Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Upgrading from Finepix Z1

D

dickinsonjon

Guest
This could be a really daft question, but here goes: I used to do a lot of photography with film-based SLRs, but they'd stayed in the cupboard for a long while - big, clunky etc. I got a Fuji Finepix Z1 a couple of years ago as a 'happy snap' holiday pic-type camera, and a few months ago my interest in photography was re-ignited when I started taking pictures more 'seriously', if you can put it like that. I've taken the time to learn everything I can achieve technically with this camera, and use GIMP to PP my images. I tire of the poor picture quality, and the obvious next step is to go straight to a DSLR such as a Nikon D40 or its contemporaries. However, I came across the Small Sensor Forum here and it seems to typify my photography very well in terms of what I like about the format, and the 'carry everywhere' nature of the smaller camera. I'm concerned that whilst a DSLR offers huge advances in technical image quality, it may still stay in the cupboard as it's not pocketable. So - I've been looking at the types of small sensor camera that would suit my needs, and have come down to the almost inevitable choice of Ricoh GX100, Panasonic LX2 or Canon G9. However, I'm concerned about whether these cameras will offer a significant upgrade in image quality over the Z1 I currently use. Sure, I've pored over many technical review sites and looked at 100% crops etc., but it's possible, very easy in fact, to get totally snow-blinded. I'm happy that these cameras offer the type of physical package and ergonomic handling that floats my boat, but I don't want to end up wishing I'd bought a DSLR; equally I don't want to go the DLSR route and end up with something that's great quality but doesn't get used much. I generally shoot landscape (rural and urban), a bit of street, and some social gatherings, almost exclusively available light, and prefer not to *have* to shoot RAW to get acceptable results up to 8x10 print sizes, except occasionally. Any advice?

Thanks
Jon

P.S. Here's an example of the sort of thing I shoot:
 
D

dickinsonjon

Guest
Fair question! Yes, I do - I've only dipped my toe into the water as regards RAW developing but I recognise the potential for it, so I certainly wouldn't want to exclude myself from being able to do so. However, what I was trying to articulate was that I'd like to have reasonable in-camera JPEG as I take a lot of photographs and can imagine doing RAW workflow on all of them would be a bit of a turn-off, as opposed to only when I feel it's necessary. Does that make sense?

Cheers
Jon
 
Robert Campbell

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
There are programs which will do batch processing of RAW files, if this makes it easier for you - I don't know if GIMP does. You can tune the batch to suit the situation.
 
Lili

Lili

New member
dickinsonjon in answer to your query, any of the three cameras you cite will produce better image quality than the Z1.
The folded options of the z are a compromise for compactness.
As to which is better, that in part is matter of persnal preference.
The G9 is larger and heavier that the GX100.
Some might like that though. It also has the fastest RAW wirte times of any small sensor camera.
The Ricoh user interface is wonderful and intuitive
It also permits a great deal of image control even at the jpeg level.
Sadly i am unfamilair with the panaleicas :(
 
Lisa

Lisa

New member
If RAW isn't an absolute necessity, also check into the Fujifilm F30/F40/F50/F100 line (whichever is the current model). They have a fantastic sensor, substantially less noise than most any other digicam I know of (see the review of the F30 or F50 at DPReview.com to confirm), and are small enough to fit in a pocket. The F100 is due out next month; I currently have the F30 and plan to upgrade. Other than a lack of RAW & histograms, I'm happy with everything about the F30. The Fujifilm marketing hype claims the F100 has much wider dynamic range than previous digicams, which, if true, eliminates about half the reason I would want RAW. I've made some very good 12"x18" prints from F30 photos.

What digicam is best depends on what's important to you. Things like the G9 will be more full-featured, but it's bigger and heavier than the F30/F100. I *believe* the F30/F100 is lower noise (but I'm not absolutely positive).

Just to tell you where I'm coming from, I normally use a Nikon D200, but have the digicam in my purse or car to have it handy for times when I unexpectedly see something to photograph, and for times when I don't want the bulk and weight of the D200.

Lisa
 
Lili

Lili

New member
Excellent suggestion Lisa, thats where I'd origianllly meant to go with my RAW question.
I had a F31fd and rather liked it except the the lack control over sharpness.
The same sensor is in my S6000fd superzoom with full ontrol and it is great.
If RAW is not needed a very good option, according one of my friends who has one, is the Nikon Coolpix 5100. Full image controls as well :)
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jon
From one Jon to another I guess.
First of all RAW - I think it's worth using one of the new DAM programs - either Lightroom or Aperture - if you do this you don't need to even think about RAW 'processing'. The program holds changes you make in a database, and the RAW original stays intact - in fact, there is no different to the process for RAW or jpg files (I've always found it difficult to have a 'mixed' workflow of raw and jpg).

As to the cameras - I don't have a G9, but I do have the previous model (my wife uses it) - I also have a GX-100 and a Leica D-lux3 (largely identical to the Panasonic). I prefer the controls on the GX100, but the Leica is a close second and it has the splendid 16:9 ratio; both were clearly designed to be easy to use . . . . for those who understand photography (which you clearly do). The macro is better on the Ricoh, but the long end of the lens is not as good as the Leica. The Ricoh has the splendid 'snap' (2.5 metre) and infinity fixed focus . . . but the leica shows the depth of field.

If you haven't already done so, then paying your (whatever it is) for Sean Reid's review site is worth every penny - it probably won't really help you to make your decision, except to make you sure that you want one of these cameras.

As for the comparison with the Z1 - I couldn't possibly comment (never having had one). But Lili is unquestionably badass, and therefor to even question anything she says would be:
unchivalrous
impolite
unwise
(some would say positively foolhardy)
:grin:

For my money? Get the Ricoh (just)
 
Maggie O

Maggie O

Active member
Man, the macro must be pretty darn impressive on the GX100, because the macro shots from my D-Lux 3 have blown me away.
 
Lili

Lili

New member
First of all RAW - I think it's worth using one of the new DAM programs - either Lightroom or Aperture - if you do this you don't need to even think about RAW 'processing'. The program holds changes you make in a database, and the RAW original stays intact - in fact, there is no different to the process for RAW or jpg files (I've always found it difficult to have a 'mixed' workflow of raw and jpg).

Hmmmm interesting, one reason I avoid RAW is because I hate the mess. Tell me more :) So these can do both?

As to the cameras - I don't have a G9, but I do have the previous model (my wife uses it) - I also have a GX-100 and a Leica D-lux3 (largely identical to the Panasonic). I prefer the controls on the GX100, but the Leica is a close second and it has the splendid 16:9 ratio; both were clearly designed to be easy to use . . . . for those who understand photography (which you clearly do). The macro is better on the Ricoh, but the long end of the lens is not as good as the Leica. The Ricoh has the splendid 'snap' (2.5 metre) and infinity fixed focus . . . but the leica shows the depth of field.

I have played with the G9, it is far too massive for me, butotherwise nice. I ADORE the Ricohs and defer to your judgement on the Leica ;)

If you haven't already done so, then paying your (whatever it is) for Sean Reid's review site is worth every penny - it probably won't really help you to make your decision, except to make you sure that you want one of these cameras.

Ditto!

As for the comparison with the Z1 - I couldn't possibly comment (never having had one). But Lili is unquestionably badass, and therefor to even question anything she says would be:
unchivalrous
impolite
unwise
(some would say positively foolhardy)
:grin:

LOL, Badass am I!?!?!?!?

For my money? Get the Ricoh (just)

ROFL
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Lili said:
Hmmmm interesting, one reason I avoid RAW is because I hate the mess. Tell me more :) So these can do both?
Click to expand...


Yes - you don't need to save anything as anything else:
Link to the files in the program (they call it import, but it's better to leave the file structure as it is).
make your modifications - print / create web pages, whatever
the changes you made are saved in a database, so you only ever need the original of the file (and a backup of the library of course).
Clear as mud?
 
Lili

Lili

New member
jonoslack said:
Yes - you don't need to save anything as anything else:
Link to the files in the program (they call it import, but it's better to leave the file structure as it is).
make your modifications - print / create web pages, whatever
the changes you made are saved in a database, so you only ever need the original of the file (and a backup of the library of course).
Clear as mud?
Click to expand...
Interesting, I will look into it
 
nostatic

nostatic

New member
the only downside to using raw with aperture and my dlux3 is that the import of the raw files is painfully slow (direct from the camera). It is a lot quicker if I use a card reader.

But after that, as Jono said, there isn't much of a difference in workflow. With raw you have a few different "adjustment" sliders/options but everything else is transparent.
 
Lili

Lili

New member
nostatic said:
the only downside to using raw with aperture and my dlux3 is that the import of the raw files is painfully slow (direct from the camera). It is a lot quicker if I use a card reader.

But after that, as Jono said, there isn't much of a difference in workflow. With raw you have a few different "adjustment" sliders/options but everything else is transparent.
Click to expand...
You tempt me :)

Edit, I use XP Pro, I cannot easily find anything saying if Aperture works there. Does it?
 
Last edited:
Robert Campbell

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Lili said:
You tempt me :)

Edit, I use XP Pro, I cannot easily find anything saying if Aperture works there. Does it?
Click to expand...
She tempts everyone!

Surely Aperture is Mac only?
Importing from a card reader always is much quicker than by direct connection - this isn't really worth it.
But I would suggest downloading from a card reader to a file, then importing - you keep control.
 
D

dickinsonjon

Guest
Thanks for the suggestions folks - I handled a G9 the other week in a shop, and was very happy with the size and weight - I have pretty big hands (you know what they say - big hands - bass player... ho ho) which is one reason the G9 might get the upper hand. I haven't handled the other two yet though, hoping to check them out later this week if I can get away from work.

Love the control layout of the Ricoh, and the 24mm. Liking the 16:9 of the Pan/Leica. A bit wary of all the new fangled 'pet detection' and 'auto mirrorball' type features on the Canon.

I suspect it's down to a handling test to be honest, they all cost roundabout the same, give or take a couple of rounds and a curry, and I see plenty of nice looking images from all three cameras.

Have looked at Aperture et al, they do look rather interesting. Aperture is Mac only btw, :-( however I believe Lightroom and LightZone are both cross-platform. Having checked out both of them this evening, I have to say I rather like the look of the way LightZone works, especially for B&W processing. I'll be downloading the demo for a little try-out when I get enough time.

See - great educational fun - and I'm still none the wiser :)

Cheers
Jon

P.S. Here's another Z1 shot I just about got away with:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top