steven_mj

<p>Not long ago I would have said many of the things that I have read others say here, but when traveling now -- and the fact that now I shoot everything in RAW format -- I have found that it is not worth the weight and space. Adobe Camera Raw's fill light is astonishing, along with all its other features. And modern digital cameras have such high quality with high ISO speeds, that I wonder when the day will come that built-in flashes become a thing of the past. Even years ago, I went down into a kiva at Mesa Verde National Park, where is was dark as a dungeon inside, and shot at ISO 3200, being amazed at the results. A flash down there would have ruined the shot.</p>

<p>Thanks again to all who responded. You have been very helpful.</p>

<p>Many thanks to John for his very helpful response. I had the LX3 confused with the Canon when I refered to Canon's lens at 24mm. John is correct in saying that it only goes to 28mm (which is nevertheless a welcome improvement over past G series cameras). I shall check out the Lensmate adapter. As for trying the Canon at higher ISO settings, my time was limited in the store and I only was checking out what could be done at ISO80 based on what the reviewers said. Thanks again.<br>

In the past, I have looked for a great travel camera with a wide lens setting, 3 inch LCD, and image stabilization. The big rave not long ago was the Canon PowerShot SD870 IS Digital Elph. It was often compared to the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX500. I don't know if anyone out there believes that the G10 vs LX3 represents a significant improvement over these other cameras, considering that the price is higher for the newer cameras. I welcome any insights from you.</p>

<p>I have been reading reviews of the Canon G10 vs Panasonic Lumix LX3. The parts that trouble me are:<br>

1. The G10 cannot accommodate a polarizer at wide angle. A separate adapter must be purchased that comes in two pieces. With both pieces connected only the longest focal length settings will not vignette. With only one piece attached, the 24mm setting on the lens will not vignette, but the mid-point threads do not fit any available-sized filter. Thus, the 24mm focal length lens setting cannot use a polarizer. The LX3 easily accommodates a lense filter and even a lens cap, though people complain about the look of the lens cap.<br>

2. G10 has serious noise problems at any ISO setting above ISO80, which makes the settings available for up to ISO1600 useless. And the f/2.8 max aperture combined with this makes low-light photography very difficult. I tried a G10 in a store at ISO80 with the zoom extended, and the image stabilization was not sufficient to give a clear image at that ISO setting. All of this assumes that one gets a camera like this for hiking, travel, etc for use without a tripod. If you must depend on hand-holding, the importance of good images at ISO settings above ISO80 is very high. If I could carry a tripod on those occasions, I would also carry my DSLR as well and forget about a P&S. The LX3 produces good images up to ISO400 and has a maximum aperture of f/2.</p>

Someone else alluded to this, but has anyone heard anything about when the new 5D replacement (mark II?) will be coming out?

 

I know that after I owned the 10D one year the 20D was out to replace it, at the same price and much improvement. I decided to wait on the 5D for its replacement so that I would not get burned again. But the 5D has been out quite a while with no replacement yet.

Once again, I have found all your comments very helpful. Thanks.

 

I am reminded, as I look back over your comments, that one of the things that I found most attractive about the RZ was the bright, clear viewfinder. Even with the WL finder removed and looking down on the focusing screen, it was a joy to look at. Having that to use for focusing instead of looking through a tiny hole and relying on autofocus, as with a 35mm viewfinder, seemed like a great improvement.

 

Also, I have considered a rangefinder as a lighter alternative. Back in 2002, on the workshop with Mamiya, I tried the model 7 II, but focusing in low light on a rainy day using the overlapping images in the rangefinder was no easy task. Also, I just checked an online auction service, and a Fuji GSW690III was just bid up to the price of $1,225. And that is a single fixed lens camera. So, some of the appeal of the RZ is that they are going for a lower price with more versatility. I admit that if I could get a great 690 rangefinder for the price that an RZ body/back/lens is going for I might be tempted, but Mamiya Model 7s also bid up to a very high price. Looks like rangefinder cameras are in more demand than the SLRs like the RZ.

Once again, thanks to all for your contributions.

 

MARC: Where is your gallery site? I would like to see your images.

 

I truly welcome any others who would like to contribute.

I really appreciate your responses.

 

I guess that I should add that I mainly shoot outdoors with a tripod anyway, so the composing on a tripod part will not be new. I have always been a very careful and conscientious photographer. I mainly want better quality in wide angle shots where landscape detail is not clear with 35mm when enlarged. I read a book by Roger Hicks (Quality in Photography) that maintains that 35mm cannot be enlarged beyond a 4X6 without losing quality. I have shot DSLR and have scanned slides with a Nikon 4000 ED, but was always disappointed about the details. And shadows seem to block up. I actually have a Lowepro backpack, but never use it because the shoulder bag is so much quicker and convenient to use. As for the RB vs RZ, I am not familiar with the differences with the lenses. I do not know what the RB shutters are like; are the shutters not inside the lens? And pertaining to large format (4X5 or 5X7) I mainly have avoided that since I do not think I would like working with sheet film. There is a lot I do not know in this whole area, so if I have something wrong here, please let me know.

 

Thanks again.

I have been reading the various messages, questions, and answers on the forum

pertaining to the RZ, the recent sale of Mamiya, and whether one

should "invest" in an RZ at this point. I note that the contributions stopped

in May and thought I had better start a new one or no one would respond.

 

I, like other amateurs, have admired medium format equipment, but since we

cannot bill out the cost of the equipment, and since the costs were

staggering, never bought any MF equipment. Then early in this century digital

35mm equipment took off like a rocket. I attended in October 2002 a workshop

co-sponsored by Popular Photography magazine and Mamiya in New York City. I

was astonished to see them offer brand new equipment -- cameras, lenses,

backs, camera bags -- free of charge for our use during the workshop. It

rained much of the time, and we amateurs were walking around Central Park in

the rain with expensive new equipment while Mamiya personnel assisted us and

answered questions. Even Jim Zuckerman was there with his RZ67 giving

lectures on exposure and reviewing our images. Only a few of us bought

anything before we left, mainly due to the cost. I was pondering what Mamiya

was thinking to offer such expensive equipment to amateurs to use under these

conditions. I concluded then that they must be truly worried by the shift to

35mm digital by pros and had turned their future hopes for sales to the

amateur market.

 

I now see that the RZ67 that I have admired so long, but did not buy due to

price, has become affordable in excellent used condition, but the catch is

that the company may no longer be around to support the product. I have also

read on this forum a lot of complaints about batteries shorting and plastic

gears jamming. Does this happen that often? Is the RB more reliable than the

RZ for these reasons?

 

I would love to have a truly reliable RZ with a couple lenses that I could

include in my shoulder bag along with a digital 35mm SLR and a couple zooms

for travel photography. From what I see, if you leave off the AE viewfinder,

a single back on the RZ with a 50mm lens mounted could fit into one slot, and

a 180mm lens could fit into another slot. I have a Lowepro S&F AW shoulder

bag that I think could handle it based upon dimensions that I have seen on the

net.

 

What would you say to someone like me?

 

Thank you very much.