Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mrleonard on May 20, 2008, 07:55:35 pm
-
I have now owned and used the Panasonic LX2, Canon G9, and Ricoh GX100...
I havent yet tried the Sigma DP1..but the plethora of bad reviews make me have second thoughts of buying one.
Some of my thoughts and comparisons:
Ricoh GX100
Strengths:
24mm Wide-angle
adjustable EVF viewer a GREAT add-on
Hotshoe
Weaknesses:
Flimsier build quality/possibilty of easily breaking
Not as 'clean' user interface
Canon G9
Strengths:
Familiar interface and many advanced features
Great Macro capabilities
Strong build quality
Hotshoe
Weaknesses:
Larger Size
35mm minimum wide angle
Panasonic Lumix LX2
Strengths:
28mm wide and TRUE 16:9 aspect ratio
Strong build quality
Weaknesses:
No EVF or Viewfinder
No hotshoe
Prompts outrage by jackjohn
There are many more if you want to get really technical. Just a broad overview here.
They ALL have quite similiar (I think,quite good) image quality,and NOISE problems above low ASA. I prefer a P&S having a wide lens...it seems better suited to this,as you are often shooting street and interior.
Ideally...I would LOVE an amalgam of the three in this:
EVF viewer and 24mm of GX100
advanced features /interface and MACRO of G9
16:9 aspect ratio and size of LX2
Strong build of the LX2/G9
Overall I prefer the LX2....as the GX100 is too fragile and the G9 is too big,and it costs less.
Hopefully the right mix will appear soon!
-
The Fujis with the dual sensor technology are by far the best because they have an almost film-like cushion as far as exposure goes. You get better dynamic contrast and smoother images since it does little or no noise reduction in camera but instead takes the two images(raw) and blends them to make one HDR and then does the adjusting.(the images look noticeably cleaner for bad lighting conditions)
It's not a high resolution DSLR, but for a P&S camera, what it does is quite amazing.
The Sigma is similar by having a film-like sensor, but the SD-14 is pricey and not a P&S camera. And 4.6 actual MP is too low to really look good, IMO - you need 8MP worth of actual sensor locations at least to resolve finer details.
ie - the Sigma looks exactly like film. Just like you're shooting that crummy APS film or 110 in a pocket camera. Better than digital? Absolutely. Too low resolution to be useful? That, too. Real shame, actually.
Anyways, a link about both cameras.
http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Sigma-SD14-...-S5-samples.htm (http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Sigma-SD14-Fuji-S5/@Sigma-SD14-Fuji-S5-samples.htm)
Note - the SD14s color is correct - the Fuji needs a bit of rebalancing/adusting on most shots. I think it's because they have it set to emulate Fuji film's color balance. But that's easy to set up once and batch apply/process it back to correct values.
This is for comparing the sensors, really, not the cameras - they now make P&S cameras with the same technology as the S5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD)
The real trick is to shoot in dual sensor and not HDR mode. You lose half of your resolution, but you gain the effects of a closely bracketed shot with blending. Moires and jaggies nearly disappear entirely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/s5/dynamic-range.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/s5/dynamic-range.htm)
Look at the dynamic range (the most relevant part of the entire horribly long "review")
Yeah, I *KNOW* it's idiot-boy's site, but if you dig past the blather and look at the sample pictures, it's a fairly good analysis. Because you can now get the same sensor in a pocket camera - which puts it in a different light. ie - the S5 may be a mediocre DSLR in many ways, but stuff that technology in a pocket camera...
-
I have now owned and used the Panasonic LX2, Canon G9, and Ricoh GX100...
I havent yet tried the Sigma DP1..but the plethora of bad reviews make me have second thoughts of buying one.
Some of my thoughts and comparisons:
Ricoh GX100
Strengths:
24mm Wide-angle
adjustable EVF viewer a GREAT add-on
Hotshoe
Weaknesses:
Flimsier build quality/possibilty of easily breaking
Not as 'clean' user interface
Canon G9
Strengths:
Familiar interface and many advanced features
Great Macro capabilities
Strong build quality
Hotshoe
Weaknesses:
Larger Size
35mm minimum wide angle
Panasonic Lumix LX2
Strengths:
28mm wide and TRUE 16:9 aspect ratio
Strong build quality
Weaknesses:
No EVF or Viewfinder
No hotshoe
Prompts outrage by jackjohn
There are many more if you want to get really technical. Just a broad overview here.
They ALL have quite similiar (I think,quite good) image quality,and NOISE problems above low ASA. I prefer a P&S having a wide lens...it seems better suited to this,as you are often shooting street and interior.
Ideally...I would LOVE an amalgam of the three in this:
EVF viewer and 24mm of GX100
advanced features /interface and MACRO of G9
16:9 aspect ratio and size of LX2
Strong build of the LX2/G9
Overall I prefer the LX2....as the GX100 is too fragile and the G9 is too big,and it costs less.
Hopefully the right mix will appear soon!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd have to agree-- the Panasonic LX-2 is, for me as well, still the best overall "serious" P&S camera. I don't find the lack of an EVF or viewfinder a negative... in a P&S camera this feature is almost unuseable anyway given the size. Lack of a hotshoe is a negative shared by most P&S cameras, however I use it primarily for landscapes in daylight so I don't feel deprived.
The true 16:9 format is really unique and the quality of the images at low ISO's is fantastic.
-
I'd have to agree-- the Panasonic LX-2 is, for me as well, still the best overall "serious" P&S camera. I don't find the lack of an EVF or viewfinder a negative... in a P&S camera this feature is almost unuseable anyway given the size. Lack of a hotshoe is a negative shared by most P&S cameras, however I use it primarily for landscapes in daylight so I don't feel deprived.
The true 16:9 format is really unique and the quality of the images at low ISO's is fantastic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did my last trip to Portugal with a 5D and G9, and did great. While the G9 image quality is not up to the 5D, it is great for a variety of shots and easier to hand and explain to someone to take a snap, esp. for a family trip. I have no doubts that some day, be it 5 yrs from now, more or less, a G12 or LX5 will more than equal the 5D of today....one has to wonder whether with the mergence of other tech, whether anyone will HAVE to carry a bulky camera, and really how many but few of us diehards will need a 5D size camera then, let alone a Nikon D or Canon 1D series.....
