| Author |
Message |
    
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2010 - 05:40 am: | 
|
Update! Just won a Lumix LX3 on ebay last night. $265 to my door.
The big advantages to this camera are:
1) Portability (a little bigger than a pocket camera, but smaller than most prosumer non SLRs, and absolutely tiny compared to an SLR).
2) Wide angle performance (24mm, which is really really wide angle, and if you know how to use a wide angle lens well you can get some pretty remarkable shots in a lot of different circumstances)
3) Low light performance (at 24mm, the lens is F2.0, which is unprecedented for a non SLR. You can buy a SLR lens that will do it, but it will cost more than I paid for this whole camera, and be about twice the size as this whole camera). The image sensor is inferior to a DSLR sensor though, so the stop I gain from it being F2.0 I loose to the inferior Lumix sensor. And a $6000 Nikon could blow it out of the water because the image sensor is SO much better.
The big cons to this camera are:
1) Zoom. It goes up to 60 mm, which is barely any zoom at all. So if you take this to a sporting event or something, you will be taking great pictures before and after the game, or of people sitting beside you in the stands, nothing from the field. So it's a "wide angle" camera. A trade off for sure, but one I am happy with for the kind of pictures I like to take.
2) Image sensor. It's still a "prosumer" grade image sensor. At ISO 1600 the artifacts are getting pretty bad on the Lumix, and at ISO 3200 the artifacts are on the edge of ruining the picture completely. Even an old Nikon D50 has a better sensor.
So I am happy. The D50 would have been another good choice. I could get it with a basic zoom lens (35 to 70 or something) for $300 or so. But that doesnt give me the wide angle I had and miss so much. And it's a big pig of a camera, you aren't carrying or using it without screaming "camera". As stated above, a 24mm equiv F2.0 lens for the Nikon would have been $300 alone, and is bigger than the camera body.
What iced it for me as looking at the latest high end Nikon pictures. At 124000 ISO, the images are still incredible. But its a $6000 camera. So I know that whatever camera I buy today is an "interim" camera until that high end Nikon sensor works it's way into a consumer camera (I'm guessing 3 to 5 years if the economy recovers).
The Nikon D7000 would have been another great choice. But its $450 to $500, and isn't even out yet, and to get it to my wide angle performance I would have to add a $200 wide angle adapter. And it really isn't any better in low light than the Lumix, it has a little better sensor, but a slower lens, so it ends up pretty much a tie.
The cannon G15 (or whichever is current) is also nice, but lacks the nice wide angle adapter bayonet mount the Nikon has. And both the Cannon and the Nikon are much bigger than the Lumix.
The new generation of mirrorless SLR's, combined with that incredible new Nikon sensor, will be the "next ones" to watch.
I'll put up some sample pictures when the camera comes in...
Thanks for the help all! |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2010 - 08:31 am: |
|
Forgot one more significant feature for the LX3 (that the D50 lacks, but that the P7000 and G13 should have)... Video.
The Lumix will shoot HD video (1280x720) at 24 frames a second direct to a quicktime (motion jpeg) format.
Which I am guessing is a good hour of video before the battery is baked and the memory is used up. I'll see... |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2010 - 01:53 pm: |
|
Update... Got the camera. Took a gamble buying one on ebay with no picture of it (so it went a little cheaper than normal).
$265 shipped to my door. Cosmetically, it has a few rough spots, but mechanically it is perfect. Under 2000 shots on it since new.
The lens is to die for if you are a wide angle guy. I love being able to have that razor thin depth of field on macro when I want it, and to be able to get pictures of people that emphasizes their faces but still can tie in the background and tell the story.
Here is a shot I just took at my desk playing around...
First the version I think badweb might display, I had to downsample it significantly
You can see the high res version at:
http://www.kilgallons.com/photos/P1050005.JPG
(Message edited by reepicheep on September 24, 2010) |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2010 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Nice buy ! |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2010 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Got to play with a night photo last night...
This was late at night with a close to full moon, but it was DARK as I was in the shadow of the house.
The camera was sitting on my deck railing, in the "2 second self timer mode" which was sepcifically built into the camera for tripod use. The camera is just stuffed with these little "pro tricks", which I am really growing to appreciate. The "scene mode" was set for night landscape (yes, they have a special mode for that). The "scenes", unlike a lot of toy cameras, have really been thought through to make the most of the abilities of the camera.
This was downsampled and compressed jpeg...
|
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 01:55 pm: |
|
Wow. Learning more all the time.
A friend brought in her Cannon DSLR today, she was having trouble getting good pictures and was looking for help. It was a Rebel T1I with a Tamaron 35-270mm zoom.
Guess which of the pictures below (same scene) came from the $1200 DSLR outfit, and which came from the $250 eBay "point and shoot" Lumix. They are "100% crops", meaning every pixel you see on the screen is one pixel from the sensor. One is closer because one camera has a far better macro capability. Both pictures were taken as close as the lens could get.
Wow. The Tamaron lens, not to put to fine a point on it, sucks. Absolute junk. And the Lumix lens is simply outstanding.
Now don't get me wrong... if you put "the right lens" on that Cannon, it would eat the Lumix for lunch. But lets see what that costs you...
Rebel body: $500? (just guessing)
F2.0 24-60 lens (or as close as you can get): No such creature. If you will settle for the F2.8 24-70mm, looks like they go for about $1100 used.
So for about $1600, you can get a rig that is roughly equivalent. I'll assume the larger image sensor of the Cannon will more than compensate for the one stop of lens you have lost versus the Lumix.
And the rig is then very big and very heavy. The lumix fits easily and invisibly in a loose pocket (i.e. a coat or cargo pants pocket)
The obvious conclusion is that even if you have a big DSLR, you may be better off getting a Lumix as a second camera rather than getting another lens for the DSLR.
Zoom is where the Lumix will crash and burn, it simply won't do it. So it's not a solution to every problem, and you have to submit to that limitation.
Congratulations to Panasonic though, they created something remarkable with this camera. The new Nikon P7000 promises to be nearly as good as the Lumix, though you loose a little wide angle to gain a bunch of zoom, and it's $500. I'd want to see real pictures before I decide though...
So anyway, if anyone is on the fence about a DSLR versus a prosumer point and shoot, my advice would be go with a used Lumix and take it everywhere and try and wear it out over the next 2 to 4 years, and then see what else has trickled down. When that nikon D5000 image sensor technology hits the prosumer point and shoot market, *everything* will change.
Meanwhile, I'm loving the Lumix. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 04:55 pm: |
|
Update! FWIW, You can get a Cannon 50mm fixed F1.8 lens for $100 or so. You are stuck with 80mm (35mm equiv), while I like wide angle, but that lens with that cannon sensor would kick my Lumix's behind in every other category...
Probably the same with a nikon D50. A used D50 with a used F1.8 50mm lens could take some pretty amazing pictures. |
Court
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 05:52 pm: |
|
I'll say it again . . .
When I started looking for a telephoto I noticed that Nikon had something like 3 of them. Roughly . . .
I have the luxury of being able to rent ANYTHING about 2 blocks from my office and did.
No contest.
Glass is king.
When you look at those shots that RKC and EBear have and wonder "why can't I do that?" . . go plop down about $8,000 for the camera and another $12,000 for the lens.
You still, as I found, won't be able to do it. . but you'll have a new found appreciation for both glass AND talent.
My Nikon Coolpix 950 still rocks!
 |
|
