Author Topic: Compact digital recommendations (Read 16359 times)

hellymedic · « **Reply #75 on:** 06 October, 2008, 03:20:14 pm »

Quote from: Sergeant Pluck on 06 October, 2008, 02:11:07 pm

It's here

Have fun and let us see a few pictures!

Sergeant Pluck · « **Reply #76 on:** 07 October, 2008, 05:00:09 pm »

I pronounce myself happy with my choice! I'm particularly glad I resisted other temptations and kept wide angle a priority. This just suits most of the pictures I like to take.

I can already see, from a few quick night shots, that the half decent lens is a boon in terms of getting some light in.

It all seems fairly easy to figure out - I'm sure I've gone through most of the menus and options without yet referring to the formidable looking manual - thereby confirming my essential maleness

So hopefully some day there'll be few decent pictures

Sergeant Pluck · « **Reply #77 on:** 16 October, 2008, 10:31:01 pm »

Quote from: Biggsy on 04 October, 2008, 03:20:10 pm

If you get a good RAW converter like Silkypix

I am very impressed with Silkypix. I think I'll just stick to it for all image editing from now on. It's very easy to use for basic functions and it seems to be capable of all the more sophisticated stuff too. In fact it is so easy to use with RAW files I am inclined just to take all my pics in RAW.

Biggsy · « **Reply #78 on:** 17 October, 2008, 12:01:41 am »

Check out the Silkypix forum for tips, etc.

Sergeant Pluck · « **Reply #79 on:** 20 October, 2008, 01:38:34 pm »

No regrets about my choice, but thought I'd post this out of interest. I happened to be beside someone using Panasonic TZ5 yesterday. We were both standing quite a way back, as the photo below shows, although I was taking this at the widest my LX can do so the distance is exaggerated slightly. The TZ5 was able to zoom in (10x I presume) right to the speaker's shoulders and face on the screen, and the motion stabilization was good enough to take a decent quality non-jittery video, hand held, from that distance. Impressive, though it must be said the photographer did have a really steady hand.

Aidan · « **Reply #80 on:** 20 October, 2008, 06:52:45 pm »

The TZ5 is 10x zoom. I've ordered one today, to be delivered tomorrow.

Yippee, new toy!!!!!!

Will post back when I've had a play.

Sergeant Pluck · « **Reply #81 on:** 07 November, 2008, 02:53:20 pm »

Quote from: Biggsy on 17 October, 2008, 12:01:41 am

Check out the Silkypix forum for tips, etc.

I'm getting a Google warning re malware on that site.

Biggsy · « **Reply #82 on:** 07 November, 2008, 03:15:26 pm »

I've had that before as well, but the site is working ok for me now (with IE).

It has been brought to the attention of the forum administrator, who says: "I believe its just a false alarm, it was brought up earlier before and I don't know why it is happening."

Sergeant Pluck · « **Reply #83 on:** 07 November, 2008, 03:17:07 pm »

Thanks Biggsy.

As I had problems a little while ago with a trojan I didn't want to give it a try - although the last time I looked it was fine.

andyoxon · « **Reply #84 on:** 08 November, 2008, 10:14:21 am »

I suppose in the end it's difficult for a single camera to be all things to everyone...

The Pana I have is a 'compact' superzoom (FZ5), & it's big bro the FZ28 (27-486mm), has an amazing zoom range which exceeds the TZ5, but the FZ18 just doesn't have the convenient, compact size of the TZ5 or LX3. The TZ5 has a useful wider longer zoom range than the LX3, but then it doesn't get down to a great 24mm, and neither the FZ18 or the TZ5 have the bigger, lower pixel density sensor of the LX3.

My old FZ5 (36-432) arguably has the lowest noise (though somewhat lower res) of the whole FZ range, but doesn't have the good wide angle.

I want a LX5 24-432.

(Maybe not possible physically/optically with the larger sensor though)

Biggsy · « **Reply #85 on:** 15 November, 2008, 11:33:14 pm »

Disappointingly for me as a paid-up big fan of Sikypix, it seems one of the competing programs extracts more detail from RAW files after all: Raw Therapee. It's free as well. Not as nice to use though, IMO.

See this thread on the Silkypix forum.

This happens to include examples from an LX3.

Biggsy · « **Reply #86 on:** 16 November, 2008, 08:37:31 pm »

Oops, I seem to have won an LX2 off Fleabay

Sergeant Pluck · « **Reply #87 on:** 16 November, 2008, 09:19:17 pm »

Good - hope you enjoy using it. I've been a bit slack with mine for a few weeks: taking it on rides and then not using it.

