Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Elie7Elie on August 15, 2006, 06:12:57 pm
-
Hello, I am looking to buy a point and shoot digital camera as a back up to my EOS 5D as I can not take it everywhere I go. Any suggestions? I am looking for a 7mp and up. I am leaning toward Sony's Cybershot DSC-W100. Major point is that it is equiped with a Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar lens.
If you own a point and shoot that works good for you, let me know.
Elie
-
I picked up the Casio Z850 8.1MP pocket point n shoot. Did not really have high expectations but this little guy is impressive. Especially with macro shots (love taking flower pictures but for some reason I had the devil of a time getting it to focus on blue flowers e.g. bluebells).
Did some hiking and all around putzing in southern Montana so this camera was along with the optional belt loop holster. Hardly noticed it was there unlike the Fuji medium format I also carried.
Doesn't have the zoom capability, only 3x, in low light it starts to show noise so it has its' limits. But I have been very pleased with it. A one gig SD card is good for a wee bit over 200 shots, never did wear out the battery (never really pushed it either and it lived on the charger at night).
My macros' with this camera are as sharp as my scanned 35mm fuji chromes taken with my 100mm macro lense from Pentax. Bokah is not as nice though.
Ron
-
I suggest seriously considering the Panasonic Lumx LX2, just announced last month. If it is an improvement over the already very good LX-1, you will have a great back-up to the Canon 5D. It provides RAW images, and has a tremendously full feature set for a camera this compact, not to speak of that wonderful Leica zoom lens. I have the Lx1, and apart from some noise (which is easily managed), I think it is capable of producing high technical quality images that I have printed successfully to A3 size.
-
I suggest seriously considering the Panasonic Lumx LX2, just announced last month. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My very feeling as well. Clearly a very appealing contender.
Although I might end up buying a D80 instead, but this just the result of some very personnal considerations related to about how I end up using - or not using - my current compact camera...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The only real drawback to the LX2 is the lack of an optical viewfinder. It makes it difficult to use outdoors in a bright day when you have to depend on the LCD
-
Kenneth - agreed - good thingyou mentioned that, as I forgot to. It is true. While the Panasonic is a reasonably good LCD as on-camera LCD's go, in bright sunlight it is not very useful.
-
look at dpreview.com and dcresourse.com - if you want the poetential of really good images from a pocket camera, a viewfinder (even if it's a digital one in the case of the tele cameras) and RAW capability are highly desirable -- and autofocus speed and shutter lag are very important.
i've had some good results from my Canon S60 (28mm wide angle and RAW -- although the latest in this line has dropped the RAW capability) -- i think that RAW capability and reasonable performance at higher IS0 (Panosonic cameras are pretty noisy at high ISO, but make up for it in some models with faster lenses) is much more important than the most megapixels -- as is autofucus and shutter lag - the S60 is pretty slow.
in good light, these cameras can give very good results -- i've made respectable 13x19 prints from my father's Panasonic FZ20 and even from my Canon s400-- but these were static subjects in almost perfect light
-
I have two compact digicams:
1. Canon Powershot SD 800 IS. Usage is family snaps and such. Very good small camera, excellent lens, and IS is quite helpful.
2. Ricoh GRD. Usage is infra-red and street photography. This one has RAW and a fantastic 28mm equivalent prime lens (no zoom). RAW writing times are slow, but it does not hinder me. The possibility of mounting an external viewfinder is very useful.
-
The only real drawback to the LX2 is the lack of an optical viewfinder.
But it seems that's the way of the future. Hardly any of the compacts have a viewfinder anymore, and it seems to become another ancient relic of the past...
-
But it seems that's the way of the future. Hardly any of the compacts have a viewfinder anymore, and it seems to become another ancient relic of the past...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The naked reality isn't good to show anymore...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The naked reality isn't good to show anymore...
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
through LCD
we truly see
reality...
overexposed & undersampled.
