Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

  1. #1
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    a camera like a ZS7, LX5, or XZ-1?

    I'm well set-up with a Canon 5DMkII system (used for work) and a well-rounded m4/3 system as well (GH2, GF1 and nine lenses, or so.)

    I have a ZS3 that I bought for those times when I just wanted a really small, lightweight, capable little camera for casual snapshots and movies. It has worked very, very well in that capacity and I am glad I have had it. It performs amazingly well in good light, the optical zoom range is mind boggling, movies are wonderful, but isn't well suited to low light situations and the model is getting a little "long-in-the-tooth".

    I have a bit of "new camera itch" and have been thinking of upgrading my ZS3. Possibilities are:

    1) the just announced ZS10 (24-384mm equiv. Leica lens, still no RAW, dang it)
    2) the LX5 (24-90mm f/2-3.3, good sized sensor, RAW)
    3) the Olympus XZ-1 (28-112mm, f/1.8-2.5, good size sensor, RAW)
    4) the Sony S95 (28-105mm, f/2-4.9 decent IQ, RAW)
    5) the rumored new f/1.8 Nikon model... whatever

    Any of these models would provide a smaller, lighter, versatile alternative to my GF1, with a slight loss in IQ, and the LX5 or XZ-1 also fill a void in the m4/3 lens realm of a fast, wide-range zoom. In this regard, the XZ-1 looks especially appealing! I prefer to shoot RAW only and favor maximizing IQ, so the great little ZS10 is probably not so much in the running for me.

    My preference leans toward the XZ-1 or the LX5 at this point. In RAW, it seems the XZ-1 has the edge in IQ and it has an edge in speed of the lens as well. But the LX5 has the edge in a somewhat wider wide end and the familiarity (to me) of Panasonic's way of doing things.

    But I wonder if I might be almost as inclined to just put up with my larger, bulkier GF1/14-45 combo instead? The 14-45 is a fantastic general lens, just a bit slow. So I'm wondering if the XZ-1 or LX5 might be pushing up close enough to the GF1/14-45 realm to be almost redundant... perhaps not, though, as the form factor of the XZ-1 and LX5 is definitely a bit leaner and easier to carry and low light capability may get a slight nod with the faster lens. (Faster lens on LX5 vs. slightly better higher ISO performance on GF1 may be a wash?)

    What are your thoughts?
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  2. #2
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,342
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    The XZ-1 looks very, very tempting. I consider that an alternative to the GF2. When you consider the lenses needed for a comparable range, it's certainly more pocketable.

  3. #3
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,122
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Why not just buy a GF-2? Smaller form factor but same sensor size and your lenses will fit it.

    LouisB

  4. #4
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Yep... that XZ-1 is a tempting little bugger.... but, so is the LX5.
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  5. #5
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    Why not just buy a GF-2? Smaller form factor but same sensor size and your lenses will fit it.

    LouisB
    Hey Louis... not a bad idea, but there isn't a m4/3 lens that can compete with the XZ-1 or LX5 for combined speed/range/small size. And even if there were, the form factor and convenience factor of the XZ-1 and LX5 still beats the GF-2. Not by a HUGE margin, but enough to make a difference. The GF-2 is a tad smaller than my GF-1, but not by much, really. It wouldn't make nearly enough difference vs. my GF-1 to be worth it.

    The idea is to have a camera that's enough more convenient and versatile than a m4/3 body and lens to be worth having, in addition to m4/3, without sacrificing much in IQ. I think the XZ-1 and LX5 do that.

    BTW... LOVE your images!
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    I have the S95 and G12....for probably the same reason.
    I also have the original Oly 14-42 kit lens. I'm thinking that lens on the GF2 might replace the two P&S cameras.

    If I were choosing today, I would probably go for the Oly XZ1. I must say after using m4/3 and other big sensor cameras the Canons feel more sluggish to focus etc. Also after using GF1 the controls on the S95 (and LX5 which I sold) seem so small and fiddly.

  7. #7
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Terry... I take it you didn't see enough merit in the LX5 vs. the S95, G12 kits? That doesn't speak terribly well for the LX5.

    I can understand the merits of the G12. I have a G9 that I haven't used in about a year and a half. Wonderful camera... landmark in it's day. I handled it tonight as I consider selling it and couldn't help but marvel at it, still. Well done, Canon! I don't really want to let it go.

    But with the other gear I've got now, I know I won't use my G9 anymore. I can imagine that the G12 is all of the G9 and a lot more. But probably still, not a competitor for a m4/3 system. And probably not a competitor for XZ-1 either.

    But you clearly prefer the S95 and G12 to the LX5?
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  8. #8
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: s95

    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    4) the Sony S95 (28-105mm, f/2-4.9 decent IQ, RAW)
    Don't tell Canon though ..

    XZ-1 would be my bet too.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    My issue with the LX5 a couple of things -

    1)it almost feels too small after using the GF1 where the button layout is more spacious
    2)the buttons on the back controller aren't labeled but are just indents which I hadn't memorized and were getting harder to see as my aging eyes get closer to needing reading glasses



    There is nothing wrong with the LX5 - I just didn't bond with it. The screen on the S95 is nicer than LX5, the fold out screen for G12 is most useful. But most of all, I'm looking forward to the touch screen and touch focus of the GF2.

  10. #10
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    the fold out screen for G12 is most useful. But most of all, I'm looking forward to the touch screen and touch focus of the GF2.
    Terry... I love articulating screens... and the touch screen, touch focus, touch... features are very handy and useful as well. These are elements that I love about the GH2. Amazing camera. I'm sure you'll appreciate the touch features on the GF2. Too bad they didn't make that screen articulating, dang it. That makes a really big difference when relying on an LCD.
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  11. #11
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: s95

    Quote Originally Posted by m3photo View Post
    Don't tell Canon though ..

    XZ-1 would be my bet too.
    Michael... ooops... my bad. Canon S95, not Sony.
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    College Place, WA.
    Posts
    790
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    I have the ZS7 and don't really see any need for another P+S. Image quality is fine for daylight shooting. Video is excellent to me.

    However, I was going through some pics from my vacation to Montana and notice a huge difference between two pics. I thought maybe I had changed some settings in the ZS7, but after looking at EXIF data, the "better" pic was from the GF1 and 20/1.7!

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    My LX3 sits unused, it really is a struggle in bright lights with my not so good eyes, I prefer the slightly bigger EPL1 and if I need to I will carry a lens in another pocket

    I haven't a link, but the LX5 scored a fair bit higher that the XZ-1 at DXO, considering they are the same sensor it's a bit strange

  14. #14
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Size matters

    I am currently struggling with "camera acquisition syndrome" as well but I am thinking of a K5 or a GF-2. I know these don't fit your current criteria but I have owned a LX3, a few M4/3 cameras and currently own a S90. My go-to camera is Canon 5D2.

    The S90 is a great camera for what it is but it and all the other small cameras suffer from the very small sensor they use. From my perspective if it's not your main camera (and maybe not even your 2nd system) then small is the overwhelming factor. You can slip a S95 in your jeans pocket or just about anywhere else. In every other choice that was discussed the best they fit without a bag is a winter coat. If we get to that size (that a bag is necessary) then why not go for something like the GF-2 or the K5. As always my my opinion is just that an opinion.

    Jim

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    There's always room for a pocketable high-end compact. I use my wife's S95 on occasion when she's using my GH1, and it's perfect. Anything larger than that size and I might as well carry the real deal.
    -Dragos
    Panasonic GH1/G1, Canon FTb(n)/F-1, Mamiya C330F/RB67 Pro SD, Chamonix 45N-2, Nikon F5 + Assorted Lenses

  16. #16
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    A few S90 photos taken in the past few months - maybe a little (a lot) over processed but I liked the colors.

    Jim

  17. #17
    Senior Member simonclivehughes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Don,

    I use a ZS3 too, but also a Sony TX7. I like the TX7 for most things (especially with its outstanding Handheld Twilight and Sweep Panorama modes), but the ZS3's zoom wins out for situations where I need the reach. Neither camera produces RAW files, but jpegs that can be worked with to produce very usable results. But, like others here, I find the difference in size between these and say the GF1/E-PL1/20mm or even NEX5/16mm (or either with a CV lens) is so minimal, that often I grab the larger sensor cams instead.

    Ciao,

  18. #18
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Size matters

    Good comments, everyone, thank you.

    Jim, your comments summed it all up especially well...
    Quote Originally Posted by JMaher View Post
    ...if it's not your main camera (and maybe not even your 2nd system) then small is the overwhelming factor. You can slip a S95 in your jeans pocket or just about anywhere else. In every other choice that was discussed the best they fit without a bag is a winter coat. If we get to that size (that a bag is necessary) then why not go for something like the GF-2 or the K5.

    Jim
    Comparing size and weight (lenses in 35mm equiv.)

    GF1...................w/40mm/1.7...........4.6 x 2.8 x 1.63.......455 g
    GF2...................w/40mm/1.7...........4.4 x 2.7 x 1.53.......381 g
    XZ-1....w/28-112mm f/1.8-2.5...........4.4 x 2.6 x 1.7.........275 g
    LX5.......w/24-90mm f/2.0-3.3...........4.1 x 2.2 x .1.7.........233 g
    S95........w/28-105mm f/2-4.9...........4.0 x 2.3 x 1.2.........193 g
    ZS10.........w/24-384 f/3.3-5.9...........4.13 x 2.3 x 1.3.........219 g

    GF2 option
    It's pretty clear that Panasonic did bring the GF2 virtually into the realm of the high end pocket cameras... except for weight and lens specifications. There is no lens for the m4/3 that compares for speed and compact size to the lenses on the LX5 or XZ-1. So....

    LX5 & XZ-1 options
    Comparing the XZ-1 to the LX5, the LX5 is a bit smaller and lighter, and offers much better movie capability. And I prefer the LX5's slightly wider (24mm) zoom range. Whereas the XZ-1 offers a slight edge in lens speed, DOF control, and possibly in IQ, but the margin is very slim, perhaps negligible. Both offer EVF options which I highly value.

    S95 & ZS10 options
    If size and weight is most important, these win. And the S95 wins for IQ and lens speed. Neither have an available EVF. ZS10 wins for movie capability and zoom range by a huge margin.

    Some considerations
    The small, fast lenses for GF1/GF2 are the 20/1.7 and 14/2.5 (not so fast). No doubt these lenses are gems, but with fixed focal lengths less versatile and the package is still a tad large and weighty for an always go everywhere camera. The other options are more compact and lighter weight and offer much more versatility in image making with their fast zoom lenses.

    Given my interest in movies as well as stills, valuing slightly wider FOV vs slightly longer, and valuing the ability to use an EVF if desired, I'm leaning somewhat toward the LX5 at this point. Though the XZ-1 could easily sway me that direction as well. And, of course, having an S95 or a ZS10 would be very nice for the slip-in-the-pocket factor. Would it be terribly excessive to have an LX5 or XZ-1 AND an S95???

    This is an itch that I think I'm going to need to scratch. I will put my G9 and ZX3 on eBay. When they're gone, I think I will just have to go shopping.

    Decisions, decisions... and of course none of them are the perfect decision. Good arguments can be made for choosing every option listed! As with all things in life, every choice you can make involves compromises of one sort or another. Jury's still out for me... and I'm still interested in other's thoughts on this.
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  19. #19
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Shutter noise.... anyone know if this is fairly quiet with the LX5, XZ-1, S95 or if they can be made quieter? Is shutter noise/sound something that can even be controlled in any way? My technical ignorance to shutters in these new digital cameras leaves me wondering if the sound is a genuine mechanical sound or something that's electronically simulated to aid the shooter?

