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you let us know how you get on with the LX-1? It is one of the few pocketables that I would consider. I am particularly interested in how you get on with the 28mm lens and widescreen - does it provide a good step up from 35mm equivalent lens on a typical P&S? Plus the usual handling, speed, and noise/quality issues - would be nice to get another opinion on this camera.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Craig Arnold on April 13, 2006, 04:20:35 am
Another Panasonic/Leica pocket camera has just caught my eye.

Panasonic DMC-FX01 or Leica C-LUX1.

It has an image stabilized 28-105mm (EFL) f2.8-5.6 ISO up to 1600, and a 6Mp sensor.

It's very small and (in Leica livery at least) looks fantastic.

I've been thinking of getting a small camera to keep in my pocket for "decisive moment" stuff, mostly on the underground and streets of London.

Sure it seems fairly noisy at higher ISO, but for street photography I'd mostly be shooting at the wide angle where it gives f2.8 plus the OIS and the ability to boost the ISO if necessary.

Better to have noise than lose the shot, right? Also for street photography I really don't see myself needing prints over A4 size, and often smaller will do just fine. So with a bit of noise reduction I reckon it might be OK as a low-light option.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 13, 2006, 08:24:58 am
David, I know you addressed this to Bob, but on one of the factors you raised I'll re-iterate one point I made about this camera in several posts above. The combination of the 16:9 aspect ratio and the 28mm lens gives a truly remarkable sweep of content. I believe it is as close to panoramic as you'll get in any camera that isn't a pano camera. At 28mm I do notice a bit of distortion at the far edges, but it is liveable.

When speaking of noise, you also need to factor-in that it provides a RAW file - as you well know that makes a huge difference to what you can do with the image in post-processing, which helps not only the noise issue but everything else you may want to tweak. (By the way the DMC FX-01 does not provide a RAW file format, and in fact there are VERY few digicams that do.)

Bernard's photos have tempted me to take my LX-1 to downtown Toronto one evening soon and try some night snaps. We can't replicate the colour and glitter of Tokyo at night here - different kind of place - but there will be enough to test the photographic quality especially below the mid-tones.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on April 13, 2006, 12:23:08 pm
Re the F30 / LX1 comparison:

It's true the LX1 has RAW and the F30 doesn't, but that's more or less balanced out for me by the fact that the F30 has *much* less noise (you can check out the comparisons in DPReview's reviews).  I pretty frequently have to crank up the ISO to 400 or 800 because of low light (redwood forests, rainy days, etc.), and the LX1 looks awful at high ISO, while the F30 looks far better than anything else in its class (according to DPReview, and evident in their sample images).  The F30 is also a smidgen smaller and lighter, and I'm trying to keep the size and weight to an absolute minimum so that it will fit in my purse all the time (after all, for serious stuff, I have a D200, but I'm not always carrying it around with me).

The LX1's 28mm end could be nice, but it only works at the 16:9 aspect ratio.  Me, 99% of the time I work at 1.5/1 aspect ratio, and, cropped to that aspect ratio, the two cameras have pretty much the same number of pixels.

The only reason I'm dithering at all is the LX1's RAW capability.  But, right now, I give it an 80% probability I'll go with the F30 when it comes out here, and learn to live with high-quality JPG instead of RAW.  If ISO 100 were usually enough for me, however, I would probably go with the LX1 instead.

Lisa
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 13, 2006, 12:45:49 pm
I guess all of us who bought LX-1's recently would regret not waiting just in case Panasonic hears all the noise and comes out with a cleaner sensor at Photokina this Fall.  

Anyhow Lisa, that makes sense - if you need ISOs beyond the 200s, nothing I've read or seen suggests the LX-1 would be the best way to go, though Michael's review suggests that up to 400 Noise Ninja can handle it OK. I should do some tests at 400 to see for myself, eventhough I seldom use high ISO.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 13, 2006, 02:12:12 pm
Quote
The combination of the 16:9 aspect ratio and the 28mm lens gives a truly remarkable sweep of content. I believe it is as close to panoramic as you'll get in any camera that isn't a pano camera.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=62461\")
I'll say. I'm used to a 28[a href=\"http://www.oaktree-imaging.com/glossary#mme]mm-e[/url] lens due to my G3, but this is something else. I keep surprising myself with the LX1 as the aspect ratio makes it seem allot wider than expected.

Noise is of course very subjective and how the LX1 stacks up depends heavily on what you are photographing and your attitude about it. I have some ISO 400 shots that look like monkey-butt and others that are more than acceptable with no noise reduction. In either case, a little Noise Ninja treatment cleans things up very well.

For me, I came into this fully expecting to have to deal with noise. These are P&S cameras after all. So far I have used the LX1 at all ISOs without reservation (particularly since it wants to keep ISO down and lower shutter speed a tad too much when set to Auto ISO). If I don't want noise, I'll use a DSLR. The camera's size and coverage of the lens more than makes up for any noise "problem" in my opinion.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: boku on April 13, 2006, 08:44:26 pm
Quote
Can you let us know how you get on with the LX-1? It is one of the few pocketables that I would consider. I am particularly interested in how you get on with the 28mm lens and widescreen - does it provide a good step up from 35mm equivalent lens on a typical P&S? Plus the usual handling, speed, and noise/quality issues - would be nice to get another opinion on this camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62450\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll be back with some first impressions next week likely.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: DaveLon on April 14, 2006, 05:25:49 pm
Quote
I'll be back with some first impressions next week likely.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I need reading glasses but have no need for bi-focals. How does one use a LCD screen to take pictures without the hassel of putting on glasses to see the screen and taking them off to see beyond 3 feet ( 1 meter)

Thanks

Dave
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 14, 2006, 06:09:01 pm
Ask your optometrist to write a prescription for a pair of progressives that go from your reading prescription to no prescription; progressives have no line breaks; after quite a few hundred dollars you will have glasses that you wear but don't need to remove. You just look a very small bit up or down as needed. Depending on how your brain and eyes coordinate it can take a day or more to get used to, but after that it's second nature. Lindberg Air Titaniums are almost weightless and invisible (and so will be your wallet after buying them, but.................)
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Chris_T on April 17, 2006, 08:01:16 am
Other than black/silver, are there different versions of LX-1 available to the US? One eBay vendor is selling brand new in box LX-1 for less than $400. That is quite low compared to the other online prices.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 17, 2006, 12:27:28 pm
Quote
Other than black/silver, are there different versions of LX-1 available to the US? One eBay vendor is selling brand new in box LX-1 for less than $400. That is quite low compared to the other online prices.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The LX1 only comes in the two versions. I got my black version for $430 via 6ave.com. Personally I am a bit skeptical about buying things marked as new from eBay when they sell for less than the typical going rate.



Just so people considering this camera know, it eats up memory fast when shooting Raw. Each raw file is about 18mb in size and each comes with a full sized Jpeg. My 2GB card filled up after only 107 photos.

I doubt it'll happen but I hope Panasonic releases a firmware update to compress the raw files and at the least use small jpegs from preview. The camera would perform quite a bit better if it didn't have to write so much data to the card with each shot.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: boku on April 17, 2006, 12:38:25 pm
Quote
The LX1 only comes in the two versions. I got my black version for $430 via 6ave.com. Personally I am a bit skeptical about buying things marked as new from eBay when they sell for less than the typical going rate.
Just so people considering this camera know, it eats up memory fast when shooting Raw. Each raw file is about 18mb in size and each comes with a full sized Jpeg. My 2GB card filled up after only 107 photos.

I doubt it'll happen but I hope Panasonic releases a firmware update to compress the raw files and at the least use small jpegs from preview. The camera would perform quite a bit better if it didn't have to write so much data to the card with each shot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed, my 1 GB cards hold 53 raw! Funny, since changing the aspect ratio still saves the entire 16:9 vista, only hides it, what's the point? I'd like to get smaller images when shooting 4:3.

I know I said I would give this camera a first look feedback report, but I had little opportunity to use it over the weekend. Four immediate observations:

1) To me, it is very tiny - more than I expected. I have small hands and still need to squish my fingers to hold it. No big deal. On the other hand, because of its diminutive size it is very portable.

2) I profiled it for Noise Ninja and Neat Image from ISO 80-400. I can't imagine using this thing without one of those programs. Again, no big deal.

3) Lots of barrel distortion at the wide extreme. I expected this.

4) I will have a hard time dealing with the lack of a viewfinder - I expected this tradeoff.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 17, 2006, 01:41:31 pm
Bob, my experience with this camera so far suggests (using Noise Ninja) it is best to profile each image, because the Luminance and Chroma values vary substantially depending on the subject matter and settings. I have profiled values ranging from a Total low of 15 to a high of 24 (on ISO 80). Because at this low ISO setting noise that is visible when pumped-up on the monitor is hardly visible in the print, sometimes I forgo it altogether to preserve maximum sharpness. Another approach I use is to duplicate the background layer, apply NN to the duplicated layer, hide it with a Hide All layer mask, and then paint-in the noise reduction very selectively. It all happens much faster than it sounds.

Lack of viewfinder - yes indeed - I keep putting this little "toy" up to my face and then realise there is nothing to see through. That will pass.  
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: combatcamera on April 17, 2006, 01:45:03 pm
Hi Jonathan:

I used to use a Canon G2, and now use a  Canon A620 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona620/).  Both have a flip-screen, which is very useful in the field, and they fit into your pocket and are very light.  I use these point-and-shoots all the time wherever I'm working - alongside a D2X.  They are especially great for candids.

Sgt Frank Hudec
Canadian Forces Combat Camera

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca (http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca)
www.frankhudec.ca (http://www.frankhudec.ca)
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 17, 2006, 02:18:45 pm
Sgd Hudec, I just visited your website and looked at the DART photos. They are excellent - gives a real perspective on the tragedies you help to overcome and the role DART is playing. These images deserve wider circulation - especially for the next inevitable debate (whenever) here in Canada about whether the cost of DART is "worth it". Keep up the great work!
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: boku on April 17, 2006, 02:50:07 pm
Quote
Bob, my experience with this camera so far suggests (using Noise Ninja) it is best to profile each image, because the Luminance and Chroma values vary substantially depending on the subject matter and settings. I have profiled values ranging from a Total low of 15 to a high of 24 (on ISO 80). Because at this low ISO setting noise that is visible when pumped-up on the monitor is hardly visible in the print, sometimes I forgo it altogether to preserve maximum sharpness. Another approach I use is to duplicate the background layer, apply NN to the duplicated layer, hide it with a Hide All layer mask, and then paint-in the noise reduction very selectively. It all happens much faster than it sounds.

Thanks for the tip - I'll look into it.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: woodrowcampbell on April 17, 2006, 07:01:45 pm
I've owned a Ricoh GRD for the last six months and I love it.  The camera provokes strong reactions.  It's a fixed focal length 28mm equivelant.  If this works for you take a look at it.  Googel it and you'll a number of threads, reviews etc.

Woody

www.woodycampbell.com (http://www.woodycampbell.com)
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Chris_T on April 18, 2006, 08:43:20 am
Quote
The LX1 only comes in the two versions. I got my black version for $430 via 6ave.com. Personally I am a bit skeptical about buying things marked as new from eBay when they sell for less than the typical going rate.
Just so people considering this camera know, it eats up memory fast when shooting Raw. Each raw file is about 18mb in size and each comes with a full sized Jpeg. My 2GB card filled up after only 107 photos.

I doubt it'll happen but I hope Panasonic releases a firmware update to compress the raw files and at the least use small jpegs from preview. The camera would perform quite a bit better if it didn't have to write so much data to the card with each shot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the street price is ~$450, then the eBay price is not that big a deal. I thought the LX1 goes for ~$550.

Are you suggesting that LX1's RAW files are uncompressed at all?
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 18, 2006, 09:29:42 am
I'm also looking for a small unnoisy high resolution, etc street camera, but nothing on the market as far as I'm aware shoots to the level required for stock submission which is what I want it for. Lugging around my 5D isn't my idea of fun either so I think I'm going to wait it out for a while, considering where we were just 3 years ago in the days when the original 1Ds was the creme de la creme, I don't mind waiting it out. The project I have in mind can't be started for another year and a half anyway.

Film anyone?  
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 18, 2006, 09:58:10 am
Pom, based on my experience with the LX-1 to date, "small", "high resolution" and "un-noisy" remains a contradiction in terms. You just can't have it all, unless there is some model which produces RAW files that I don't know about. I mention the RAW files because this is important for quality post-processing needed to resolve the contradictions. As you well know, there are limits to what you can do with a pre-baked JPEG. At least the raw file allows one to deal with the noise and still obtain very acceptable sharpness. Just last night I finished processing a batch of family photos printed to A4. They were shot at ISO 80, treated with Noise Ninja and sharpened in PK Sharpener Pro. The quality of the prints is remarkable, if I dare say so myself. I wouldn't trade this for film any day, but I know you were (half?) joking. All that said, if you can wait - of course - having just recently bought this camera I have no illusion it will become obsolete in the not too distant future (but can't know exactly when). But on that basis one would never buy any of this stuff, because it will always become obsolete in the not too distant future. A real dilemma, which just gets resolved as you say: buy when needed.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: mbridgers on April 18, 2006, 10:17:07 am
Does anyone have a Fuji E900?  That pretty small, shoots RAW (somewhat slowly) and is pretty clean at higher ISOs, though I think it overdoes the noise reduction a bit.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 18, 2006, 11:32:52 am
Quote
Are you suggesting that LX1's RAW files are uncompressed at all?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd say they have a weak amount of compression. After converting them to DNG they go from 16-18MB to 7-9.5MB in size.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 19, 2006, 07:42:02 pm
I had the chance to play a bit with the new Canon Ixus 800 IS (Japanese name), and was impressed by what I saw:

- IS seems to work almost as well as on my Coolpix P4, although perhaps not quite as well,
- the noise is much less at 400 ISO, and 800 ISO seems usable,
- the camera is significantly more compact, perhaps even too small,
- the screen appear to be a tad better.

BUT, for the Panasonic fans

- it doesn't go very wide,
- there is no RAW,
- it is "only" 6 MP.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 20, 2006, 12:01:53 am
For anyone interested I have custom noise ninja profiles for the LX1 for download (http://www.dynamicartwork.com/downloads/#nnprofile). They are designed specifically for shooting Raw and converting with ACR with sharpening and noise reduction turned off.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: beebleb on April 20, 2006, 01:04:59 am
Has anyone mentioned the Ricoh GR Digital yet? It seems to fit the bill quite well, though there are obvious concerns regarding the price!

Right now the LX1 is high on my list, with the exception of the viewfinder. I'm really out to do some Decisive Moment style photography, and subtly pulling out a camera and holding it 2 feet away from me doesn't really make sense for me. How are the existing LX1 owners finding this?
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 20, 2006, 08:25:34 am
Quote
For anyone interested I have custom noise ninja profiles for the LX1 for download (http://www.dynamicartwork.com/downloads/#nnprofile). They are designed specifically for shooting Raw and converting with ACR with sharpening and noise reduction turned off.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Daniel, I just downloaded some LX-1 images yesterday that I shot in broad daylight at ISO 80. The Noise Ninja noise index ranged from 15 to 45 depending on the image. Why so broad a range at the same ISO I don't know. The camera was set to raw and aperture priority at f4.5, so the things that changed between images were the subject matter, the zoom ratio and the shutter speed. I'm wondering how useful canned profiles would be faced with such a broad range of noise indices.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 20, 2006, 08:30:14 am
Quote
Right now the LX1 is high on my list, with the exception of the viewfinder. I'm really out to do some Decisive Moment style photography, and subtly pulling out a camera and holding it 2 feet away from me doesn't really make sense for me. How are the existing LX1 owners finding this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm getting good results from this camera but the viewfinder issue is a pain. Holding a camera two feet away does lacks subtility - but my primary concern is more about stability. One simply can't anchor the camera against any body parts and leverage is exercised when pushing the exposure button. I am trying to get used to it, as my other camera is a Canon 1Ds. I think the solution is to keep one's arms as relaxed as possible and push the shutter button gently. Despite this issue I keep being surprised by how sharp these images are. That lens and the stabilization really work!
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: boku on April 20, 2006, 09:00:59 am
Quote
Right now the LX1 is high on my list, with the exception of the viewfinder. I'm really out to do some Decisive Moment style photography, and subtly pulling out a camera and holding it 2 feet away from me doesn't really make sense for me. How are the existing LX1 owners finding this?

