|
|
|
|
extreme_actuary
Apr 9, 2009, 1:02 AM
Post #26 of 46
(5790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 112
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: Prove your first statement above for a well lit picture? Show me a picture in good light that I could not possibly take with a compact camera?
Though I think the LX3 and the Sigma DP1 appear to be great choices, I agree with pico23 that you would probably enjoy the Panasonic G1 or the Pentax K-M with the 15mm pancake lens more. You would be amazed by how small Pentax's pancake lenses are.
SLR's are not just about low light, they open up the world to so many amazing lenses. From macros to fish eyes to ultra-wide angles...you have ultimate freedom. The 24mm at the wide end of the LX3 is great, but you can put the Sigma 10-20mm on a dSLR and get an equivalent 15mm field of view. The extra 9mm difference is huge.
Also, you will be much more willing to manually make adjustments using a dSLR with dials and dedicated buttons instead of having to go through menus to change settings on a compact camera. This makes it much easier to learn how to take pictures.
When I use my dSLR, I set everything manually. When I use my compact camera, I select one of the scene modes and just snap a picture.
But, I don't think a dSLR can replace a compact on all of your trips. I try to bring my dSLR whenever I can, but when I am climbing at or near my limit, it is much easier to just slip my compact camera into my napoleon pocket.
About your original question, I use two different SLR cases. One is a small Lowepro fannypack that sits above my harness, and when I want a smaller package, I use this neoprene thing that wraps around the camera and I just sling it over my shoulder with the rest of my rack. I think it is called a Zing. The camera does bump around and drive me crazy when climbing, but oh well.
|
|
Attachments:
|
bee.jpg
(76.0 KB)
|
|
|
bokeh.jpg
(104 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 9, 2009, 2:09 PM
Post #27 of 46
(5767 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
extreme_actuary wrote: SLR's are not just about low light, they open up the world to so many amazing lenses. From macros to fish eyes to ultra-wide angles...you have ultimate freedom. The 24mm at the wide end of the LX3 is great, but you can put the Sigma 10-20mm on a dSLR and get an equivalent 15mm field of view. The extra 9mm difference is huge.
Perfect, that is what I was asking for. Now what were the specs on that photo? What iso, F number, and zoom factor?
The LX3 can do F2.0 at 24 mm and iso 80-400 and F2.8 at 60mm. Was the picture taken at and better specs than that?
I would love to see someone climb with a bulky DSLR and a Bag full of lenses.
I still contend that if you are in good light, need less than a 60mm equivalent, and can use an iso of 80 or 100 and still get the shot then a camera like the LX3 will take a photo that you would be proud to put your name on.
And I guarantee that it would be easier to climb with an LX3 than its DSLR equivalent.
|
|
|
|
|
Wh1chWay1sUp
Apr 9, 2009, 3:24 PM
Post #28 of 46
(5757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2009
Posts: 3
|
Given that the best camera is the one you actually have in hand when you need it, and the hassles of hauling a bulky DSLR and a lens or two may end up being left behind.
However the specs on the LX3 are marketing specs, this camera does not shoot like an f2/2.8 lens on a 35mm equivalent rig. With regards to Depth of Field this behaves like an f8-f11 lens on 35mm at equivalent focal lengths, no bokeh for you, the flower shot above is impossible for this camera, the bee shot is out as well as it's lens is not a macro.
The tiny little sensor does generate noise even on the base line, it is roughly 18 times smaller than a full frame sensor and has only a few less megapixels (8x6mm vs 36x25 for full frame 35mm). It would need to be actively cooled to get the noise anywhere close to dslr levels at baseline ISO. Small sensors also show up every aberration in the lens, the larger the sensor the less perfect the lens needs to be. 10Mpix on 8x6mm I would say the lens is the limiting resolving factor and the sensor could b 6-8 Mpix and you would not lose any image quality at all.
Anyway, as previous posters have stated, you dont buy SLR's for the cameras, you buy them for the lenses. I have a 10 year old lens that is just as current as it was the day I bought it, the camera behind it has changed 3 times.
Apart from the depth of field issue (which means it sucks as a good portrait set up, but fine for landscapes) and the inability to interchange to other more interesting lenses (it packs a 'normal' zoom, not that wide) it would probably be one of the best cameras you can just stick in a pocket, and if I were in the market for something digital to replace my day to day little 35mm rangefinder it would be a contender.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 9, 2009, 4:06 PM
Post #29 of 46
(5751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
pico23 wrote: Don't be so sure of an LX4. This is a pricey camera with so so sales, and with Micro 4/3s or just compact DSLRs breathing down the necks of these bridge cameras it makes me wonder how much more is going to be invested in them.
Huh? The LX3 is selling so well that it is extremely hard to find in any store! Heck the only reason they wouldn’t come out with an LX5 is that they don’t want to cannibalize their GH1 and their LX3 sales.
However, I fully expect to see an LX5 come out in the fall. I don’t expect much better specs than the LX3. Actually they will probably be a little worse(same size sensor but another 1-2 megapixels). The real added bonus will be the new video functions.
The LX5 will have a dedicated movie record button, 30 FPS filming(The LX3 only does 24 FPS), and be able to use the zoom during filming. The only thing keeping me from buying the LX3 is that I need the camera more for movies than I do for stills.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Apr 9, 2009, 5:18 PM
Post #30 of 46
(5736 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
sd800 ...on a 20 mile trail run.
I actually feel the lack of depth of field is a bonus for macroish shots.
I only break out the d200 when i want that sweet sweet old mf 180 2.8
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 9, 2009, 5:48 PM
Post #31 of 46
(5727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
Great shot. Is that a Canon SD800? That camera is a point and shoot at best but it still can take some fantastic pictures.
Nice, so you are a runner as well? Have you ever run in Umstead park just outside of Raleigh NC. It is real nice this time of year. Not so nice in August when it is 117 out with 100% humidity though.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Apr 9, 2009, 6:10 PM
Post #32 of 46
(5718 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
Yeah canon sd 800. It lacks raw and full manual control which means you just have to be smarter then the camera. (M mode, meter/focus in center, boost reds, underexpose by 2/3 - 1 stop, make it behave in a simple predictable way and learn to take the shots you want.)
Never been to the east coast and only really run when its to far to walk.
Two more sd shots, taken on the same day same run as the other:
(This post was edited by ryanb on Apr 9, 2009, 6:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
extreme_actuary
Apr 9, 2009, 9:19 PM
Post #34 of 46
(5693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 112
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: Perfect, that is what I was asking for. Now what were the specs on that photo? What iso, F number, and zoom factor?.
The lens for flower photo is a Super-Takumar 55mm f/1.8 which was produced in the mid 1960's.
The bee photo is with an SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/4 lens with extension tubes. The ISO for both of these photos was most probably 100.
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: The LX3 can do F2.0 at 24 mm and iso 80-400 and F2.8 at 60mm. Was the picture taken at and better specs than that?.
The f/2.0-2.8 is very impressive for a compact camera. I am excited to see companies making an effort to improve lens performance instead of just fighting a megapixel war. But, I don't think these aperture settings are comparable.
Here is an example:
Let's say you are trying to get a thin depth of field to isolate your subject and blur the background.
With the Panasonic LX3
subject distance: 5 feet
fov: max zoom of 12.8mm, equivalent to 60mm on 35mm camera
aperture: f/2.8
Your depth of field will be 20 inches.
On a Pentax dSLR with the DA 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens:
subject distance: 5 feet
fov: 40mm lens, equivalent to 60mm on 35mm camera
aperture: f/2.8
Your depth of field will be 6 inches. Even if the LX3 had an aperture of f/1, you still wouldn't be able to achieve the same depth of field.
I used this online depth of field calculator to calculate this.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: And I guarantee that it would be easier to climb with an LX3 than its DSLR equivalent.
I definitely agree with you here. I guess it depends on what type of climbing you do. Most people probably climb harder than me, where every ounce matters. When I climb long trad climbs, I generally climb well within my limits. An extra pound isn't that noticeable, especially if I am climbing with a pack, carrying crampons, boots, etc.
While climbing in the Bugaboos, I switched back and forth from SLR to compact digicam based on the difficulty of the day's climb. In the end, the overcast skies made most of my compact digicam pictures too noisey. Looking back, I wish I sucked it up and carried my SLR on all of the routes.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 10, 2009, 6:29 PM
Post #35 of 46
(5655 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
Extreme actuary,
Great post above and I do agree with you now. There are some shots that even the mighty LX3 could not take that a DSLR with a specific lens could. However, let’s try flipping that around. So what shots could the LX3 take that you could not take without changing that lens for a different one?
My guess is that you would miss out on far more shots with that one lens as opposed to using the LX3.
Also what would the 20 inch depth of field look like as compared to the 6 inch depth of field? I know that is a big difference. However, there are some flower pictures below that were shot at an F3.3 or greater and they show some pretty outstanding DOF.
Are we really missing out by not using a DSLR or is it really more of a “numbers on a spec sheet” game? The pictures on the link below are from the Panasonic TZ7 which is definitely a point and shoot and they look pretty great to me.
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/...z/ShaunsOnlinePhotos
(This post was edited by JasonsDrivingForce on Apr 10, 2009, 6:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
extreme_actuary
Apr 10, 2009, 11:16 PM
Post #36 of 46
(5631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 112
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: So what shots could the LX3 take that you could not take without changing that lens for a different one?
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: Are we really missing out by not using a DSLR or is it really more of a “numbers on a spec sheet” game?
It ultimately comes down to what your goal is.
If your goal is to capture memories and views of great climbs, today's point-and-shoot cameras can provide stunning results.
If you want to use your camera as a form of artistic expression, a dSLR gives you the most flexibility.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 11, 2009, 2:17 AM
Post #37 of 46
(5619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Actually that is the point of an SLR. THe ability to change lenses makes the system better, and better suited for various types of photography. I can swap a lens in under 10 seconds if the need arises.
Let me throw you a curveball, try taking non distorted architecture shots with your LX3, not gonna happen but in 5 seconds, my DSLR, goes from a 450mm f/4 tele to a 50mm f/2.8 Tilt and Shift.
Likewise, by using the tilt lens, I can also INCREASE my DOF significantly on macro shots.
Then I can pull another lens from the bag, and do some nice creamy bokehed portraits. Or go back to shooting sports
Again, it's not a #s or spec sheet game, it's about verstatility and compromise. A DSLR isn't all that big, but gives a hell of a lot of IQ, plus it's versatile.
I suppose you could argue the camera on my cell phone is better than a digital compact camera. After all not only is it a phone, but it's a camera capable of producing 3MP images, it's with me much of the time, and in good light takes images with great DOF.
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: Extreme actuary, Great post above and I do agree with you now. There are some shots that even the mighty LX3 could not take that a DSLR with a specific lens could. However, let’s try flipping that around. So what shots could the LX3 take that you could not take without changing that lens for a different one? My guess is that you would miss out on far more shots with that one lens as opposed to using the LX3. Also what would the 20 inch depth of field look like as compared to the 6 inch depth of field? I know that is a big difference. However, there are some flower pictures below that were shot at an F3.3 or greater and they show some pretty outstanding DOF. Are we really missing out by not using a DSLR or is it really more of a “numbers on a spec sheet” game? The pictures on the link below are from the Panasonic TZ7 which is definitely a point and shoot and they look pretty great to me. http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/...z/ShaunsOnlinePhotos [image] http://lh4.ggpht.com/_MWcZ1BsFJnU/Sd9Wt7J9MOI/AAAAAAAAAn4/zAmo9CaVYg0/s912/P1000138.JPG[/image] [image] http://lh4.ggpht.com/_MWcZ1BsFJnU/Sd9W3HY8IDI/AAAAAAAAApE/O-fwZWpIOYE/s912/P1000123.JPG[/image] |
|
|
|
|
rocknrock
Apr 15, 2009, 9:12 PM
Post #38 of 46
(5571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2009
Posts: 34
|
ryanb wrote: I know some folks who get published in places like the patagonia catalogue regularly and they are shooting high end compacts with wide angles like the panasonic lx3, ricoh grd and gx200 etc...
Ricoh's though very nice, esp the gx200 have an ongoing dust problem alas. I've had this problem with my gx100, now my gx200 and also my r1 :/
Very well made but they seem to be a bit dainty, after the third time of getting dust in one I'm giving up on them and going to panasonic.
I've never had this problem with any other camera, and I do try to minimize use in adverse conditions (mostly wind) as much as I can.
|
|
|
|
|
zealotnoob
Apr 15, 2009, 9:46 PM
Post #39 of 46
(5567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 525
|
OT:
I just got my LX3 in the mail and can't wait to see how much of an improvement it'll be over my last camera--the Pentax W20.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 15, 2009, 10:18 PM
Post #40 of 46
(5562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
It should be a huge improvement the IQ on the W20 was just OK, and if you don't know what you are doing there is limited control other than the scene modes. But iff you program the green button to scroll through things like soft flash, EV comp and some other things you can almost make the camera work like a manual camera.
The W20 is a niche camera for watersports, snorkeling, and outdoor activities. It should be compared to it's olympus counterparts (the W/SW series). Which is of course my dilema with an LX3 type camera. It's too big to pocket, not rugged enough to beat up, but doesn't give the advantages of a smaller compact or a larger SLR.
