biomed
Veteran
I have a Casio EX-Z600. I believe the optics are Pentax?? It is very small with 3x optical zoom and a very large and bright LCD display. It is only 6MP, but I have found that to be more than sufficient for what I use it for. It goes for months on a single battery charge. It has a BW mode, grid lines on the LCD and a pretty usable histogram display. I have the left and right arrow buttons on the back programmed for exposure compensation. The only negative I have found is noticeable barrel distortion on the wide end of the zoom.
Attachments
doitashimash1te
Well-known
ambientmick said:
I know. The LX2 is an option but threads like this one:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00J9Wv
make me wonder if I will regret not spending the extra money once I find out that the Leica does produce better images with their different firmware. Will the RAW files differ between the Leica and the Panasonic, or only the JPEG's? If the RAW's are the same, I might not be willing to spend the extra money.
foto_fool
Well-known
My father - they guy who sold his business and retired - has a D-Lux and I have the LX2 (OK and I admit a bit more gear and probably a higher card balance).
I have fondled both side-by-side and the two cameras feel pretty much identical. The Leica does look better - sleeker, more Teutonic.
Before I bought my LX2 I read a post somewhere that Panasonic had updated their processing engine. My dad and I have compared images from both cameras side-by-side on his Mac and there does not seem to be any consistent difference, even on skin tones. Noise at ISO1600 is the same.
We did not do side-by-side comparison of RAW images (dad's software is, well, soft - no RAW processor) so I can't speak directly to that question. Neither Leica nor Panasonic are liable to divulge their firmware, especially if there are no differences. But I would bet that since both cameras use the same sensor the pixel processing algorithm is the same, and so the RAW files should be the same.
Bottom line: dad likes the red dot. I already have an M6, and I like the extra $200 in my pocket I can put towards a new CV 21/4P.
- John
I have fondled both side-by-side and the two cameras feel pretty much identical. The Leica does look better - sleeker, more Teutonic.
Before I bought my LX2 I read a post somewhere that Panasonic had updated their processing engine. My dad and I have compared images from both cameras side-by-side on his Mac and there does not seem to be any consistent difference, even on skin tones. Noise at ISO1600 is the same.
We did not do side-by-side comparison of RAW images (dad's software is, well, soft - no RAW processor) so I can't speak directly to that question. Neither Leica nor Panasonic are liable to divulge their firmware, especially if there are no differences. But I would bet that since both cameras use the same sensor the pixel processing algorithm is the same, and so the RAW files should be the same.
Bottom line: dad likes the red dot. I already have an M6, and I like the extra $200 in my pocket I can put towards a new CV 21/4P.
- John
MelanieC
Well-known
The RAW files from the D-Lux 3 and the LX2 are exactly the same. There is supposedly slightly different processing involved with jpegs and apparently the LX2 allows a higher max ISO than the D-Lux 3.
I had a D-Lux 3 that I had received as a gift, and LOVED it. The level of manual control it gives you is fabulous and the joystick controls make it incredibly simple to change settings quickly. I wish my dSLR was set up as intelligently. Yes, it is noisy at higher ISOs but the 100 and 200 ISO files are to die for and with IS I was able to handhold some pretty slow shots. I used RAW for everything except casual snapshots. I found that even the RAW files needed very little post-processing.
There are two things I would change about the camera if I could. First, I would get rid of the protruding lens barrel so that it would be more pocketable. The protuding lens barrel does make a big difference in terms of stashing the thing in one pocket or another and makes it difficult to find a camera case that fits. Second, I would have an auto lens cap and not a separate lens cap that needs to be manually removed and that can get lost (very annoying). Other than that I had no complaints. Even the time between shots shooting in RAW was quite acceptable to me, but I tend not to need to take many shots in quick sequence. Some examples here (the first two shot in RAW and the last as a jpeg):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloriver/362874659/in/set-72157600005622875/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloriver/343482641/in/set-72157600005622875/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloriver/362874658/in/set-72157594491325066/
Personally, I think any small digicam makes a poor "stealth" camera because generally you have to hold it up and out in front of your face to take a photo, but to each her own.
My D-Lux 3 was stolen (I got mugged) and I would LOVE to replace it with another one, because it was sexy and black and gorgeous, but given the $250 price difference I have ordered an LX2 instead, in silver because I think the LX2 looks better in silver than in black. Same camera, different outfit, I'm sure I'll be just as happy with the images.
For me the GR-D was a no-go because of the slow RAW write speed and because I think it's butt ugly. As far as I know, no other small digital cameras shoot in RAW so I did not seriously consider others.
I had a D-Lux 3 that I had received as a gift, and LOVED it. The level of manual control it gives you is fabulous and the joystick controls make it incredibly simple to change settings quickly. I wish my dSLR was set up as intelligently. Yes, it is noisy at higher ISOs but the 100 and 200 ISO files are to die for and with IS I was able to handhold some pretty slow shots. I used RAW for everything except casual snapshots. I found that even the RAW files needed very little post-processing.
There are two things I would change about the camera if I could. First, I would get rid of the protruding lens barrel so that it would be more pocketable. The protuding lens barrel does make a big difference in terms of stashing the thing in one pocket or another and makes it difficult to find a camera case that fits. Second, I would have an auto lens cap and not a separate lens cap that needs to be manually removed and that can get lost (very annoying). Other than that I had no complaints. Even the time between shots shooting in RAW was quite acceptable to me, but I tend not to need to take many shots in quick sequence. Some examples here (the first two shot in RAW and the last as a jpeg):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloriver/362874659/in/set-72157600005622875/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloriver/343482641/in/set-72157600005622875/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soloriver/362874658/in/set-72157594491325066/
Personally, I think any small digicam makes a poor "stealth" camera because generally you have to hold it up and out in front of your face to take a photo, but to each her own.
My D-Lux 3 was stolen (I got mugged) and I would LOVE to replace it with another one, because it was sexy and black and gorgeous, but given the $250 price difference I have ordered an LX2 instead, in silver because I think the LX2 looks better in silver than in black. Same camera, different outfit, I'm sure I'll be just as happy with the images.
For me the GR-D was a no-go because of the slow RAW write speed and because I think it's butt ugly. As far as I know, no other small digital cameras shoot in RAW so I did not seriously consider others.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I like my Canon SureShot SD-10, it is closer in size to a BIC lighter than a pack of cigs. No zoom, just very small, and very good at 4 MPs. I'm looking at this the way the poster did, what else to take with me when I go out with my RF. I also have a pocket tripod from B&H that is great to compliment both cameras
ambientmick
Established
MelanieC said:
Thanks for the information. Sorry to here you were mugged
Just a couple of questions: I was considering the Canon G7 as well as the LX2 but the G7 doesn't produce RAW files. How well do the LX2/D-LUX 3 RAW files clean up in post-processing at higher iso (400+)? I mostly do street stuff and actually don't mind some noise but does the noise have the characteristics of film grain in b&w as the GR-D does?
Bingley
Veteran
Does anyone know about the Lumix DMC-TZ3? Appears to be a little larger (and more solid?) than the FX-01/FX-07, but still has the 28 mm lens. Has anyone used it?
5:00 PM
It's a light machine
No RAW, but I just can't say enough good things about high-end Canon A-series PowerShots (currently the A630 and A640, but the discontinued A620 is just as good). These cameras make images of a quality that is completely out of proportion to their price. But what makes them incredible stealth machines is their foldout, swiveling LCDs. Once you work with one of these for a while, you'll never be happy with anything else. You can shoot from waist level and people will think you are checking your e-mail; the A620 is the closest thing to an invisible camera I've ever used. And they run forever on 4 AA batteries and they fit in a jacket pocket and they have a grip like a real camera and they are dirt cheap...and so on.
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
FUJI Finepix F30/F31D1 BEST iso all around, 0.1sec to shoot... best image, nothing beats it!
only 35mm rats...
only 35mm rats...
pvdhaar
Peter
Different bundles too.. software and memory cards that is. But that may depend on country of course..ambientmick said:
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I have never liked Panasonic's image engines, either too noisy, or too much noise reduction.
but just to comment on the Oly C-5050, the ISO400 noise is slim to none, in fact anyone who has ever used one always says its either ISO100 or 400, because the image algorithms were actually optimized for its ISO400 hence why they limited that camera too that as its highest ISO.
As far as my personal recommendation, I have the Fuji F30 and have been incredibly happy with it as my carry with me camera....
I used to document my recent wheel bearing problem with my car
http://flickr.com/photos/pnettlet/sets/72157600041502053/
All photos were either at ISO800 or ISO1600 ... yes I wish the lens was a little wider, but its useful at 35mm
I will say if you did go this route... go with the F31FD or if you have a preference to SD cards go with the F40FD (though more expensive and a slightly noisier)
Mel: Sorry to hear about your mugging, as I did notice a lack of D-Lux pics from your flickr stream, not that we don't love your Rollei pics of your borders
but just to comment on the Oly C-5050, the ISO400 noise is slim to none, in fact anyone who has ever used one always says its either ISO100 or 400, because the image algorithms were actually optimized for its ISO400 hence why they limited that camera too that as its highest ISO.
As far as my personal recommendation, I have the Fuji F30 and have been incredibly happy with it as my carry with me camera....
I used to document my recent wheel bearing problem with my car
http://flickr.com/photos/pnettlet/sets/72157600041502053/
All photos were either at ISO800 or ISO1600 ... yes I wish the lens was a little wider, but its useful at 35mm
I will say if you did go this route... go with the F31FD or if you have a preference to SD cards go with the F40FD (though more expensive and a slightly noisier)
Mel: Sorry to hear about your mugging, as I did notice a lack of D-Lux pics from your flickr stream, not that we don't love your Rollei pics of your borders
Last edited: