Frontman
Well-known
Actually, I did mention that I use an optical finder on my LX5. Two finders are available, one optical, the other is a digital model, both work great.
Which LUMIX model would you recommend?
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 68
- Views 8K
NickTrop
Veteran
Raid - even though it's a battery hog by todays standards, I still hold on to my FZ1. I know it can do a good 8X10 print. It won't hold up to pixel-peeping but prints are another matter. I'll take that 2.8 through the zoom range, plus the IS over the additional megapixels. The only way Panny was able to maintain this spec was by using tiny sensors. As megapixels went up, the sensor size increased, and this spec went out the window on the tele side. Now - they're "just another" compact superzoom: 3.5-5.6 (or whatever), average specs. 12X optical zoom (with image stabilization) and F2.8 is a real luxury. What camera can zoom out to a 420mm (I think) 35mm equivalent at F2.8? - and that you can handhold because of IS? None that I'm aware of. (Plus this camera does double duty as an IR camera with the Hoya 72 filter...) Although the FZ5 loses a stop to 3.5 at the telephoto end, still most zooms start at 3.5 on the wide side. That's why I suggest considering holding on to what you have. Nobody would consider "only" a 5 megapixel camera these days (and 2 megapixels? Are you kiddin' me?) and as a result a zoom lens that's this bright throughout the zoom range is (and has been, and forever shall be) a thing of the past.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Nick,
Thanks for the tip to use the Hoya 72 filter.
The max aperture 2.8-3.3 is very impressive, as you have said.
It is half a stop slower at the longer end than 2.8.
The image stabilizer lets me take hand held photos with a 430mm lens. It is amazing.
Maybe "less" is better after all.
What I found on the FZ5:
Announced just before PMA in February 2005, the DMC-FZ5 is one of two direct sucessors to the popular (and dpreview Highly Recommended) DMC-FZ3. Like its predecessor the FZ5 sports a Leica-branded DC Vario-Elmarit zoom with a whopping 12x optical range (35-420mm equiv), though the larger sensor has resulted in a slightly slower F2.8-F3.3 aperture range. It also boasts the same newly-improved optical image stabilization system and the Venus II engine, which, according to Panasonic's documentation, is now equivalent to shooting at 3 or 4 shutter speed steps faster - (the figure for the FZ20 was quoted as 2 or 3 shutter speed steps).
Aside from the boost from 3 to 5 million pixels (bringing it in line with the high-end DMC-FZ20), the FZ5 has a range of relatively minor changes over the FZ3, including longer battery life, a repositioned shutter release and improved grip design, larger LCD screen, orientation sensor and a new fast focus mode, which Panasonic claims gives a 30% improvement on the previous model.
•5.0 million effective pixels
•36 - 432mm (equiv.) F2.8-3.3, 12x Leica DC VARIO-ELMARIT Zoom Lens
•Mega O.I.S (optical image stabilisation)
•1.8-inch colour screen
•New fast focus mode
•Improved battery life
•New orientation sensor
•Venus II image processing engine
•9 scene modes and full photographic control
•TIFF mode
•Ultra-fast startup, focus, shutter lag and shot-to-shot time
•'Simple' mode for novice photographers
Thanks for the tip to use the Hoya 72 filter.
The max aperture 2.8-3.3 is very impressive, as you have said.
It is half a stop slower at the longer end than 2.8.
The image stabilizer lets me take hand held photos with a 430mm lens. It is amazing.
Maybe "less" is better after all.
What I found on the FZ5:
Announced just before PMA in February 2005, the DMC-FZ5 is one of two direct sucessors to the popular (and dpreview Highly Recommended) DMC-FZ3. Like its predecessor the FZ5 sports a Leica-branded DC Vario-Elmarit zoom with a whopping 12x optical range (35-420mm equiv), though the larger sensor has resulted in a slightly slower F2.8-F3.3 aperture range. It also boasts the same newly-improved optical image stabilization system and the Venus II engine, which, according to Panasonic's documentation, is now equivalent to shooting at 3 or 4 shutter speed steps faster - (the figure for the FZ20 was quoted as 2 or 3 shutter speed steps).
Aside from the boost from 3 to 5 million pixels (bringing it in line with the high-end DMC-FZ20), the FZ5 has a range of relatively minor changes over the FZ3, including longer battery life, a repositioned shutter release and improved grip design, larger LCD screen, orientation sensor and a new fast focus mode, which Panasonic claims gives a 30% improvement on the previous model.
•5.0 million effective pixels
•36 - 432mm (equiv.) F2.8-3.3, 12x Leica DC VARIO-ELMARIT Zoom Lens
•Mega O.I.S (optical image stabilisation)
•1.8-inch colour screen
•New fast focus mode
•Improved battery life
•New orientation sensor
•Venus II image processing engine
•9 scene modes and full photographic control
•TIFF mode
•Ultra-fast startup, focus, shutter lag and shot-to-shot time
•'Simple' mode for novice photographers
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
I'd do a little homework before investing in an IR filter for the FZ5. Not sure if it would work as well on this camera as the FZ1. One check is to shine a remote control into the lens and see if the light shows up in the viewfinder. It does on the FZ1.
Here's an old article in WaPo by Frank Van Riper on the "old" FZ1 that's a fun read.
Frank Van Riper on Photography
FZ-1: A Pro-Level Digital Point & Shoot
Months went by and I never got around to getting the camera from Panasonic, much less to doing a review. As it happened, at the final f.65 lunch before the summer Bruce brought in a number of 8x10 and other prints he had made to show off to his colleagues. They were spectacular, but we all have come to expect spectacular prints from Bruce – who now is widely seen as one of the best digital printers around. These prints included several pictures of animals, including a gorgeous, incredibly sharp and detailed close-up of the head of a gorilla.
I assumed he had made the shots on assignment, with a big gun 35mm camera and an equally big gun lens. Nope, Bruce said, it was during a family outing at the zoo and he had made the pix on his widdle FZ-1.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030807.htm
So, my recommendation? Might be the FZ1, which goes for chump change last time I saw one on eBay. There's a firmware hack probably out of the web somewhere that gives it shutter and aperture priority - works a charm...
Here's an old article in WaPo by Frank Van Riper on the "old" FZ1 that's a fun read.
Frank Van Riper on Photography
FZ-1: A Pro-Level Digital Point & Shoot
Months went by and I never got around to getting the camera from Panasonic, much less to doing a review. As it happened, at the final f.65 lunch before the summer Bruce brought in a number of 8x10 and other prints he had made to show off to his colleagues. They were spectacular, but we all have come to expect spectacular prints from Bruce – who now is widely seen as one of the best digital printers around. These prints included several pictures of animals, including a gorgeous, incredibly sharp and detailed close-up of the head of a gorilla.
I assumed he had made the shots on assignment, with a big gun 35mm camera and an equally big gun lens. Nope, Bruce said, it was during a family outing at the zoo and he had made the pix on his widdle FZ-1.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030807.htm
So, my recommendation? Might be the FZ1, which goes for chump change last time I saw one on eBay. There's a firmware hack probably out of the web somewhere that gives it shutter and aperture priority - works a charm...
raid
Dad Photographer
Is the FZ3 better than the FZ1?
It also has a constant 2.8 zoom.
It also has a constant 2.8 zoom.
NickTrop
Veteran
I don't know, Raid. I think the original Panny FZ's from the FZ1-FZ5 were the best. After that they started using larger sensors and their zooms lost that unique brightness spec. FZ3 gives you some more resolution, but "I think" (don't quote me) that some/many/most/all of those 2.1 sensors from 6-7 years ago didn't have as strong IR filters, which gave them their IR capabilities with an IR filter. "I think" when they switched to larger or different sensors they used stronger IR filtering. That's why I hang on to the FZ1. Again, one of my favorite photos I have framed of my son is an 8x10 from this 2.1mp camera. Here's a sample IR shot I made I took with the FZ1 from 2005:
raid
Dad Photographer
Hm. Your suspicion could be right, Nick.
The IR feature by itself would make the purchase of such a camera worthwhile..
The IR feature by itself would make the purchase of such a camera worthwhile..
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
I think it is... they're a little tough to find on auction sites (I only looked a couple times out of curiosity) but when they come up they're not expensive. Count on getting a spare battery.
amhildreth
Hootie-Hoo
I've always gotten excellent results with my DMC-LZ7. A 2.8 lens and a compact package.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Yup, you're right. Sorry about that, David.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Well, my daughter bought an LX3 and I have to say she (and I) are delighted with it.
If I were looking to buy a similar type of camera today I'd get the LX5 - if nothing else the zoom range is a little more extended and it will take the EVF that fits the GF1. Now that's not the greatest EVF in the world but it's pretty useful in strong light conditions and I use it all the time on my GF1.
GF1? I actually thought of selling it and getting an LX5 but haven't pulled the trigger on that one yet. Without a zoom lens it doesn't do anything that my M6 can do for me fitted with a prime lens. With a zoom lens it's bulky and offers no advantage in carrying. To be honest, the GF1 is now only used to grab a shot (set an auto everything) when I don't have the time or available light for the M6 or I want to send something on email quickly.
The LX5 would fill that role quite adequately and in a much smaller package. The Leica V20 or its Panasonic equivalent is even smaller.
If I were looking to buy a similar type of camera today I'd get the LX5 - if nothing else the zoom range is a little more extended and it will take the EVF that fits the GF1. Now that's not the greatest EVF in the world but it's pretty useful in strong light conditions and I use it all the time on my GF1.
GF1? I actually thought of selling it and getting an LX5 but haven't pulled the trigger on that one yet. Without a zoom lens it doesn't do anything that my M6 can do for me fitted with a prime lens. With a zoom lens it's bulky and offers no advantage in carrying. To be honest, the GF1 is now only used to grab a shot (set an auto everything) when I don't have the time or available light for the M6 or I want to send something on email quickly.
The LX5 would fill that role quite adequately and in a much smaller package. The Leica V20 or its Panasonic equivalent is even smaller.
raid
Dad Photographer
Leight: you propose a $500 camera.
Nick: you propose a $40 camera.
Is it a choice?
Nick: you propose a $40 camera.
Is it a choice?
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Choice?
Choice?
I guess it is Raid, and it's yours to make. The difference between the prices might make it easier, but it also depends on your outlook. I used to have a bunch of old (non-digital) cameras, all in perfect working condition but I came to the conclusion that a lesser number of contemporary designs offered a better photography experience rather than obsessing nostalgically over a range of mechanical and optical features, elegant though they were (for their day).
So I sold them and only have the occasional twinge of regret that I don't have a IIIf to fondle. The only 'old' camera I now have is the Roilleiflex (if you don't count the M6 as old at 15 years) and I'll probably exchange the Rolleiflex for a Bessa III one day. Same rationale - modern features and convenience with equal image quality. Some might argue about the modernity of the Bessa III design, but the superb viewfinder/rangefinder and the AE exposure meter interest me. The recently announced GF670W also interests me. Those two MF's paired up as a kit would certainly bring on a GAS attack!
Choice?
I guess it is Raid, and it's yours to make. The difference between the prices might make it easier, but it also depends on your outlook. I used to have a bunch of old (non-digital) cameras, all in perfect working condition but I came to the conclusion that a lesser number of contemporary designs offered a better photography experience rather than obsessing nostalgically over a range of mechanical and optical features, elegant though they were (for their day).
So I sold them and only have the occasional twinge of regret that I don't have a IIIf to fondle. The only 'old' camera I now have is the Roilleiflex (if you don't count the M6 as old at 15 years) and I'll probably exchange the Rolleiflex for a Bessa III one day. Same rationale - modern features and convenience with equal image quality. Some might argue about the modernity of the Bessa III design, but the superb viewfinder/rangefinder and the AE exposure meter interest me. The recently announced GF670W also interests me. Those two MF's paired up as a kit would certainly bring on a GAS attack!
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Leigh,
I have been doing what you have described above.I sold off quite a few lenses and cameras and then bought a 35mm Lux and a 75mm Lux.
Here, it is a question what I would be adding to a DMC FZ5 5MP camera.
The FZ1 has the IR feature that is very appealing to me.
The LX5 has good features that may also be present in other LUMIX models.
I have been doing what you have described above.I sold off quite a few lenses and cameras and then bought a 35mm Lux and a 75mm Lux.
Here, it is a question what I would be adding to a DMC FZ5 5MP camera.
The FZ1 has the IR feature that is very appealing to me.
The LX5 has good features that may also be present in other LUMIX models.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Dare I ask what the LX-5 and the extra VF cost? And what do they look like?
Regards, David
PS If only there was a digital version of the µ[mju]-II I'd buy one like a shot.
Regards, David
PS If only there was a digital version of the µ[mju]-II I'd buy one like a shot.
raid
Dad Photographer
Hi David,
The LX5 costs about $500-$550 currently, but it will drop to $450 next year. I don't know about the cost of the VF. Maybe $100?
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
NickTrop
Veteran
Raid - here's my logic...
1. Money doesn't matter. Spending more doesn't make your pics better, you a better photographer, or provide a better tool, necessarily.
2. See all these "upsale" digicams that are in the $400 range? Keep'em. Why? Because they all have the same small sensors. Not a one of them will give you any better image quality.
3. Go for something that will give you a true, unique capability. I've always been an advocate of compact super zooms. Why? Because you can zoom out 12X optically and shoot hand-held. In the case of the FZ1, you get f2.8 through the entire zoom range. No other camera give you that. The output is perfectly fine with its Leica-designed lens with aspherical elements. It can also shoot IR. It costs $50. Maybe less. Its output will be comparable to the new cameras. Web - no difference, small prints - no difference, 8X10 - difference if you're looking for differences at close length. Hanging on a wall, framed from a few feet back? No difference. The FZ1 gives you something no other camera gives you. The other one that's $400 bucks? Just the latest in the "upper end" point-n-shoot category.
I'm going to see Robert Plant (Led Zep singer) at a small venue in January. I have a bunch of cameras... guess which one I'm bringing?
1. Money doesn't matter. Spending more doesn't make your pics better, you a better photographer, or provide a better tool, necessarily.
2. See all these "upsale" digicams that are in the $400 range? Keep'em. Why? Because they all have the same small sensors. Not a one of them will give you any better image quality.
3. Go for something that will give you a true, unique capability. I've always been an advocate of compact super zooms. Why? Because you can zoom out 12X optically and shoot hand-held. In the case of the FZ1, you get f2.8 through the entire zoom range. No other camera give you that. The output is perfectly fine with its Leica-designed lens with aspherical elements. It can also shoot IR. It costs $50. Maybe less. Its output will be comparable to the new cameras. Web - no difference, small prints - no difference, 8X10 - difference if you're looking for differences at close length. Hanging on a wall, framed from a few feet back? No difference. The FZ1 gives you something no other camera gives you. The other one that's $400 bucks? Just the latest in the "upper end" point-n-shoot category.
I'm going to see Robert Plant (Led Zep singer) at a small venue in January. I have a bunch of cameras... guess which one I'm bringing?
NickTrop
Veteran
Here's my current camera collection. Down to 1 rangefinder. Each is a tool that gives me something unique.
1. Panasonic Lumix FZ1v2: 12X optical zoom, equiv to 420mm lens in 35mm. Can hand-hold due to image stabilization. F2.8 throughout the zoom range. IR capable with filter.
2. Fuji Finepix F20: Digital point-n-shoot with unique Fuji SuperCCD that gives me a very good ISO 800. Camera I can slip into my pocket and shoot natural light in any situation.
3. Fujica Compact Deluxe: My favorite of all the classic RF's I've owned. Because I love shooting RFs.
4. Cosina Pentax K-mount SLR: Interchangable lens system with 19mm superwide lens, 50mm 1.4 Tak, Jupiter 9 f2 portrait.
5. Nikon D5000. DSLR w/ only 35mm f1.8. My "new" rangefinder. General purpose.
Each camera in this stable has a "reason to be". No redundancy, really. If I want to shoot portrats, I slap the J9 lens on my old SLR. If I just feel like shooting a RF I grab the Fuji. If I need a zoom or want to do IR, it's the old FZ1, which is intregal to this "stable".
The output of each of these cameras is just fine. Any +/- in output has to due with my own abilities - not the camera. And getting a better lens or better camera will not measurably improve output. Camera collection is based on its unique capability that can be matched to purpose, or in the case of the RF "mood".
A compact digital superzoom is "a must" IMO. And the FZ1 was the best - all things considered, because it gives you something the other can't at the expense of megapixels.
1. Panasonic Lumix FZ1v2: 12X optical zoom, equiv to 420mm lens in 35mm. Can hand-hold due to image stabilization. F2.8 throughout the zoom range. IR capable with filter.
2. Fuji Finepix F20: Digital point-n-shoot with unique Fuji SuperCCD that gives me a very good ISO 800. Camera I can slip into my pocket and shoot natural light in any situation.
3. Fujica Compact Deluxe: My favorite of all the classic RF's I've owned. Because I love shooting RFs.
4. Cosina Pentax K-mount SLR: Interchangable lens system with 19mm superwide lens, 50mm 1.4 Tak, Jupiter 9 f2 portrait.
5. Nikon D5000. DSLR w/ only 35mm f1.8. My "new" rangefinder. General purpose.
Each camera in this stable has a "reason to be". No redundancy, really. If I want to shoot portrats, I slap the J9 lens on my old SLR. If I just feel like shooting a RF I grab the Fuji. If I need a zoom or want to do IR, it's the old FZ1, which is intregal to this "stable".
The output of each of these cameras is just fine. Any +/- in output has to due with my own abilities - not the camera. And getting a better lens or better camera will not measurably improve output. Camera collection is based on its unique capability that can be matched to purpose, or in the case of the RF "mood".
A compact digital superzoom is "a must" IMO. And the FZ1 was the best - all things considered, because it gives you something the other can't at the expense of megapixels.
Last edited:
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
I like Nick's synopsis - wish I was as strong minded!
However I think I would ideally want one extra in his list - a basic camera that didn't need a battery, say, Olympus Trip. Then I think I might have 'all ends covered'.
jesse
However I think I would ideally want one extra in his list - a basic camera that didn't need a battery, say, Olympus Trip. Then I think I might have 'all ends covered'.
jesse
Similar threads
- Article