-
I suggest seriously considering the Panasonic Lumx LX2, just announced last month. If it is an improvement over the already very good LX-1, you will have a great back-up to the Canon 5D.
You can check out some images from the LX2 here.
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2...08/01/4325.html (http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2006/08/01/4325.html)
I was looking into the LX2 myself but from what I have seen, I would personally go with the LX1 over the LX2. I was looking for a point and shoot next to my D200 and seriously considered it. I bought a much smaller - no RAW - cam instead though; the panasonic FX01. If you really want to point and shoot, and perhaps set some exposure compensation, its great. 28mm and smaller than my mobile phone with good exposures and bracketing options.
-
You can check out some images from the LX2 here.
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2...08/01/4325.html (http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2006/08/01/4325.html)
I was looking into the LX2 myself but from what I have seen, I would personally go with the LX1 over the LX2. I was looking for a point and shoot next to my D200 and seriously considered it. I bought a much smaller - no RAW - cam instead though; the panasonic FX01. If you really want to point and shoot, and perhaps set some exposure compensation, its great. 28mm and smaller than my mobile phone with good exposures and bracketing options.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Tensai - I am interested in your obseervations here. I think it would be very instructive if you could explain why you think the LX-1 is better than the LX-2, because on the face of it - that is, from what is said in print, the LX-2 is 10MP instead of 8 and it is supposed to have better noice reduction using their new Venus III engine - so superficially one would expect the LX-2 to make higher quality images than the LX-1.
On the question of RAW image capability, I assume Elie (the person who started this thread) is using RAW format from the 5D, and this person is looking for a camera as a back-up to the 5D. I think anyone accustomed to working with RAW files would want to preserve that capability even in the back-up camera, therefore should limit their choice to small cameras that also provide RAW files.
-
Although not small by any means the Sony R1 is what I carry in my briefcase. Excellent lens, excellent noise performance up to 400 and ok at 800 - due to the larger sensor. RAW.
Downside - 24 - 120 could be a bit longer, but no IS. buffer holds 1 raw image - so you can take a second shot immediately, but then have to wait. Auto bracket limited to JPG. No compression of RAW. EVF is what you'd expect, but I prefer an EVF to optical since optical in most PS's is way too inaccurate to support any kind of framing decisions.
If they introduced a 24 - 200 IS with 3 shot buffer to support RAW auto bracket, I'd buy one in a second.
-
Hi Tensai - I am interested in your obseervations here. I think it would be very instructive if you could explain why you think the LX-1 is better than the LX-2, because on the face of it - that is, from what is said in print, the LX-2 is 10MP instead of 8 and it is supposed to have better noice reduction using their new Venus III engine - so superficially one would expect the LX-2 to make higher quality images than the LX-1.
On the question of RAW image capability, I assume Elie (the person who started this thread) is using RAW format from the 5D, and this person is looking for a camera as a back-up to the 5D. I think anyone accustomed to working with RAW files would want to preserve that capability even in the back-up camera, therefore should limit their choice to small cameras that also provide RAW files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
MarkDS - Its nothing conclusive, or scientific, but I just took a look at the studio shots from the link I provided, and some studio shots from the LX1. I printed some out too. I totally don't mean this as a definite/final call on the LX1 vs the LX2, but from what I saw, I personally made the choise to get the LX1 instead of the LX2 (although as said in the end I ended up with something else...). To me the LX2 seemed to have quite heavy noise reduction, and I just prevered the look of the LX1 files over the LX2 files for that reason.
For me a pocket cam with 8mb was also more than enough. Again, just my call, your milage - and needs - may vary.
I still think either of them looks like a real nice camera though. Great to have such a lens, manual options and RAW at your disposal. About RAW - Although I only shoot RAW with my D200, I don't feel I miss it with my FX01 though.
Hope that clearified things a bit.