    EDITED TO ADD - I understand now that the shutters in these cameras are mechanical - hence the noise that is not controllable.

    And, if you don't mind me continuing my thinking process aloud...

    Other factors weighing in favor of the LX5 (for me) include the multi-aspect sensor feature, better orientation for panoramics, uses the same EVF that I already have for my GF1, YES!, superb options for movie making.
    Last edited by DHart; 6th February 2011 at 17:42.
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  20. #20
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: Shutter Noise

    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    Shutter noise.... anyone know if this is fairly quiet with the LX5, XZ-1, S95 or if they can be made quieter? Is shutter noise/sound something that can even be controlled in any way? My technical ignorance to shutters in these new digital cameras leaves me wondering if the sound is a genuine mechanical sound or something that's electronically simulated to aid the shooter?


    EDITED TO ADD - I understand now that the shutters in these cameras are mechanical - hence the noise that is not controllable.
    With regard to the S95 at least ('cos I've got an S90):

    A) Correct

    B) Incorrect

  21. #21
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    I've noticed that people who primarily seek IQ from these little P&S generally declare the S90/95 as "the one".

    I'm different in that I can't understand looking to them for IQ. Im my case I think the only things about them that make them worth having are their form factor and their ruggedness. These days with the Pen, GF1/2 or the NEX models being about the same size and yet totally snuffing all compacts in IQ, there's just no point considering IQ when looking at compacts - they're all damn close to each other anyway. So if I were to shop for a compact these days my requirements would be like:


    • Can be dropped in a pool and not die,
    • Can be sat on and survive,
    • Can be dropped and not burst into parts,
    • Can be left in the sun on my car's dashboard for a week and not melt, change color, or stop working perfectly,
    • Can be left in the car for a week in sub-zero temps or dropped in the snow,
    • Looks cool and sporty,
    • Looks as good as the next one (IQ).


    And to that end I like these OK:



    LUMIX TS3 is Waterproof, Shockproof, Freezeproof, Dustproof, and Adds
    Full-HD Video Recording, a New 3D Photo Mode and
    Easy Facebook and YouTube Uploads.



    Pentax Optio W90 rugged compact waterproof digital compact camera
    designed for worry-free underwater photo-shooting,
    with a "Digital Microscope" mode.



    Olympus "Tough 8010": Shockproof to 2m, waterproof to 10m,
    crushproof to 100kg freezeproof to -10C and scratchproof



    Casio EX-G1 shock-resistant, waterproof, dustproof, Freezeproof etc.
    848 x 480 (30 fps) movies, and so on.



    Canon PowerShot D10 Waterproof (to 10m), shockproof (1.22m),
    freeze-proof (-10C), dust-proof digital camera



    For me, again, selecting a P&S these days doesn't include looking very closely at noise issues, RAW abilities, or color accuracy and etc.. We have Pen, GF, and NEX that cream all of them so badly it's not funny - and which are easily pocketable or purse-able with a pancake lens or whatever. Of these I would probably go for the Pentax or the Canon. When I read the reviews they out-performed the others in several significant ways IIRC.





    .
    Last edited by Tesselator; 7th February 2011 at 09:46.

  22. #22
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Michael.. You're saying that the S90 is quiet and does not have a mechanical shutter? Sorry I was a bit confused by your a and b.

    Tesselator... Those are some very interesting points and durability can be extra important in a camera you will slog everywhere no matter what.

    I do wonder about the compact to IQ comparison, at least in the case of the XZ-1 to the GF1. Looking at the RAW samples on DPR (I'm not at all concerned about the jpg comparisons, because I prefer to shoot only RAW) the XZ-1 RAW in studio test image is clearly superior to the GF1 RAW test image at ISO 100 and 400 at least. It looks like that camera may actually rival the GF1 in IQ, or am I missing something?

