erick_k

<p>Thanks guys for taking the time to respond. I too suggested using his camera in manual ISO mode.</p>

<p>Sorry I don't have further information about the camera model. My friend is in Borneo checking this thread from an internet cafe and probably didn't have the time to register and post. You know how it is when you're on the road ... I cut/pasted from his email into the original question.<br>

I imagine your list of suggestions helped my friend as he hasn't written back reporting continued problems. Thank you again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I ask on behalf of a friend who's traveling in the jungle:<br>

When i'm shooting in P mode or Av and Tv on my canon 450d, the iso is stuck at 1600.<br /> <br />My iso setting is 'auto', but it just keeps getting stuck on 1600 when i'm half-pressing the shutter and then shooting, even in daylight, leading to grainy pics .<br /> <br />I must have toggled something by mistake, because it was ok earlier in the day. the camera did get a little damp in the rainy Borneo forest.<br /> <br />What do you think is the problem?</p>

<p>Hi Everyone,<br /> After reading about Epson and Mac OS X.6 I began to get cold feet about buying a used Epson 2200 I was considering, which was first released 8 years ago. The price offered to me was $200 for the printer including an extra set of inks and a custom icc profile. I think that's a little high considering the printer's age and competition with today's models.<br /> I checked the specs of Epson's current lineup, and it seems the Epson Stylus Photo 1400 is $199 new from Amazon and prints at the same size (13x19). From what I understand it is faster and uses ink more efficiently than the older technology of the 2200 (please correct me if wrong). Since I am new to photo printers and haven't followed their evolution over the past decade I'd like to hear your opinions. Which would you choose, between a used 2200 vs new 1400?<br /> I think an upper-midrange (at the time) 2x00 series printer must have benefits over a lower-midrange (today) 1x00 series in build quality etc.<br /> One concern for me is that I use OS X.6 and there have been serious issues with the 2200, though they seem to be imperfectly resolved with the latest print driver. I imagine the 1400 will remain compatible / supported for a longer time. Though keep in mind I consider this a "learning" printer for me to become familiar with digital printing.<br /> I use Mac OS X.6, Photoshop CS4, and Lightroom 2.x.<br /> I only print color photos. (I understand that the 2200 is not good for b/w) I hear the 2200's heads can clog over time, especially if it isn't used often. Not sure if that'll be an issue.<br /> I appreciate your thoughts, thank you in advance.<br /> - E</p>

Oops, Bill is absolutely right. Zooming in to 60mm adjusts the aperture to 2.8. I wish it were a constant f/2.0.<p>

At the widest end, 24mm equivalent, there is some bokeh at f/2.0 if I place my subject close enough to the camera. But it

isn't the same as f/2.0 on a full frame DSLR. Bokeh (blurred background that makes your subject "pop out") is less

pronounced on small sensor point and shoots. At 60mm/2.8 I get pleasing bokeh, the result of compression and the relatively large 2.8

aperture.

<p>

That makes me wonder: at what point does the G10 stop down as it's zoomed in?

Stuart, for compact p/s cameras the sweet spot is closer to f/4 than f/11. Diffraction appears at 5.6 so f/8 is a bit like

using f/22 on full frame -- beyond the ideal aperture/quality for the camera.

There is an error in my last paragraph. I said the photo on page 2 of that review shows an LX3 vs G10 size comparison.

It's actually a comparison with the G9, which is smaller than the new G10.

Dominic, I too had to make a decision between the G10 and LX3. I confess to being a Canon fan and all else being

equal I'd prefer to stick with Canon (my entire D-SLR kit is Canon). After weighing my particular needs, I bought the

LX3, and after 2 weeks of using it am satisfied I made the right decision.

<p>

What I wanted was a compact that was small and light, something that I would never hesitate to carry around, even

when I didn't think I'd have a need for it. The LX3 is 265 g, the G10 is 363g and much more bulky. After carrying it for a

few days, I'd say the LX3 is still too heavy for my wishes, namely a camera that I barely notice I'm carrying. The much

heavier G10 would almost certainly be left at home for its extra size and weight.