Jaded · « **Reply #88 on:** 16 November, 2008, 09:22:45 pm »

The video on the Lumix FX-35 is

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lDnisl43t1A&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/lDnisl43t1A&rel=1</a>!

Jaded · « **Reply #89 on:** 05 December, 2008, 03:49:31 pm »

DP Review have just done a multi-test of slim compacts.

onb · « **Reply #90 on:** 09 December, 2008, 11:41:40 am »

Does the LX3 have the facility to vary the asa sorry iso rating?

Rob S · « **Reply #91 on:** 09 December, 2008, 01:56:16 pm »

Quote from: onb on 09 December, 2008, 11:41:40 am

Does the LX3 have the facility to vary the asa sorry iso rating?

Yes.....from 80 to 3200 via 100,200,400,800 and 1600. Though being a compact don't expect 1600 and 3200 to be that good. However thanks to it's fab F2.0 lens and optical IS you shouldn't really need to go there

inc · « **Reply #92 on:** 10 March, 2009, 12:39:51 pm »

Quote from: Sergeant Pluck on 03 October, 2008, 06:59:51 pm

After taking everything into account including its limitations, I went for the LX3.

You have now had the LX3 for a few months, any feedback, I am still looking.

hatler · « **Reply #93 on:** 10 March, 2009, 01:13:27 pm »

I just bought Mrs hatler a Canon Ixus 960 IS.

A brilliant piece of kit. Great pictures.

This was influenced by our already having a Canon Powershot G2 (which is utterly brilliant if a little beyond the pocket size).

mike · « **Reply #94 on:** 10 March, 2009, 05:07:41 pm »

Quote from: inc on 10 March, 2009, 12:39:51 pm

Quote from: Sergeant Pluck on 03 October, 2008, 06:59:51 pm

After taking everything into account including its limitations, I went for the LX3.

You have now had the LX3 for a few months, any feedback, I am still looking.

I bought one too. I've had an LX2 (too noisy at > ISO 100) and a G9 (too big) but still wanted something to carry around when I couldnt carry my SLR & lenses.

It's absolutely fantastic! I've only had it a couple of weeks but used it for pretty much everything in the lake district last week when I saw that it could pretty much match my SLR for landscapes. The detail in the Raw files is amazing.

The zoom is pretty short, which can be frustrating, but that and the slightly fat-ness of it really are the only issues I can see (it's coat or shirt pocketable but not trouser pocketable).

Biggsy · « **Reply #95 on:** 10 March, 2009, 07:01:55 pm »

Quote from: mike on 10 March, 2009, 05:07:41 pm

The zoom is pretty short

Virtually no telephoto at all - 60mm (35mm equiv). I would be interested if it wasn't for that.

andyoxon · « **Reply #96 on:** 10 March, 2009, 07:14:47 pm »

Quote from: Biggsy on 10 March, 2009, 07:01:55 pm

Quote from: mike on 10 March, 2009, 05:07:41 pm
The zoom is pretty short

Virtually no telephoto at all - 60mm (35mm equiv). I would be interested if it wasn't for that.

Agree, if it was 24-90mm-ish (eq) I would be more interested. It still seems a great camera, and I really enjoy 24mm, but especially with the minis aos about, I tend take a fair few portraits. I suppose they've made the fast lens top of the agenda.

bikenerd · « **Reply #97 on:** 10 March, 2009, 07:26:06 pm »

Can you get a tele-converter for it?

I'm happy so far with my Canon G10, which has a 28-140mm lens, but not as fast as the LX3, F2.8 is the widest aperture. I haven't used it extensively, and I'm still learning, but the images I've taken so far have a good image quality.

Edit: it could not be described as compact in any way. The back is roughly the same area as a dSLR, the body being (slightly) thinner, though, and it doesn't have a protruding lens.

Biggsy · « **Reply #98 on:** 10 March, 2009, 08:06:18 pm »

There are tele-converters for it on eBay. No idea if they're any good.

Thinking more positively, I suppose I might be interested in an LX3 if I had a second camera as well with me for telephoto, or if a converter worked OK.

mike · « **Reply #99 on:** 10 March, 2009, 08:14:05 pm »

the lx3 is a much better camera than the lx2, if you can cope with the lack of a zoom. It's got a much quicker focus, better auto-exposure, and a much better sensor.

this post on dpreview explains beautifully why the teleconverters arent likely to be much cop:
Panasonic Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I played with the canon wide-converter for the G9 in a shop, it was huge, heavier than some SLR lenses.

Author Topic: Compact digital recommendations (Read 16359 times)

Rob S

inc

bikenerd