    There is a true convenience/versatility factor to cameras like the LX5 and XZ1 in that when you are walking out the door and want to have a camera with you that is small, very versatile, and has a fast zoom lens, you can just grab one of these and go and be confident in being able to capture images with a 4x focal length range and pretty darn good IQ.

    With the m4/3, there is always the decision about which lens to mount on the camera to bring... And if you want a small, fast zoom for maximum versatility, m4/3 can't quite do that, yet anyway.
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  23. #23
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusxz1/page11.asp

    This comparison of RAW output from the XZ-1 to the LX5, S95, and GF-1 is very interesting... scrutinizing many areas of the sample image and comparing the output among the selected cameras would seem to indicate that the RAW output of the XZ-1 is easily crisper and sharper than the LX5 and S95, and at least as good, if not possibly even better than the GF-1. The Zuiko lens, no doubt, having much to do with this. This isn't the definitive comparison, of course, but the results have a reveal a significant finding... the XZ-1 RAW output may possibly rival the output of the GF-1... what do you think?
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    I don't really find myself wanting one. Like Tesselator I am more interested in a rugged camera than one that has great IQ. I have played with the panasonic offerings a bit, but even going this route I wasn't happy with the controls. I think I'd be happier with a Ricoh GRDII where the lens doesn't stick out.

    One think I do like is how they work with Oly/Panasonic flashes and other hot shoe accessories from the m4/3s cameras. Maybe to go with the GH2 or such but I don't see myself picking it over a GFx or EPLx.

    If I had to get one it would probably be the XZ-1. Art filters, faster lens, wireless flash support and better evf. A rugged pocketable camera would be first on my list though.
    Charles - flickr

  25. #25
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    I haven't looked at the Ricoh, but I will.

    IQ is still an important thing to me as there will be times when this is the only camera I will have on me and my interest is more in keeping IQ higher if possible than in ultra ruggedness... My lifestyle doesn't have as much need for ruggedness as it might for others.

    I'm still intrigued by the RAW output of the XZ-1 compared to the GF1... that was unexpected!

    The rumored Panny 12-50 f/2.5-3.3 on a GF2 would be an alternative, but the lens is likely to be largish. The XZ-1 still has my interest.
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  26. #26
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: Shutters

    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    Michael.. You're saying that the S90 is quiet and does not have a mechanical shutter? Sorry I was a bit confused by your a and b.
    A and B referred to the pasted paragraphs of your message.
    As with many compacts, through user-menu inputs the shutter can be set to emit a certain noise and at different volume levels or set to silent altogether - this is the case in the S90/95 and not the case with the m4/3 cameras.

  27. #27
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Shutters

    Quote Originally Posted by m3photo View Post
    A and B referred to the pasted paragraphs of your message.
    As with many compacts, through user-menu inputs the shutter can be set to emit a certain noise and at different volume levels or set to silent altogether - this is the case in the S90/95 and not the case with the m4/3 cameras.
    Michael... Thank you for elaborating. I understand now that the m4/3 cameras have the mechanical shutter in front of the sensor, so no control over the sound.

    Good to know that the S90/95 has an electronic shutter of some sort (or leaf shutter in the lens?) which is virtually silent.

    Do you know if the LX5 and XZ1 are the same way?
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,763
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    45

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Hi Don, my friend,

    Though it may not exactly meet your desired specs, the Fuji Finepix X100 might be an interesting alternative to consider. Fuji Film announced today that the X100 would become available in March, 2011.

    http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/02/07...ally-official/


  29. #29
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusxz1/page11.asp

    This comparison of RAW output from the XZ-1 to the LX5, S95, and GF-1 is very interesting... scrutinizing many areas of the sample image and comparing the output among the selected cameras would seem to indicate...
    I've found that DPR's noise samples are just about completely meaningless. They don't test for any of the factors that make a camera good or bad at noise handling.

    Almost any of the RAW samples from this year's compacts are going to look about the same in those tests. And one which may look worse in those tests may actually be MUCH better in real-world use.

    Why do you want RAW? If you're like me and most RAW shooters it's so you can squeeze every last drop of goodness from the files' dynamic range and because when we need to correct the exposure a stop or two we get better resulting highlights and shadows.

    Yet DPR doesn't show what a camera's files look like when doing that and I doubt they would be interested in ever doing so as it would require a lot of sample data and a lot of hand processing.

    The noise characteristics that makes the files from these little cameras more, or less, /processable/ varies widely from model to model and does not show up in DPR's samples. I haven't found any on-line resources that do show this. And peoples opinions are too varied and political to accredit any tangible meaning to. This leaves us in one of two positions as I see it. 1) we can't care about RAW from a P&S at all, or 2) assume all RAW capable P&Ss are good enough and move on to more meaningful specs - like zoom range, glass maker, lens design, pixel density, or whatever else we think is important.

    The real truth as I have discovered it, is that there's just no real or meaningful difference in terms of ISO noise from small sensor cameras. They're all about he same or "damn close" and completely indistinguishable after figuring out how to process for the one you end up with. The lens design is far far more important.

    Here's some ISO 800 shots after typical processing. These were taken on an 8-year old Konica/minolta A2. It has a very good APO zoom lens and so addressing noise removal is straight forward and uncomplicated by things like CA and etc. The A2's 800 ISO is probably worse than any of the cameras named in this thread so far - at their highest ISO setting.


    Even the camera's 64 ISO setting is noisy after applying tone-curve or slight exposure adjustments:


    Look at the sky areas.


    Check out his Jacket...

    With just typical processing that all of these P&S RAW images will require anyway, fairly good results can be achieved even from the worst ones:



    Minolta A2, 1/10s, f/8.0, ISO64, 180mm (Common name: Australian bottle plant, Physic nut, Buddha belly plant )
    And, no, actually, I did not increase the saturation. It's just really that pretty!




    Minolta A2, 1/50s, f/11.0, ISO64, 195mm


    More here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/897047

    For me personally I hope to never have to process RAW images from P&S cameras again. If I can't be satisfied with their jpegs (except on rare occasions) then toss-it, I'll just not have one. I have the GH1 and there are many other awesome cameras for the same price as these P&Ss (like the $250 Pentax K-x) if I'm all into IQ. That's not what a P&S is for (these days) IMO.

    Just another 2 from the peanut gallery.
    Last edited by Tesselator; 8th February 2011 at 02:45.

  30. #30
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Leica77.. thanks for that suggestion. The Fuji sure looks like an interesting camera even if it doesn't quite meet my purpose with this pursuit. It will probably produce some stunning images!

    Tesselator... thanks for the links... it's surprising to see what some good noise detergent (thanks, Jorgen!) can achieve.

    Seems like the XZ-1 is at its best used RAW instead of JPG, with some good noise detergent, especially if using ISO 400 and beyond is in the cards. The camera seems to provide slightly sharper, crisper images than the competition, but with a little more noise. If that noise cleans up reasonably well, the camera can probably produce some sparkling results. JPG only shooters may want to keep the ISO below 400 as the in-camera noise reduction is reportedly very heavy handed and causing smearing. With more of these in use and evaluation, no doubt we'll get more useful data.

    I'm not quite ready to plunk down money on my ZS3 replacement just yet, but at present I'm leaning toward the LX5 for it wider AOV (24mm vs. 28mm), brighter lens at zoom (vs. S95), excellent video features, and multi-aspect sensor. Shot RAW, with good processing, I'm sure the LX5 image results will be significantly nicer than what I've been getting from my present "casual purpose" camera, the ZS3, even if the size is a bit larger and the zoom range much shorter.
    Last edited by DHart; 8th February 2011 at 21:07.
    Don

    "Be kind, everyone you encounter is fighting battles you have no awareness of."

