TL 500 first impressions

[eric_arnold]

<p>great lil' camera.</p><div></div>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>What's your take on its shortcomings, Eric? Rainy in the Bay Area? </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hey leslie, i'm still evaluating, only had it for a few days, but...</p>

<p>off-top i would say the pros far outfavor the cons.</p>

<p>pros:</p>

<ul>

<li>compact</li>

<li>excellent build quality</li>

<li>excellent AMOLED monitor; flip-out screen offers many framing/composition options</li>

<li>1.8 lens is decently sharp due to increased DoF with P&S sensor</li>

<li>good skin tones</li>

<li>24mm lens is sufficiently wide</li>

<li>almost no shutter lag</li>

<li>fast AF with many options, including focus tracking, spot/CW/multi</li>

<li>face recognition works well</li>

<li>Auto mode makes good decisions (prioritizes aperture over shutter/ISO)</li>

<li>Fairly intuitive camera--menus arranged intelligently without too many options per menu</li>

<li>Easy to quickly change settings once you figure out menus system</li>

<li>Highly customizable-- full manual, P/A/S modes; picture styles allow for in-camera editing; </li>

<li>Dynamic range not as good as DSLR</li>

</ul>

<p>cons:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>a bit quirky, especially at first</li>

<li>some gimmicky options designed for beginners get in the way of advanced features</li>

<li>ISO 800 is about as high as you want to go</li>

<li>AF has selectable points but only in middle of the VF (no wrap-around)</li>

<li>exp. comp hard to set in M mode</li>

<li>wide apertures don't have shallow DoF (this may be possible in macro mode--haven't tried it)</li>

<li>zoom only goes to 72mm (but is 2.4)</li>

<li>colors can be a little cool</li>

<li>no threads for filters</li>

</ul>

<p>overall, i would say this might be the king of the low-light compacts, but with a few caveats (mostly noted above). it's probably better for people pics than landscapes</p>

<p>i shot it side by side with a D3s+24-70 at a friend's party, and, surprisingly, there were a few shots which i couldn't automatically tell which camera was used. i would say that's pretty good.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>and here's a d3s shot...</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the tl500 shot actually looks cleaner because it was shot with a much lower ISO. in the D3s shot, the combination of high ISO and the neon sign in the background results in a bit of overexposure. the downside is that with the d3s i was able to shoot at much higher shutter speeds, whereas with the TL500, some motion blur is evident.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>..and the tl500</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>it's worth noting that there is only one lens i know of which would allow me to shoot at 24mm and 1.8 on FF, the sigma 24/1.8, which is not known for sharpness wide-open. because of this, the TL500 wins.</p>

<p>in the above two pics, the d3s did very well at 3200 ISO, and i probably could have used a slower shutter to let in more light. the shadow areas are particularly noise-free. the tl500, OTOH, took a brighter pic with a faster aperture and slower shutter, and while there's clearly not as much dynamic range, it's more than acceptable for a snapshot (and maybe even publication).</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>and here's a pic in good light</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>too late to edit, but lack of dynamic range vs. DSLR should be a "con"</p>

<p>the main advantage of this camera, however, is that its small, quick, light, and competent. it can get the shot you might have missed fiddling with a bulky DSLR. which is what i got it for.</p><div></div>

[railphotog]

<p>TL 500 - eight posts and only one has a hint that the camera is a Samsung, listed in the caption. I didn't have a clue who made it before that caption!</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hmm, that wasn't intentional, as its been discussed before. but, yeah, who woulda thunk'it? someone has been paying attention in their R&D dept...</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Well, I have read and seen the great stuffs/positives. That's why I asked for the negatives only...Are they work arounds/fixed? </p>

<p>It's huge RAW files...is it still huge because I have an ancient Mac with 1G of memory so I might need to upgrade that before considering the EX1. </p>

<p>Is there a battery charger yet? I'd hate to charge the thing via usb on camera only. </p>

<p>How is the AF? I asked because the LX5 (other cam i like) is freaking fast for a compact according to www.imaging-resource.com and users alike...</p>

<p>Is the EX1 jpeg doable? I hear they smear the jpeg with too much NR and it is not user controllable. </p>

<p>How is the IS? Again, the IS on the panasonic is freaking brilliant. I shoot 1/15-1/8 sec( w/LX3) and it work good!</p>

<p>That's all I can remember, Eric. What's your take on those? </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>leslie,<br>

haven't shot with RAW yet. i'm waiting until i can install Lightroom because i just want to have one RAW editor. 1 g is a little low as far as RAM, i would at least go to 2g</p>

<p>the battery charger is available third-party; also, the OEM USB cord is dual function--it detaches so you can use AC or USB. it's a little short, though.</p>

<p>AF is very fast, almost no shutter lag. this makes the camera very usable, esp. in Auto mode.</p>

<p>all the pics i posted were jpegs, so i'd say doable. NR is not user controllable but i got decent results out of the camera.</p>

<p>IS works well. it wont stop subject movement, but pics at 1/10 came out fine.</p>

<p>overall, i would say if you really want an LX5, get an LX5.it has a slightly longer zoom range and a slightly slower aperture. the Panny has more vivid colors so better for landscape, but skin tones are allegedly not so hot, as are colors in low-light, which defeats the purpose of the slightly-better high ISO. but with the TL500, you can shoot at a faster aperture and keep the iso at 800 max.</p>

<p>also, video is definitely better on the LX5, which is not a biggie for me.</p>

<p>so far, i'm happy with the TL500 and will be keeping it. one thing i don't like is the OEM strap, i'll probably be replacing that with something that doesn't advertise for Samsung (and has grip material on the underside) soon.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>No need yet, I still dig the LX3:)</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Glad you're enjoying it, I am too!</p>

[kobye]

<p>I am enjoying mine as well! I picked it after considering and handling the usual suspects. The lens speed one for me as it offered about a stop at the longer end over the alternatives.<br>

After using it for a couple weeks I am happy with it. A couple nits, just like any camera. no histogram review, no blinking highlights, moderately ok metering, wish it showed effective focal length and retained last used zoom setting... big deal. It didn't take me long to figure out how the metering sees the world. I think having experience shooting film with my FM3a for so long makes those kinds of adjustments from my D300 no big deal. It has served its purpose just great, and I have several shots I wouldn't have that I really like as my D300 would have been @ home in the bag. great compliment to a dslr for me.<br>

I have raw files saved but wont check them out or process until I install lightroom or PS5/ACR. Have been happily using NX2 for so long, so need to settle on raw converter. An enjoyable camera that just doesnt get much in the way.</p>