2 Feet? I hold this camera more like 8-12 inches away. But then, I have progressive lenses. I would think that 2 feet would cause me some issues: image too small to compose with, trembling arms, looking like a jerk, etc.

I have 2 challenges using the LCD for composition:
1) Everything works in reverse, so leveling the horizon is counter-intuitive.
2) In bright sun, even with the screen boost on, the LCD technology is lacking.

Nevertheless, eliminating the viewfinder was a valid design compromise to achieve the goal: a near-perfect pocket camera for the advanced shooter.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 20, 2006, 09:51:41 am
Mark, I wasn't joking in that what I need is not available in digital as yet. A leica or similar would give me grain of my choosing, the resolution needed for stock photography and the control, etc, etc.

BUT I don't want or can afford the expense of film on a self funded project. Neither can I face the prospect of all the scanning and bumf which is needed.

You say that at present the things most people seem to want are a contradiction in terms for pocket digital cameras. I agree which is why I'm willing to wait it out as at the present time in digital photography with the emphasis moving away from the megapixel race and towards better pixels and better camera useability, what we all want here cannot be that far away in the future....
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 20, 2006, 09:56:57 am
Quote
what we all want here cannot be that far away in the future....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let us hope..............should be the case, unless they've reached a point where the "Laws of Physics" have created a binding constraint ........until the next major breakthrough in sensor design, materials technology or image processing takes place.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 20, 2006, 12:59:57 pm
Quote
Right now the LX1 is high on my list, with the exception of the viewfinder. I'm really out to do some Decisive Moment style photography, and subtly pulling out a camera and holding it 2 feet away from me doesn't really make sense for me. How are the existing LX1 owners finding this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to admit it's a bit odd at first. I keep smearing the LCD by habitually placing the thing to my eye. Using a LCD isn't that difficult once you get past the habit of using a viewfinder though. You only need to have the thing a good 8-10 inches away, not two feet. As Bob mentioned, the biggest drawback is the LCD technology. The LX1 is one of the more useable screens available but it still has issues at times with legibility.

Quote
Daniel, I just downloaded some LX-1 images yesterday that I shot in broad daylight at ISO 80. The Noise Ninja noise index ranged from 15 to 45 depending on the image. Why so broad a range at the same ISO I don't know. The camera was set to raw and aperture priority at f4.5, so the things that changed between images were the subject matter, the zoom ratio and the shutter speed. I'm wondering how useful canned profiles would be faced with such a broad range of noise indices.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you are reading into that number incorrectly. You say you are auto-profiling correct? That would explain the variation in the noise index. You can get the same sort of variation with ISO 100 images from a 20D using auto-profile. The reason is that each time you auto-profile, NN is sampling a different amount of noise depending on how well it can find smooth tonal areas to sample from.

So, assuming each sample point is of a region lacking any detail (which isn't always the case with auto-profile) then an image where NN collected more sample information there will be a larger noise index (up to a point) than an image with less sample information.

Canned profiles would be very useful since they eliminate the variable of image content. The profiles are made using a broad range of different tonal and color values lacking any actual detail. NN can use this information to correctly create a fingerprint of the noise characteristics of the camera without having to contend with variations to the content of the image having an effect on its readings.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 20, 2006, 04:59:43 pm
Daniel,

Firstly, thanks for making available to us your generic profiles for the LX-1. I have downloaded them and I shall try using them. But first - are they compatible with a Windows O/S?

Secondly, your theory about how the image content affects the noise index when auto-profiling sounds logical and seductive - until I tested it with two images that are roughly the same thing - same subject from different angles - a community center, a road in front of it and lots of blue sky above it. NN sampled each of these images using mainly the blue sky, and a small sample or two from the road. In one image the index was 45, in the other it was 13.

So what I'm going to do next is apply your generic profile for ISO 80 to both of these images and see what happens. My main observation points for evaluating results is the usual trade-off between loss of detail versus reduction of noise.

Cheers,

Mark
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 20, 2006, 08:51:12 pm
Quote
Daniel,

Firstly, thanks for making available to us your generic profiles for the LX-1. I have downloaded them and I shall try using them. But first - are they compatible with a Windows O/S?

Secondly, your theory about how the image content affects the noise index when auto-profiling sounds logical and seductive - until I tested it with two images that are roughly the same thing - same subject from different angles - a community center, a road in front of it and lots of blue sky above it. NN sampled each of these images using mainly the blue sky, and a small sample or two from the road. In one image the index was 45, in the other it was 13.

So what I'm going to do next is apply your generic profile for ISO 80 to both of these images and see what happens. My main observation points for evaluating results is the usual trade-off between loss of detail versus reduction of noise.

Cheers,

Mark
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63190\")
The profiles are platform independent. The should work with either the stand-alone product or the plugin version as well.

Perhaps there is a variation in the camera itself, but again, it's possible to get very different noise index values with the same camera even if the scene is very similar (I ran across this when testing it with a 20D for my last post). The real meat of the matter is whether it'll make a difference in the final image.

I did some looking about at PictureCode's website for info on the noise index and [a href=\"http://www.picturecode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=307&highlight=noise+index]the following[/url] is the most relevant I could find:
Quote
Used with some care, the Noise Index appears to have possible use for comparing cameras, though I've been debating whether to publish comparisons based on it. I'm not sure if the photography world needs another set of numerical specifications to argue about.

You have to be careful interpreting the numbers. For instance, a difference of +/- 10% (or perhaps more) is probably negligible and could just be due to sampling errors during the profiling process. Likewise, if two cameras have different settings for sharpness, contrast, etc. then the resulting comparison will not be as meaningful.

It would be interesting to get Dr. Jim Christian (Picturecode founder) to comment on this so I dropped him an e-mail.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 20, 2006, 11:01:21 pm
Quote
The real meat of the matter is whether it'll make a difference in the final image.
..........................
It would be interesting to get Dr. Jim Christian (Picturecode founder) to comment on this so I dropped him an e-mail.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Daniel, yes indeed - the final image is the only test that really matters. Pump-up an LX-1 image that looks quite clean at full frame monitor view to 100% and sure as I am writing this note - even at ISO 80 - there will be visible noise in the darker areas. Print it at A3 size without any NN and chances are you'd be hard-pressed to notice it. I tested this with one such image on unsuspecting family and Photoshop-savvy friends - one print after NN, the other the identical image without NN. When I asked them to show me the difference, after a while of looking the reactions ranged from "what am I looking for?" to "is this one a wee bit sharper here and there than that one?" I stopped making a fetish of LX-1 noise.

That much said, it would be good to hear what Dr. Christian says, so if you hear back, looking forward to seeing the response.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 21, 2006, 03:01:08 pm
Just got a response from Fern of PictureCode:
Quote
Hi Daniel,

The noise index is a statistical summary of many measurements and it is normal for it to vary somewhat even between similar images. There can also be even larger differences in noise index between a profile generated from a regular image and one generated from the profile chart. This does not mean that the profile from the profile chart is less accurate. The profile chart contains a broad range of colors and tones while a typical image will only include a subset and this is reflected in the differences in noise index. So while the profile generated from a single image will not be as accurate as the profile chart outside of the colors and tones available in the image for sampling it will do a good job if used on the image from which it was generated. I think the variance that MarkDS saw was normal and should not discourage you from using custom camera profiles. Custom camera profiles save time and are more accurate for images that are difficult to profile.