-
Hello, I am looking to buy a point and shoot digital camera as a back up to my EOS 5D as I can not take it everywhere I go. Any suggestions? I am looking for a 7mp and up. I am leaning toward Sony's Cybershot DSC-W100. Major point is that it is equiped with a Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar lens.
If you own a point and shoot that works good for you, let me know.
Elie
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=73454\")
I bought the Ricoh GR digital for travel and street shooting. Very high quality 28mm prime lens, excellent ergonomics, and beautiful construction. I actually have been using the Ricoh more often than my Canon 5D. Sample images here:
[a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/scho/grd&page=all]http://www.pbase.com/scho/grd&page=all[/url]
-
MarkDS - Its nothing conclusive, or scientific, but I just took a look at the studio shots from the link I provided, and some studio shots from the LX1. I printed some out too. I totally don't mean this as a definite/final call on the LX1 vs the LX2, but from what I saw, I personally made the choise to get the LX1 instead of the LX2 (although as said in the end I ended up with something else...). To me the LX2 seemed to have quite heavy noise reduction, and I just prevered the look of the LX1 files over the LX2 files for that reason.
For me a pocket cam with 8mb was also more than enough. Again, just my call, your milage - and needs - may vary.
I still think either of them looks like a real nice camera though. Great to have such a lens, manual options and RAW at your disposal. About RAW - Although I only shoot RAW with my D200, I don't feel I miss it with my FX01 though.
Hope that clearified things a bit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tensai, thanks alot for that clarification. A most intereseting comment about the appearance of heavy noise reduction. I wondered myself how Panasonic was going to improve on noise which some people were complaining about with the LX 1, and now there is a 25% increase in pixel count for the new model. There would appear to be two routes: (1) better sensor design and signal processing, and/or (2) heavier noise reduction in the software. Perhaps they are leaning more on the latter, but that is just speculation on my part. Despite the noise, which can be dealt with quite effectively, LX-1 image quality is indeed very good for a camera and sensor that size. It isn't a Canon 1Ds obviously, but it keeps surprising me as I use it, and it has an impressive set of features.
I think in your comparison, one needs to be careful whether one is comparing RAW files or in-camera JPGs. For those who work from RAW files, the RAW file comparison is the more important one.
(This post was edited August 21 at 10:005 AM)
-
There are some new comparisons posted of the LX1 and the LX2 and from what I saw now, I would say the LX2 looks very good - and I might have to reverse my opinion on these two. I don't know if the previous test was with a pre production camera or something but I have to say I am impressed. I think the LX2 looks good/better than the LX1 in jpg at iso 100 and iso 200. At iso 400 the LX2 looks a bit more blurry, but has less chromatic noise. The colours on the colour checker look slightly plasticy but we are taking about jpgs here, with Raw these files should be very nice?
I am curious what people here think of these images...
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2...08/22/4436.html (http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2006/08/22/4436.html)
Tensai, thanks alot for that clarification. A most intereseting comment about the appearance of heavy noise reduction. I wondered myself how Panasonic was going to improve on noise which some people were complaining about with the LX 1, and now there is a 25% increase in pixel count for the new model. There would appear to be two routes: (1) better sensor design and signal processing, and/or (2) heavier noise reduction in the software. Perhaps they are leaning more on the latter, but that is just speculation on my part. Despite the noise, which can be dealt with quite effectively, LX-1 image quality is indeed very good for a camera and sensor that size. It isn't a Canon 1Ds obviously, but it keeps surprising me as I use it, and it has an impressive set of features.
I think in your comparison, one needs to be careful whether one is comparing RAW files or in-camera JPGs. For those who work from RAW files, the RAW file comparison is the more important one.
(This post was edited August 21 at 10:005 AM)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Tensai, thanks for posting the link to the new results. I can't read Japanese, but I could read the numbers and that helped identify the appropriate images! Yes, I agree, the LX-2 images look a bit cleaner and snappier, recognizing of course that we are seeing in-camera processed JPGs over our computer monitors. I think the real test is making and comparing actual prints of user-adjusted RAW files from the two models. That much said, such tests would only be useful for people thinking of up-grading from LX-1 to LX-2. Now that LX-2 is on the market it will completely replace the LX-1 because it is apparently at least as good and costs no more. Then, LX-2 will be compared with other models from other manufacturers in the same price range. Those reviews should help people decide what to buy. I'm not trading-up from my LX-1 because it is good enough for the purposes it serves.
-
MarkDS,
Michael will apparantly post a review about the LX2 next week.
(see this reply from Michael in another post about the LX2:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=74090) (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11605&view=findpost&p=74090)).
He is not too happy with the noise apparantly.
Which would correspond to the files I saw from the first link.
I do think the files from the second linnk look a lot better.
Which is why I am looking forward to his thoughts and perhaps we could even download some RAW files to see for ourselves?
take care.
Tensai, thanks for posting the link to the new results. I can't read Japanese, but I could read the numbers and that helped identify the appropriate images! Yes, I agree, the LX-2 images look a bit cleaner and snappier, recognizing of course that we are seeing in-camera processed JPGs over our computer monitors. I think the real test is making and comparing actual prints of user-adjusted RAW files from the two models. That much said, such tests would only be useful for people thinking of up-grading from LX-1 to LX-2. Now that LX-2 is on the market it will completely replace the LX-1 because it is apparently at least as good and costs no more. Then, LX-2 will be compared with other models from other manufacturers in the same price range. Those reviews should help people decide what to buy. I'm not trading-up from my LX-1 because it is good enough for the purposes it serves.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
MarkDS,
Michael will apparantly post a review about the LX2 next week.
(see this reply from Michael in another post about the LX2:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=74090) (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11605&view=findpost&p=74090)).
He is not too happy with the noise apparantly.
Which would correspond to the files I saw from the first link.
I do think the files from the second linnk look a lot better.
Which is why I am looking forward to his thoughts and perhaps we could even download some RAW files to see for ourselves?
take care.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74153\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tensai, yes, I think Michael's review will be the key piece to read - based on his other reviews I think we can expect he will have created the kinds of files necessary for making reliable statements about noise, other aspects of image quality, and the ergonomics of using the camera. I'm looking forward to see what he says about it.
-
Tensai, yes, I think Michael's review will be the key piece to read - based on his other reviews I think we can expect he will have created the kinds of files necessary for making reliable statements about noise, other aspects of image quality, and the ergonomics of using the camera. I'm looking forward to see what he says about it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also noted some odd vignetting artifacts in the first batch of samples. I say "artifacts" because it doesn't look like normal vignetting, instead it looks like a colorcast? Anybody else noticed this?
-
was just in the same situation..looked at everything..my choice came down to the ricoh (there is now a review at http://www.dpreview.com/) (http://www.dpreview.com/)), the lumix and the sony R-1...i went with the sony...yes i know it is big, but it is the only one even close to canon or nikon DSLRs...none of the smaller point&shoot are close...amazing lens, big sensor, raw and as i just found out, amazing battery life, great lcd "finder" the actual finder is better then expected...never hit the buffer...yes it is almost the same size as the DSLRs, but it handles better and the lens is way better than anything offered in the starter kits...i bought it because i hate to shoot anything and knowing that i won't look at it because it is a lower standard...yes the files are not as good as from my DSmkII or phase back, but this is what i am comparing them to! and they hold up! i was also looking at the rebel, but i don't want ot run around with my good canon glass which is heavy and expensive (i might as well run around with my DSmkII, which i have done, but...) the R-1 is small enough to take anywhere and still delivers...anything that actually goes in my pocket..well, sony-ericsson came out with a 3.2mpix cellphone..the first moving lens phone, pics look great (good enough for snaps) and i know i will always have that in my pocket...