<p>

The other important point is that I needed a camera that performs reasonably well for low light photography. Imagine

going out with friends with a compact, and taking photos at dinner or while out on the town. The LX3 seems to have

better low light performance around 400 ISO. (I set the LX3 to never go above 400 ISO and so far it's been fast enough,

with f/2.0 and image stabilization, to take good photos at night. It's said the LX3 has more film-like grain compared to

sharper and less pleasant noise from the G10 at high ISO) Add to this the fact that it has a fast 2.0 lens and the case

for the LX3 as a low light camera is pretty compelling. As a bonus, the 2.0 lens helps generate more bokeh. I get

attractive bokeh (background blur) when I set it to 60mm equivalent and f/2.0. Achieving bokeh is otherwise difficult on

a small sensor compact. I set my LX3 to burst mode, it can take 3 RAW files in a one second burst. At 400 ISO max,

with stabilization and f/2.0, I always get a sharp, low-light, usable night/evening shot. Just what I wanted in a compact

camera.<p>

So based on my criteria of size, weight, and low light performance (= faster lens and less obtrusive noise) the LX3

prevailed. The G10 is an impressive camera and if it were my *only* camera I would almost certainly have chosen it

over the LX3. For more ambitious photography I'll carry my Canon 5D (and hopefully 5D Mk II soon). I have a lot of

respect for Michael Richmann's opinion. Luminous Landscape is my favorite photography related web site, and I trust

his word. He wrote a favorable <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx3.shtml">LX3 review </a> that you

might enjoy: "Very wide - very fast - very nice." He says there will be a head to head comparison article in

2 weeks.

<p>

Having said that, I think the G10 and LX3 are quite different, and appeal to very different needs. The G10 has higher

megapixels and for better final image quality in bright light, wins out over the LX3. (How much better? Hopefully

Reichmann will give us a clear idea.) What I really like about the G10 are the controls: for a Canon user, the dials are

intuitive and fast. I'm still learning the LX3's controls, they're pretty good once you learn them, and the number of

settings that you can change for creative use is similar to a DSLR. Yet the G10's dials are superior. If Canon made a

10MP compact the size and weight of the LX3, maybe with a CMOS sensor (wishful thinking for a future Canon

compact), that would be my ideal. When image quality is of the utmost importance, most of us will turn to DSLRs.

<p>

PS One can save a pretty penny by using Voigtlander viewfinders for the LX3's hotshoe. Thus far the LX3's screen

composition has been a good experience -- for composition it's clear and bright. I've heard that the G10's viewfinder isn't

very useful. I've used a G9 through its viewfinder and it wasn't very good. YMMV.

<p>

Here's another <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_LX3/">LX3 Review</a> that gives

you an idea how its interface and handling are. Notice on page 2 the side by side shot with the much bulkier G10. Hope

this opinion was of use to you: they're different cameras for different needs.

Thanks for the great link Chris -- those Waterfield cases would be perfect if only they had a belt loop.

A small correction:

<p>

On the Metz web site (linked above) click on "Sheet" then "Olympus/Leica"

It is the 28 AF-3O that would fit directly on this camera. The AF-3C is for "C"anon.

<p>

Dave, since you're interested in the DMW-FL220 flash, perhaps the Metz AF-3 might also interest you?

Has anyone found a comprehensive G10 hands-on review? Thus far I haven't found any on the usual camera review sites.

Any links appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks for the link Berg. Can I ask how you made the corners perfectly round?

 

This flash for LX3 discussion made me seek out what might be compatible, and I noticed that the Leica equivalent of the

LX3, the D-LUX4, has a flash unit called the

<a href="http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/accessories/d-lux_4/5937.html

">Leica CF22</a>. It is obviously the same as Metz's <a href="http://www.metz.de/en/photo-electronics/mecablitz-

models/system-flash-units/mecablitz-28-af-3-digital.html">28 AF-3C</a>. I already have one in Canon mount that I use

with my 5D. (Click on the "Easy to operate" link at right and you'll see how identical it is) The pins are different but

close. Metz has several versions of the 28 AF-3 for different body manufacturers. I wonder if my Canon version can be

used with an adapter, or perhaps even without?

<p>

Here's a close-up of the Panasonic LX3 <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?

forum=1033&message=29360263&q=lx3+sf24d&qf=m"> hotshoe.</a>

Berg Na, this is unrelated but how did you create those smoothed corners on your pics?

<p>

Allen, the Sigma DP2 has also been announced. After reviewing the camera I ruled it out for handling and speed issues.

Point and shoots are slow enough, so a Sigma that is slow even by those standards was kind of a red flag. (Of course,

those are just my needs) Those who aren't annoyed by the Sigma's slow operating time seem to be happy with its results.

<p>

Jorge I almost can't wait the week it takes for my LX3 to arrive, after hearing your enthusiasm. I look forward to having

an f/2.0 low light, high(ish) speed, compact camera with image stabilization. For going out with friends it'll be a great

camera to have.

<p>

In Berg's example above, I too think the standard looks better than nostalgia mode. I'll experiment with both when mine

arrives.

Thanks Bill for this review. It sold me on the LX3, and the helpful comments from Jorge and others made my final

decision more confident and clear. Being a bit of a Canon fan I waited for the G10, and while Canon appears to be going

in the opposite direction of what I want (bigger, fatter, heavier, more megapixels) -- the LX3 seems to be the better

alternative for my needs. Acceptable, almost good low-light performance, a faster 2.0 lens, and compact/light

profile.<p>

Just placed my order yesterday when B&H sent me an availability notice, and look forward to trying it out. I bought the

DMW-LA4 conversion lens adapter. The Panasonic DMW-LPL46 Polarizing Filter was $75 so I bought a B+W 46mm

circular polarizer filter instead ($42). I don't suspect there's any reason why it wouldn't be interchangeable. The B+W

isn't multicoated but I don't think I'll use it often -- most important photos I take with my 5D anyhow. I don't intend to carry the lens adapter

and filter all the time. This is meant to be a pocketable camera.<p>

I'd be interested to hear if anyone finds a perfect carrying pouch for the camera. It looks promising, only the lens cap

puts me off. I hope that Lightroom will eventually adopt RW2 support. Has Adobe made any mention of this? An underwater housing

would also be great. There are some makers of overpriced LX2 housings, but nothing unfortunately from Ikelite. I don't think they'll make

any for Panasonic ...

Sorry, I meant to provide <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?

forum=1033&message=29058591">this</a> link in the post above.

Jennifer, it would help if you told us what type of camera you're using.

<p>

Do you have any other pics to share with us? The scene itself is a little "muddy" so it's hard to evaluate.

Interesting points Michael. I've spent a few hours reading up on the LX3 and haven't been able to find any hands-on

reviews that don't hold it in high esteem for its image quality. Most of them have been preliminary reviews -- perhaps

DPReview will soon give us a low-light complete test. But it's worth taking a look at the photos <a

href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=29058591/">posted here</a>. I see plenty of

noise in the sky portion of these photos (something Noise Ninja would improve), but otherwise it looks promising. I

found a more thorough review at the <a

href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx3.php">Photography blog</a> On page 3 there

are sample images. The ISO 400 shots look decent, not great in my opinion. I consider it acceptable quality, not

terribly impressive. Yet if Canon's G9/10 are worse at ISO 400 then that would make them unacceptably noisy at high speed.

<p>

You make a useful point about f/2.0 DOF. So we can't expect to have pleasing bokeh on an LX3's f/2.0? How

disappointing.

<p>

If you have any links to more critical reviews, please share them. Thanks.

Sue,<p>

Please take a look at this link, the DSLR style Panasonic Lumix G1 <a

href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/audioblog/sets/72157607245255351/">is *TINY*</a>.<p> Seems to fit your wishes for a

SLR that is small and light.

Hi Becca,<p>

Lucky you! 3 months will fly by in an instant, but it'll be a wonderful experience. I lived in Firenze for 14 months and

that time passed too quickly. I like Michael's suggestion of checking the postcard racks to find the most photogenic

locations.

<p>

I took a monopod and a sturdy tabletop tripod with me. In Europe you can almost always find a ledge to set your tabletop tripod

down. I made many day trips to Cinque Terre, it's only 8€ each way by regional train. (Try not to take the 29€ Eurostar

to la Spezia) Just wake up an hour earlier as the regional train isn't particularly fast -- and check return schedules so

that you don't get stranded in Cinque Terre. I didn't have any problems in CT in autumn. It was mercifully less crowded,

I found it more pleasant than in summer. Still, it's better to visit CT soon after you arrive. Liguria isn't far and you can

make repeat visits. Consider spending the night in an inexpensive pensione (or hostel -- there's only one so book

ahead).

<p>

I think September is an ideal time to be in Italy: it isn't too hot, and most of the tourists have stopped arriving. But it'll

start getting cold soon after your arrival. (Freddino, non freddo) <p>

If you speak Italian, the <a href="http://www.canoniani.it/">Canoniani</a> site may be of use to you.<p> My one regret

was not having a wide enough lens (I had a 10D and 24-85, 28-135 at the time) -- though one of my most useful lenses

was a 28/1.8. I should've splurged for a 17-40L before leaving, but you have it well covered using your 10-20. With

narrow streets, Italia <i>needs</i> wide lenses.

Se hai qualche domanda o se ti servono dei consigli precisi, mandami una mail e ti risponderò -- con i miei posti

preferiti.

<p>

About trips from Italy -- there are discount flights out of Pisa on RyanAir or EasyJet. One of my more rewarding

weekend trips out of Firenze was to Croatia (Croazia). Dubrovnik is stunning. Take the train to Bologna, transfer to

Ancona, and then a night ferry to Split (Spalato). Speaking of Ancona, <a

href="http://travel.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/travel/22tuscany.html">le Marche</a> is said to be the new Tuscany -- much

like Toscana before it became too popular with tourists.<p>

Greece is always an option: if you're in S. Italy you can easily take the night ferry from Bari or Brindisi to Patras (Patrasso) then bus to

Athens via Corinth. The nicest part of Greece is in the islands, and they start winding down in September. By October it's very quiet

and much of the island population is temporary: they return home to the Greek mainland. If you plan on touring the Greek islands, it'll be

tough unless you get there right away.<p>

Ti auguro un bel soggiorno a Firenze, e tante belle foto! Scusa se ti ho scritto troppo. Ciao.

Sue,<p>

 

Take a look at the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091202panasonic_dmc_g1.asp">Panasonic Lumix

G1</a>. It has just been announced, and has DSLR features in a near-compact body.<p>

 

Also, the G9 has been discontinued for the new <a

href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091702canon_g10.asp">Powershot G10</a>.

The G9 is now discontinued and unavailable.<p>

 

The G10 was just <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091702canon_g10.asp">announced</a> and has an

impressive list of features. Yet the LX3 is still competitive, depending on your needs.<p>

 

I too am weighing a decision between the LX3 and G10. Until I read a hands-on review of the G10, the LX3 will remain

my favored candidate. It has less megapixels, but what pixels it delivers are clean at high-ISO (400) while, if the G9 is

any indicator, the Canon P&S has great ISO 80 quality yet poor ISO 400. Adding more MPs to the G10 probably will not

improve its low-light performance. The other tick against the G10 is that it is now larger and heavier. 350g compared to

the LX3's 265g and the G9's 320g.<p>

Dimensions are:<p>

G10: 109 x 78 x 46 mm<p>

G9 : 106.4 x 71.9 x 42.5 mm<p>

LX3: 108.7 x 59.5 x 27.1 mm<p>

 

The Panasonic and Canon each has its own compromises. Since I have a 5D with a full set of lenses, I'll use the P&S

when I need something small, light, and good for low-light. For telephoto, out comes the D-SLR, or zooming with my

feet. I value the faster lens and cleaner high-ISO of the LX3, but if the G10 is substantially improved, I may yet

consider it. Too bad the Canon is fatter and heavier. It's nearing a D-SLR replacement not just in features but alas in

dimensions. The controls on the Canon seem superior to the LX3's. I handled the LX3 in store (it's available now) and it

felt sturdy + comfortable. Already it's a little heavier than I would've liked. <p>

 

Click here for a <a href="http://www.lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2008/08/panasonic-lx3-review.html">hands-on review</a>

of the Panasonic LX3. Hope that helps.

This is an interesting topic Ellis, but let me provide a link that I believe should work. (The above link fails)

 

<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004022">Click here</a>

I've used a Nikon Coolscan for years, and have always liked its ability to

remove dust with Digital ICE.

 

A friend of mine uses Canon scanners for 35mm and medium format, and has to

manually remove dust specks in Photoshop. This is a laborious and time wasting

task, and I wanted to ask if there is a Photoshop plugin that can elimiate the

dust marks automatically? Or perhaps another type of software (Silverfast) has

a feature that behaves like Nikon's Digital ICE? Any suggestions on either the

scan or photoshops side would be appreciated. Thanks