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Quote Originally Posted by Leica 77 View Post
    Hi Don, my friend,

    Though it may not exactly meet your desired specs, the Fuji Finepix X100 might be an interesting alternative to consider. Fuji Film announced today that the X100 would become available in March, 2011.

    http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/02/07...ally-official/

    The more I see this camera, the more I'd like one. Dang it!

  32. #32
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    I love the styling!

    It's bigger than the GF1 (which I like but most of you won't - probably).

    I'm not interested in actually buying one tho. It's a fixed lens/ORF system and it's too light in weight for me. I did like using the Nikon SP rangefinder (a year 2000 recreation) tho - so I guess I'm not completely opposed to overpriced RFs.

    If the Fuji had a similar RF system to Nikon's universal optical rangefinder (ORF) system which could accommodate various focal lengths (28mm, 35mm, 55mm, 85mm, 105mm and 135mm) RF-Nikkor lenses, and also interchangeable lenses, along with that Fuji overlay system then.. yeah... I'd think about getting one. With it's current spec and form-factror it's not worth the $1200 they're asking - IMO. Maybe $350?

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
    I love the styling!

    It's bigger than the GF1 (which I like but most of you won't - probably).

    I'm not interested in actually buying one tho. It's a fixed lens/ORF system and it's too light in weight for me. I did like using the Nikon SP rangefinder (a year 2000 recreation) tho - so I guess I'm not completely opposed to overpriced RFs.

    If the Fuji had a similar RF system to Nikon's universal optical rangefinder (ORF) system which could accommodate various focal lengths (28mm, 35mm, 55mm, 85mm, 105mm and 135mm) RF-Nikkor lenses, and also interchangeable lenses, along with that Fuji overlay system then.. yeah... I'd think about getting one. With it's current spec and form-factror it's not worth the $1200 they're asking - IMO. Maybe $350?
    Disagree.

    It's the right size for my hands, based on the photos. The GF1, nice as it works, is clumsy in my hands ... too small, not enough to grip.

    The Nikon SP rangefinder of 2000 was a re-creation with modern materials and lenses of the Nikon SP rangefinders which preceded the Nikon F. See http://imaging.nikon.com/products/im...y-sp/index.htm for details. Lovely things, I had one of the originals.

    But I'm happier shooting with the DSLR kit when I need the versatility of interchangeable lenses. What I'm looking for is a compact (not tiny) camera with a top notch, fast, wide-normal lens for a different kind of shooting aesthetic. And with very simple, easy to use controls. Because I have a complete FourThirds lens kit, the E-PL2 with its VF-2 accessory finder plus a couple of dedicated lenses is one option (with the ability to use any of my existing SLR lenses, it's a rational choice).

    However, such a purchase gets me yet again into the second system business ... a single lens, top notch performing camera like the X100 may provide the right constraint for my intent. Given what I'm seeing in the build quality and lens of this camera, I think $1200 is a very good price for what is certainly a niche product.

    Can't wait to see one in person. :-)

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

    @ Tesselator :

    I had one of the Konica Minolta A2s as well. It was about the best performing of that generation of 2/3" sensor cameras and had both great controls and features.


    2005 by Godfrey DiGiorgi
    Konica Minolta A2
    ISO 100 @ f/3.2 @ 1/60 sec, Program (FL=12mm, 47mm equivalent 135)
    Click on image above for larger rendering.


    However, when I purchased the Pentax *ist DS at the end of 2004, there was no going back to the A2 as the DS was just about the same size and far more capable.

  35. #35
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: Shutters

    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    Do you know if the LX5 and XZ1 are the same way?
    Not sure but I'd say they had a similar shutter as do most compacts.

  36. #36
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: KM A2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    @ Tesselator :

    I had one of the Konica Minolta A2s as well. It was about the best performing of that generation of 2/3" sensor cameras and had both great controls and features.
    Same here, I quite agree.

    Following link takes you to some A2 images. Lovely versatile camera.

    http://www.pbase.com/m3photo/caribbean&page=all

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •