Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Pocket Camera Recommendations  (Read 57418 times)

woodrowcampbell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
    • Daily photo blog
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #60 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
Logged
Woody[/size

Chris_T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #61 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?
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #62 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?  
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #63 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

mbridgers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #64 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.
Logged

61Dynamic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #65 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.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #66 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

61Dynamic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #67 on: April 20, 2006, 12:01:53 am »

For anyone interested I have custom noise ninja profiles for the LX1 for download. They are designed specifically for shooting Raw and converting with ACR with sharpening and noise reduction turned off.
Logged

beebleb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #68 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?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #69 on: April 20, 2006, 08:25:34 am »

Quote
For anyone interested I have custom noise ninja profiles for the LX1 for download. 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #70 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!
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

boku

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.bobkulonphoto.com
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #71 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.
Logged
Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...[b

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #72 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....
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #73 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

61Dynamic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #74 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.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #75 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
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

61Dynamic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #76 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]
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.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #77 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

61Dynamic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #78 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
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Pocket Camera Recommendations
« Reply #79 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"?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up