-
I just don't see the point of using a toy camera for interiors or landscapes, or anything else where (obviously) a more serious camera is likely to be available. Where the P&S comes in handy is those places where the big camera isn't - on walkabouts that aren't intended as a photo walk, at someone's wedding when you're not the hire, etc. In those cases, I've found the long zoom to be infinitely more useful than the wide angle, since with wide angle the small details are hopeless lost in noise anyway.
-
This topic is just too subjective. With everyone wanting to defend their purchase or brand loyalty we have to ask the question; Best for what purpose? The point & shoot camera line fills a large niche from beginner to amateur and even pro photographers. They come in various sizes and shapes ultra-portable, stylish, shock and waterproof. Sensor sizes, raw capability, zoom lenses, flash, battery life, and feature sets all vary.
Best for what purpose? Best for indoors, outdoors, travel, camping, snorkeling, hiking, birding, sports, people, macro, low light, image quality?
-
The point of these posts is to share info and also educate casual lurkers in our midst. By posting specific counter arguments instead of laundry lists, I hope I'm doing that. I'd like to read informative rebuttals.
-
I have now owned and used the Panasonic LX2, Canon G9, and Ricoh GX100...
I havent yet tried the Sigma DP1..but the plethora of bad reviews make me have second thoughts of buying one.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=196890\")
Why do you think that?
The review on this site here
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma-dp1.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...sigma-dp1.shtml[/url]
calls the image quality "remarkable" and the lack of the camera in "functioning as a camera" which I understand the reviewer hat issues handling it.
But if you look at the image comparisons between the Sigma, the Canon G9, and the Ricoh, the Sigma has the best picture.
Even though there isn't as much "luminance detail" as the reviewer stated (and that "detail" from the other cameras looks more like noise to me) the rendition of the white blossom has a wonderful light and beaming quality, while still providing detail and glow on the green leaves. These leaves drop into the darkness with Canon, and the Ricoh handles it quite well, too.
I also thought of the Canon image in this comparison as being boring, characterless, and not even sharp.
While I'm not interested in buying a P&S at this time, the Sigma looks like a very interesting camera to me. And it also has good design. So has the Ricoh (looks like a really great camera to me), but the design of the Canon is just the usual average P&S design.
-
I have two reasons why I would not buy the Sigma.
1. No optical viewfinder. (same in Leica D Lux 3/ Panasonic lx2)
2. fixed focus lens ( equals 28mm in full frame) makes it unsuitable for portrait.
I guess my favorite would be the Ricoh gx100. It really looks like a great piece of photographic pocket equipment.
-
Image quality isnt everything....if so then the DP1 would be the clear winner. But the camera is completely useless on so many levels...so unless you are shooting bright daylight landscapes and nothing but, then I would pass. Myabe if it cost like $300.
I got the GX100 the other day...and while I love the 24mm and the evf...the build quality is a bot flimsy,and I feel I have to be 'precious' with it as opposed to my LX2 which is solid and sturdy.
-
I just don't see the point of using a toy camera for interiors or landscapes, or anything else where (obviously) a more serious camera is likely to be available. Where the P&S comes in handy is those places where the big camera isn't - on walkabouts that aren't intended as a photo walk, at someone's wedding when you're not the hire, etc.
This was part of why the Fuji amazes me. The ability to retain data and dynamic range on par with full size SLRs with better optics and sensors is fantastic. Usually when you have a P&S camera, you're pulling it out without loads of timing, usually no tripod, and often the light is not optimal. It's really hard to make unrecoverable shots with the Fuji, and that's why it edges out the Sigma in my book.
The Sigma is just... best sensor technology to date. It's a confusing and hopeless mess, though. Foveon needs to get off of its rear end and license the technology to Sony or someone who makes digital backs. Imagine a Sony/Minolta with a 12MP(actual 12 million locations)... I'd get one the microsecond it came out.
-
Jack
-
Beautiful, John. You've quite a nice choice of animals to shoot there in Florida.
-
Beautiful, John. You've quite a nice choice of animals to shoot there in Florida.
Thanks
Honestly, that is the reason I moved to Florida is because of the diversity of wildlife ... it truly is "a florid" state
I was actually born and raised in your neck of the woods, just outside L.A., but after visiting Florida and seeing just how lush the vegetation is, and how many different kinds of critter are here, it just brought out the kid in me -- and so I moved here -- and every day is a new adventure in the garden
This is a shot I got the other day of a click beetle ... trying to figure out what to do right before a rainshower hit ...
(http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c188/CAJack/clickbeetle.jpg)
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']Eyed Click Beetle[/span]
Enjoy,
-
I have also gone through my fair share of "serious" compacts, like the ones mentioned above. All have their strenghts and weaknesses, but I am at a point where I have given up. I had high hopes for the DP1, but really, albeit the high image quality for general landscape/travel photography (of which I do some), the clumsy interface/poor LCD/slow technology was a real letdown. I had hopes that the DP1 would combine the present day available handling/ergonomics, with better image quality from its larger sensor. Unfortunately, albeit being a step in the right direction, it is not there yet.
All the others, are a combination of useful and frustating aspects simultaneously. Even the touted Fujis have succumbed to the pixel race. And for instance, the latest F100fd has dropped aperture and shutter priority modes. Why? Of course, it now has 12 Mpixels...
The new Panasonic FX500 is compact and has the above mentioned modes, but it combines it with a touching LCD interface... why can't we have just a solid little camera a la DP1, but with the useful technology that is already available today? I just don't get it. For example, Canon puts 28mm focal range in the Ixus series, but not in the upper series compacts.
It seems that we have too many brands actually, and they are just going around this business a bit like headless chickes, trying to suck the profit while it lasts. By now, for sure the compact camera market has to be saturated, so why models every 6 months? Just give us serious shooters a serious little camera; I want a digital compact that performs like the Contax T2/T3, Leica CM, Rollei AFM35, and the like.