I used my Dad's W20 on a week long paddling trip (along with my DSLR), loved having a camera I could leave on the deck of the boat, submerge, get wet in the rain, slide into my PFD pocket. Plus it had some cool features like an alarm clock. I only had one battery for that trip, and it lasted a just shy of 9 days.
Anyway two completely different cameras...
Taking the W20 for a swim
You probably won't hang the LX3 over the edge of the boat for a different perspective?
Another swim with the W20 (of course I had no pockets to put it in this time with my clothes drying on the boat  )
|
|
|
|
|
zealotnoob
Apr 16, 2009, 3:47 AM
Post #41 of 46
(5546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 525
|
Don't get me wrong, I loved the W20. It stowed easily in a pocket. I threw it around in the snow without a worry. I dropped it in the dirt without a care. I'd turn it on, snap some shots and have it back in my pocket, all before needing to take it the next armful of slack as I brought up my second. It was great until it took on water on a rafting trip after over 2 years of abuse.
And I am a little worried about the durability and bulk issues with the Lx3.
It's just that, I'm tired of grainy or blurry alpine glow/sunrise/set shots. I'd also like to capture the exposure of being over a thousand feet off the deck, along with my subject with the wider angle lens. And I figure the brighter lens will help capture detail when taking pictures on the fly, from a hanging belay, without the ability to brace. What little I know, it just seems like a bright and wide angle lens are key for taking pictures on big climbs.
Does that make sense?
(This post was edited by zealotnoob on Apr 16, 2009, 3:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 16, 2009, 5:40 AM
Post #42 of 46
(5534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
I agree. The LX3 is what you need (to bad it wasn't ruggedized...LX3W). The wider faster lens, and better high ISO will really be a help.
I always liked the Ricoh ruggedized cameras for this reason, they also came with a wide angle (28mm) lens but Ricoh sensors are crap for the price of the camera unless you only shoot a base ISO.
If you check back in the post history, I posted a thread on the Panasonic LX3 when it was announced. Great concept, and I applaud Panasonic for taking the initiative to produce a camera that wasn't for the general public. I also said the same thing about Nikon with the D3. My only argument for the LX3 is that it's not an SLR packed into a compact body which is what we've been arguing about mostly on this thread.
The bottom line, all cameras have a niche purpose (even crap camera phones and web cams).
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 16, 2009, 1:12 PM
Post #43 of 46
(5523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
This water proof camera has great photo quality and unbelievable video quality. I am getting the non-water proof version today because I need the 12x optical zoom the non-water proof version has.
|
|
|
|
|
felipebj182
May 12, 2009, 1:56 PM
Post #44 of 46
(5384 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2009
Posts: 2
|
Hello! I'm new at the forum, and I have a question. I'm looking forward to buy a camera, but I'm not sure what's the best model for me.. I have two cameras in mind, one, is a non slr, It's a Canon sx 10 is. the other one is a Pentax k10d. Do you guys have any opinion about what should be the best for me? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
May 12, 2009, 2:27 PM
Post #45 of 46
(5379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
felipebj182 wrote: Hello! I'm new at the forum, and I have a question. I'm looking forward to buy a camera, but I'm not sure what's the best model for me.. I have two cameras in mind, one, is a non slr, It's a Canon sx 10 is. the other one is a Pentax k10d. Do you guys have any opinion about what should be the best for me? Thanks!
The Canon SX-10 is an ok camera. However, it is quite large for what you get. What things do you need in the camera? Do you absolutely need a 20X optical zoom? What about video? Will you ever want to shoot any video? What about weather proofing? Will it ever see any rain?
Personally I would get the Panasonic DMC-LX3 if you just want great quality close up pictures. The size and quality of this camera is unmatched.
LX3
http://www.dpreview.com/...2102panasoniclx3.asp
If you really want an all in one camera that is small, has an optional underwater case, has a 12x optical and 80x+ digital zoom, can shoot amazing 720p HD videos, and takes decent well lit pictures then the Panasonic DMC-ZS3 is for you.
ZS3
http://www.dpreview.com/...2706panasonictz7.asp
|
|
|
|
|
felipebj182
May 28, 2009, 4:06 PM
Post #46 of 46
(5256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2009
Posts: 2
|
I've just bought the pentax k10d. Ok, It's hard to carry, but, I'll use it even when I'm not climbing. Here are the first pictures that I took:
The pics aren't on the actual size here.
More at http://www.flickr.com/photos/38355205@N06/
|
|
|
|
|
|
