| Author | Message | ||
     Reepicheep |
This topic has been beat to death, I know, but the tech changes so quick that hashing it out a few times a year seems worth doing. Anyway, I have a pretty narrow criteria, and I am trying to decide between a high end compact and a low end DSLR. For the compact camera, my current camera (Fuji F31FD) is actually really nice. It goes up to ASA 3200 (with roughly the quality of old 800 film), runs forever on a charge, and is nice and compact. It's shortcoming is the lens. Not because it is much worse than other point and shoots, but because they are all fairly limited. So Panasonic has heard my pain, and makes the LX3 and the LX5. I'm seriously thinking about picking up a used / left over LX3 for $300 or so. It goes up to 3200 ASA a little better then my fuji (not much), but also includes on chip image stabilization, an F2.0 lens (!), and 24mm film equivalent wide angle. All in a compact package. It is, for all intents and purposes, the modern Leica. My perfect camera. I love the kind of pictures I get working a room with a wide angle lens and natural light. So I had pretty much settled on it, but was looking around today and realized everyone is cheating on ISO settings these days. So it's really hard to compare apples to oranges. The example I found (wish I had saved the link) showed (I think) a Cannon 40D at 1600 ISO versus the Lumix at 1600 ISO, and the 40d was day and night better. Of course that is probably to be expected for a camera that cost 4x as much. It did get me thinking though. Is there a cheaper SLR that will outperform the Lumix? I'm odd for the following reasons: 1) I carried a stupid SLR around for many years, with all it's doodads and dongles, so I don't think of SLR as a positive over a non SLR. The extra baggage meant I simply didn't have the camera when I needed it. I would rather have a camera I can carry in a pocket and work around being stuck with one lens then not have *any* camera because I don't feel like walking around with a fanny pack. So when I think of SLR I am thinking "maybe a necessary evil", not "yay I can get more lenses". A single 24mm to 60mm or 120mm would be fine, especially if it is a f2.0 lens. 2) I don't and won't make big prints that have to be high resolution. I don't want 11ty million megapixels. Give me a nice looking 8x10 and I'm good. 3) I would rather a natural light picture with low light artifacts then an artificial light (i.e. flash) picture with flash artifacts. I have a word for nearly all non studio flash pictures... ruined. You don't have to share my opinion, but you aren't going to change mine. So is there a decent "previous gen" camera getting affordable used / overstock that I should also be looking at? Maybe an older Rebel? Or an older Nikon that the prosumers are selling off so they can upgrade? The other option is to just stick with my Fuji. I loose a stop, don't have image stabilization, and don't have a good wide angle, but it's still pretty remarkable for something I can put in a shirt pocket. Any suggestions? Any way to get honest measurements of max ISO on digital cameras? If a DSLR claims 1600 and looks beautiful even while underexposed by one stop, while a compact claims 3200 ISO and looks like crap, then the 1600 SLR is actually a more light sensitive camera... | ||
| 99buellx1 |
I had a Canon G10 that was outstanding.......really shoulda kept that camera. sigh. Low light concert photos were great. Main reason for the ISO difference in the Lumix and that 40D is the physical size of the sensor. | ||
| Xl1200r |
The example I found (wish I had saved the link) showed (I think) a Cannon 40D at 1600 ISO versus the Lumix at 1600 ISO, and the 40d was day and night better. Of course that is probably to be expected for a camera that cost 4x as much. Two things to keep in mind - a DSLR, even a 2/3 format body, is going to have a larger sensor than a compact, and therefor able to gather more light per pixel assuming MP's are the same. I'd guess that's what happening more than cheating with ISO numbers. A single 24mm to 60mm or 120mm would be fine, especially if it is a f2.0 lens. If you want a large aperture and zoom in a DSLR lens, you're going to be paying HUGE dollars. As an example, the Nikkor f1.8 lens I have has no zoom and was $199 (though I got mine used for a little less). It's a 'bargain must-have' lens in my book, but no zoom. If it had zoom it would cost many times more, and I don't think Nikon even makes a wide aperture zoom lens in the DX format for that reason (DX is the more affordable 2/3's sensor, FX is the more expensive equipment). I went through something similar to you a few months back but was comparing a DSLR to a premium super-zoom, which also had a smaller sensor, and therefor worse low-light performance which was more important to me. For mine, the size issue was a non-issue as a super-zoom is nearly as large as a DSLR. That LX3 looks small enough to still fit in a pocket. BTW, I picked up a Nikon D3000 and love it, but my wants and needs were a bit different than yours. I have a word for nearly all non studio flash pictures... ruined. You don't have to share my opinion, but you aren't going to change mine. I used to agree but have spent a lot of time playing with front and rear curtain flash for some fill and it can really bring a dead-looking photo to life. The typical flash of a compact camera looks bad, agreed, but a little flash with a longer exposure to get the background out works wonders. (Message edited by xl1200r on September 13, 2010) | ||
| Court |
I gave my G10 to my kids . . . . to insure good Grandkid pics . . . . I'm not sure if the G10 meets your low light criteria but it, seems to me anyway, to be about the best thing you can fit in your pocket. It's amazing and it may be, at least something to consider, prudent to take a look around the NYC shops refurbs, now that the G11's are all over. Just a thought. By the way . . . . what's Jack using? Does he have a digital camera? | ||
| Xl1200r |
BTW - I went 'budget' on my DSLR as best I could without being "cheap" (even bought a second-hand lens of Court and another from another board member) and after the body, lenses, filters and a bag I'm into it about $800. So it depends how important this stuff is to you. | ||
| Court |
Cool . . How'd that lens work? I **may** have another, a 24mm-70mm f2.8, that I'll be replace next. I'm lusting again . . . .  | ||
| Xl1200r |
Love the lens. The 18-55 and 55-200 I have now will be "good enough" until I can save the coin for the 18-200. That 24-70 2.8 sounds nice but the camera budget is bone dry, lol. | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
I am a big fan of the Canon Gll, and so is Nikon - they just came out with a virtually identical camera the P7000. The Lumix is good too.  I like these cameras because they are easy to carry, and make excellent quality photos: I have blown them up to 20x30 for art gallery use. With the Canon G12 just around the corner, good deals should be available on the G10 or G11, both are excellent. | ||
| Ourdee |
I lucked into a Tamron AF ASPHERICAL XR Di LD (IF) 28-300mm 1:3.5-6.3 MACRO for my Pentax kx, 75 bones on Craig'sList. I just had to pick it up in Chicago. I use a Nikon Coolpix S210 for my small camera. At 8 mp. it takes some nice pics. 3.5"x2.125"x0.75", fits in any pocket. Just have to remember to charge it every so often if you don't regularly use it. Screen on back is 1.5"x2". I think the new ones may be eleventy million things. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Good info, thanks all. I did some additional research. My current F31FD is still the compact camera sensor to beat for low light. Unfortunately, Fuji was resting on their laurels, and left it with a mediocre lens. So while the Lumix sensor is not quite as good, the lens has an extra stop (so for a given light, it can shoot at half the ISO) and it has image stabilization (so if the subjects are sitting reasonably still, you can get at least one and maybe two more halvings of the ISO). So the net result is that the Lumix can beat the Fuji by 1 to 3 stops, even with a slightly inferior sensor. And the lens on the Lumix is super wide angle... such that you pretty much can't even buy that lens for an SLR for the price of the whole Lumix camera. So now the dilemma. $300 to gain 1 to 3 stops of low light, and get the ultra wide angle I really like? Hmmmm... Or wait until some next generation comes out. The G11 looks nice, but I believe it has a much smaller image sensor than either the Fuji F31Fd or the Lumix LX3, and it shows in the low light performance. I'll do a little more checking. Sounds like DSLR is completely out of the running, which is what I was wondering. Right now Jack *could* use the old Nikon Coolpix 950 (for which I have a 23mm fisheye) if he wanted, but he would rather use a 1st gen IPhone with a screwed up touch screen we have floating around the house. Heck, maybe I'll buy the lumix for $300 and see if I can sell the Fuji for $200. It would definitely be worth $100 to upgrade to that Lumix lens. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Wow! F31FD's are going for $250 easily on ebay. And the LX3's are going for $300. What are people thinking? (Though it makes me want to get the Lumix and keep the F31FD, just because I know now everyone else wants it! ) | ||
| Slowride |
Reep, Look at the Nikon D50 DSLR with a kit lens, you wont pay more than $250 and get a fantastic jump in ability, low light and flexibility... I have a major portfolio I sold based totally on the D50. Just a thought... | ||
| 99buellx1 |
.....and how much for lenses? | ||
| Slowride |
That is with the lens usually. Here is a listing with body, lens and battery grip for $325 http://austin.craigslist.org/pho/1947309581.html Here is an ebay listing for $265 http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-D50-Digital-6-1mp-SLR-Digital-Camera-18-55mm-Lens-/250696237829?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item3a5ea90305 (Message edited by slowride on September 13, 2010) | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>I have a word for nearly all non studio flash pictures<< I have a word for it too. Necessary. It's impossible to stage every shot in the field with optimum lighting. Sometimes you have to provide your own. Every pro I work with has an arsenal of them. | ||
| Davegess |
Fast lens good, slow lens bad, When i was working I always had a f 1.4 in the bag; sometime it was the only lens that would make a pix. You just can't top lens speed. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Understood Dave (the tall one). I don't do studio work, so I limit myself to natural light. I actually have a few portable strobes I can break out and set up in a pinch, but I'm not good enough to use them well and manage everything else in the scene... and philosophically I want to melt into the background when I am shooting an event. I don't want people to think about the fact that I am there. So it's a me thing, not a universal truth. Davegess... That's what I don't get about the Fuji versus the Lumix. It's a 24mm f2.0 lens on a point and shoot. Thats a whole stop, and the digital image stabilzation buys you another stop or two in some cases. I'll start researching the D50, thanks for the pointer. It actually looks pretty good... only ISO1600, but some real options for lenses, and at 1600 the images still look VERY good. | ||
| Desert_uly |
Shopped around for a low end slr for months and finally decided a better quality point and shoot would fit my needs much better, so I got the G10. Easy to carry (slightly heavy to shove in your pocket) but takes little room when riding or hiking. For me this definitely was the right choice, very nice camera. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Geesh. The D50 does an awfully good job at 1600 ASA... and you can get them with lens on ebay for $300 - $400. Why so cheap I wonder? Are the elites scared off the 6.1 MP? | ||
| Danger_dave |
I find the amount of times the best aspect or backdrop is facing towards the sun in quite remarkable. Maybe it's the geography. Our staffer says 'bright overcast is our friend, David'. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Why so cheap I wonder? Are the elites scared off the 6.1 MP?<< Yeah - providing it hasn't been shot through a pinhole lens - more is better - simply because you can shoot wider and crop. Particularly action shots. | ||
| Slowride |
The D50 almost has a cult following. The sensor was good, the metering was good, the shutter was good. It just got lost in the shuffle from the run up to the modern dslr. It was square in the middle and there a hella photo snobs out there. The megapixel debate has been there for a long time, but a good sensor is a good sensor. Image repro is fantastic with prime lenses on the d50. | ||
| Court |
>>>>>Every pro I work with has an arsenal of them. Dats a fak Jak! The last time I was with Mike R we went to shoot a bike and he started pulling strobes and RF triggers out like M&M's from a bag . . . he seemed to intuitively know where to place them and what output to set each at . . a little fiddling about and the result was incredible. Fun stuff ! | ||
| Damnut |
I have this for sale on Ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ50-10-0- Megapixel-w-extra-lenses-/220666681613?pt=Digital_ Cameras&hash=item3360c2590d Might not be what your looking for but maybe someone else? | ||
| Davegess |
It's impossible to stage every shot in the field with optimum lighting. Sometimes you have to provide your own. One of the true wizards of "available light" photography was Gene Smith - his photos always looked like they had purely natural lighting, no flash no fill, always defined "available light" ans "any light available". He used all sorts of lighting to get his shots but he was good enough to make it look real not lit. He was also a master printer and know to use multiple negative to get one perfect print. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Here is a cool resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM Kick up sample images side by side from any two cameras. Navigation ain't perfect, but it works, and it is *really* telling. Suddenly I can see the difference between a $500 prosumer and a $5000 Nikon. Go look at the D3 sample photos and compare them to a G11... wow. I think I have it narrowed down now... either the Nikon P7000 or a good used LX3. I need to see some sample images from the P7000 first at 3200 ASA and see if its a breakthrough sensor, or just the same as a G11. And see if the street price gets down to $400. I like the Nikon a little better than the Cannon. The LX3 continues to be pretty attractive. Small and compact, and that F2.0 24mm lens has me drooling. The P7000 would be a better choice, as the lens is 28mm-200mm (pretty impressive), though it is F2.8 instead of F2.0. The P7000 has built in bayonet mount for a 21mm wide ange adapter as well, but the lens alone costs as much as the whole Lumix. Decisions... decisions... | ||
| Davegess |
The Lumix, or one of the clones, seems to be the camera of choice for the pros I know looking for a camera to carry around when not working. Very high resolution and very close focusing. Nice camera. | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
It never ends, does it? Canon just went official on the announcement of the G12 today. Got a lot of nice features including much improved low light performance, HD movies, HDR photos, improved handling etc. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091412canong12 .asp I'm gonna get me one in October. If anyone wants my like new in box G11 for $300, (they go for $350 on eBay), just give a me a holler. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Hmmm... The G12 is going to get spanked by the Nikon P7000... they look almost identical feature for feature but the Nikon has a 200mm (versus 140mm) max zoom. Unless there are significant changes in image quality... which seems doubtful given they are both using the same size sensor. I never should have looked at those sample pictures for the Nikon D3 in low light. Now I am thinking just camp out for a cheap Lumix LX3 (figure $250 or something) to play with for a couple years, and just wait for that D3 image sensor to creep into a mirrorless SLR form factor (which is where I expect the G12 / P7000 / LX3 cameras will evolve into). I also factor in the whole "the camera that you didn't bring can't take good photos" aspect of things. In order to be with me a lot the camera has to be (a) small and (b) reasonably affordable. I wouldn't think twice about leaving a $250 Fuji F31fd or Lumix LX3 in the riding jacket most of the time... Time to start stalking the Lumix on ebay. Nobody bid against me until I score one! | ||
| Prior |
Reep, I've enjoyed reading this thread. I LOVE the D2X that I have, but it is a challenge to haul around. The Nikon case takes up almost half of one of my huge saddle bags and it is not easy or quick to pull out to take some shots. Lots of good info up there; think I need to find a few friends that have these and start making comparisons. |