Any one?
-
Funny how this rumbles on.
There aren't many that allow you to shoot raw, so that narrows it down to 3 (I think) for my uses. Other may have a different view.
They all have different strengths in terms of focal length range.
They all produce surprisingly good IQ at low iso, that rapidly declines (in dslr terms) as the iso rises. However, I have uses for that and am probably not alone.
They have different interfaces and other ergonomics (e.g. will they really fit in a jacket or allow an ovf to be attached...)
Perceived build quality may or may not be an indicator to survival in the wilds
Best bet is to go to a shop or two and try them all, then buy your favourite.
I've got one and it currently is getting used every day. Some pictures are even nice.
Mike
-
I compared reviews of the LX2 and G9 prior to buying the G9... the LX2 seems to be a fine camera as well...
With respect to the G9, I do not regard the 35mm wide end as a fault- it suits my particular purposes. The extra reach combined with the 1cm focusing gives it an edge over similar compacts with a 28mm wide end with 1cm focusing.
The 16:9 aspect ratio of the LX2 is unique, but such a ratio doesn't seem to be advantageous except for displaying in-camera photos on an HDTV... this is something I never use, so I question the benefits of a native 16:9 sensor (unless people enjoy such a ratio, but I don't... it would force me to crop more than I'd like when outputting the photo for certain print sizes.
The G9 is bigger than compacts like Ricoh and LX2, without question. However, it's still smaller than superzooms or DSLRs. Its brick-like build quality feels and looks better to me... the LX2 looks like a toy (Fisher Price? Nintendo? ) by comparison... if and only if the LX2's image quality were better than G9's (the G9's RAW resolution as well as lighter handed JPEG noise reduction than the LX2) would I buy an LX2. The G9 has more megapixels (which many have complained about regarding its sensor size), but it also has a larger sensor than most compacts (although the DP1 has a far, far bigger one). To be fair, both the LX2 an G9 have sensors with similar size, which are bigger than sensors typically found in superzooms and lower-end compacts.
Also, I have heard that some Panasonic sensors have poor ISO amplification, where better results can be obtained by shooting at lowest ISO and pushing the exposure through Camera RAW. Can anyone confirm or disprove this for the LX2? I'm interested in the subject.
-
We're very lucky that cameras like the G9 exist at all. Eventually as digital markets become saturated, the Big Firm bean counters will consolidate the products and kill off odds-and-ends like the G9. Look at small computers for example - all toys - no attempt anywhere to produce anything state of the art. In 1987 I bought a Honda CRX-HF all-gas car that got 62 mpg on the highway, and could carry a living room sofa in the hatch. Not any more. Digital cameras are in the early stages, but the writing is on the wall.
-
I can't confirm anything about the Pana LX2, but I've shot RAW with the FZ50 for 2 years, and I get really good results from low-light pics at 100 ISO. It seems very likely they'd be using the same engine.
-
the LX2 looks like a toy (Fisher Price? Nintendo? ) by comparison... if and only if the LX2's image quality were better than G9's (the G9's RAW resolution as well as lighter handed JPEG noise reduction than the LX2) would I buy an LX2. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
er..ok..You OBVIOUSLY haven't tried or held an LX2 as there is NO WAY it is built like a toy. It is solid metal...very good build quality. The fact it has a lenscap also means one less part to break (btw..is it me, or isnt it always the retractable lens cover the first to get damaged,stuck,broke). I OWN and have used the LX2,G9,and GX100....and the image quality of the 3 is the same and/or negligable(using RAW..in jpeg the LX2 is lousy..but why shooit JPEG with these when the whole reason for this comparison is that they shoot RAW).
As i've said..the overall winner ,to me, is the LX2.It has its shortcomings over the others...but the others shortcomings are worse ..
-
(btw..is it me, or isnt it always the retractable lens cover the first to get damaged,stuck,broke)
I've found that it is the zoom itself that dies first. Inevitably the camera gets turned on in a pocket. Zoom tries to open. Dead. Especially if the P&S has a crappy on/off switch.
-
er..ok..You OBVIOUSLY haven't tried or held an LX2 as there is NO WAY it is built like a toy. It is solid metal...very good build quality. The fact it has a lenscap also means one less part to break (btw..is it me, or isnt it always the retractable lens cover the first to get damaged,stuck,broke). I OWN and have used the LX2,G9,and GX100....and the image quality of the 3 is the same and/or negligable(using RAW..in jpeg the LX2 is lousy..but why shooit JPEG with these when the whole reason for this comparison is that they shoot RAW).
As i've said..the overall winner ,to me, is the LX2.It has its shortcomings over the others...but the others shortcomings are worse ..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Those references to Nintendo and Fisher Price were a joke, Mr.Leonard. I had a Canon S40 and S50 for several years, and neither of those cameras broke, let alone the retractable lenses. My girlfriend bought my S50 two years ago, and the retractable lens is fine. My point was that the G9 looks and feels solid, and I have no reason to believe that retractable lenses are inherently fragile. You're right, I haven't owned an LX2 let alone held one, but that doesn't change my opinion that it looks like a toy camera compared to the styling of the G9 (not to mention the ISO control dial on the top).
I don't shoot JPEG, which is why I only briefly mention their JPEG compression because it is another point of distinction between image quality- RAW is most important, no arguments there. I have seen RAW conversions from LX2 from Dpreview among other sites, and I think the quality is decent. But I'm not convinced at all that the image quality is the same... negligable? Possibly, but there must be small differences from two different sensors with different resolutions, produced by different manufacturers. If you could attach some 1:1 crops from the LX2 and G9 (possibly base ISO and ISO800), maybe you could demonstrate the claim that the differences are negligable in IQ, since you own both. Linear conversions with no sharpening and noise reduction might help.
I think you addressed some significant points on the pros and cons of these cameras, but for me, the LX2 has more shortcomings than the G9, given its 16:9 native sensor, ... it's unique, but the aspect ratio is problematic for my purposes. I also find the LX2 aesthetically less attractive; I've seen them before, I don't need to own one to make this claim.
