# Digital compact zooms w/full manual control



## Jangla (Aug 30, 2005)

I'm going to be in the market for a new camera soon (redundancy payout - woo hoo!) and while I know what I would buy if I had a very limited budget, I've no idea what's good if I had more to spend.

I'm looking for something with:
Full manual control (or as close as possible)
Zoom - 3x optical minimum
Good selection of auto shooting modes
Good quality lens
Very low shutter lag - pretty important as it will be used to take action shots

Adside from the major wants above, it would be nice to have good battery life, robust construction and at least 5 mega-pixels.

So what's out there?  So far I'm leaning towards either the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P200 (excellent features all round) or the Ricoh Caplio GX8 (with the quickest start up and shutter release times avilable) but would be interested to hear other's opinions.


----------



## tom k&e (Aug 30, 2005)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp will let you compare cameras on various features, but you'll have to check the reviews to find out about lens quality and speed.

The canon s2 is seems to more or less fit the bill, but then I'm a canon fanboy

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/


----------



## Jangla (Aug 30, 2005)

tom k&e said:
			
		

> The canon s2 is seems to more or less fit the bill, but then I'm a canon fanboy
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/


Nice camera but it's too big and too heavy.  Not really looking for one of the SLR shape cameras unless it's considerably smaller.


----------



## Firky (Aug 30, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> Nice camera but it's too big and too heavy.  Not really looking for one of the SLR shape cameras unless it's considerably smaller.



You'll be lucky to get a full manual digital, that can do everything you want, and still be credit card sized.


----------



## tom k&e (Aug 30, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> Nice camera but it's too big and too heavy.  Not really looking for one of the SLR shape cameras unless it's considerably smaller.



Ok, dpr suggests...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinions.asp?prodkey=pentax_optiosvi

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinions.asp?prodkey=ricoh_caplior2


----------



## Jangla (Aug 30, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> You'll be lucky to get a full manual digital, that can do everything you want, and still be credit card sized.


I know that - the two I posted earlier have an excellent level of manual control and, whilst not being 'credit card sized' (which I never said was a priority, I just don't want something as big as an SLR) are 'compact'.

I just wanted some other options.

tom k&e - thanks.  Really like the look of the Pentax - hadn't considered them before.  Again, the Ricoh's look excellent too.


----------



## Jangla (Aug 31, 2005)

OK - had a bit of re-think; my girlfriend has already got a compact which I can use whenever so 'prosumers' are back on the consideration list


----------



## Jangla (Sep 1, 2005)

All the photographers on here and only one person can make a single recommendation?!


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> All the photographers on here and only one person can make a single recommendation?!


What's your budget?
The Sony V3 is an excellent camera, but perhaps to large for your tastes.

The Sony W7 ain't bad either:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscw7/

If you're after a small camera with image stabilisation, take a look at the Panasonic Lumix FX9
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfx9/ or if you're budget's big enough, thhis one looks nice: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072003panasonic_lx1.asp

There's also some great compact and reasonably priced Pentax and Canon cameras too.


----------



## Alf Klein (Sep 1, 2005)

I have an Olympus c5050 z. It has an f1.8 lens. Also lots of features and fully manual.  However not made any more. Cheep second hand I should think. Oh yes, the screen flips up so you can shoot nicely from waist level


----------



## girasol (Sep 1, 2005)

This is the one I have, it's a bit larger than your average small camera, but it seems to have what you are looking for (and macro too):

Fuji FinePix E550

It has a great battery life, by the way, comes with its own battery + charger...


----------



## Jangla (Sep 1, 2005)

That's more like it!!!!   

Really like the Lumix series - been looking at some of them with interest.
Also like the FinePix E550

Ed - I guess my budget is around 400 quid to leave some cash for a massive memory card.

Ok, another question;
Manufacturers and general funtionality aside, what things should I be looking for or avoiding to ensure I get a good lens and a good quality sensor, for example?  Generic stuff that, to the trained eye, can quickly seperate the wheat from the chaff?


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 7, 2005)

If you want small, then I can recommend the casio EX Z750 - has 3x optical, full manual controls, very good movie mode, very good user interface. I got it as a carry-around-everywhere supplement to my d70 after reading the review here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/casio/exz750.htm 

Despite the full manual it's still a long way away from being a dSLR of course, but for something that fits in your pocket it's pretty good ...

Oh, and I'm new here. Hello.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2005)

Hi Jonathon - welcome to the boards

That author of that site certainly raves about the Casio - so much so that I'm going to investigate the thing for myself (I've recently sold quite a few photos so feel ready to spoil myself!)

Shame that zoom doesn't work in video mode and there's no image stablisation like in Panasonic diminutive FX9, but I guess you can't have it all !

There's other reviews of the Casio here: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/casio/exilim_z750-review/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioz750/


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2005)

This guy hates the Casio!
http://www.cameras.co.uk/details/casio-exilim-ex-z750.cfm


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 7, 2005)

Hmm, well, can't say I've noticed any focussing problems. One thing I will say is that the LCD on the back, though huge, does tend to make everything look a bit fuzzy as it's not particularly hi-res, but once you download and look on the computer it's all fine.

Don't think any allow you to use the optical zoom while making movies, if they did the sound would be horrible, from the zoom motor ..

Jonathan


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2005)

JonathanS2 said:
			
		

> Don't think any allow you to use the optical zoom while making movies, if they did the sound would be horrible, from the zoom motor ..


My old Sony F717 (excellent camera that) let me zoom away to my heart's content when videoing - and the new Samsung camera  does the same too, although it is quite a rare feature.

I think I will check out the Casio though...


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 7, 2005)

Sony F717 *swoon* - rarely lets me down. Highly recommended


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2005)

Yep, the F717 was a great camera - it was only the great silvery bulk and my need to take live action shots that forced me into replacing it with a Nikon dSLR.

It was one of the all-time great digital compacts in my book.


----------



## Jangla (Sep 8, 2005)

Really starting to like the look of the Casio's.  Trouble is I made the mistake of going to their web site and now I'm confused at the array of very similar cameras they seem to have.  The Z120 for example, looks like it has the exact same spec as the Z750 (although it seems to have DSP on the 120).


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2005)

Sony have just announced an amazing new camera (see other thread) so I suggest holding back for a short while to see what other goodies they might have up their sleeves!


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 8, 2005)

My understanding with the new casios just launched is that they are the same spec fundamentally, the differences are a smaller LCD screen, and the use of standard AA batteries rather than the custom rechargeable lithium type thing. So they'll be a bit bigger, a bit heavier, probably worse battery life, and a smaller screen, but will cost less.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2005)

I tried the Casio Z750 out today and was very impressed - huge LCD screen, fast focus and the quickest shot to shot recycling time of all the similar compacts I tried in the shop.


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2005)

Ooh! Look at this beauty!












8.4-Megapixel CCD, high resolution 2.5-inch LCD, 16:9 sensor aspect ratio, wide angle 28mm to 112mm zoom, image stabiliser, manual focus, AF/AE Lock Button, Composition Guide Lines (I like them) and, of course, a Leica lens.

Tempted? You betcha!

http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/lx1/


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 16, 2005)

Looks nice, except I'm not sure about the sensor aspect ratio. Apart from anything would make buying frames for prints somewhat tricky, given that as far as I know it's not a standard frame size at all, just a standard tv size. You can always crop of course. Plus the movie mode is old fashioned motion jpeg rather than mpeg-4 ...

Oh, and.. no optical viewfinder? There are times, when it's too dark or too sunny  to see the lcd properly, when having the backup of an optical viewfinder comes in handy.


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2005)

Check out their anti shake demo here: http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/lx1/index.html
VERY impressive!

I'm not bothered by print size, but if that anti shake gizmo works as advertised, they've just got themselves a customer (I do a lot low light hand-held stuff and small cameras are notoriously hard to keep steady).


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 16, 2005)

Looks like it's a proper mechanical anti-shake rather than one of the silly 'call it anti-shake but actually just boosting the iso up and restricting shutter speed' things some cameras have too.


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2005)

Have you watched the video demo on their site? Wow!


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 16, 2005)

Yep, though they could do with switching voice-over artist if you ask me! If it had mpeg-4 I might have regretted getting the casio  What's the cost? I'm guessing not cheap.


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2005)

JonathanS2 said:
			
		

> Yep, though they could do with switching voice-over artist if you ask me! If it had mpeg-4 I might have regretted getting the casio  What's the cost? I'm guessing not cheap.


I'm not bothered that much by the video format, but 848 x 480 pixels/30fps sure sounds impressive - it'll look great on a widescreen TV!

The manual focus joystick look to be something of an innovation too - normally trying to manually focus on a compact is an horrendous task.

It looks like it's going to cost something like £380 - a fair bit more than the Casio, but if it's as good as is sounds - especially the image stabilisation - I might be interested (I just sold another pic today so I'm tempted!)


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 16, 2005)

Well, the video format is just an issue of how much video you can fit on a memory card. With mpeg-4, you can get 30 minutes of 640-480 30fps video on a 1gig card, which is really very nice indeed. But if you're not planning on using the camera as a substitute digi-cam then probably not such an issue for you no. £380 is quite reasonable, I was expecting it to be more than that. 

Much as I like the casio, it can't compete with mechanical gyroscope-driven image stabilisation. I do wonder how robust the mechanism is though, it's a whole new set of moving bits and pieces to potentially break.

Congrats on the sale. I occasionally wonder how you go about selling photos like that, then I remember I'm not nearly good enough to even begin to think about it


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2005)

I just saw the Lumix LX1 in a shop window and it looked fucking ace!

It was in one of the dodgy Oxford Street 'stack 'em high' shops, so I wasn't going to buy it from them, but if it handles half way as good as it looks, I deffo want one!


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2005)

Arrgh! How frustrating! DRReview's just reviewed the LX1 and the noise is awful.
They rave about the camera's features, handling and speed, but you can;t get away from the horrendous noise at anything over 80 ISO.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/

I'm still tempted tho' - the image stablisation should get rid of the need for high ISOs in most cases....


----------



## tom k&e (Oct 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Arrgh! How frustrating! DRReview's just reviewed the LX1 and the noise is awful.
> They rave about the camera's features, handling and speed, but you can;t get away from the horrendous noise at anything over 80 ISO.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/
> ...



IS normaly olnly gives 2 stops, so that's the equivalent of 320 ISO, ie fairly limiting. Plus of course IS does nothing for subject movement.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2005)

tom k&e said:
			
		

> IS normaly olnly gives 2 stops, so that's the equivalent of 320 ISO, ie fairly limiting. Plus of course IS does nothing for subject movement.


For sure. But it might help you get shots you might otherwise miss.


----------



## duvel (Oct 1, 2005)

I've got the Canon S70 which (sort of) fits into your category. This camera is now 14 months old and will be replaced by the S80, so you may get it for a decent price. Anyway, i love my S70. It great manual control (too), the ability to capture images in RAW...both night and day shots (for me) have been fantastic.


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2005)

Had a play with the LX1 yesterday in a shop. It was fast as fuck to start up and shoot and felt lovely in the hand. Think I'll wait to see what the other reviews say about the noise issues.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2005)

Hmmm... STILL undecided... I was all set for the LX1 - but the noise issues are _really_ putting me off.

So I started to look at the Casio 750 again but found a lot of people complaining about quality issues, duff cameras and returns.

But now, out of the blue has come a third contender, the Fujifilm FinePix F11 Zoom.







Sure, it's not much of a looker, but the low light/high ISO performance is amazing - check out the 800/1600 ISO noise charts on its sister F10 camera  - amazing!

(and then gaze in horror at the same tests on the LX1)


----------



## JonathanS2 (Oct 12, 2005)

For what it's worth, I've still had no problems with my ex z750 
The iso400 test images on the LX1 are.. pretty bad, you're right.

Only thing I can see against the F11 is the lack of mpeg4 for movies. Also,
it seems odd to have shutter and aperture priority modes, but not a fully
manual mode, not that this is a big deal given the how little control you get
over aperture on a digital compact anyway.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2005)

JonathanS2 said:
			
		

> Only thing I can see against the F11 is the lack of mpeg4 for movies.


I'm not that bothered by video, but did you see the low light stills performance of the  F11 ?

Pretty fucking amazing for a compact!
Shame the camera looks rubbish, but seeing as I do a lot of low light photography, this camera's nudging to the top of my shortlist.

For now, anyway


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2005)

Well, the bad news is that the Fujifilm F11 doesn't come out until November and I need a camera very soon - but the good news is that Sony's DSC-P200 has just had a rave review on DPReview, earning a rare Highly Recommended rating!
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscp200/

So I reckon I'll have to stick that near the top of my shortlist and see if I can have a play on one soon.

Incidentally, I've cheekily written to Fujifilm and asked for a review F11 camera, but I won't be holding my breath for a reply!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 13, 2005)

Two new cameras on their way (next month - perhaps to late) that may be worth considering are;

Samsung Pro815 with a huge x15 Schneider lens.

Leica D Lux2 with shooting formats of 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3.

Then there is that very nice Sony DCS-R1 on it's way also. Great time to be thinking about a new digital. Huge choice. Frustratingly just around the corner though.

A 500 - 600 pound budget offers the world of choice.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2005)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Leica D Lux2 with shooting formats of 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3.


Yes, but that's just a rebadged LX1, innit?

And I'm looking for a pocket sized snapper to accompany my Nikin D70 and Sony V1 - the Sony R1 and Samsung Pro are immense beasts!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 13, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Yes, but that's just a rebadged LX1, innit?
> 
> And I'm looking for a pocket sized snapper to accompany my Nikin D70 and Sony V1 - the Sony R1 and Samsung Pro are immense beasts!



Fair enough. Didn't fully read the thread. Fuji would be my favourite also in that case.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2005)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Fair enough. Didn't fully read the thread. Fuji would be my favourite also in that case.


Here's the rub: the version with manual controls (F11) won't be available for a "couple of months" according to a Fuji press officer) and I desperately need to get a new compact camera (my old Sony F77 -with over 6,000 photos on the clock) is starting to show its age with its slower focussing meaning I'm starting to miss photos.

So do I go for the all-auto point'n'shoot F10 and hope for the best, or lose the high ISO performance and go for more flexible cameras like the Casio/Sony?

Hmmmm....


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 23, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Yes, but that's just a rebadged LX1, innit? <snip>


 It's possible that the Lecia might have different software though? So maybe it'll fix those noise issues? Given that all the reviews on the LX1 say "superb camera, but deeply flawed due to excess noise" that'd be a logical move ... 

I'm waiting for a review to come out ...


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> It's possible that the Lecia might have different software though? So maybe it'll fix those noise issues? Given that all the reviews on the LX1 say "superb camera, but deeply flawed due to excess noise" that'd be a logical move ...


Reading up on several camera BB's suggest that it's unlikely that Leica's software will be much different, if at all.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 23, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Reading up on several camera BB's suggest that it's unlikely that Leica's software will be much different, if at all.


 Bugger. The Sony compact looks tasty, but I want to use the same cards as I use for my Olympus, not those weird Sony stick things. I'm in the market for much the same thing as you though by the sound of it. I'll be interested to see what you end up with.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2005)

Some bloke's bunged up some example LX1 shots here:
http://www.pbase.com/cokids/lumix_lx1

The ISO80 shots look wonderful, but the noise is 'orrible at 400 ISO.

Mind you, someone's who bought the LX1 has compared it to his Olympus XA and that makes me want to buy the bloody Lumix now - the XA was a truly wonderful camera!


----------



## salaryman (Oct 28, 2005)

Ed, have you come to a conclusion yet?


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> Ed, have you come to a conclusion yet?


I'm waiting to be sent a review copy of the Fujifilm F10. If it performs as well in low light as the reports suggest, I think that'll be the one for me (or rather the version with manual controls, the F11, coming out later this month).

I'll post up some pics from the F10 as soon as I get it!


----------



## salaryman (Oct 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm waiting to be sent a review copy of the Fujifilm F10. If it performs as well in low light as the reports suggest, I think that'll be the one for me (or rather the version with manual controls, the F11, coming out later this month).
> 
> I'll post up some pics from the F10 as soon as I get it!



excellent news, most exciting!   

if it's a glowing review then, when it finally makes and appearance, the F11 will be mine


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2005)

And just when my made is firmly made up on the Fujifilm F11, I read this in the excellent Luminous Landscape website!

The article describes a pro photographer's trip to China (he also took two Canon dSLR bodies)...



> The Panasonic LX1
> 
> This new pocket digicam came my way just about a week before this trip, and it lived in my vest pocket all of the time. It is the first true 16:9 format digital camera, and has 8MP resolution and an excellent LCD, and Leica lens. It is also the smallest digicam currently available that shoots in RAW mode. I will have a more comprehensive report on this little jewel in the days ahead.
> 
> ...


----------



## salaryman (Oct 31, 2005)

Gah!  Having to post-process the majority of pictures you take with some proprietary noise-reducing software would be a major ballache, would it not?  It just feels wrong.

That wide angle lens is very appealing though it has to be said...


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> That wide angle lens is very appealing though it has to be said...


And the manual controls... and the Leica lens....and the lovely look of the thing... and the Image Stabilisation... aaarrgh! my head hurts!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> And the manual controls... and the Leica lens....and the lovely look of the thing... and the Image Stabilisation... aaarrgh! my head hurts!


 I had a play with one in a shop. It's very nice and very slick to operate, but maybe a litte bit too small to feel natural in my (fairly large) hands. I'm probably just too used to my chunky Olympus though, and this is (at least in theory) supposed to be for the wife. 

Interesting point being made about zapping noise in software though, she's a Photoshop Goddess, so I'm guessing that wouldn't bother her all that much.


----------



## salaryman (Oct 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> And the manual controls... and the Leica lens....and the lovely look of the thing... and the Image Stabilisation... aaarrgh! my head hurts!


    if you're comfortable with the noise-reduction software then it sounds like the ideal camera.  and all ISO 100 or less shots should be noise-less anyway.  

on a tangent, if you load a JPEG, zap it with noise-reduction software and then re-save it as a JPEG, what compression should you use?  i've always got confused by this, since i don't know how it was compressed (on a photoshop scale of 1-12) by the camera in the first place.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> on a tangent, if you load a JPEG, zap it with noise-reduction software and then re-save it as a JPEG, what compression should you use?  i've always got confused by this, since i don't know how it was compressed (on a photoshop scale of 1-12) by the camera in the first place.


If the original image was a JPEG, you should save the image in a lossless format like TIFF otherwise you'll be losing detail.

if you're publishing a copy for the web, then it's a judgement call of image quality vs file size vs nickability.

I usually save images for the website at the default  'medium' compression from Photoshop (using "save for web"), although I will tweak the compression rate if needed.


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2005)

The fujifilm finePix f11 is used by a couple of NME photographers I hear, as it is small and discreat. Takes excellent photos with out the need to fath around in the depths of a mosh pit with nobs and dials!

http://fujifilm.jp/personal/digitalcamera/finepixf11/portfolio.html


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2005)

Don't have a clue what it says, but I always check out www.google.jp for Japanese only galleries, seems to pull up more stuff than .co.uk on Japanese cameras


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 31, 2005)

I am toying with the idea of getting an LX1.  It looks like and has the features of a 'proper' camera.  I could use the wide angle lens and panorama setting in vertical mode for architecture.  I can't find out if it takes filters. I really miss using a polariser since getting caught up in digital photography.  Depth of field preview is another thing I miss.

The noise problem at higher ISO settings is a bit of a concern because I do some low light work but I am practised at using slower than recommended shutter speeds by bracing myself against things.  The Image Stabilisation feature would help out there as well.  I don't mind if the subject moves if it is a musician or something because it adds to the atmosphere.

Hocus


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> And the manual controls... and the Leica lens....and the lovely look of the thing... and the Image Stabilisation... aaarrgh! my head hurts!


 Have you thought about doing some experiments with whatever noise reduction s/w you like using the samples from dpreview?

Say that really messy one from inside a church taken at ISO 400?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2005)

Got the Fujifilm F10 for testing today.

First impressions are that it's not going to win any beauty competitions, with its clunky lines making it look like a £100 point and shoot.

It's small(ish) size is a bit of a con too because if you want to charge the battery you have to first plug in a 1.5" x 2" adapter and then this plugs in to the power block which then has a lead to the mains plug - so that's two extra bits to lug about/lose. Not impressed.

But what did impress what it's low light performance - at 800 ISO the image quality is easily as good as my Sony compact at 200 ISO - it's that good!

Focussing in the dim light of a restaurant was a tad hit and miss - even more so after I turned off the dazzling green kryptonite-like prefocus beam that bursts out of the camera before an exposure.

The camera was fairly nippy but I really missed the lack of manual controls and the lack of external controls meant I had to keep fiddling about in the menu system.

But I've only had the camera a few hours, so I'm going to test it a bit more tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the Lumix LX1 has just got a glowing review from a 'field trip' with the experienced photographer concluding:


> I really like the Panasonic LX-1. To have a shirt-pocket-sized camera with a high quality Leica lens, optical image stabilization, wide-aspect ratio 8.4MP chip, and decent manual handling, is a pleasure. Anyone coming from a DSLR will find that the shooting is slower, and the need to use the LCD for composition and focusing less then ideal (though typical of digicams). But then there aren't that many DSLRs with 4:1 zoom lenses that will fit in a shirt pocket, so the argument is moot.
> 
> If you're looking for a serious camera of this size, that requires you to expend some additional effort in post processing, yet rewards with portfolio grade image quality, the Panasonic LX-1 will not disappoint.
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx1.shtml


So now I'm all confused again!


----------



## Firky (Nov 2, 2005)

For 'testing'? HOw did you wangle that dressed in a scuffy tshirt with a snake down the back? 

The menu system is probably because you're just not used to it like you say, but it could prove to be useful in the dark - a problem I have with my D50 is that I sometimes have to thumble around with a torch in my mouth.

Any chance you could stick up a pic straight off the camera?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> The menu system is probably because you're just not used to it like you say, but it could prove to be useful in the dark - a problem I have with my D50 is that I sometimes have to thumble around with a torch in my mouth.
> 
> Any chance you could stick up a pic straight off the camera?


The file sizes are too big for that but I've just taken this out of my window, cropped the image down a bit (but not resized) and saved it out at 50% compression in photoshop.

Remember that you're never going to view images at 100% close-up in real life, so zoom out a bit and tell me what ISO you think it looks like!

www.urban75.org/temp/fujifilm-sample.jpg (240k)


----------



## Firky (Nov 3, 2005)

800?


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> 800?


I think I kinda gave that away with my earlier post, but yep, that's 800 ISO - and the quality's near-dSLR!


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Two other irritations with the camera:
The zoom is noisy and there's no manual focus...


----------



## Firky (Nov 3, 2005)

Yes you did lol!

I haven't come across a compact with manual focus, which is a right pain in the arse when you're shooting in the pitch black - but you can see what you're shooting.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I haven't come across a compact with manual focus,


The LX1 has manual focus!


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Interesting LX1 vs F10 comparison here:

Looking close here
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/page6.asp

..but then....aaaaiee!
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/page7.asp


----------



## blackadder (Nov 3, 2005)

What does 'noise' mean in photography terms? Also, what compact would be a good buy for £100?


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> What does 'noise' mean in photography terms? Also, what compact would be a good buy for £100?


Noise is unwanted digital artefacts in yer pix - the less light in your scene, the more noise you (usually) get.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Noise_01.htm

You're not going to get a great camera for £100, but I think there's already a thread about that in thus forum somewhere


----------



## Firky (Nov 3, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> What does 'noise' mean in photography terms? Also, what compact would be a good buy for £100?



fuzzy like a tv not quite in tune


----------



## Jangla (Nov 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> www.urban75.org/temp/fujifilm-sample.jpg (240k)


Er, is that a good idea Ed?  posting a photo from outside your window makes it pretty easy to work out your address


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> Er, is that a good idea Ed?  posting a photo from outside your window makes it pretty easy to work out your address


Only if you know the area inside out and can get on the roof to calculate the flat number.
Plus, I live in a a Fort Knox type block with videos on every floor (and the lift) and a concierge.


----------



## Jangla (Nov 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Only if you know the area inside out and can get on the roof to calculate the flat number.
> Plus, I live in a a Fort Knox type block with videos on every floor (and the lift) and a concierge.


Fair enough (although I've worked out the street and the number range and I don't even live in London).

Also, the F10 was on the gadget show last night and didn't look great.  Massive red eye and poor results generally - got spanked by a much cheaper Kodak.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> Also, the F10 was on the gadget show last night and didn't look great.  Massive red eye and poor results generally - got spanked by a much cheaper Kodak.


To be honest, I can;t say I'm to troubled by the verdicts of the Gadget Show.

Did they check the low light performances of the camera?


----------



## Jangla (Nov 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> To be honest, I can;t say I'm to troubled by the verdicts of the Gadget Show.
> 
> Did they check the low light performances of the camera?


I thought that too and while their tests were pretty simple, the info they were giving out on what to look for in a good digi was actually pretty spot on.

Of course their road test was pretty limited as they looked at 3 cameras in completely different areas of the market - a top end DSLR, the F10 and a 130 quid Kodak.  They only really looked at basic point and shoot shots.  One portrait shot and one wide angle shot with a complex background.

The DSLR was, naturally, superb.  The other two were much more surprising though.  The Kodak trounced the F10 for red eye reduction.  Both had some issues with the wide angle shot.  They both made the background slightly more crisp than the foreground - the Kodak had the upper hand again.  The big surprise with the Kodak was not just the price difference - it had 2Mpx less than the F10   

They took the time to show off some new 22Mpx camera too - very nice.  Blew up a shot to the size of a very, very big house to compare it to film.

Of course it would have been nice if they could have compared the cameras we're discussing here head to head but they had a bunch of automated hoovers to try out instead


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> The DSLR was, naturally, superb.  The other two were much more surprising though.  The Kodak trounced the F10 for red eye reduction.  Both had some issues with the wide angle shot.  They both made the background slightly more crisp than the foreground - the Kodak had the upper hand again.


Seeing as red-eye can be removed at the click of a mouse, I'm more interested in the speed of the camera's start up, the quality of the optics, the ergonomics, the manual controls and the quality of the images at a wide range of ISO speeds.

If anyone's serious about buying a camera, I'd strongly recommend reading sites like http://www.dpreview.com/ rather than following the advice of the Gadget Show.

What was the Kodak camera that they thought was better than the F10, btw?


----------



## Jangla (Nov 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Seeing as red-eye can be removed at the click of a mouse, I'm more interested in the speed of the camera's start up, the quality of the optics, the ergonomics, the manual controls and the quality of the images at a wide range of ISO speeds.
> 
> If anyone's serious about buying a camera, I'd strongly recommend reading sites like http://www.dpreview.com/ rather than following the advice of the Gadget Show.
> 
> What was the Kodak camera that they thought was better than the F10, btw?


Yes, yes, yes, all stuff they went into when discussing what to look for in a good camera but as I said, they couldn't test every camera on the market and so took a stab at a high end, a mid range compact and a budget compact.  You seem to think I'm taking the show as the gospel of cameras - all I'm saying is they had the F10 on there and it didn't perform well in the tests they performed.  As it was mentioned on this thread it would seem sensible to add it to the data that's already here so people can make a more informed choice.  I've stated the tests they did and while being far from comprehensive, they give a good idea of what the F10 is like in general point and shoot conditions.

Can't remember the Kodak camera model but I've had a look at their site and I'm pretty sure it's the easy share C330.

I agree - dpreview is a great site.  Just thought more info would be helpful.  Sorry, won't bother next time


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> Just thought more info would be helpful.  Sorry, won't bother next time


There's no point getting stroppy!  This is a thread where people have been carefully weighing up the pros and cons of selected cameras and so it's entirely reasonable to robustly question claims that a far cheaper camera is "better" than one of the current front runners here - especially when the source is somewhat less of an authoritive one.


----------



## Jangla (Nov 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> There's no point getting stroppy!  This is a thread where people have been carefully weighing up the pros and cons of selected cameras and so it's entirely reasonable to robustly question claims that a far cheaper camera is "better" than one of the current front runners here - especially when the source is somewhat less of an authoritive one.


Sorry - that wasn't mean to come across stroppy   

btw, the issue with the Lumix and the noise - will this be a problem in most "normal" conditions?  Is it only going to be noticeable under extreme conditions?  initially it worried me but the camera is growing on me and the image stabilisation is very attractive - especially after seeing my latest photo's from the Eden Project.  Got some really nasty camera shake when using my gf olympus camedia in macro mode.  Some shots came out quite nicely  though


----------



## salaryman (Nov 3, 2005)

Ed, I think you need to bother Panasonic for a 'review' camera.  I'm sure they'd be more than happy to oblige for a bit of urban75 coverage.

Looking objectively at this thread, I don't think the Fuji F10 is for you.  Perhaps the F11 will deliver when it's released (more manual controls), but it doesn't sound like the greatest camera other than the bonus of low light performance.  Given that most pics won't be at night, I'd forget about it for now.

Whilst top high-ISO performance is nice, as a keen viewer of your photography galleries, I don't think you need it - you have hundreds of fabulous night shots taken with cameras with much more inferior night capability.  

At the end of the day, if you have to buy the Panasonic only to find out the noise problems are unbearable, you can always try sending it back or, in the worst case, flog it for a decent price on eBay.  It's a win-win situation!


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> btw, the issue with the Lumix and the noise - will this be a problem in most "normal" conditions?


It's still a bit noisier than some cameras at 80ISO, but you'll be benefitting from the fabulous lens and wonderful usability.

And there's the rub: you can get sharp low light images with the F10 because of its superb high ISO performance, or you can rely on the image stabilisation abiities of the LX1 and shoot at ISO80 (but have no chance of freezing movement).


----------



## salaryman (Nov 3, 2005)

*thinks*

I wonder when the LX2 is out


----------



## Jangla (Nov 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It's still a bit noisier than some cameras at 80ISO, but you'll be benefitting from the fabulous lens and wonderful usability.
> 
> And there's the rub: you can get sharp low light images with the F10 because of its superb high ISO performance, or you can rely on the image stabilisation abiities of the LX1 and shoot at ISO80 (but have no chance of freezing movement).


Sounds like the Lumix will be more my bag then - aside from general camera use (family shots, holiday snaps etc.) it'll be used outdoors for taking action shots.  Hence my need for fast start up, fast shutter speeds and very low shutter lag - high speed multiple exposure would be a massive bonus (the F10 only takes one shot every second or so and the Lumix does twice that in full res).


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 3, 2005)

The Lumix LX1 looks very tempting.  I checked out the Ricoh Caplio 2 which has some similarities in that it has a 28mm (equiv) wide angle zoom and also has a fast startup and re-shoot but reviews I read condemned the picture quality as poor.

The Lumix seems to be a serious piece of kit aimed at photographers who have used 'real' film cameras and want lots of manual control (people like me).  The noise problem might not put me off in view of the attention to detail in design. 

There is one simple feature present that I have wanted to see in a digital camera and that is a simple composition grid in the viewfinder.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




This would be very useful for lining up verticals or horizontals in architecture photography. I am seriously interested in this camera.

Hocus


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> There is one simple feature present that I have wanted to see in a digital camera and that is a simple composition grid in the viewfinder.


The Fuji F10 does that too! It's well handy.


----------



## Leica (Nov 3, 2005)

Has anyone mentioned the Olympus c5050? Very good lens, manual control.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2005)

Leica said:
			
		

> Has anyone mentioned the Olympus c5050? Very good lens, manual control.


Not exactly pocketable though, is it?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc5050z/


----------



## Leica (Nov 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Not exactly pocketable though, is it?


True, but it is quite compact. It can be held in one hand.

The drawback of this camera is that it takes about 3 seconds to start up, but you can get round this by leaving it on standby and using the "quick view" button to switch the screen off/on (therefore saving power).


----------



## salaryman (Nov 3, 2005)

This Olympus doesn't offer anything over the Sony DSC-V3 which Ed already owns, I believe.

For the fun of it, I've just emailed Panasonic and asked what their official line on the noise issue is.  I've been looking at sample pictures and I think they're truly awful.  My DSC-V3 kicks it's ass, basically.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 4, 2005)

A bit of additional info. Someone on the dpreview forums has been taking a lot of shots in b/w mode using the LX1, at high ISO with no apparent noise. The theory seems to be that it's mostly chroma noise, so it's less of a problem in b/w for obvious reasons.

Also, the Leica version of the LX1 is now being advertised in Jessops' latest catalogue, £100 more, but you get a copy of Photoshop elements and a nice little red logo. No reviews that I'm aware of however.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2005)

Testing out the FujiF10 at the moment and it's a bit of a frustrating beast, excelling in some areas while being resoundly average at others.

The camera looks crap, the interface is clunky, but the night exposures - even those shot at 1600 ISO - blow away anything the Lumix LX1 could manage.


----------



## salaryman (Nov 7, 2005)

is that it's only redeeming feature?


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> is that it's only redeeming feature?


It's a bloody good start!

It's got an excellent, sharp lens, starts up nippily enough, doesn't come with an annoying bound-to-get-lost removable lens cap (like the LX1) and focuses quickly.

Most of the limitations are down to the camera being almost fully auto, but the F11 should fix that.

The more results I see from the Fuji F10, the more inclined I am to get the F11 instead of the LX1...


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2005)

Check out the low light performance of the F11 here:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/longterm/2005/11/02/2596.html

I'm impressed!


----------



## salaryman (Nov 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Check out the low light performance of the F11 here:
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/longterm/2005/11/02/2596.html
> 
> I'm impressed!


it is impressive, but when you look at the final result - i'm not sure it's worth it.  

i can't upload samples, but if you zoom and compare the 80 to the 800 (for example), there is no comparison - 80 is crisp, clear and gorgeous.  800 is, frankly, poor.  i understand that it's better than most 800 (or 400 for that matter) images from compacts, but i just personally wouldn't want pictures of that quality.  

that said, it would be nice for all those indoors low-light snap shots of family and friends which always blur without flash.  however, for quality outdoor night shots, i reckon you'd be better resting the camera on something and getting a higher quality image through low ISO.

soz!


----------



## salaryman (Nov 8, 2005)

Here's a response I received from Panasonic about the noise in the LX1:

"In response, I would explain that with all digital stills cameras there is
more noticable Noise at higher ISO ratings.  With Panasonic cameras we
design them for high contrast and very sharp image. At higher ISO ratings
this does mean that the camera will have noticable digital picture noise at
the the higher ISO. However due the the image stabaliser it is usally
posiible to leave the camera set to the lower ISO of 80.  Currently there
is no plans at this time for a replacment model to replace the DMC-LX1 as
it has only just been released. This is not a flaw, it is a limitation due
to the construction (High mega pixel, small CCD, high sharpness ETC.)
Compared to other cameras of this size and type the amount of picture noise
is very similar."

So there you go.  Fair enough I guess.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> it is impressive, but when you look at the final result - i'm not sure it's worth it.
> 
> i can't upload samples, but if you zoom and compare the 80 to the 800 (for example), there is no comparison - 80 is crisp, clear and gorgeous.  800 is, frankly, poor.  i understand that it's better than most 800 (or 400 for that matter) images from compacts, but i just personally wouldn't want pictures of that quality.


Eh? The F10 has garnered massive praise for its outstanding low light/high ISO rating abilities, while its been the LX1's downfall.

800 ISO on the F10 is about the same - if not better - than 200 ISO on the LX1. 400 ISO on the LX1 is really, really awful - some have even described it as unusable. 

Check out the comparisons here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/page9.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/page7.asp

The F10 outperforms the LX1 at low ISO too - check out the tests in the same reviews.

However, the LX1 offers more detail, more features and far better handling - so it's a matter of finding the right compromise.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2005)

And there's a new contender on the block - the  Canon PowerShot S80!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons80/

Wide-angle 28-100mm 3.6x Optical Zoom Lens, 8.0 Megapixel sensor, full manual controls and better low light performance than the LX1 (but not the F10/F11).


----------



## salaryman (Nov 9, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Eh? The F10 has garnered massive praise for its outstanding low light/high ISO rating abilities, while its been the LX1's downfall.


Yes, this praise for the F10 is based around there being little noise in the high-ISO images.  This is without question true, but if you look at _the clarity and crispness_ of these high-ISO pictures, it's pretty poor _compared with the low-ISO images on the same camera_.  

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious and going round in circles?!    

Basically I'm not disputing the fact that the lack of noise in the F10 isn't *excellent* (and better than the other contenders), I'm saying that these high-ISO images in the F10 are fuzzy compared to theIR lovely, crisp low-ISO counterparts.  This is particularly noticable on the images on that Japanese website you linked to.  

So... given that when shooting in low light I would rather use a lower ISO and stabalise the camera on a fixed surface, I'd pick the LX1 over the F10. 

Am I making _any_ sense?!


----------



## salaryman (Nov 9, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> And there's a new contender on the block - the  Canon PowerShot S80!
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons80/
> 
> Wide-angle 28-100mm 3.6x Optical Zoom Lens, 8.0 Megapixel sensor, full manual controls and better low light performance than the LX1 (but not the F10/F11).


looks very nice indeed.  good to see more wide-angle compacts appearing.  tempting also.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> Yes, this praise for the F10 is based around there being little noise in the high-ISO images.  This is without question true, but if you look at _the clarity and crispness_ of these high-ISO pictures, it's pretty poor _compared with the low-ISO images on the same camera_.


I'm not really sure where you're getting this from. Although the Fuji uses less aggressive in-camera sharpening (a good thing, IMO), it's been widely praised for its outstanding sharpness, producing some of the sharpest pictures from any compact camera!

Read this from the dpreview review:


> Fuji's Super CCD technology has always been very good at capturing very fine high contrast detail, and the new sensor in the F10 (working with the lens, of course) takes things to a new high, *producing one of the highest test chart resolutions we've ever seen from a compact camera*. As well as outperforming all the 7 megapixel compact cameras we've tested to date, the F10 is also outresolving most 8MP models too - and with only the tiniest amount of visible moiré at the very highest frequencies. Very impressive indeed.


 And here's what the site said about its 80 ISO performance:


> The Canon image looks slightly 'crisper' thanks to Canon's more aggressive in-camera sharpening, but there's no denying the F10 has the edge here in terms of absolute image quality, producing results that *are amongst the best we've seen from any compact camera,* never mind a 6 megapixel 'point-and-shoot' model.
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/page6.asp


But trying to compare 400/800/1600 ISO images with image stablised LX1 80 ISO images isn't a fair comparison because even with OIS the exposures would have to be so long you'd get blur (and it would be useless for freezing action).

And there's already noise in the LX1 80 ISO image:  





> On the downside, even at ISO 80 noise is visible in dark areas - particularly areas of deep, flat blue.


I like the LX1 and if it wasn't so blighted with noise issues, I'd have bought it as soon as it came out. But now I'm still undecided...


----------



## salaryman (Nov 9, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure where you're getting this from.


From those bridge pictures from the Japanese site you posted yesterday.  I downloaded them and I thought the high-ISO images look crap compared to the low-ISO pics.  That's all!   But yes, you're right that the long exposure of low-ISO night shots would be no good for freezing action.  

God I sound like a stuck record!  I'll shut up about this now 




			
				editor said:
			
		

> And there's already noise in the LX1 80 ISO image:  I like the LX1 and if it wasn't so blighted with noise issues, I'd have bought it as soon as it came out. But now I'm still undecided...


Yep, real shame.  Maybe next time they'll get it right

cheers.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 11, 2005)

Leica said:
			
		

> Has anyone mentioned the Olympus c5050? Very good lens, manual control.


 I've been using the 5060 for about 18 months now and I'm very happy with it. It'll fit into a coat pocket happily enough, even though it's a bit chunky. I bought it to take pictures of my roses and so on, not realising at the time I'd have been better off with an SLR for that, but lately I've been using it as a street camera and having a lot of (strictly a beginner) fun with it that way. 

Here's an article about a photojournalist who switched to 5060's from Leica M-series and seems to use them in sort of the same way as you might use a rangefinder. Within the limitations of the camera he gets pretty good shots.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

Not really what the editor is looking for, because it's not tiny, but I find that it's very usable in all kinds of conditions.

Edited to add: rumour has it that Olympus have stopped making the higher-resolution successor to this camera, the 7070. They've disappeared from view in the US apparently. Possibly because their margins are too low on such a solid little magnesium alloy gem in a market that's mostly obsessed with plasticky things that have more megapixels. It looks like you can still get them at a decent price in the UK right now though, if you can find one. Steve's Digicams review of the 7070


----------



## Leica (Nov 14, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> I bought it to take pictures of my roses and so on, not realising at the time I'd have been better off with an SLR for that, but lately I've been using it as a street camera and having a lot of (strictly a beginner) fun with it that way.



Could I ask why an SLR would've been better for your roses? Have you tried the macro/supermacro function?

Related to your link, there is a technical article on the net by someone who adjusted the settings on the C5050 to make it work like a Leica rangefinder (preset focus etc):

Use your C-5050z like a Leica


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2005)

I've taken a couple of hundred pics on the Fuji F10 and have to say I'm very, very impressed so far. It's fast as fuck, the image quality is excellent and I'm already wondering how I ever got by without the amazing high (800/1600) ISO performance!


----------



## Jangla (Nov 14, 2005)

Seen the review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 on the dpreview site but does anyone have any real world experience with it?

(Hmmm, just noticed it's got no manual focus which for a 250 quid camera is a little disappointing.  Alternatives?  FZ20 is nice, FZ30 even nicer but too expensive and they're both the size of a HOUSE!)


----------



## Allan (Nov 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I've taken a couple of hundred pics on the Fuji F10 and have to say I'm very, very impressed so far. It's fast as fuck, the image quality is excellent and I'm already wondering how I ever got by without the amazing high (800/1600) ISO performance!



But how are you finding the lack of optical viewfinder? Isn't that a bit of a handicap?


----------



## salaryman (Nov 15, 2005)

Allan said:
			
		

> But how are you finding the lack of optical viewfinder? Isn't that a bit of a handicap?


i've never used the optical viewfinder on a digital compact.  why would you need to when you have a 2.5" lcd?  the viewfinders are fairly inaccurate don't forget.

i'm excited about seeing the results of editor's F10 nyc excursion.  hopefully there will be lots of super-impressive low light shots    i'm sure they'll make me want to buy the F11 which, unless i'm mistaken, has now been released?

http://www.digital-cameras.com/digital-cameras/compact/fuji-finepix-f11.html


----------



## Allan (Nov 15, 2005)

Everyone's banging on about the low-light capabilities of the F10 but is it outstanding in any other aspect? Is low-light its only "killer app"?


----------



## salaryman (Nov 15, 2005)

Allan said:
			
		

> Everyone's banging on about the low-light capabilities of the F10 but is it outstanding in any other aspect? Is low-light its only "killer app"?


check post 105 above

editor:
"it's been widely praised for its outstanding sharpness, producing some of the sharpest pictures from any compact camera!"


----------



## Allan (Nov 15, 2005)

Ah, ok.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> i'm excited about seeing the results of editor's F10 nyc excursion.  hopefully there will be lots of super-impressive low light shots    i'm sure they'll make me want to buy the F11 which, unless i'm mistaken, has now been released?


Check out this guy's shots taken with a F11.

I'm sold!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1012&thread=15882865


----------



## Jangla (Nov 16, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> Seen the review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 on the dpreview site but does anyone have any real world experience with it?
> 
> (Hmmm, just noticed it's got no manual focus which for a 250 quid camera is a little disappointing.  Alternatives?  FZ20 is nice, FZ30 even nicer but too expensive and they're both the size of a HOUSE!)


Anyone?  Adn can someone explain why the F10/11 are so great but the rest of the Fuji range are comparatively poor?


----------



## salaryman (Nov 25, 2005)

So Ed, what are your conclusions about the F10?  Impressed?  I'm v tempted to purchase an F11


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 25, 2005)

Leica said:
			
		

> Could I ask why an SLR would've been better for your roses? Have you tried the macro/supermacro function?<snip>


 Yep, you're probably right. Some helpful people explained to me over on another thread.


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> So Ed, what are your conclusions about the F10?  Impressed?  I'm v tempted to purchase an F11


Pretty good. I've written a full review for another site but they haven't published yet.

Overall, it's a great camera, but it has its limitations. The dazzling kryptonite-like prefocus beam is so bright subjects flee screaming from its glare and without it focussing can be a bit hit and miss in low light.

I really, really miss having a manual focus facility (I usually set that at 3m for speedy shots when I'm tacking pics at clubs) and it looks like the F11 hasn't got that either 

But the low light and daytime photography is impressive, and the thing's very fast in operation.

The F11 is still the frontrunner in my never ending quest to sort out a new compact camera though!


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2005)

...but, I have to say that every time I see the LX1, I'm swayed by its beautiful looks and awesome feature set.

Even more doubts were planted in my mind when two pro-looking photographers came into Jacobs on New Oxford Street touting enormously expensive cameras and both were looking to buy the LX1...

The F10 - and I expect the F11 - feels like a beginner's camera in comparison, but it sure gets results. But I really need a manual focus mode...and this guy raves the LX1 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx1.shtml

Ho hum.. more faffing ahead....


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 27, 2005)

Are you sure you need something that small? You can still (just about) get a C-7070 at the moment (Olympus are withdrawing from that market to concentrate on SLRs) and that'll do all the stuff that I think you want with fewer compromises. It won't go in a shirt pocket, and it weighs a bit, but my 5060 (essentially the same camera with less pixels) fits just fine into the inside pocket of my coat.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Are you sure you need something that small? You can still (just about) get a C-7070 at the moment .


Nah - it's more or less the same size as my Sony V3 (which is an excellent camera) - what I'm ideally looking for is a _pocket _sized compact, with manual controls, manual focus and decent low light performance (high ISO/image stabilisation).

I must say I'm impressed with this guy's LX1 shots and the 16:9 format looks great.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 27, 2005)

Fair enough. I was mostly trying to convince myself that I didn't need a pocket camera I think. Mine is a bit too big and heavy to take on the road when I'm working. I'd have to worry about securing it, whereas a pocket camera like the sort you're looking at could just go with me everywhere.


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2005)

Check out this lovely image taken on a LX1. Could the Fuji match it? I'm not convinced!
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/photos/46124265-L.jpg


----------



## Jangla (Nov 29, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Check out this lovely image taken on a LX1. Could the Fuji match it? I'm not convinced!
> http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/photos/46124265-L.jpg


Any idea of the settings that was taken with?


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2005)

Jangla said:
			
		

> Any idea of the settings that was taken with?


Yep: 1/160@f/4, ISO80

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&thread=16034019


----------



## salaryman (Nov 29, 2005)

well it couldn't match the widescreen!

check these glowing reports (and pics) about the f11
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E9fe

then groan at the truly abysmal iso 200 and above images of the lx1
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lx1-review/index.shtml

before cheering at the stunning quality of the san fran at night picture here
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_f10-review/

just compare the two san fran scenes from those two reviews - i just wince at the lx1.  it's the only problem with the camera but it's such a gargantuan one that i wouldn't even consider it.  noisy noisy noisy, even at iso80


----------



## salaryman (Dec 2, 2005)

ok, it's crunch time.  my current camera is on ebay and i haven't got a replacement yet.  the fuji f11 is currently leading the pack.  i checked one out and i /quite/ like it.  editor's right, it's certainly not a looker but it's compact and the all-metal finish is good - it feels decent quality.  the xD format is a pain and that charging mechanism sounds ridiculous (please tell me there is a separate charger available??!), but it sounds like most owners are really happy with the picture quality which is, after all, the most important thing.

the other new contender is a pentax optio s6 which looks superb but lacks the awesome high-ISO capabilities of the f11.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05083106pentax_optios6.asp

any thoughts before i buy the fugly fuji?


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> just compare the two san fran scenes from those two reviews - i just wince at the lx1.  it's the only problem with the camera but it's such a gargantuan one that i wouldn't even consider it.  noisy noisy noisy, even at iso80


Oh, I know - it looks utterly shit at anything above 80ISO. But there is something very alluring about the quality of the images it produces and that amazing 16:9 format is compelling.

There are some great LX1 images being posted up at dpreview.com but the compromise is whether the stabilisation will be enough to let you keep shooting at 80ISO. The handling of the camera is immaculate!

There's rumours of a new Lumix appearing in March which will address the high ISO noise issues - if they get that sorted, the LX2 would be an absolute winner.

Seeing as I've still got the review copy of the F10, I'm going to hang onto that and see if my (so far unsuccessful) attempts to get an LX1 for review hit paydirt.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> the other new contender is a pentax optio s6 which looks superb but lacks the awesome high-ISO capabilities of the f11.


Looks nice enough, but the F10/F11 spanks its shiny arse when it comes to low light, so I can't see any reason to buy the Pentax.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2005)

Dunno if this helps but: F10 review


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 2, 2005)

With the Canon S80 just out, I imagine that it'll be possible get very good prices on the S70, at least until they've sold off all the remaining stock.


----------



## salaryman (Dec 3, 2005)

Done!  F11 on order, arriving early next week.  I'll report back when I've given it a test drive


----------



## editor (Dec 3, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> Done!  F11 on order, arriving early next week.  I'll report back when I've given it a test drive


Sadly, Fuji remembered that they'd loaned me the F10 and I've got to hand it back on Tuesday. 

It's a frustrating camera: the handling is pretty awful, everything's a bit clunky but it can take great pics. 

I'm still trying to blag an LX1 for review (i.e. try it out for myself!), but their PR dept is utterly shit.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to blag an LX1 for review (i.e. try it out for myself!), but their PR dept is utterly shit.


Oh dear, lets hope their PR department doesn't check out these boards to see where you're coming from.  Unless it spurs them into attempting to improve their image.

I am most interested in the LX1 but I think I will wait until the next model comes out, hopefully with an improved noise-free chip.  I had a look at one in a shop yesterday and it does look good but the lens sticks out much further than I thought.  It is much bigger than my Olympus C40Z which fits easily into even a shirt pocket but is now suffering from Ano Domini being a 2001 design.

Hocus


----------



## editor (Dec 3, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Oh dear, lets hope their PR department doesn't check out these boards to see where you're coming from.


Well, I will be reviewing the camera for a tech website, but I also have a personal interest.

I have to say that I was _really_ disappointed with the Fuji's pictures at the Actionettes gig last night: it seems that unless you activate the kryptonite dazzlo-pre-focus beam, focussing goes all over the place.


----------



## salaryman (Dec 4, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Actionettes gig last night: it seems that unless you activate the kryptonite dazzlo-pre-focus beam, focussing goes all over the place.


I was thinking about this when you mentioned the lack of manual focus earlier in the thread.   Isn't it possible to set the camera to infinity for shots like this?

I wonder if the F11 improves on it?

I like your F10 review and I'm particularly excited about the sneak-preview NYC shots in there


----------



## editor (Dec 4, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> I was thinking about this when you mentioned the lack of manual focus earlier in the thread.   Isn't it possible to set the camera to infinity for shots like this?


You can try and bodge it by putting the camera into landscape mode, but there is no manual focus at all on the F10 and it's the same for the F11 (AFAIK).

It's a real shortcoming and I was really disappointed with this results - about 1/3rd were out of focus (mind you there wasn't a lot of light available - but my Sony V3, for example, would have got a far higher success rate).

Thanks for your comments about my NYC pics - I'm currently sorting out the panoramas (around 12 of them) and then I'll embark on the fearsome task of sifting through the zillions of pics for the good 'uns!


----------



## Leica (Dec 4, 2005)

Sorry to break into this conversation, I was just wondering whether the camera allows to create your own "mode", and preset a certain focus... this could be a solution. Please ignore me if it has already been considered.


----------



## editor (Dec 4, 2005)

Leica said:
			
		

> Sorry to break into this conversation, I was just wondering whether the camera allows to create your own "mode", and preset a certain focus... this could be a solution.


 As far as I can see there's no way to preset focus in any mode. If there was, I'd have used it on Friday night!


----------



## salaryman (Dec 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> As far as I can see there's no way to preset focus in any mode. If there was, I'd have used it on Friday night!



I don't think there is on the F11 either but I could well be wrong (not that it bothers me really).

Anyway, I bought the F11 last night (£265 from tott ct road, inc 512mb card and case - i anyone is interested).  Very pleased with the screen and the lightening-fast start-up time.  The menu system is fine as well, despite nods to the contrary in some F10 reviews.  

I've barely used it yet, but the autofocus does seem to be S L  O  O  O  O W.  Did you find this on the F10 ed?  Hopefully I'll get used to it.  I think I've been spoilt with the stunningly fast V3.

And as for that "kryptonite death ray", jaysus h christ!  It's blinds everyone in it's sight, quite ridiculous frankly.  I can only assume the autofocus is so poor that it needs this to stand a chance of focusing in low light... which for a camera I bought for low-light capabilities is all rather worrying!

Fingers crossed it turns out fine or it'll be on eBay within a month!


----------



## editor (Dec 8, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> And as for that "kryptonite death ray", jaysus h christ!  It's blinds everyone in it's sight, quite ridiculous frankly.  I can only assume the autofocus is so poor that it needs this to stand a chance of focusing in low light... which for a camera I bought for low-light capabilities is all rather worrying!


I didn't find the focus to be too slow with the _dazzlo-beam_ turned on, but it did screw up with it turned off more times that I would have liked in low light. And - as you point out - the beam is so bright it's unusable.

I got great shots in daytime though, although the camera would leap to higher ISOs way to enthusiastically for my liking in auto - and if I set it low manually I'd often forget about it and get a couple of crappy shots before I realised.

The F11's got a better screen than the F10, but how easy is it to change aperture/shutter speed?

The V3 pisses all over it for usability, especially for grabbing in-focus low light shots - in fact, despite its great performance/start up etc, I never really got to _like_ the F10 (although I may well end up with the F11).

Today's great news is that I've managed to blag a LX1 camera for review. I can't wait! The more I hear and see from that camera the more I like it, noise issues notwithstanding. And it looks great - now _there's_ a camera I could fall in love with!

Hopefully I'll get it next week - I'll keep you posted.
Tell us how you get on with the F11 too!


----------



## salaryman (Dec 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I got great shots in daytime though, although the camera would leap to higher ISOs way to enthusiastically for my liking in auto - and if I set it low manually I'd often forget about it and get a couple of crappy shots before I realised.


Sounds annoying, but I guess it's something you get on a lot of digital cameras.  I used to do this all the time with my old Ixus.




			
				editor said:
			
		

> The F11's got a better screen than the F10, but how easy is it to change aperture/shutter speed?


Pretty easy.  Put it in Manual mode, press the menu button (I think) and you can select aperture priority or shutter priority (or neither - just Manual). Once you've selected the mode you want, you can then press up/down to change the shutter/aperture values.  I haven't played with it enough to see how useful it is, and to see how this works with auto-ISO either (probably not very well!).   I think I would keep it in ISO100 most of the time anyway.




			
				editor said:
			
		

> The V3 pisses all over it for usability, especially for grabbing in-focus low light shots - in fact, despite its great performance/start up etc, I never really got to _like_ the F10 (although I may well end up with the F11).


Yes, I'm sorry to see my superb V3 go but the fact is I took much fewer photos with it because I could never be arsed to carry it around.  I've traded it for the F11 which I can now shove in a pocket/bag and take it everywhere, whilst keeping the majority of the functions I had on the V3.  I'm hoping Sony will release the perfect tiny compact next year which would give me V3-like performance with top-notch high-ISO capabilities and a F1.8, 28mm lens.  I can dream...




			
				editor said:
			
		

> Today's great news is that I've managed to blag a LX1 camera for review. I can't wait! The more I hear and see from that camera the more I like it, noise issues notwithstanding. And it looks great - now _there's_ a camera I could fall in love with!
> 
> Hopefully I'll get it next week - I'll keep you posted.
> Tell us how you get on with the F11 too!


Wow, nice one!  Really looking forward to reading about it.  It certainly looks the business and the feature set is stunning.  

I'll definitely report back on the F11 and put some pictures up...


----------



## editor (Dec 8, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm sorry to see my superb V3 go but the fact is I took much fewer photos with it because I could never be arsed to carry it around.


Yep, that's the problem I have with it, but it's good for  daytrips/walks where I don't mnd having a camera flapping around my neck - and the wide angle attachment is the business.

It is a wonderful camera though and I don't think I'll be flogging it for sometime (unless the LX1 comes up trumps, of course). My Sony F77, on the other hand, is really showing its age and seems to be getting progressively slower and slower!


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2005)

Just got LX1 camera delivered now - and it feels ruddy fantastic to hold - almost Leica-esque!

If I can get the battery charged up in time before I go out, I'll take a few tests snaps.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 10, 2005)

Wooh hooow! 

drools

H


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Wooh hooow!
> 
> drools


C'mon battery! Charge you fecker! I want to play!

Although I'm yet to be see if its low light perfromance is as bad as some reviews suggest, it has to be said that it _really_ feels like a 'proper' camera compared to the F10.

It's got a proper mechanical switch to flip to manual focus and a natty joystick for focussing and I like flashes that you force up yourself (like my old Minolta A2).

And, it has to be said, I like seeing the word, Leica on the lens too!  


So far, I'm won over already!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 10, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> C'mon battery! Charge you fecker! I want to play!
> 
> Although I'm yet to be see if its low light perfromance is as bad as some reviews suggest, it has to be said that it _really_ feels like a 'proper' camera compared to the F10.
> 
> ...


 If you want to pay an extra 100 notes, you can get one with Leica written on the body too 

Also, I understand Leica are almost ready to release the digital M series ...


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2005)

So salaryman - how are you getting on with the F11?

I took the LX1 out for a test drive today. The camera handles beautifully - it really feels like a 'proper' camera compared to the clunky F10. The stabilisation is great too - good thing because the noise at 400 makes the pics near unusable.

Check out a few test shots here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/71121704@N00/


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 10, 2005)

Nice photos. Small file sizes make it hard to tell, but they look very sharp.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Nice photos. Small file sizes make it hard to tell, but they look very sharp.


They are really sharp - very 'film' like too.
Hang on - I'll post up a larger one on my own site for you...


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2005)

Here you go: www.urban75.org/temp/lx1.jpg

The camera's exposure is spot on.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 10, 2005)

Oh nice. 

I just got the wife a FX8 for xmas and that's razor sharp too, although the lens is tiny compared to the one on the LX1.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 10, 2005)

Samples of the FX8 here, no manual control and no RAW, but I thought the stuff she shot right after it charged up and she charged off to the shops looked rather nice. 

http://photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Herself/

There's evidently a lot to be said for leica lenses, even tiny ones in tiny cameras.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 11, 2005)

OK, so. The other side of this story is that the wife got me an F11 for xmas. I rather fancied the LX1, but it was a bit too pricey. We got a really good deal by buying both cameras at the same time and by me being a pain in the arse until the guy gave us a big discount and threw in various cards and stuff.

I didn't get to play in daylight with the F11 yesterday 'cos it took about 4hrs to charge up. So far all I've done is play with it and take various soppy cat pictures. I was able to confirm that the high ISO setting really work though.

Here's one at ISO 1600, weak indirect lighting, no flash, with the green beam of death off. 

http://photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Cats/?action=view&current=DSCF0106.jpg

Definitely a bit fuzzy, and that seems to be the tricky part of using the F11.

Here's one from this morning at ISO80. It seems to do much better at auto-focussing if it's got adequate light to work with. 

http://photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Cats/?action=view&current=DSCF0120.jpg

I'm going to head off out for a proper play with the F11, but what I've found so far is that you need to set the AF to 'centre' for it to have much chance of working at high ISO, especially if you've turned the green beam of death off to avoid giving your subject radiation burns. In any sort of decent light though, it seems to work pretty well. 

The overall picture quality so far is definitely softer than the wife's FX8, and doesn't even approach the sharpness of editor's LX1 shots. This may also be a function of me being a crap photographer compared to either of them. It does seem to be good at capturing subtleties of colour and tone however.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> The overall picture quality so far is definitely softer than the wife's FX8, and doesn't even approach the sharpness of editor's LX1 shots. This may also be a function of me being a crap photographer compared to either of them. It does seem to be good at capturing subtleties of colour and tone however.


The F10/11 doesn't aggressively sharpen images like some other cameras, but you should be able to sharpen 'em up a treat in Photoshop.

At high ISO ratings, the Fuji will spank the Lumix raw - things get really ugly at 200 ISO and at 400 it's a mess.

If only they could combine the Fuji's sensor with the LX1's handling, features and 16:9 aspect and they'd have a killer compact.

Nice puddy tat pics, btw!


----------



## salaryman (Dec 11, 2005)

Nice test shots!  Are they at 80/100 ISO?  You must have a steady hand (or a tripod)?  I love the 16:9 format.  It has a 28mm lens too right?

How big is the camera compared to the F11, out of interest?

I think you will love that camera 

I'm getting along better with the F11 now I've figured out most of the settings.  I can get get it set up in whichever mode I need within a few seconds which is great.  The only thing missing is manual focus, as you mentioned but that will rarely cause a problem for me.  

It takes lovely shots in low light, albeit at 800ISO by default.  If you put it into 'night mode' (which will expose automatically up to 3 seconds) at ISO80 and hold steady then you can get stunning shots.  You can put it into "manual night mode" as well and choose your shutter speed up to 15 seconds which is great for fiddling around with.  

Also, if you take shots in bog-standard AUTO mode indoors with flash (for snapshots), then it defaults to ISO 800 but the results are lovely.  Usually when taking snapshots people's faces are bleached out and the backgrounds are black, but with the F11 the pictures are lit really nicely.  Obviously you can do this with slow-shutter mode on most cameras, but usually they expose for so long you get blurring - not so with the F11!  

I don't mind the menuing system either, I think it's quick to use once you've remembered how to do everything.

I'll try and post a few shots up this week but overall, for the price (£265 with 512MB card), I don't think you'll get a much better camera.


----------



## salaryman (Dec 12, 2005)

Ok, I've taken a few test shots on the F11 today and the results are... interesting.  In a nutshell, it DOES take ISO800 shots with not too much noise BUT (note it's a big BUT) the ISO800 shots are so soft that I consider them poor.

I've put them up on flickr.com but annoyingly, because it reduces the size, they all look rather nice!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lylo/sets/1566056/

Ed - I've PM'd you with a link to the original photos so you can see the quality for yourself.  

In conclusion, the F11 does take nice photos but, like all cameras, the lower the ISO rating the better.  I'd recommend taking all night shots with ISO200 or less, which kinda makes the high-ISO capabilities of the F11 a little pointless, unless you're only taking the for the web, don't mind 'soft' images or can somehow sharpen them up in Photoshop (haven't tried this yet).

I'll stick with the camera it since it DOES take lovely photos when the ISO rating is lower, has excellent video quality and is fast to operate, but I think I'll limit my usage of the high-ISO, if not stop using it altogether!


----------



## salaryman (Dec 12, 2005)

*thinks*

Ok, I'm being harsh on the F11.  

Looking closely at the ISO800 pictures, it's really not that bad.  There is softness, and there is noticeable noise, but it's more like film grain I suppose, rather than prickly electronic noise which you get with most digicams at this speed.  On this basis you have to say that it outperforms everything else I've used.

Being the perfectionist I am, I'll still try and get more shots using low ISO though


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> Looking closely at the ISO800 pictures, it's really not that bad.


If I posted up the noise-tastic 400 ISO images off the LX1 you'd start thinking that you've got a silky smooth Hassleblad in your hands by comparison!
Compared to almost all other compacts, the F11 results are amazing.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 13, 2005)

I'm off to use the F11 for its intended purpose tomorrow, taking pictures of something other than lurid plant genitalia while working in glamourous, exotic locations, in this case Bradford.


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2005)

And just to muddy the waters - has anyone seen this camera in the flash?
Fixed 28mm f/2.4 lens, eight megapixels!






http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=5&article_id=1590
http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/ricoh/gr/digital_camera_EN1.html


----------



## salaryman (Dec 13, 2005)

wow, that sounds very impressive and i'm loving the 1950's russian-esque body 

21mm lens attachment sounds great


----------



## salaryman (Dec 13, 2005)

p.s. £400 from fotosense


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 13, 2005)

I saw a couple of reviews, in magazines if I recall correctly, which praised the GRDs lens, but complained about slowness and sensor noise..


----------



## salaryman (Dec 13, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> sensor noise..



gah!


----------



## editor (Dec 14, 2005)

The LX1 is sooo frustrating! It looks and feels a zillion times better than the F10, takes fantastic daytime shots, the 16:9 panoramic aspect ratio is just amazing, but as soon as the ISO creeps past 100, it's a beast!

But when it's working within its 'safety zone', it's a ruddy great camera.
Here's a Brixton market pic, 1/3rd sec handheld (balanced on wobbly post), saved as JPG (100 ISO).






More pics here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/lumix-lx1.html


----------



## Wess (Dec 14, 2005)

This is the camera I bought the other day, I hope to have it delivered in the next day or 2... 4 meg & 5 X optical zoom for less than 200Au. 
I researched them for ages and this one went on sale so I bought it...
Kodak Z700 

This site here helped me heaps with making the decision ... lots of info for the novice (me) 
Steves Camera reviews


----------



## salaryman (Dec 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> The LX1 is sooo frustrating! It looks and feels a zillion times better than the F10, takes fantastic daytime shots, the 16:9 panoramic aspect ratio is just amazing, but as soon as the ISO creeps past 100, it's a beast!


those pictures look pretty damn good to me!  i love the 16:9 format.  

how practical would it be for you to stick it in ISO80/100 mode and never touch the ISO again?  can you live without the faster speeds?


----------



## Leonard (Dec 14, 2005)

Salaryman! You've tried if the F11 flash range is really 6.5m as stated in specs? It's for ISO1600? What flash range is for ISO80? You can live /wo manual focusing?


----------



## salaryman (Dec 14, 2005)

Leonard said:
			
		

> Salaryman! You've tried if the F11 flash range is really 6.5m as stated in specs? It's for ISO1600? What flash range is for ISO80? You can live /wo manual focusing?


i haven't used manual focusing since i stopped using my yashica fx-1 about 15 years ago, so i can definitely live without it 

not sure about the flash range, but i took a photo last night from about 2m and the subject was lit up nicely, perhaps a bit too much!

when using the flash (in darkened room rather than fill-in flash) i've noticed that it pretty much always uses ISO800 by default.  whilst this results in less sharp pictures, it does make the picture look better by exposing the background more than usual which is excellent for snaps.  you can obviously override this and use ISO 80 (or whatever) if you like.

i haven't really used ISO1600 yet, sorry!


----------



## editor (Dec 14, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> i haven't used manual focusing since i stopped using my yashica fx-1 about 15 years ago, so i can definitely live without it


Wait until you're trying to take low light shots without the beam'o'death!

The F10 was massively disappointing in this regard - manual focus would have guaranteed in-focus shots and a faster response too.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 14, 2005)

Leonard said:
			
		

> Salaryman! You've tried if the F11 flash range is really 6.5m as stated in specs? It's for ISO1600? What flash range is for ISO80? You can live /wo manual focusing?




If the flash range is advertised as 6.5 metres and it defaults to ISO 800 then that it what the flash guide number is based on.

At ISO 80 then that is about 3 stops less, so the flash range will be about .8 of a metre

Hocus


----------



## salaryman (Dec 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Wait until you're trying to take low light shots without the beam'o'death!
> 
> The F10 was massively disappointing in this regard - manual focus would have guaranteed in-focus shots and a faster response too.


boo hiss - killjoy!    

what situations did you find this was troublesome.  you mentioned in was problematic at a club (at offline), but how about outdoor night shots - same problem?

the night shots i've taken so far have all been in focus without the autofocus grinding away for ages trying to figure it out.  perhaps the f11 has improved things?  i doubt it, but you never know.

i'm going to spain on friday for a few days so that will be a great opportunity to stretch the legs of the f11


----------



## editor (Dec 14, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> the night shots i've taken so far have all been in focus without the autofocus grinding away for ages trying to figure it out.


Outdoor night shots were fine - no probs there - but it was in a dark club with fast changing lights that the thing got seriously confused. 

I'm still unsure what camera to get, btw!


----------



## salaryman (Dec 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Outdoor night shots were fine - no probs there - but it was in a dark club with fast changing lights that the thing got seriously confused.


good news about outdoor shots at least.  i don't think there's anything you could do about the club shots - nothing springs to mind at least, although there is a 'landscape' scene setting which i'm assuming sets focus to 'infinity'.  perhaps if you used that setting it would do the job?   




			
				editor said:
			
		

> I'm still unsure what camera to get, btw!


it's a difficult and important decision!  i needed a camera fairly sharpish plus my budget was limited to £300, so luckily the f11 was really the only contender


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 14, 2005)

I've had a bit more of a play with my F11 and it seems fine. Works well for any sort of night shot I've attempted, even with flash and green beam of death switched off, as long as I get the ISO, aperture, exposure compensation and so on right. It doesn't work as reliably with everything on auto though, and autofocus is easily fooled in multi mode, particularly in poor light, so I've mostly been using it in spot and using AF lock to select something as a reference point. 

Battery life is great and it's fairly easy to set everything quickly once you're used to using it. Picture quality does seem a bit soft at high ISO, but it takes very nice pictures at the lower ISOs. See e.g. soppy cat picture 2 above.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 14, 2005)

Here are some pictures I took while mucking about with the F11 on a trip to Bradford. I make no claim to artistic merit. I was just trying things out on it. 

http://photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Travel/


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2005)

...and then there's the Canon S80 which has a rave review in DPreview, 28mm - 100mm f2.8-f5.3 wide angle lens, 8 megapixels and full manual controls...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> ...and then there's the Canon S80 which has a rave review in DPreview, 28mm - 100mm f2.8-f5.3 wide angle lens, 8 megapixels and full manual controls...


 To be honest, if I hadn't been working to a lower budget (it's a toy and something to learn on for me, not a professional tool after all), I'm fairly sure that'd be what I'd have gone for as being probably the best all-rounder.


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> To be honest, if I hadn't been working to a lower budget (it's a toy and something to learn on for me, not a professional tool after all), I'm fairly sure that'd be what I'd have gone for as being probably the best all-rounder.


...but no image stabliser, no 16:9 ratio and it' a lot bulkier than the Lumix...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> ...but no image stabliser, no 16:9 ratio and it' a lot bulkier than the Lumix...


 Well yes. I just figured I'm mostly going to use my pocket cam when I'm on the road, and mainly as a tool for learning, my real interests lying more in floral photography. So usable high ISO was well worth having for me, because I'm more likely to have time to take pictures at night and it seemed that the Canon was OK there, although not as good as the Fuji, but was stronger in a few other areas, like wide angle and with nicer controls.

From what I can tell having played with the LX1 in a shop and having played a bit with the FX8 I got for the wife and seen her results with it, the Panasonics are really very tasty, both ergonomically and in terms of those great lenses.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2005)

Still playing around with the LX1, but I'm falling in love with the 16:9 format:











(Both handheld)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 16, 2005)

Nice


----------



## Firky (Dec 16, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> (Both handheld)



Even that one? What ISO / shutter


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Even that one? What ISO / shutter


You asked for it!

Camera
   Make                        Panasonic
   Model                       DMC-LX1 
   Date/time                   14/12/2005 23:53:38

Image                  
   Exposure time               0.769231 s
   F-number                    f/2.8
   Exposure program            Normal Program
   ISO speed ratings           100
   Component config            YCbCr
   Compressed BPP              4
   Exposure bias value         0.00 EV
   Max. aperture value         f/2.8
   Metering mode               Pattern
   Light source                Tungsten
   Flash                       Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
   Focal length                6.3 mm
   Colorspace                  sRGB
   Pixel X dimension           3840
   Pixel Y dimension           2160
   Sensing method              One-chip color area sensor
   Scene type                  A directly photographed image
   Custom Rendered             Normal process
   Exposure mode               Auto exposure
   White balance               Manual white balance
   Digital zoom ratio          0
   Focal length in 35mm film   28 mm
   Scene capture type          Standard
   Gain control                None
   Contrast                    Normal
   Saturation                  Normal
   Sharpness                   Normal

I was leaning tight against a window but it was hand held - no tripod involved!


----------



## Firky (Dec 16, 2005)

Jesus! I don't think my DSLR could do that, most impressive.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Jesus! I don't think my DSLR could do that, most impressive.


I don't think I'll get it every time, but I tell you what - I'll go and have a go now!

Hang on!


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2005)

Here you go. I took three and all were reasonable (although not pin sharp if you zoomed right in). The camera's got amazing exposure, btw - spot on every time.






100ISO, 0.625 secs exposure, 28mm, f2.8.


----------



## Firky (Dec 16, 2005)

kk

that blows the pants off any DSLR! With NRD on or not. 

Still the F number is the give away, I may go and experiment myself... but you live in London and I'm in the middle of the countryside for now. No light pollution!


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> that blows the pants off any DSLR! With NRD on or not.


'Std' oin-camera noise reduction, whatever that means.

The LX1 is a way noisy camera though and more or less unusable at 400ISO (unless you shoot in black and white)


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Still the F number is the give away, I may go and experiment myself... but you live in London and I'm in the middle of the countryside for now. No light pollution!


That's one of the advantages (and disavantages) of compact cameras over dSLRS - you get loads more depth of field.


----------



## Firky (Dec 16, 2005)

In my D50 you don't get a DoF preview, it is niggling but you don't _really_ miss it.


----------



## Firky (Dec 16, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> The LX1 is a way noisy camera though and more or less unusable at 400ISO (unless you shoot in black and white)



Never shoot B&W with your camera, shoot in colour and let photoshop do the rest in channel mixer. It is far more powerful at colour seperation than any camera - digital anyway.

Most of my photography is shot in colour with a yellow or magenta filter, then processed to B&W in photoshop.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Never shoot B&W with your camera, shoot in colour and let photoshop do the rest in channel mixer. It is far more powerful at colour seperation than any camera - digital anyway.


Normally, I'd agree but with the Lumix it's the _only_ way you can get a usable pic at 400ISO.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 16, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> That's one of the advantages (and disavantages) of compact cameras over dSLRS - you get loads more depth of field.


 Yep. That's my big frustration with my real camera, the Olympus 5060. Even with super macro, I can't do the sort of stuff that the people who take photos for the RHS mag 'The Garden' can do. I've set myself some objectives, rather tough ones, and if I ever achieve them, I'm going to get a nice Micro-Nikkor and some sort of camera to stick on the back of it. So for me, pocket cams are just a means to getting better at taking pictures, pictures that aren't yet of roses


----------



## Leonard (Dec 16, 2005)

*How about SONY*

Anyone of you has ever had a look at SONY digcam, say W7 or P200. They look nice and compact and w/ manual expose too. I've heard the photo quality, esp. the color is very cool. Right? Worth to consider?


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2005)

Leonard said:
			
		

> Anyone of you has ever had a look at SONY digcam, say W7 or P200. They look nice and compact and w/ manual expose too. I've heard the photo quality, esp. the color is very cool. Right? Worth to consider?


The W7 has no aperture/shutter priority mode and the manual mode only has two apertures to choose from, and the P200's pretty limited on the manual front too.

But they're both excellent point'n'shooters by the look of 'em.


----------



## salaryman (Dec 20, 2005)

I gave the F11 a workout in Spain this weekend and I'm really pleased with how it performed and with the results.  I'll try and post some up later.  The shutter priority is great and allowed me to play around and get some really nice night shots - some at ISO80, to get the crispest images, but some at ISO400/800 if I couldn't find anything to lean against.  Day shots were lovely and crisp, particularly because the sun was shining, but the camera does like to produce purple fringes, although they're no worse than any other camera in this class.

In AUTO mode it seems that 1/75s is what it considers should be used for a non-blurry image.  As a result, in slightly darker daytime scenes (such as walking down a narrow street with tall buildings), if you select auto ISO it will boost the ISO until it can reach 1/75s, so it will often hit ISO200.  The images are still pretty crisp and noise-free though, even at this level.  If I found a particularly nice scene then I'd keep it in AUTO but just flick to ISO80 or 100 to guarantee a better shot, unless of course the shutter speed was less than 1/20 (I don't have particuarly steady hands!).

I've found that 'night scene' mode is perhaps the most useful AUTO setting for quick night shots since it allows up to a 3-second shutter speed and usually gets the exposure spot on.  If you want to push or limit the exposure, then you can quickly flick to shutter priority and select the shutter speed, or if you're in manual mode you can just under/overexpose the shot using that facilty.  I've had NO focusing problems at all (yet!), even in a very low-lit restaurant (a guaranteed ISO800 in auto mode!) and I've thus far refused to use the evil eye-torturing krypto-laser of death.

I find the camera really easy to operate and I can now put it in any mode I want pretty quickly.  I actually find the menus intuitive and everything setting I need to access (except perhaps white balance) can be found very quickly (if you have nimble fingers like me).  The screen is lovely and clear EXCEPT in severe sunshine when it can be a right royal pain in the ass to see what's on there because of the glass screen cover.  You can brighten the LCD with the click of a button which helps, but not that much.  This is a slight failing because there is no viewfinder, but I actually like having the LCD cover on there to protect the screen.  Out of 120 photos in a sunny city, this was a problem for about 3 shots, but I still got the shots!

I bought the camera for £265 with a free case and a 512mb card, so for this price I'm very impressed at how good it is. I would steer clear of comparing it with the LX1 or the S-80 since they're really in a different price band and aimed at a different market - they're bound to take generally better photos because they have better (and wider) lenses, focusing systems, etc.  Compare it with the likes of the Canon IXUS and Pentax Optio and I guarantee the F11 will whoop their sorry asses!

In conclusion, for a fairly low price you get a really high standard of camera in a handy small size.  Being able to slip it in my jacket pocket is fantastic compared to lugging my V3 around and I'm definitely taking more pictures as a result.  Contrary to Ed's dismissal, I even quite like it's smooth lines, but I prefer to hide them inside an ubercool Crumpler case.

9/10


----------



## editor (Dec 20, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> Contrary to Ed's dismissal, I even quite like it's smooth lines, but I prefer to hide them inside an ubercool Crumpler case.


It is a bit of an ugly fella, and I don't like the lack of manual controls on the exterior, but I've never dissed its image quality!

I still may end up getting a F11 until the LX2 comes out...

Where did you buy your camera from by the way?


----------



## salaryman (Dec 20, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It is a bit of an ugly fella, and I don't like the lack of manual controls on the exterior, but I've never dissed its image quality!


Sure, I refer to your dislike of the body   I actually quite like it!




			
				editor said:
			
		

> I still may end up getting a F11 until the LX2 comes out...
> 
> Where did you buy your camera from by the way?


LX2 = the perfect camera 

I got it from Ask on Tottenham Court Road, which as I found out is the same company as Kamla next door (and no doubt half of the other shops on that road!).  They quote £280 but they will definitely go to £265, possibly lower (I'm no haggler).


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2005)

salaryman said:
			
		

> I got it from Ask on Tottenham Court Road, which as I found out is the same company as Kamla next door


Bought it today and it's currently charging up!

I'm still looking doe-eyed at the fabulous LX1 which still has the best ergonomics of _any_ compact camera I've ever used, but for now I reckon I'm better off with the F11 as a take-anywhere camera, my Sony V3 (plus wideangle) for days out and my D70 for the serious stuff. 

Maybe next year I could replace the V3/F11 for the LX2...


----------