Best regards,
Fern
PictureCode
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 21, 2006, 03:13:17 pm
Daniel, thanks, that was a useful initiative.

By the way, what on the map of the US is "The Granola Bar State"?
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: DarkPenguin on April 21, 2006, 03:18:36 pm
Quote
Daniel, thanks, that was a useful initiative.

By the way, what on the map of the US is "The Granola Bar State"?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Has to be CA.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 21, 2006, 05:30:35 pm
Quote
Has to be CA.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A cigar for the winner!

Yes, good ol' California. It's full of Fruits, Flakes and Nuts.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 21, 2006, 05:43:34 pm
That's what makes it such a fun place to visit!
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 26, 2006, 09:11:45 am
Now if only Contax had stayed alive and made a G3, keep everything the same function wise as the G2, just a 1.6X 8-10 megapixel chip, a 2" screen with histogram/highlights preview and an ability to shoot RAW onto CF cards.

I wish!

I was almost on the point today of buying a G2 for street B&W work but I didn't realise that I would be paying the same again on a decent scanner (no point in using contax lenses but scanning sub par, especially as I would want 16X20" prints). I really liked everything about it from the functions to the noise level and the very suprisingly good AF speed, it fits well in my hand and the ability to dial in hyperfocal distance in manual focus which can't be knocked off, while changing to AF and back with the flick of a switch for shooting with wider apertures really impressed me.  

I was in the 2nd hand store looking at a table full of rangefinders looking for something that suited me. I really didn't like the Leicas (M3,M4,M6) for feel as well as the rather limiting shutter speeds (I'm looking for shooting in the Mid East, from experience 1/1000 is often not enough even at f4 during the day time). The Voiglander R2a had the best viewfinder and the IMO the best rangefinder 'square' but the rest of it wasn't so great, the shutter noise was almost the equal to a 20D that I tried next to it for tone and that is not good! The rangefinder I liked the best by a long stretch was the Konica Kexar RF, fit well to hand, super quiet even with the advance and a nice viewfinder. The G2 was on offer for £500 including the 35mm and 90mm in pristine condition for the price of the Konica body alone and given the great contax lenses, the nice AF (I'm not the worlds fastest manual focuser) and everything else it looked to be a sure winner despite being larger.

I was on my way to buy it today when I popped in to look at the prices of higher end film scanners. I've never done any scanning so I had assumed around £250, not twice that amount as it seemed from the Nikon and Minolta models. Once you are paying that amount for the camera, then the scanner, then the film over the next few years, damn it I could buy another 5D.

Film may be dying but possibly due to the heavy marketing at regular consumers and the death of so many companies dealing in this kind of market, the rangefinder niche seems to be passing by with very little if anything to replace it other than consumer P&S cameras with tiny sensors (have you seen the facial tones from those things?) unacceptable shutter lag and AF speed and a host of other annoyances. Yes there is the RD-1 and maybe the digital M may appear but the prices are high, the options far far too few and who knows whether this will just be the dying gasp of the type of compact camera which could be taken anywhere and do most anything. Now it's either DSLR or P&S.

Another point that I've been wondering is if in 5 years from now film will be a viable option economically either even if I were to invest in a decent scanner. Things are moving so fast, huge and groundbreaking changes are rocking the photographic world so often, will it be affordable to shoot B&W or even any film in the future? Will the economic realities make film disappear faster than we imagine whatever the cost to the pros? It's not them funding the film market so it might not be them who can hold it up. Ilford amost died maybe because it wasn't the regular consumer film, even Kodak is closing more factories by the year and they are the consumer film (gold). Would buying a G2 and scanner be silly in light of this? Hmmmm.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 26, 2006, 09:46:06 am
Pom, I think I am reasonably well-positioned to respond to this, because I am straddling both worlds with legacy colour negatives that I am scanning in a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 with Silverfast and doing digital from my Canon 1Ds. Luminous-Landscape has published two articles I wrote recently for this website on scanning colour negative film. You can find them on the website. Each frame takes a good 45 minutes to process from starting the scan to preparing for print, assuming no major complications needing innovative Photoshop technique.

As far as I'm concerned there is no contest period. I won't shoot another frame of film under any normal circumstances I can think of. There is simply NO mileage in it, unles you are one of those types who likes working with larger than 4*5 sheet film and making huge enlargements. The convenience, time saving, image quality control at time of capture and final image quality of digital taken all-together are much better compared with any 35mm camera it is a by-gones discussion. I am using the LUMIX LX-1 with its raw files for my "point and shoot" work. Its Leica lens is superb and the option set it provides remarkable for a camera of this size and price. The whole camera costs less than a decent film scanner and professional software.  Despite all the stuff written about its sensor noise, I'll take it over film grain ANY DAY OF THE WEEK all year long (it's comparatively easy to deal with).
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 26, 2006, 09:52:52 am
I read both of those articles again last night.

I'm looking to shoot B&W film only, I haven't seen any digital solution which produces B&W which looks as good on paper as B&W printed on real B&W paper however well post processed.

I'm always willing to learn though....

There is also the issue of how I want to use it, I'm looking for a camera with razor sharp lens at f2.8, I want prime lenses that can be set for hyperfocal distances so I can literally put it to my eye and shoot, one that I can set manual shutter/aperture values ranging from fast to slow apertures and a good range of shutter speeds. Maybe more importantly I want it as a non flash/tripod camera which means being able to shoot iso 400/800 with good results. I also very much do not want the DOF of a P&S digital, not by a long stretch.

In other words a camera for street shooting. The choices are a DSLR with a prime lens or two or a film rangefinder. I was thinking of a 10D (it's very quiet) but the WA primes are very limited and the size is not 'unobtrusive' with a 20mm lens on it by any means, an SLR is also less obtrusive by nature, it says 'pro camera' which a rangefinder with it's smaller fotprint and tiny lenses does not.

If there are any digital P&S's with the speed of rangefinder/SLR shooting (there arn't I don't think by a long stretch) offering the option of shallow DOF and good iso 400 with the tonality of at least a 1.6X chip then I'm interested. Otherwise I'm afraid that digital P&S's as they stand at present are not a solution for me.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 26, 2006, 10:56:09 am
Pom, ah - you didn't say at first it was for B&W only. But still and well, with an Epson 4800 and Crane Silver Rag Museo or some such other of new breeds of papers hitting the market, you can get the old-time paper feel with digital quality processing and control IN BLACK AND WHITE. So from the processing end as far as I've seen and know, it is still no contest. Digital wins.

Your camera requirements are another set of issues though. Two things - one on the processing and one on the camera itself. On processing, at the request of my son-in-law I tried an experiment running a B&W neg through my film scanner just a couple of days ago. I don't know if this is an issue for all scanners - perhaps it is - but the scanning software includes de-masking for colour negatives and there is no setting for B&W negatives - even in Silverfast which is the grand-daddy of all scanning programs in terms of features and tweaks (and price). So if you scan a B&W negative you get a colour cast. It can be removed, but just an extra step in processing. However, apart from that the scanner does scan B&W negatives very well. I was thinking of another experiment - scanning them as positives and then inverting them in Photoshop. That would probably eliminate the masking issue. Haven't taken the time to try it yet. If you're interested, I'll give it a whirl and let you know what happens.

On the camera choice - have you considered a Canon Digital Rebel or 350XT (same thing). Very small camera, quite unobstrusive for a DSLR, can use Canon wide-angles. Gives raw files, can shoot in many modes of your choosing, etc. etc. I've seen very good results out of that model.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: diuser on April 26, 2006, 11:06:32 am
Nobody will argue about the convenience of digital. But film is not completely dead yet.

The Zeiss Camera Lens News 24 show what you can achieve with a good lens and the right film (up to 400 lp/mm).

If you look at fotoimpex.us you will see that ultra high resolution films are being reintroduced together with new developers. Put a Planar 45/2.0 or a Biogon 21/2.8 on a G2,  load it with an Imagelink, Gigabit or SPUR Orthopan UR film and - in bright light and with the right developer  - you will have a system that is resolutionwise miles ahead of anything pocketable in the digital world. And ideal for the street and a lot of fun to use.

To me that sounds like the solution Pom was looking for.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: 61Dynamic on April 26, 2006, 12:01:27 pm
After attending the Epson Print Academy last weekend, I took a trip to DisneyLand. Figured it would be a great opportunity to get some solid use out of the LX1.

Naturally, I forgot to bring extra batteries.

It worked out though. I just adapted and kept the camera off only turning it on when an image opportunity presented itself. In most situations, this worked, but pretty much nixed every chance I had for a candid since the focus point resets itself every time the camera comes back on. f/8 at the wide end the DOF can be 2ft to infinity but the camera resets to 15ft to infinity. Although easy to operate, the MF control is not quick.

This camera is gosh-danged determined to use shutter speeds that aren't hand-holdable. I was hoping to use it in full auto mode for quick snaps but it would constantly go to 1/4 or less instead of opening up the aperture more of upping the ISO slightly. I'd constantly run into situations where the exposure end up being things like ISO80, f/4.5 1/2. Obnoxious to say the least. Every image where I tried to use this camera as a P&S, it failed miserably giving me fuzzy shots (from shake mostly but occasionally it would grossly mis-focus). I had IS on all the time so it may just be a case of Panasonic being too confident in their stabilization tech. I'll have to test this out with IS off.

Despite the issues, I'm keeping the camera. I just can't get over how much detail is captured by this little thing and the raw files stand up to a good amount of adjustment.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 26, 2006, 12:42:46 pm
My experience has been quite different, but I am using the camera differently. firstly for flash, I use it in Program mode. In this mode, the camera opens the aperture as wide as possible and cranks the shutter speed down to what it needs for correct exposure, so depending on your distance, the shutter speeds will be lower or higher the further or closer the camera is to the subject respectively. For non-flash work I use aperture priority. I keep the aperture about two stops in from widest, as the recommended rule-of-thumb for optimal lens performance. Doing that, the shutter speed reacts correctly to obtain proper exposure. In reasonably bright conditions it is shooting at 400th or 500th (using ISO 80). In very bright conditions I would need to stop-down.

I agree on the results - the raw files are good to work with and the detail is impressive.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 26, 2006, 01:50:11 pm
I have a friend who has the latest minolta scanner, I think it's time I went down there with a strip of iso 400 B&W and saw for myself the limitations, could well decide the issue for me.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 26, 2006, 02:26:10 pm
Quote
I have a friend who has the latest minolta scanner, I think it's time I went down there with a strip of iso 400 B&W and saw for myself the limitations, could well decide the issue for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63756\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pom, maybe yes maybe no. Knowing the Minolta scanner as I do, what you will see from a 400 ASA negative, apart from all the image detail, is lots of grain. The Minolta 5400 scrapes every bit of detail off your negatives including the grain. Then you need to use a grain reduction program (I think Neat Image is the best for this) very judiciously to mitigate the grain without destroying essential detail. This is where alot of time gets consumed fine tuning the grain reduction, but is critical to successful results.

However, several posts back "diuser" mentioned a combination of film and developer that he says will produce very fine resolution (I assume by that he also means extremely fine grain). With that kind of material to start with, at least the grain aspect of the scanning issue would be mitigated from the get-go. But you are still left with the rest of the process.

So by all means, good to get a feel for the scanning process with your 400 ASA strip - but it may not be determinative if you can use much finer grain film material. I guess a qualification, however, is what the ASA would be of those very high resolution materials - "disuser" didn't say, but the info may be somewhere on the net. If you are doing street photography, you may want at least 100 ASA.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 26, 2006, 03:56:00 pm
I would want iso 400 if only for shooting indoors or under shade, the contrast range between the shadows and highlights in the mid east on a regular street are another reason why neg film would be preferrable, it's bad enough on your eyes which take a while to adjust, nevermind on film. If I'm exposing for those shadows I want the medium to hold the highlights as well, or at least better than the current digital cameras can do short of using fill flash which isn't really condusive to street work. Having shot for a while with the 1Ds and 5D I know what they can hold in the highlights when exposing for the shadows and it just isn't enough not to be a royal pain in the behind during post processing given the contrast range.

I know the problem of scanning neg film vis a vis grain. It is an issue and was even with the Delta 100 scanned from my 645 negs on an Imacon 868 for 10X12" prints. The question is whether it is controllable and maybe more importantly, is it so objectionable on a B&W print as opposed to colour.

My plan is when I move back there in a year and a half (I came back to the UK for 5 years) to start a project documenting the streets of Jerusalem in B&W trying to merge modern Jerusalem within the ancient feel of that incredible city. The idea is to shoot for a couple of major exhibitions of 'Jerusalem in the new Century' and hopefully a book as well. There is a lot of 'touristy' type shots of Jerusalem, a lot of cliched work, but very little serious work that I have seen documenting the city in this way and concentrating on the timeless aspect of it.

For the exhibitions I would have no problem having hand prints made under my direction but for the rest of it I would like to scan and work the files myself.

I won't be able to dedicate any full time work to it, not when trying to earn a living as a wedding photographer, but I hope to have enough material after 2 years of just walking the streets which I know like the back of my hand with a camera round my neck to fulfill my ideal.

Israelis are extremely camera conscious in a 'let me pose for you' way and shooting with anything like an SLR even a small one, is bound to encite comments and 'make way for the professional' etc. An old looking rangefinder that doesn't even look like a digital camera would probably be the easiest way to go though you would still need to be very fast to be unobtrusive, especially in the ultra religious areas. The best thing in fact is to look like a tourist, there are no shortage of them and unless they are shooting digital (can I see?!) you are more likely to be ignored.

Tell me something, how are negs being scanned for books, postcards, posters, etc. Is it just a lot of post processing work? Are they scanning prints? How are they controlling the grain or are they just not? What is the industry using for scanning negs both colour and B&W or are they doing the same as you as detailed in your article? For every book published showcasing B&W work from film are drum scanners being used?
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 26, 2006, 04:25:23 pm
pom, sounds like a fabulous project, and all the more reason to focus heavily on what will be the best technical fix for the conditions - it isn't an opportunity that comes easy or often. I think with judicious use of a program like Neat Image you can manage the grain. You should test it when you take your negs to your friend's place for a trial. If he/she has Neat Image that would be ideal for you. I'm going to play around with a couple of B&W negs I have from the old days and see what happens. I'll let you know.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 26, 2006, 06:59:49 pm
much appreciated.

I've never developed B&W myself, I used to manage a lab but we sent out the B&W stuff, there is no doubt certain chemicals and processes which de-emphasise grain even in an iso 400 film though I don't know what the disadvantages are, I remember reading about it somewhere.  It would be nice to start off with the easier neg. Maybe it's time I bought some books or got some out of the library. I've never really concentrated on B&W at all having shot pro neg film for my weddings (the B&W vogue is relatively new in the wedding markets) and Velvia for my landscape work with a smattering of Ilford 100 which I didn't handle just instructed them how I wanted it to look. Then came digital and all I did know about B&W I forgot. I wouldn't even know what film to look for anymore as an iso 400 street film.

It may sound strange that I want to shoot this project on a camera that I don't know (never shot rangefinder) and a film/process which I'm utterly unfamiliar with. However the way I've always worked was to think backwards from the print. After all the print is what I'm aiming for, it is the reason for all this work. I know what I want from the print, now I have to work backwards to find how to achieve that print. That includes choosing the tool which is most suitible for the job at hand and that I'm most comfortable with, and finding the best route from that tool to the print. For me the Konica Hexar was a really beautiful camera, really nice. But I can focus and work faster with the G2 so that it the solution for me, nevermind any asthetic points of view. Digital would be very nice, but unless I can shoot in under a second from seeing a moment to pulling the trigger, it's too slow.

I've always felt that way about cameras to the point of going over to EF from my beloved canon A1, the only camera I ever really bonded with, because my MF wasn't good enough. It is always the final print that is the most important for me.
That isn't to say that I want an auto everything with a mega zoom lens, the choice of B&W and prime lenses will I feel contribute to the asthetics of the final print, it will change the way I shoot to create a certain 'feel' to the photos similar to the way using a Mamiya 645 and primes did for my landscape work. I've just never been one for venerating the equipment as part of my photography. I venerate the photo on the wall and find the most suitable and comfortable way, for me, to get there be it in ergonomics, quality or whatever.

Scanning negs from the little research I've done seems to be pretty damn hard, why don't the companies make scanners for neg film? B&W especially seems to be difficult. Apparently the new Imacon 989 is supposed to be better for neg film due to its diffused light source which doesn't emphasise grain and scratches so much, but the tech at the pro lab I use said the trialed it compared to the previous one which they were using and it was still crap at neg film. That's why I'm interested as to what the industry is using in general to digitalise neg film and especially B&W.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: situgrrl on April 26, 2006, 07:43:21 pm
I've been lurking on this thread for a while, I have several 35mm cameras loaded with Delta 3200 or Tri X because much as it frustrates me, there is nothing digital that I've found at any price that can do the job of these.  Please Leica, Panasonic, Voightlander, SOMEONE release a fixed lens digital rangefinder with a big sensor and really usable high ISO - 6400 would be ideal.  I don't care if it's only 2 MP if they are good ones. </rant>

I bought a Ricoh GR1 on Ebay and whilst when it works, it is fantastic.  Sadly, whilst the body is beautifully made, the electronics are well flaky and I need to get it repaired again.  I might replace this with an Olympus XA though I will miss the 28mm lens - it's *my* std focal length.   The AF system is erratic (hateful) but the lens is so sharp and contrasty.  I also use a Canonet 17 GIII which I'm totally in love with - the RF is so fast to use in daylight but difficult in low light.  I wish is had a wider lens though, 40mm is a bit nowhere IMO.

If money were no object, I'd take a very good look at the Zeiss Ikon RF.

I've got this PrimeFilm neg scanner but it's horrific.  Instead I use the Epson 4990 Photo (flatbed) scanners at uni along with the canned driver in advanced mode.  I've had some "focus" issues when the film hasn't been perfectly flat in the plasticky frame things but if you are careful, the results are very good.  The V700 reviewed at photo-i.co.uk sounds very tempting when the university remembers I left 2 years ago.  

I do agree with Mark though, scanning is a real labour of love, those things are hooked up to dual processor G5s with quite a lot of RAM.  I dev my film in a 5 spool tank and will then spend 10 hours mainly twiddling my thumbs whilst I scan it all using 4 computers.  No matter how careful you are, there are still dust spots and I don't even want to talk about water marks caused by my poor darkroom technique!  I use Noise Ninja at the moment but am going to start playing more seriously with NeatImage because I've not been so impressed with it's results on film.  I think that with 3200 you run into some serious resolution issues - though again this could be my technique.

When I'm rich, I take the film to a little man in Cardiff who runs a minilab like it's a prolab.  His machine develops better than I do and then he scans as fairly high res jpegs.  I keep asking him to do higher res tiffs but he says he can't.  Nonetheless, they print to 8x10 without any issue.  They do look slightly grainy but it's controlled and to my eyes, quite acceptable.  

I'll post some examples tomorrow.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 26, 2006, 11:19:34 pm
pom, I went through my "archives" of stuff, and came up with some B&W negatives that date back to the late 1950s. It is Ilford FP3 fine grain panchromatic, which I would have developed in a fine grain developer - forget now which one - it was about 50 years ago. I think FP3 was ASA 80 or some such - the memory fades. It turns out that pumped up to 100% on the monitor the grain is not so fine, but in those days pumping a digitized version to 100% on a monitor was a package of unknown concepts.

Now, the scanning: I discovered that with the Minolta scanner, unless one cuts each negative individually, a royal pain in the ...., one must use the negative carrier for negatives. But when one does this, the software (Silverfast in my case, but perhaps this is generic) cannot be fooled. It recognizes that the negative carrier is being used and changes the film setting back to negative, which means that de-masking will kick in. So be it. One scans, and the result is a tinted image. No problem though. (Silverfast does have options for doing a completely raw scan with demasking turned off, but I forget how to set it that way. I have old-emails from Lasersoft explaining it. I would have to search.) One gets rid of the tint more easily with a couple of clicks of the "mid-pip" correction tool in Silverfast. This is a grey balancer. Finished with that, the image looks good and grey, so one scans in RGB 16 bit mode.

Then open it in Photoshop. I treated this image to Neat Image for grain reduction. Then I treated it to PK Sharpener Pro for capture sharpening. Then I added an HSB adjustment layer and racked the saturation to zero, so any hint of a low-level residual tint in a clump of pixels some place or other (which would be really hard to see anyhow) is truly GONE. Then I added a curves adjustment layer to tweak  overall contrast. Then I added a grey overlay mask and did some dodging and burning like one would have done in the darkroom, but much easier. Then - for fun - I added a Color Balance adjustment layer, and started playing with sliders to produce various tints, such as sepia and other variants.

The end result of all this is YES. You can successfully scan B&W negatives in a Minolta scanner, clean them up, sharpen them and tweak them to heart's content until you get the result you want. It works, and from what I can see soft-proofing it works well. BUT you need the scanner and the software and the TIME.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Chris_T on April 27, 2006, 09:08:25 am
Quote
I was on my way to buy it today when I popped in to look at the prices of higher end film scanners. I've never done any scanning so I had assumed around £250, not twice that amount as it seemed from the Nikon and Minolta models. Once you are paying that amount for the camera, then the scanner, then the film over the next few years, damn it I could buy another 5D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here are my experiences with film scanners, which for many reasons are not covered in the scanner books and tutorials.

Prints from scans are one more generation away from the original captures. As a result, an additional level of problems are introduced in the scans and must be dealed with after scanning. They include noise, dynamic range compression, tonal and color inaccuracies, and loss of sharpness.

Ways to correct these problems can cost you much more than the scanner cost, such as scanning sw, calibration hw and sw, noise removal sw, digital editing sw, etc.

After you empty your wallet, there is a steep learning curve to use these tools well. Compared to publications or forums on digital cameras, there is very limited (good) resources on scanners. One such example is how to capture raw scans.

Some film scanners are notorious in producing flares in scans, which are nearly impossible to fix. Links to this problem upon request.

Having said that, I'm still scanning film from decades ago and making 13" x 19" prints far better than I can print in a traditional darkroom. I have also learned a great deal about digital editing in the process. Now if only this Panasonic LX-1 is not so noisy, I'm ready for my first digital camera.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 27, 2006, 09:50:53 am
Chirs_T: in general you are making relevant observations, but my specific experience is considerably more optimistic than yours. To start with your last point first, yes you are right the Lumix is noisier than would have preferred, but with good digital exposure technique, working in the lower end of the ISO range and judicious use of Noise Ninja on raw files, noise is very well mitigated. Another really neat feature of the Lumix is the real-time pre-capture histogram one can activate on the LCD screen. I could use this camera as a digital light meter for my Canon 1Ds, which doesn't have such a feature!

As for scanners - the time one invests doing this work makes it only sensible to buy absolutely the possible best scanner and software for the purpose that one can afford. I invested in a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and eventually bought Silverfast Studio Ai to drive it, because I found this combination gave me the best results I could wish to obtain workin with colour negatives. It wasn't cheap, but with the throughput one accumulates, the cost is amortized over alot of work. I find this combination delivers very sharp output and very good colour, once properly configured - and that is the key. Into Photoshop, one needs noise reduction and sharpening programs that work well for film grain. After testing, I found the combination of Neat Image and PK Sharpener Pro do the best job I could achieve, and I can vouch for the resulting print quality at least to A3 - I don't print larger than that so I can't vouch beyond A3. But some of my images are considerably cropped, so I know full frames would do well larger than A3.

My main complaint with all this isn't the cost of the investment which can be high, isn't the image quality potential which can be excellent, but simply the sheer amount of time it consumes. As I write this, I have Photoshop open working with images from my digital cameras and from the scanner. It just keeps striking me over and over and over again what kind of quantum leap in processing efficiency and time saving one gets with digital. It's in a different ball park.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 29, 2006, 10:11:49 pm
I wonder as I research the subject, what about chromogenic film such as the Ilford XP-2 Super which is supposed to scan excellently, have negligeable grain, no orange mask to confuse things and an incredible latitude in the highlights? It also has the added plus of being eeasier (for me with little experience in hand developing) to have processed, especially in Jerusalem where my experience of managing a lab there for 2 years makes me very leery of the quality of the B&W processing available. The film apparently prints well on conventional B&W paper as well.

Of course as with this whole discussion, making an investment into shooting film, especially comitting to a company that has already gone bust once due to digital, is a rather interestingly risky business. The problem of course being that the ever moving digital steam roller is moving relentlessly on crushing all who arn't quick enough to jump on, but unfortunately killing certain aspects of film cameras/photography that have yet to be replaced in the digital realm.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 29, 2006, 11:02:25 pm
pom, from what I've read about that film, it uses a C-41 colour neg process, but has only one monochrome layer with no mask. So if you find a lab that can handle C-41 properly it should be OK. If Ilford goes belly-up again, Kodak makes something similar in higher speed. Have you had a look at the scanning process yet?
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 30, 2006, 05:48:35 am
Nope, sorry. Was shooting a wedding on Thursday, a Barmitzva on Friday and am busy processing 1500 RAW files while trying to update my price structures to include some great new albums and leather CD covers I've sourced. In other words bit too busy with day to day stuff to indulge research!

I'll get there....eventually!

I think I'll shoot a roll of XP2 and maybe roll of HP5 or whatever I can find in the cupboard, have them developed and see how they scan. Bit more controlled that way than digging out a neg strip from years back.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Chris_T on April 30, 2006, 07:20:03 am
Quote
Chirs_T: in general you are making relevant observations, but my specific experience is considerably more optimistic than yours. To start with your last point first, yes you are right the Lumix is noisier than would have preferred, but with good digital exposure technique, working in the lower end of the ISO range and judicious use of Noise Ninja on raw files, noise is very well mitigated. Another really neat feature of the Lumix is the real-time pre-capture histogram one can activate on the LCD screen. I could use this camera as a digital light meter for my Canon 1Ds, which doesn't have such a feature!

As for scanners - the time one invests doing this work makes it only sensible to buy absolutely the possible best scanner and software for the purpose that one can afford. I invested in a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and eventually bought Silverfast Studio Ai to drive it, because I found this combination gave me the best results I could wish to obtain workin with colour negatives. It wasn't cheap, but with the throughput one accumulates, the cost is amortized over alot of work. I find this combination delivers very sharp output and very good colour, once properly configured - and that is the key. Into Photoshop, one needs noise reduction and sharpening programs that work well for film grain. After testing, I found the combination of Neat Image and PK Sharpener Pro do the best job I could achieve, and I can vouch for the resulting print quality at least to A3 - I don't print larger than that so I can't vouch beyond A3. But some of my images are considerably cropped, so I know full frames would do well larger than A3.

My main complaint with all this isn't the cost of the investment which can be high, isn't the image quality potential which can be excellent, but simply the sheer amount of time it consumes. As I write this, I have Photoshop open working with images from my digital cameras and from the scanner. It just keeps striking me over and over and over again what kind of quantum leap in processing efficiency and time saving one gets with digital. It's in a different ball park.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the LX-1 comments. Perhaps the noise problem is not as bad as described in the reviews.

My comments about scanning is not meant to scare the novice away, but to prepare them with a realistic expectation. The key point to remember is that scanning adds an additional generation (which introduces problems that deteriorate the image quality) in the process. I did miss mentioning the time involved. Once spent, there is no way to recoup it. Shooting digital and skipping scanning is a great time saver.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 30, 2006, 07:42:45 am
Quote
Thanks for the LX-1 comments. Perhaps the noise problem is not as bad as described in the reviews.

The key point to remember is that scanning adds an additional generation (which introduces problems that deteriorate the image quality) in the process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris - deteriorate image quality relative to what? Having the negatives printed using wet-darkroom processes?  Well-scanned and well-processed colour negatives can print beautifully - all under your own control. A print out of my Epson 4800 will stack-up at least as well - and really in just about any respect I can think of that matters - better than most of what you'd get from historic processes.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Mark D Segal on April 30, 2006, 07:46:00 am
Quote
I think I'll shoot a roll of XP2 and maybe roll of HP5 or whatever I can find in the cupboard, have them developed and see how they scan. Bit more controlled that way than digging out a neg strip from years back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agree - no question these materials must have improved greatly over the past few decades! You'll get a better appreciation of today's capabilities. What I did the other day was simply what I could do with what I had on hand, just to get some indicators about how it may work.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: John Camp on May 02, 2006, 11:28:06 pm
Pom,

I've shot quite a bit in Israel since about '96, right across the digital divide with F5s, N90s, D1x, Kodak SLRn and D2x, working with an archaeological dig near Beth Shean (www.rehov.org)

I also shot a bit on my own hook in Jerusalem. I think your project idea is terrific -- and there's a great history of Jerusalem and Holy Land photography that goes back as far as photography does. I can't think of a better city for it.

My experience, though, is that you're not going to hold both light and shade in Jerusalem, especially in places like the Old City, no matter what you shoot, so you don't have to worry about it. There's just too much range, at least, in the summer; you might do well on those rainy days in winter and spring, but to me, rainy days don't say "Jerusalem." On the other hand, as a wedding photographer, you should be well equipped to handle the lighting problems, which I would say would be about the same as between a small dark English chapel and a bright June English day...or perhaps a stop or two brighter than that, given all those white stone walls.

The biggest problem I'd have with shooting film is the processing -- B&W processing is really getting tough in Israel, the last time we checked, and was *very* expensive. We checked because we really didn't need color for most of the scholarly publications, and we were somehow under the illusion that B&W might be cheaper. Wrong. I'm sure there must be pro labs in Tel Aviv, if not in Jerusalem itself, but we also had variable results with our color processing, mostly just from poor handling. (On the other hand, we were always trying to get it done as inexpensively as we could, which might have been part of the problem.) If you decide to go with film, I'd make a really serious effort to nail down a good lab immediately.

What I'm saying is, I'd think hard before deciding to go with film.

I'm currently making a transition from my Nikon gear (D2x) to Leica (shooting a digital R-D1 for the moment.) The R-D1 is a nice camera, although with some handling peculiarities -- Sean Reid, who reviews it on this forum, and more extensively on his own forum, uses it for pro work. It's 6mp, and a good 6mp, but it really can't yet match the top-end Nikons or Canons for big-print quality. The upcoming 10mp Leica will do that. It should be out in September, for $5,000. That should be in your range, if you're also thinking of buying a Nikon scanner for a film camera...If you were thinking of a book, though, as opposed to shooting for an exhibition where you'd need large prints, the R-D1 would probably work.

But the best thing about the Leica (any Leica-based camera, R-D1 or film) would be the lenses. An f/1.4 Summilux in 35mm or 50mm would be great for sniping shop photos in the Old City. I've been doing that in an old river town in Minnesota, and they work great. Also, the neew Leica will be a 1.33 crop, so a 50 will become a ~66. A Noctilux would become an f/1 66mm short tele and I'm not sure there'd be a better lens for low-light, shadowy photography...and the cropped sensor will even minimize some of the Noctilux's film problems.

From your posts I assume you're an Israeli of one flavor or another, but I'll tell you this anyway: if you really want to shoot invisibly, with any kind of camera, my suggestion would be to dress like an American fundamentalist Christian when you're shooting: short-sleeved shirt, khaki slacks, white Tilly canvas hat, fanny pack, wooden cross on a leather string around your neck, and a smile. Nobody, Israeli or Arab, will pay the slightest attention to you. A person I know, who shall go forever unnamed, smuggled a TV into Israel dressed like that, although he also stuck a baby on top of the TV box. Not even customs wanted to talk to him...

JC
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Let Biogons be Biogons on May 03, 2006, 01:27:56 pm
Quote
Now if only Contax had stayed alive and made a G3, keep everything the same function wise as the G2, just a 1.6X 8-10 megapixel chip, a 2" screen with histogram/highlights preview and an ability to shoot RAW onto CF cards.<snip>

I was almost on the point today of buying a G2 for street B&W work but I didn't realise that I would be paying the same again on a decent scanner (no point in using contax lenses but scanning sub par, especially as I would want 16X20" prints). I really liked everything about it from the functions to the noise level and the very suprisingly good AF speed, it fits well in my hand and the ability to dial in hyperfocal distance in manual focus which can't be knocked off, while changing to AF and back with the flick of a switch for shooting with wider apertures really impressed me.  <snip> The G2 was on offer for £500 including the 35mm and 90mm in pristine condition for the price of the Konica body alone and given the great contax lenses, the nice AF (I'm not the worlds fastest manual focuser) and everything else it looked to be a sure winner despite being larger.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've owned a G2 (and a G1 before that) for many years and I can honestly say that I've never enjoyed using another camera more.  It's great, it handles great, it nice and compact and the lenses are outstanding.  To my thinking, even a 5D can't compare with the output of the G2 (the Canon lenses are so disappointing in comparison).  It's a shame Contax didn't release the G3 before Kyocera decided to exit the market.  There is a fully designed G3 sitting on the shelf (designed around the same time as the N1, and finished after the release ofthe N1 & N Digital cameras).  It's film, though, not digital. But that's fine, it's a fine performer with film and the enhancements of updated model would have been quite welcome.  A digital G was not thought to be possible due to the lenses (specifically the wide angles) but it seems to me, as Zeiss did for the Zeiss Ikon, the new lenses could be designed and built to suit the requirements of a digital body/sensor.
But used G2's and lenses are an incredible bargain these days.  I would probably stay away from the 35mm/f2.0 lens and stick with the 28, 45 and 90mm lenses (and the outstanding 21mm if you like)

Quote
Film may be dying but possibly due to the heavy marketing at regular consumers and the death of so many companies dealing in this kind of market, the rangefinder niche seems to be passing by with very little if anything to replace it other than consumer P&S cameras with tiny sensors (have you seen the facial tones from those things?) <snip>
Another point that I've been wondering is if in 5 years from now film will be a viable option economically either even if I were to invest in a decent scanner. Things are moving so fast, huge and groundbreaking changes are rocking the photographic world so often, will it be affordable to shoot B&W or even any film in the future? Will the economic realities make film disappear faster than we imagine whatever the cost to the pros? It's not them funding the film market so it might not be them who can hold it up. Ilford amost died maybe because it wasn't the regular consumer film, even Kodak is closing more factories by the year and they are the consumer film (gold). Would buying a G2 and scanner be silly in light of this? Hmmmm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I guess we have to wait for the Leica Digital M to see how the rangefinder niche might survive.  (The Epson RD-1 being somewhat inadequate).  I think there is definately room for a digital G type camera (there was a rumour than Canon had developed a digitalrangefinder) a digtla Zeiss Ikon and the Leica.  More DSLR models just are not an effective substitute for a good rangefinder. However, I think there will be ample and sufficient supplies of B&W film availabel for a long time to come.  Even if Fuji and Kodak pull out (and close production rather than sell it) there are a number of small B&W film producers that will be able to supply users (Maco, Foma, Efke/Adox, Forte, and Ilford is out of bankruptcy and restructured).  I think B&W film will be around for at least as long as our cameras will last.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on May 04, 2006, 05:50:02 am
Thanks John, I used to manage a photo lab in Bet Shemesh and know all about the processing there, if I was to shoot B&W it would be to process by hand, you have to send off to the big labs (used to be Agfa central) in Tel Aviv and I never saw one come back without overprocessing and scratches. The general quality of processing is also awful, even the 'pro' labs haven't heard of the concept of wearing gloves!

As you might be able to see from the post nearby about the guy wanting to change from his Leicas, I've  discovered the Pentax range of cameras which with the proposed set of pancake primes coupled with the tiny and P&S looking bodies, may well be an admirable solution.

I know all about 'looking like a tourist' for being ignored, it gets you ignored even when you're trying to talk to someone!    unless that is the Israeli wants to try out his Pidgin English learnt from films which can be hilarious. I lived there for a while and am a citizen, I speak the language fluently and integrated well into the culture before marrige to an Englih girl yanked me back to civilisation   I'm still not sure what would be a better stratagy, be Israeli and be 'one of us' or be a tourist and be ignored. Hopefully I will have a long time to practise and work on the project which I'm thinking of calling 'Timeless Jerusalem'.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: John Camp on May 04, 2006, 06:20:05 pm
Pom,

If you dig around in some of the antiquarian book shops in London, you may come across a book called "Photo-Gravures of the Holy Land" (Cranston and Stowe, 1890) and also the newer "Photographing Jerusalem: The Image of the City in Nineteenth Century Photography" by Issam Nassar, (East European Monographs, Boulder, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1997.) Pretty interesting stuff, if you have an antiquarian turn of mind, and like taking pictures in Jerusalem. There are also a lot of old books like "Picturesque Palestine" (2 vols, large format) which don't have photos, but have engravings based on photos, that can spark off a lot of ideas...

JC
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on May 04, 2006, 07:49:32 pm
Actually been studying a book today on Jewish modes of dress through the centuries, facinating how little has changed in real terms to what can easily be seen on the streets of Jerusalem today. It is the most incredibly diverse city.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on June 27, 2006, 10:06:30 am
Well, 2 days ago I got an 8MP Olympus SP-350 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_sp350.asp). Initial impressions are:

RAW capture delivers best possible color and processing flexibility, but locks the camera up for 10 seconds after each shot. This is not a camera for the trigger-happy among us. The newest update to ACR supports the camera, so that's what I've been using for my comparisons and evaluations.

Noise is OK, noticeably worse than my Canon DSLRs, but still good enough to make decent-looking prints. 50-100 ISO are quite clean, 400 is about like a 1D-MkII @ 1600.

The lens is pretty good, about a 35-100mm equivalent, minor CA in the corners (easily correctable), barrel/pincushion distortion not really noticeable.

The LCD on the back is big and very nice. Canon needs to steal some for the 1D-MkIII. It doesn't fold out or anything like that, though.

The body is a nice compromise between the mini-SLR form factor and the credit card sized superthins. It's big enough to get a grip on, but still small enough to fit in a shirt pocket.

Overall, it's definitely a good value for the $229 I paid for it.
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Phuong on June 28, 2006, 01:38:02 pm
glad you finally have it. how would you compare it with the Sony DSC-V3 (i know the V3 was released long time ago at much higher price, but since they're in teh same class and i'm planning to get it, i would like to hear your oppinions)
Title: Pocket Camera Recommendations
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on June 29, 2006, 09:48:55 am
I don't have a Sony for comparison, so I'd prefer not to comment.