alfarmer

And for the record, in low-light situations it can be around TEN SECONDS from the time you press the shutter button and the screen goes black until you are again allowed to press the shutter button. That's nowhere near 1.4fps either.

Sorry, but there's NO WAY you're getting off 70 shots with this camera. Those guys must have been smoking some serious weed...

Yes, flash was off. So either the CPU is underpowered or there isn't enough buffer memory. In my experience, the Panasonic/Lumix P&S cameras are practically devoid of buffer memory -- so they're 100% dependent upon the speed of the SD card.

 

Canon, at least my 700IS, seems to have more buffer memory -- but I don't know how much it actually has. Since the most problematic shots are those with less light, it could very well be a CPU bottleneck because it's doing more noise reduction.

 

ALF

I have an SD-700IS and really like the build quality and size. Images are

mostly okay, so long as there's PLENTY of light. And movies are actually pretty

good too. But things it doesn't do that I'd like are:

 

1. Greater focal range, especially on the wide end.

2. Aperture & Shutter Priority modes. Full manual

control would be nice, but not necessary.

3. Separate controls for focus & exposure lock -- I really

like locking exposure then recomposing for focus.

4. Actually usable high-ISO performance (at least good ISO 800).

5. Reduced delay between shots. This means buffer memory too, not

just shutter lag. So many times I've been unable to take the next

shot because the previous one is still writing to the card (yes,

even with expensive, supposedly super-fast SD cards).

 

The only requirement I have that would affect models/brands available to me is

that I want to continue using SD cards. I won't buy Sony products because of

their stupid proprietary approach to memory, but I also don't want to invest in

a new memory cards when I have plenty of SD cards laying around.

 

Things that aren't important to me include: Sheer number of megapixels, face

recognition, etc. But it appears as though I'll have little choice in those, as

everyone now has them.

 

In the Canon lineup, the SD870 seems like a potential good choice. The G9 also

seems like a good possibility, though it is a bit larger and potentially less

pocketable. Some have said the G7 is just as good and should now be a lot

cheaper. Apparently the only difference is RAW support? The SD900 has also

been getting rave reviews, but it doesn't seem that much of an upgrade from my

SD-700IS.

 

I'd consider other brands, but am not as familiar with them, so feel free to

throw out suggestions. :-)

 

Regards,

ALF

Thanks for the two sample pix, but the first one is too blurry for me and the second one has way plenty of light. Are the cameras in question pocketable? FWIW, I've heard good things about Fuji models in the past and am anxiously waiting for their new lineup to appear near Christmas this year.

 

FWIW, I currently use a Canon 700IS and used a Lumix before that (can't recall the model number). And even earlier, I used a Minolta dImage -- which oddly enough gave me fantastic results with enough light.

 

I have high hopes for some of the cameras coming out this fall, but we'll see. Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention was shot lag. Panasonic is the worst for this, at least in my experience with their compact cameras. Sometimes it would take 3-5 SECONDS between press and shot. That's just unacceptable by any standard. I settled on my current Canon model mostly because it's usually around one second. Not great, but much better than most.

 

ALF

I have yet to see a small, pocketable P&S camera that can shoot at ISO 800 or greater. For me, that's the holy grail and I'll buy the first one that works.

 

People always say companies give the market what it demands, but in this case it demands a small P&S that can take pictures indoors for kids' birthday parties, etc. Without flash, without blur, and with crisp, sharp focus. So where is it?

 

Canon? Nikon? Anyone?

 

ALF

JC:

 

Yep, that's why I suggested it be an option in the setup menu, as it is on the EOS cameras for AE lock using the shutter release.

 

ALF

It's certainly possible to take pictuers you don't want this way, but it seems to me at least

that the ACCIDENT rate would go down for people without super-accurate finger control.

 

The Canon EOS series of cameras (and probably all dSLRs really) have the separate button

configuration option for shutter lock and AE lock. Since it's possible, it'd just be nice for an

easier option on P&S bodies.

 

ALF

Hi, all.

 

I was just wondering why no manufacturer (to my knowledge) has changed the

paradigm of the shutter release button on their P&S cameras. Specifically, on

pretty much any of them you can hold the button halfway down to set focus, then

press all the way to shoot.

 

But why not at least have a setup option to make it work easier for people with

imprecise fingers? I know I've screwed up plenty of times and accidentally

pressed all the way down, taking a picture I didn't want.

 

My idea for such a user interface tweak? How about pressing all the way down on

the shutter release button locks focus, then letting go of the shutter release

button takes the picture? A small tweak, but one that I'm sure many people

would appreciate. What do you think?

 

Cheers,

ALF

Hi, all.

 

I finally decided to try the D-LUX3 and wow, what a complicated camera! It's

got more options than any other P&S I've seen.

 

One of the things that's confusing to me is the EZ (extended zoom) modes. I

read the manual and still don't get it. Somehow they achieve up to 6x OPTICAL

zoom by reducing the Megapixel count of the snapped image. Anyone here able to

explain how they do that a bit better?

 

Also, the manual mentions extending on the long end, but does it affect the wide

end too? I'm thinking it sacrifices the 28mm equivalent as well, shifting the

whole range long -- true?

 

The other question I have is regarding RAW. I have what is supposed to be a

FAST SD card, but those RAW files still take quite a while to write. Is there a

camera bottleneck or is it totally dependent on the SD card?

 

Lastly, what do you other D-LUX3 owners think of the camera after having used it

for a while? Presumably the corresponding Lumix has all the same features, so

I'd be interested in hearing from those owners as well.

 

Cheers,

ALF

Do I print images at that size? Not always, but it's been known to happen. More importantly, I do crop quite a lot -- and frequently. That's one of the reasons why I got the 5D over the 30D, though the 5D has turned out to have even greater virtues.

 

All P&S have noise at high ISO? Good to know. That was really the thrust of my original question anyhow. But the other issue I've noticed is a decided lack of sharpness. Combine that with Noise Ninja or one of the others and you're looking at excessively soft images a lot of the time.

 

Oddly enough, I used to have a dImage Xt (back in the day...) and it produced very sharp images. Sure they were "only" 3MP, but they were tack-sharp -- at least as good as I ever got out of the 20D. The rush to put 10MP in the same space is a VERY bad thing, IMHO...

 

ALF

Thanks for the answers, everyone.

 

As for "getting out and taking shots", I'm already doing that with my 5D. That's why my standards for low noise are so high. But I can't always have the 5D and several lenses with me, so I'm considering P&S options.

 

The Canon G7 and Nikon P5000 were recommended by the store clerk for high ISO performance, but once again online reviewers disagree. And I do take online reviews with a grain of salt -- it's just that when they all say the same thing, it tends to be true.

 

But the bottom line of what I'm hearing is at 100 ISO they're all fine, assuming enough light, but they're all equally disappointing in available light situations. I don't know one way or the other, but was hoping there was a standout high-ISO P&S that I just didn't know about. Oh well.

 

And yeah, the Leica logo sure costs a premium. I'm amazed they have the gall to charge so much more, given everyone knows it's exactly the same innards as the Lumix. I just happen to like the look & build of the D-LUX3 more than the corresponding Lumix.

 

ALF

Hello.

 

I was very interested in the Leica D-LUX3 because of the styling, size, and

focal range. Then I started reading reviews and noticed a trend for both Leica

and Panasonic P&S cameras -- very bad noise.

 

From the research I've done on the web, there is no Panasonic-made Lumix/Leica

model that doesn't suffer from (apparently) horrible noise issues at anything

over ISO 100. In addition, they all seem to get lambasted for poor performance

(time between shots, shutter lag, etc.).

 

Also, most of the negative reviews were from professional photographers and

serious amateurs, not general consumers. Joe Average seems perfectly content

with these cameras.

 

My question is whether I'm missing something or there really are product-wide

issues with Lumix/Leica P&S cameras when it comes to higher ISO noise and

overall system performance?

 

I'm hoping I just missed something, as I really do like the look, feel, and

build of the D-LUX3. However, I'm very tempted to wait and see if the new

version supposedly due at the end of summer fixes these issues.

 

Any advice or recommendations?

 

Cheers,

ALF

Thanks, Michael!

 

There seems to be some debate over on Amazon about the quality of the LX2 and corresponding Leica model. There are a lot of high ratings, but every low rating mentions the same problems -- with poor high ISO performance being the most problematic for me.

 

Personally, I'd be happy with a 6MP P&S that has a larger sensor to reduce noice. That and good high ISO performance, though I'm unaware of any P&S camera that works well at ISO 800 -- much less 1600.

 

Cheers,

ALF

I've been considering Panasonic & Lumix compact P&S models because I like their

styling and feature sets, but haven't actually been able to find Leica models in

a store. What I'm wondering is if there's any real & noticable differences

between the two on a per-model basis.

 

It seems that for every Lumix model there is a corresponding "Lux" model, which

supposedly has different firmware or something. In theory they have the same

optics, but I don't know. Are the differences worth the extra $100 or more per

camera?

 

What would make the difference for me would be things like better optics,

greater focal range, greater aperture range, manual controls or AV/TV priority

modes, and speed. Especially speed, because a lot of the Lumix (Panasonic)

cameras I've played with are S-L-O-W. They seem to be underpowered in the

processor or lacking enough memory to get off more than one shot at a time, etc.

My hope would be that the Leica models would address that issue.

 

Anyhow, if you've got any experience or knowledge in this area, I'd appreciate

hearing about it.

 

Cheers,

ALF

I really liked the 60mm EFS macro, but switched to the 100mm when going from the 20D to the 5D. If you think you'll stick with 20D/30D/... then the 60mm EFS is the way to go, IMHO, unless you want more working distance. Then definitely the 100mm.

 

ALF

Well, I don't know about others but my 16-35L performs just fine. The only issues I've noticed are slight distortion & vignetting at 16mm/f2.8 on the 5D -- but show me any other lens at this price or less that doesn't have those effects when fully open so wide. It just comes with the territory, but also explains why the MkII version has an 82mm thread.

 

People are entitled to their opinions, of course, but the 16-35L gets bashed a bit too much I think. Probably because of the price. And just because a new one's coming out doesn't mean the old one sucks -- just that the new one is supposed to be better. But then again, I heard that about the new 50mmf/1.2L too. But that lens proved quite disappointing for me, compared the f/1.4.

 

Just my $0.02...

 

ALF

I received my brand new 50L yesterday and took a bunch of controlled shots using both a 5D and a 30D, and got the same results every time -- sharp at f/1.2 and f/2.8, soft at f/1.8. Since every shot across two cameras had this result, there's definitely something funky with this lens. I know people like to blame "that copy" of the lens, but this sort of thing has happened to others as well. Canon's definitely got some quality control issues right now with this new lens.

 

That said, I don't know if the problem is optical or it's just that the AF is off. I suspect the AF, but I will say the lens focuses quickly. Much quicker than the 85L, but then again less glass to move.

 

Lastly, I must chime in with my agreement about sharpness. For this kind of money the excuse about how hard it is (waaaaa!) to make an f/1.2 sharp doesn't hold water. My copies of the 35L, 85L, and 135L are all quite sharp wide open and their AF is accurate.

 

People need to stop making excuses for Canon on the 50L -- they've simply screwed up. I'm sure they'll fix it over time, but I'd recommend against getting the 50L until they do.

 

ALF

Not a bad idea at all, IMHO, unless you'll be switching to a 5D or 1D anytime in the next year or two.

 

ALF

Another vote for the 17-40L here. On a crop lens it'll give you high quality midrange focal length shots, such as indoor family events (just crank the ISO). And when he goes to a 5D, he'll love it even more. :-)

 

ALF

The EFS 10-22mm was an incredible lens for me on my 20D. Can't recommend it enough.

 

ALF

Thanks to everyone for their input, though not all of it is clear to me. My Photoshop skills are pretty basic.

 

As for the JPG thing, I still have the .CR2 file. I just uploaded a smaller version for easier discussion.

 

Cheers,

ALF

Hello.

<br><br><p>

I took a picture last month that I really like and want to print it in Black &

White. Unfortunately some of the shades are pretty subtle on the dark end. In

fact, if you view the picture here:

<br><br><p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/5330938

<br><br><p>

You will most likely see nothing but a black splotch in the lower-right quarter

of the image. But on my very-recently-calibrated monitor in Photoshop, that's

not what I see. Part of this has to do with viewing it in a web browser (vs.

Photoshop), but based on past experience the "mass printers" like Walmart or

Snapfish will print total blackness there as well.

<br><br><p>

So what should I do to get the best print out of this picture? I'm soliciting

all advice, not just what print shop to use (thought that'd certainly be quite

useful). For example, what other modifications can I or should I make within

Photoshop before sending to a printer? Brightening, channel adjustments,

cropping, etc. It's all fair game.

<br><br><p>

Your help in my education is most appreciated. :-)

<br><br><br><p>

Cheers,

<br>

ALF

Hi, all.

 

I use a Spyder to calibrate my monitors monthly so I believe my color profiles are accurate. Discounting

that, I'm trying to figure out why my prints always come back so much darker when I send them to Apple

or Snapfish. When I print at home, everything's fine. When I print at Walgreens via Snapfish, everything's

fine. But printing with Snapfish or Apple directly yields VERY dark results. Even if I crank everything up

using Photoshop's Curves adjustment, the prints are darker than what I get at home or see on screen.

 

Should I simply switch to another online printer? One that may perhaps give a hoot about the quality of

their work? Snapfish, for one, won't reprint based upon me saying the prints were dark.

 

My equipment:

 

* Mac G5 tower

* ViewSonice LCD monitor

* Canon s820 printer

 

Thanks much,

ALF

Hi.

 

I wasn't sure where to post this, but here goes.

 

I'm looking for a digital picture frame with high-quality LCD display that

displays a 6x4 ratio well from SD and CF cards. The best one I've found so far

with any sense of style is this one:

 

http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/20/philips-7ff1aw-digital-photo-display-review/

 

Before purchasing I wanted to check with people here to see if there's anything

else out there of which I'm simply unaware.

 

Thank you,

Anthony Farmer