-
Those references to Nintendo and Fisher Price were a joke, Mr.Leonard. I had a Canon S40 and S50 for several years, and neither of those cameras broke, let alone the retractable lenses. My girlfriend bought my S50 two years ago, and the retractable lens is fine. My point was that the G9 looks and feels solid, and I have no reason to believe that retractable lenses are inherently fragile. You're right, I haven't owned an LX2 let alone held one, but that doesn't change my opinion that it looks like a toy camera compared to the styling of the G9 (not to mention the ISO control dial on the top).
...
When the quality of the images produced are high enough and comparable, one has to evaluate other aspects that are important to him/her. To me the "Other aspect" is portability and being able to slide the LX2 in my shirt's pocket is essential for the use I make of it.
Let's not make this into another one of those "my camera is better than yours" topic that we saw recently. Let's be open, unbiased and realize that other people may value some aspects over others.
-
I have also gone through my fair share of "serious" compacts, like the ones mentioned above. All have their strenghts and weaknesses, but I am at a point where I have given up.
(...)
Any one?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I decided I'd rather schlepp my DSLR and ONE walk around lens. It's not that much heavier. You just need a good bag.
I just avoid using any of those typical camera bags. Makes you stick out too much. I currently have a simple, black bag, where I store the camera in walking around. I know what I want when I see it, and only then the camera comes out.
The fun of a compact would be popping people pictures, so it has to come with a long enough lens, and has to be light sensitive enough. That's OK, but I just don't like photographing while staring at an LCD screen.
-
A friend of mine has the Leica D-Lux 3, the Leica branded version of the Panasonic lx-2.
Very beautiful camera.
He absolutely loves this camera, especially since I recommended him to shoot RAW.
-
Those references to Nintendo and Fisher Price were a joke, Mr.Leonard. I had a Canon S40 and S50 for several years, and neither of those cameras broke, let alone the retractable lenses. My girlfriend bought my S50 two years ago, and the retractable lens is fine. My point was that the G9 looks and feels solid, and I have no reason to believe that retractable lenses are inherently fragile. You're right, I haven't owned an LX2 let alone held one, but that doesn't change my opinion that it looks like a toy camera compared to the styling of the G9 (not to mention the ISO control dial on the top).
I don't shoot JPEG, which is why I only briefly mention their JPEG compression because it is another point of distinction between image quality- RAW is most important, no arguments there. I have seen RAW conversions from LX2 from Dpreview among other sites, and I think the quality is decent. But I'm not convinced at all that the image quality is the same... negligable? Possibly, but there must be small differences from two different sensors with different resolutions, produced by different manufacturers. If you could attach some 1:1 crops from the LX2 and G9 (possibly base ISO and ISO800), maybe you could demonstrate the claim that the differences are negligable in IQ, since you own both. Linear conversions with no sharpening and noise reduction might help.
I think you addressed some significant points on the pros and cons of these cameras, but for me, the LX2 has more shortcomings than the G9, given its 16:9 native sensor, ... it's unique, but the aspect ratio is problematic for my purposes. I also find the LX2 aesthetically less attractive; I've seen them before, I don't need to own one to make this claim.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here are a couple of examples of the LX-2's 16:9 "shortcomings".
-
When the quality of the images produced are high enough and comparable, one has to evaluate other aspects that are important to him/her. To me the "Other aspect" is portability and being able to slide the LX2 in my shirt's pocket is essential for the use I make of it.
Let's not make this into another one of those "my camera is better than yours" topic that we saw recently. Let's be open, unbiased and realize that other people may value some aspects over others.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Should we assume that the quality of the images produced by either camera are "high enough"? I propose that we shouldn't make this assumption, especially when responding to a thread which discusses the "best" p&s so far. It would be detrimental to prospective buyers to assume that the image quality is essentially the same, if and only if there *are* perceptible differences in ISO performance. Which is why I'm inviting mrleonard to provide crops which demonstrate his claim that the differences are negligible: how close are they in terms of image quality? Is it reasonable to claim that it is "high enough" to forget about comparing them? Since mrleonard's argument is based on his ownership of both cameras, while I only possess one, demonstrating the negligible difference between the two would be useful to my own understanding of the subject (and possibly for others).
I'd like to tell you directly (since you quoted my previous response) that I'm not interested in claiming that my camera is better than yours. I'm interested in the differences between the G9 and the LX2 for the sake of clarification. While my joke about the LX2 resembling a toy camera may have come off as provocative, I believe the associated points are worthy to be said: the LX2 does not stand out from the rest of the P&S cameras as much as the G9 in terms of aesthetics and build quality. What DOES make the LX2 stand out is the unique 16:9 sensor, but I question the assumption that the differences in ISO performance are negligible between the 16:9 sensor and the 4:3 sensor... or that the 16:9 aspect ratio gives a particular advantage when it comes down to making prints. In my mind, the 16:9 aspect lends itself very well to HDTV viewing, but I would like have an LX2 owner's critical perspective on these issues.
-
Should we assume that the quality of the images produced by either camera are "high enough"? I propose that we shouldn't make this assumption, especially when responding to a thread which discusses the "best" p&s so far.
Even Mr. Leonard stutters a bit when he tries to compare the image quality of the two cameras: he says the difference in quality is "negligible" between the G9 and the LX2, but all this tells me is the LX2 isn't as good. If the image quality were the same, Mr. Leonard would simply say so. And of course we all know that if the LX2 were superior in image quality that Mr. Leonard would be singing this fact from the rooftops, and that he would have added this fact to his "bonuses" of the LX2. But that's not what the truth is.
The truth is, the LX2's image quality is not on a par with the G9, nor are many other features, so here is what I see are the real differences between the two:
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']PowerShot G9[/span]:
Superior Build Quality
Superior Image Quality
Superior Telephoto & Reach (35mm - 210mm)
Superior Macro Capability
More Convenient User Interface
More Available Features/Uses
All for just $100 more
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']LX2[/span]:
16:9 Ratio
More Convenient Size
"Not Quite As Good" Build Quality
"Not Quite As Good" Image Quality
"Vastly Inferior" Reach (28mm - 112mm)
"Inferior" Macro Capability
"Less" Convenient Interface
"Less" Available Features/Uses
Costs $100 less, and gives you a lot less.
That would be a more accurate comparison IMO. The truth is, the LX2 gives only 3 advantages (16:9, convenient size, price), which aren't even advantages to some people, while it suffers from 6 disadvantes under the shadow of the G9.
If the 16:9 ratio is your personal hot button, or 28mm shooting is what you do, or if you just can't part with that extra Ben Franklin, then by all means take a little hit in all those other features to get the 2 specialties that the LX2 offers and save yourself a hundred bucks. But if you really don't use your camera for 28 mm, and especially if you have no use for 16:9 ratio, and if you're not so broke that $100 extra will kill you ... then not only do you "not need" the LX2 at all ... but every other important camera feature is bested by the PowerShot G9, which is why I voted for it with my money and consider it well spent.
Jack
-
The truth is, the LX2 gives only 3 advantages (16:9, convenient size, price), which aren't even advantages to some people, while it suffers from 6 disadvantes under the shadow of the G9.
Size alone can trump everything else. My G9 hasn't left the house since winter finally ended. Fujifilm F100d here I come.
-
Michael
I suspect it's about time to close this thread - sorry
-
Michael
I suspect it's about time to close this thread - sorry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lol..as I said the LX2 inspires outrage from jackjohn for some reason...
When I said the difference is neglegible...I meant just that. NOT that the G9 is better...because I dont see it frankly. And I DO own all 3,as I have mentioned. I LOVE the framing of 16:9...very dramatic and lends itself well to 28mm interiors and Landscape photos. I have produced some large works..32" by 18" coated in epoxy resin,mounted on wooden boards,full bleed.They look great. Like a still from a movie.
I think the G9 IS aesthetically better looking..but it is just too large..period.The LX2 switches and dials give you quick access to the controls you need.
The GX100 I have to be "precious" with..I think if I dropped it..that would be it. And as RICOH isnt in canada, it would be a pain to replace/fix.
If I find the time,ill post some comparisons....For the sake of argument, let's just say the G9 IS marginally better when it comes to noise. They are all STILL all awful above 200 ISO anyway.If the G9 was smaller, it still wouldn't (for me) trump the LX2, as it only goes down to 35mm. I think if you took a poll, more would want P&S cameras more on the wide end of things.
I am interested in checking out the FUJI...but it is only jpeg..no?
Attchd is a snap I took with LX2...shows how the 28mm is great for interiors,where 35mm would be too long.
-
oops...try again
-
I am interested in checking out the FUJI...but it is only jpeg..no?
Yep. Still going to buy it.
-
My current digital carry-everywhere camera is a little Fuji f20. It is a "super-ccd" 6.3 mb with very few controls. Have a Delikin pop-out hood on the LCD, and kind of use the LCD like a big viewfinder, (it has no viewfinder, which i do not like). I think it is about a year or two outof production, (replaced by f30/31, which are also now out-of-production). It is ok, imagewise, through iso 200, with a tolerable 400. 800 if-absolutely-necessary and printing in B&W (i.e. get rid of apparent chroma noise).
Have been keeping eyes open for a "better" digital carry-everywhere camera.
Attracted to G9, nice in hand, but for my purposes, would really like to have at least high IQ at iso 400. Have a A720 IS, which does a good job at ISO 80-100, and like its menu system. And at least it has a viewfinder, of sorts. The ISO above low reservations and apparent (from tests) CA has for me ruled out the Panasonic model, though I like the 28mm aspect.
I had high hopes for the DP1, with the optional viewfinder, but its slow performance times makes it not a good choice for this niche, at least for me.
Perhaps a small dslr body?
I am waiting to see more test results for the Olympus 25mm f/2.8 (mated to a e-420). That may be a good choice for me.
My DSLR is a Nikon D200, and I have about 15 older nikkors. I wish the D40-60 were not lense choice crippled, and/or that their was a small prime w/ AF and full metering functions in the normal range for it. The sigma 30mm has not tested well, at photozone.de for instance.
So, I still have the F20 in my pocket.
-
Should we assume that the quality of the images produced by either camera are "high enough"? I propose that we shouldn't make this assumption, especially when responding to a thread which discusses the "best" p&s so far. It would be detrimental to prospective buyers to assume that the image quality is essentially the same, if and only if there *are* perceptible differences in ISO performance. Which is why I'm inviting mrleonard to provide crops which demonstrate his claim that the differences are negligible: how close are they in terms of image quality? Is it reasonable to claim that it is "high enough" to forget about comparing them? Since mrleonard's argument is based on his ownership of both cameras, while I only possess one, demonstrating the negligible difference between the two would be useful to my own understanding of the subject (and possibly for others).
...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Canon G9 and Panasonic LX2 (as well as other P&S) belong to the "High End" of P&S, I think this is a safe assumption. Both of these camera's overall image quality is fairly high when compared to other P&S, I think this too is safe to assume. I am not suggesting that the LX2 and the G9 have the same image quality.
"best" p&s & image quality are too vague (one can have low noise at high ISO but high aberrations and so on). This is why I always suggest to look at all other aspects of a camera. Intuitiveness, size of LCD, flash power, exposure ability, AF, size, power consumption, speed, and you mention aesthetics are some of the other aspects one should look into before buying a camera besides, of course, image qualities.
The closest thing to a sound analysis of the two cameras you can find it Dpreview.com, if you read the two reviews, which are fairly well done, you will have a better understanding of where the two cameras differ.
And yes, to my eyes the G9 does look more professional :-)
-
The new Fujis are much better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD)
What you want is one with the Super CCD SR or SR Pro(SR II) - not the original Super CCD HR. The SR gives you the fantastic contrast capability. The HR, which the F20 has/had makes for slightly less moires and jaggies, much like how Mitsubishi's Diamondtron technology tweaked the pixel kayout on old CRTs to get cleaner images(diamond shaped vs triangular) Sony's Trinitron was a similar "tweak" but neither is equal to the new OLED technology. Comparing monitors, the SR is worlds better than a typical CCD - at least in the size that you get in these cameras.
The SR is the new technology. IMO, it produces results that have the look and feel of a MF digital back - just scaled-down at 6MP/35mm size.
It's nice to see a couple of attempts at better quality by tweaking the layout and design since the pixel-race can't possibly be "won" - 16mp is sufficient to replace the best 35mm film.(raw, mathematically/technically as good as - most people won't see any difference between 12 and 16, though, just like how they can't see the difference between ISO 50 film and ISO 100 short of huge prints and close examination.
I mention this as a pocket camera at 12MP is getting dangerously close to making 35mm film useless, even for the entry-level/consumer models.
The SR2 gives you high resolution AND high dynamic range together. But the F5 is the only model with it currently. The original SR (F30) is a blended only approach but it's fine, really, since the results are much cleaner, IMO. I'd take 4 or 6 MP and clean over 20mp and dirty at least for trips and casual photos, any day.
Plus, Fuji obliterates the Sigma P&S in terms of ease of use. Fuji is a bit like Fujitsu in laptops. Not *quite* as standard as Sony and Toshiba, but close enough to easily adapt.
***Fuji is about to introduce new models - the S5 has been discontinued this last week or so***
I'd wait a bit if you're looking for a DSLR. Note - the S5s are selling for stupidly cheap this week, so get one asap if you're on a tight budget. (under $1000) For a P&S, any of the newest models with image stabilization will be fine.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Fuji-Sup...CD-SR--HR-FAQ-1 (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Fuji-Super-CCD-SR--HR-FAQ-1)
A nice simple faq.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/ (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/)
(good read/primer, actually)
That dpreview link has an interesting chart of sensor sizes. The tiny two ones are pocket size sensors. If that reminds you of that crummy Kodak "disc" film, you're not alone... that's VERY small. Big, fat sensors usually win unless you do tricks like Fuji has. It effectively makes a tiny fingernail sized sensor as good as a typical full frame sensor, or close to it. Note - it still won't crush a $3000 Canon by any stretch of the imagination, but for a small pocket sized camera... nice.
Page three of that review is the most telling. The Canon 30D and the Fuji look nearly identical at ISO800. The rest look like rubbish. That the Fuji's tiny sensor comes even *close* to a 30D... Kind of a no-brainer.
-
The Canon G9 and Panasonic LX2 (as well as other P&S) belong to the "High End" of P&S, I think this is a safe assumption.
Actually, that isn't exactly true. Most sellers do not even classify the LX2 as a "high-end" P&S at all, including B&H Photo:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/8613/Di...al_Cameras.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/8613/Digital_Cameras_Advanced_Point_Shoot_Digital_Cameras.html)
No LX2 to be found on their "advanced" offerings. But of course the G9 heads the list ... if only alphabetically
Jack
-
Actually, that isn't exactly true. Most sellers do not even classify the LX2 as a "high-end" P&S at all, including B&H Photo:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/8613/Di...al_Cameras.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/8613/Digital_Cameras_Advanced_Point_Shoot_Digital_Cameras.html)
No LX2 to be found on their "advanced" offerings. But of course the G9 heads the list ... if only alphabetically
Jack
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=197742\")
There it is...I was waiting for the nonsense...lol.
Of course it's a high end P&S..it shoots RAW...'nuff said.
It was actually with MR's review that clinched me getting the LX1 before I went on a long trip to India. Was the perfect camera as a lot of the times I was on a motorbike or on a rickety boat and could only take a shirt pocket camera.
[a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx1.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx1.shtml[/url]
People seem to have some brand loyalty or a bit of the "my camera is better than can your camera" syndrome. Well....I own the 3 I mentioned...and don't really care what brand it is. To me it boils down to quality in a small size....the WHOLE point of a P&S..no?
Funny...on that B&H listing it has some of those ,almost DSLR size, super zoom digicams like the FZ50 etc....Ive never seen the point of those, or the Sony R1 etc. At that size point why wouldn't you just use an SLR?
With film P&S cameras I use to own and use the Olympus XA and sRollie 35s for quality images in a small package. This is the form factor I will always rate and compare all the newer digital P&S cameras against.
The G9 is just too large...I love the short distance MACRO.I think they fear of undermining their PowerShot series.Canon has time and again concerned themselves with these type of 'marketing strategies' that have undermined the full potential of what they could create.
-
I'll tell you why, with the Pana FZ50 I prefer it and won't use a DSLR. Because the DSLR has a crappy viewfinder, and a flip-up mirror, and three times the weight (not to mention the cost) with a 420mm (equivalent) lens. I had an SLR once, a Leica R3 Safari. Nice colour, green. Horrible camera, and the new ones are no better. I also had two Leica M cameras. Nice cameras, but no point replacing those with M8's, since you can't get the zoom, and if you did, the bulk would be ridiculous. I carry the Pana FZ50, TZ5, and a $1700 u.s. binocular, the Leica 10x42 Ultravid. I'm not cheap, just very particular about the kit I associate myself with.
-
With film P&S cameras I use to own and use the Olympus XA and sRollie 35s for quality images in a small package. This is the form factor I will always rate and compare all the newer digital P&S cameras against.
I have the GX100 and theres no doubt is a nice camera, and I'm sure comparable to other P&S cameras.
When I went to University, my Mum and Dad gave me an Olympus trip. I used it mainly with B&W film. I had some great photos with that camera. Thirty years later, I have negatives from it that I would happily enlarge to 20x24 and put on the wall.
Funny, I can't see that ever happening with the output from the GX100.
If I needed something to stuff in a shirt pocket in the way suggested, I'd rather it was shot on something like the Rollei 35s, or even perhaps an Olympus trip!
-
I'm certainly not one to defend the honour of the Sigma DP1 but I think it is important to get the facts straight at least. The DP1 uses the same sensor as the SD14. It may be "only" 4.7MP but the image quality is impressive in suitable conditions.
You might like to take a look at my comparison of image quality between the 4.7MP SD14 (Foveon) and 14MP (bayer CFA) Kodak SLR/n here:
http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/scans/sd14vs14nx.htm (http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/scans/sd14vs14nx.htm)
The Sigma is similar by having a film-like sensor, but the SD-14 is pricey and not a P&S camera. And 4.6 actual MP is too low to really look good, IMO - you need 8MP worth of actual sensor locations at least to resolve finer details.
ie - the Sigma looks exactly like film. Just like you're shooting that crummy APS film or 110 in a pocket camera. Better than digital? Absolutely. Too low resolution to be useful? That, too. Real shame, actually.
-
I have the GX100 and theres no doubt is a nice camera, and I'm sure comparable to other P&S cameras.
When I went to University, my Mum and Dad gave me an Olympus trip. I used it mainly with B&W film. I had some great photos with that camera. Thirty years later, I have negatives from it that I would happily enlarge to 20x24 and put on the wall.
Funny, I can't see that ever happening with the output from the GX100.
If I needed something to stuff in a shirt pocket in the way suggested, I'd rather it was shot on something like the Rollei 35s, or even perhaps an Olympus trip!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You might be pleasantly surprised at what size you can enlarge the GX100 output to is you're careful about how you shoot and how you enlarge. At iso 80 it's not actually that noisy and the lens quality is good. As the iso goes up, of course, noise becomes more evident but files can still be useable.
I've just printed a 21 by 14 (I know that's not 24 by 20) from the GX100 and it's exactly what I was trying to achieve - not 5D or 1Ds3 style, but a nice presentation. The raw file is fairly agressively worked for contrast. Another B&W print at 15 by 10 from a slight crop, shot at iso200 shows a very fine grain, but actually I would almost like more on this shot and will probably run it at 18 by 12 in due course.
Just give it a go and see what you get. It's not 35mm film, but I've been very pleasantly surprised (and I use the aformentioned 5D and 1Ds3 as well)
Now I'll just let everyone else get on with the brand wars - I suspect that the same could be said about any of the makes listed.
Mike
-
People are a lot more intelligent than a lot of folks give them credit for. A major indicator of intelligence is curiosity, and a major indicator of curiosity is the desire to see what most ordinary people don't see, i.e. the very small and the small-due-to-distance. Hence the macros and telephotos, which bring the intel to people with small cameras that they can afford, and can carry at all times. The Canon G9 is an excellent example where you can increase your intelligence. Other models - YMMV.
-
People are a lot more intelligent than a lot of folks give them credit for. A major indicator of intelligence is curiosity, and a major indicator of curiosity is the desire to see what most ordinary people don't see, i.e. the very small and the small-due-to-distance. Hence the macros and telephotos, which bring the intel to people with small cameras that they can afford, and can carry at all times. The Canon G9 is an excellent example where you can increase your intelligence. Other models - YMMV.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gee..I thought intelligence could be measured by ones interpretation of the everyday..what everyone sees...and then seeing something that the others are missing. The use of strong composition and interpretation of content to make a strong visual statment that transcends it's 'everyday' character.
Not sticking a camera in front of a bug...
i.e. maybe wide angle too? lol (arc d' triomphe)[attachment=6773:attachment]
-
Curiosity and intelligence are not elitist, i.e. thinking you can "see" what others can't or won't. It's about small amounts of inspiration followed by hard work.
-
Gee..I thought intelligence could be measured by ones interpretation of the everyday..what everyone sees...and then seeing something that the others are missing. The use of strong composition and interpretation of content to make a strong visual statment that transcends it's 'everyday' character.
Not sticking a camera in front of a bug...
Actually, intelligence is measured by a man's ability to think independently and to make correct associations in his thinking.
Speaking of intelligence and relating it to what one sees every day, when a grown man has been surrounded by words every day ... and yet he still can't spell them correctly ... even to the extent he forgets to place apostrophes where they belong (and places other apostrophes where they don't belong) ... then one has to seriously question that man's intelligence.
Jack
-
Here are a couple of illustrations of my challenges with little cameras, in this case a Panasonic TZ5. 28-280mm lens (35mm equiv.).
The landscape was shot in very good light about an hour before sunset, and cropped to 3072x2304, then reduced in size to 2048x1536. You can still see the effects of aggressive noise reduction in the "leaves" on the trees, for example. This is why I say that the wide angle in small cameras (lesser cameras than the Canon G9 mostly) is basically useless, since landscapes of this kind mostly produce pixel smear, making a 9mp camera effectively a 3mp camera.
The bee was also shot in bright light, and while the quality and clarity of some of the image isn't the best, it still shows what's possible with a little camera when you have a long zoom like 280mm.
-
Not sticking a camera in front of a bug...
I agree with you that it takes virtually no intelligence whatsoever for me to place a camera before a bug and push a button; it is only my appreciation for the intelligence of Nature (God, whatever your beliefs are) that prompts me to do so. I merely use my camera to attempt to preserve the majesty and beauty I see outside in the world around me when I feel truly moved by it. My reverence is for Nature not anything I do.
However, if there "is" any human intelligence involved in the photography I attempt to take, then I defer it to the geniuses who first invented the digial camera to begin with, and to those who have followed and refined the designs of these tools, so that I as a layman can merely push a button and preserve the things in life that I find extraordinary. Any further genius would rest with the designers of Photoshop, and the computer/software on which it runs, who have enabled me to sit there and tinker with my images until they suit me.
I am not so arrogant as to compare my paltry intelligence to what truly has dwarfed it by comparison.
i.e. maybe wide angle too? lol (arc d' triomphe)
Well, here again Mr. Leonard, it is all a matter of perspective. In my opinion, the actual architect of that construct, the engineers and master builders ... the ones who actually planned, designed, and created that beautiful structure ... are the truly talented and intelligent parties behind what you have merely recorded digitally. If there is any further intelligence behind your image than this, then again such intelligence would rest with the designers of your particular camera, as well as with the designers of the software and computer you use yourself.
But I suppose you think that because "you" happened to walk underneath this object, looked up and pushed a button on your very complex tool you call a camera (and tinkered with it on your computer) ... that you feel "you" are the genius here today ... because you happened to notice some symmetry above you.
That's funny
Jack
-
In fairness to the people who hang out here, most or all of them care about the images they produce, and it's just that - caring - that makes the difference worth paying some attention to. My biggest ongoing gripe is the myopia that declares (universally it would seem among the "critics") that little cameras should have wide-angle lenses to capture "landscapes". That opinion I think is absurd, but other than the unwashed masses who are buying the superzooms in droves, I've gotten no support on my contention.
-
In fairness to the people who hang out here, most or all of them care about the images they produce, and it's just that - caring - that makes the difference worth paying some attention to.
Of course we care about our images, but the degree to which we "care" is what varies. Some people are sooo focused on absolutely perfect images, and sooo overly concerned about the technical craft of photography, that they forget to have fun taking pictures
It's like the difference between professional football and enjoying a game of football with your sons or friends: the professionals are so serious about the business of football that it is no longer a fun sport anymore. By contrast, you and your kids can just relax and have a fun game ...
At the end of the day, it's all about money. If I am playing football for millions, and scores of people are watching, I have to be deadly serious about my business, which means I have to throw the fun out the window. But when I play football recreationally, there is nothing like that distracting me, so we all can actually just have fun
In the same fashion, I do not try to make money with my photos, and I have no intention of doing so, which allows me just to enjoy my camera ... and I wouldn't have it any other way
My biggest ongoing gripe is the myopia that declares (universally it would seem among the "critics") that little cameras should have wide-angle lenses to capture "landscapes". That opinion I think is absurd, but other than the unwashed masses who are buying the superzooms in droves, I've gotten no support on my contention.
Well, you raise a very good point -- here and in the previous posts. A 28 mm lens doesn't do for me what my eyes themselves can't already do for me: see a landscape. If I decide to photograph a landscape, it is merely an attempt to preserve what I see as I see it (either commercially or for pleasure).
However, with macro and zoom, these tools allow me to see the world differently. They amplify my own eyesight, allowing me to see the world more closely and intensely than I ever could without them. I can't stick my eye up to a tiny organism and see it in the same detail as I can with a macro photograph ... and by the same token I can't project my eye up close to a beautiful songbird up on a tree to see it up close either. Therefore, I agree with you, these tools (macro and telephoto) are therefore the most important tools of the high-end P&S camera to the average person.
This is not to undermine the tremendous work done with landscape and seascape at all. But it is a fact that these kinds of photo merely allow us to preserve what we already can see, as we see it, to where we can transfer the experience to be appreciated by others. Macro and telephoto are greater than this: they enable us a similar transference of experience, yes, but they also amplify our ability to appreciate the world along with it.
So good point.
.
-
Speaking of intelligence and relating it to what one sees every day, when a grown man has been surrounded by words every day ... and yet he still can't spell them correctly ... even to the extent he forgets to place apostrophes where they belong (and places other apostrophes where they don't belong) ... then one has to seriously question that man's intelligence.
Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually..I think I do quite well ,considering im dyslexic and I don't use spellcheck.
Nice do btw Jack, at least you don't look like the rapist anymore...opps I meant a 'therapist'...spellcheck! darn...
-
Actually..I think I do quite well ,considering im dyslexic and I don't use spellcheck.
That's funny, last time you said your "keyboard" was making you spell poorly, but now it's an inherited conditition combined with an unused software function
Nice do btw Jack, at least you don't look like the rapist anymore...opps I meant a 'therapist'...spellcheck! darn...
Mr. Leonard, I am sure you are a much more intelligent person than your spelling and philosophy suggest, and I am equally sure that if we were in person looking each other in the eye that you would be a much more pleasant individual to communicate with than what is being offered here. No doubt we would be discussing our differences as gentlemen over some tea and pound cake.
If you are satisfied with your LX2 then I am happy for you, because on my end I am more than satisfied with my G9.
It has been an interesting discussion and thanks for offering your review.
Jack
.
-
That's funny, last time you said your "keyboard" was making you spell poorly, but now it's an inherited conditition combined with an unused software function
Mr. Leonard, I am sure you are a much more intelligent person than your spelling and philosophy suggest, and I am equally sure that if we were in person looking each other in the eye that you would be a much more pleasant individual to communicate with than what is being offered here. No doubt we would be discussing our differences as gentlemen over some tea and pound cake.
If you are satisfied with your LX2 then I am happy for you, because on my end I am more than satisfied with my G9.
It has been an interesting discussion and thanks for offering your review.
Jack
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's because it's nobodies bizness jackjohn.
You have bean anything but a gentleman and donut think wearing an english fruitcap can change that.
We tirelessly hear and get bugged out by your G9 lovin...it grows reelly tired actually. My conparisons are based from reality...from owning and using the kameras. KNOT gleaned from ...gee,actually...where do you get all your data and infomation...youre' like a living libary...oh wait...the INTERNET. Very original...
-
Gee..I thought intelligence could be measured by ones interpretation of the everyday..what everyone sees...and then seeing something that the others are missing. The use of strong composition and interpretation of content to make a strong visual statment that transcends it's 'everyday' character.
Not sticking a camera in front of a bug...
i.e. maybe wide angle too? lol (arc d' triomphe)[attachment=6773:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was subbing intelligence for creativity actually... There's no point to correlate one's lens choice to intelligence....thats nuts. Of course I'll only get flack from cornhole from this oversight...
-
If you are satisfied with your LX2 then I am happy for you, because on my end I am more than satisfied with my G9.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am actually not satisfied with my LX2. Just that I use it more than my G9 because of it's size and 28mm lens. I couldn't give a rats ass who makes what. I'd prefer my GX100 but I find the build quality a bit flimsy. I don't baby my cameras...I out then in my jacket pocket without a case.
Clear yet?
-
And finally...could you PLEASE just ignore me jackjohn. You SEE I started the thread....just stay out of it. I don't care for you or your opinions..really.
-
OK kids. If you can't play nice, no supper.
Michael