Photography/cameras and associated gear thread.

[angelo]

This is my new toy. Feel free to post whatever new /old gear you wish to share with others.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/5802/ ... era-review

[The_Piper]

Mine's a Sony hx7v. It's ok sometimes, but mostly lets me down. Probably user error too, I never go into the advanced settings. If the sky is in the background, it's useless for birds and things, aside from the sky itself.
I'd like a new to me cheap one to upgrade on this. Nightshot, huge zoom, and high frame rate video would be nice.

[I'm With Stupid]

Me Three.jpg (50.65 KiB) Viewed 14954 times

Overpriced just for a still camera. I only use it for video. In fact, I've never even taken a photo with it. Should probably learn how to do that. I've got 3 lenses with it for different focal lenses. The video results are great.

[angelo]

With the money I have spent on continued updating compact cameras, I could have bought a very good SLR camera.
I've had compact cameras from Nikon, Sony, Samsung, Fujifilm [4], Lumix [2], Pentax and on my second Olympus. I like the "magic filters" on Olympus cameras. What has put me off buying a SLR is mainly the size of the things. The camera I have now is the biggest compact I've ever had because of it's 24x zoom, but still much smaller than most good SLR's.

[chaggle]

I've just got a Fuji 2980 'bridge' camera. Smaller than a DSLR but loads of functionality. Brilliant and only around 120 Euros. Very pleased with it so far...

http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?hl=en&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k&bpcl=40096503&biw=1306&bih=561&q=fuji+s2980&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=2114389290288860231&sa=X&ei=rzrYUMKtEsec0AWa4IAY&ved=0CDgQ8wIwAQ

[angelo]

Fujifilm make good value for money cameras. I have always liked them. I've had four of them, passed on the last one to my daughter. A very slim 10x zoom. Forget the model now.

[I'm With Stupid]

With the money I have spent on continued updating compact cameras, I could have bought a very good SLR camera.
I've had compact cameras from Nikon, Sony, Samsung, Fujifilm [4], Lumix [2], Pentax and on my second Olympus. I like the "magic filters" on Olympus cameras. What has put me off buying a SLR is mainly the size of the things. The camera I have now is the biggest compact I've ever had because of it's 24x zoom, but still much smaller than most good SLR's.

Have a look at micro 4/3 cameras. That's what I've got. You can put full sized lenses on them with an adaptor if you really want.

[Macdoc]

Yep - best of all worlds. I'v got a Lumix Gx1 after a series of Lumix compacts ending in the TZ25 which was giving me fits with slow and erratic AF but could be damn fine when it worked.
The Gx1 is not much bigger than the TZ but all the sophistication of the SLRs.
With the pancake lens it easily drops in my shirt pocket. ( amazing lens that )



yet I can add the electronic view finder



and a 100-300 lens for a decent birding camera - that lens goes in the other pocket when I'm on the mcycle.



That's a 600 mm equivalent on an SLR and much much lighter and smaller.

Now I just have to learn to use the damn thing effectively.

•••

After swearing to stay on a single camera solution - I opted for the LX7 for a backup camera and accidently ended with a macro solution for far less than a macrolens for the Gx1.
Pretty sweet cross over.
Tiny but lots of manual controls and a brilliant lens and I can use so of the same accessories- notably the EVF.
It also can focus within 1 CM !!!!



good review here
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/ ... x7_review/

I wish I had moved up a bit earlier but really the Gx1 was the first that was really small with a big quality sensor.

The Lx7 costs less than a lens for the Gx1 so fills a nice role as well and is realllllly small.



but superb optics.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panas ... x_DMC_LX7/

The problem with the Gx1 is the attraction of more lenses.

$900 for this amazing bit of kit - that's more than the Gx1 body with 14-45 stock zoom, the1.4 pancake lens AND the 100-300 zoom combined!!!


but the reviews make you want to spend on it
http://m43blog.com/2012/11/29/a-new-rev ... -8-lens-3/

So the LX7 is a way to avoid that temptation for $3-400 tho you won't get a long zoom. But you will get a superb step up from the point and shoot compacts which I enjoyed for many years.

When I weigh the travel costs against a good camera - I do wish I'd opted for better sooner but many get tired of the heavy SLRs and the four thirds really are go anywhere anytime with their modular design.

and the newest generation of compacts like the LX7 are getting truly sophisticated if you want but amazing easy but high quality point and shoot as well

Shooting so often from the mcycle had it's own challenges for ease of use.

[The_Metatron]

Who does 35mm manual film cameras?

I have two Pentax K1000 bodies in very, very good condition that can be had for the postage. Neither has had five rolls of film through them. Bodies only...

[I'm With Stupid]

and a 100-300 lens for a decent birding camera - that lens goes in the other pocket when I'm on the mcycle.



That's a 600 mm equivalent on an SLR and much much lighter and smaller.

It gets even better than that if you're into video, because any lens you put on the GH2 can be used with something called the extra tele converter, which allows you to digitally zoom with no loss of image quality (it's technically a tiny bit better), no loss of light, and effectively multiplies the focal length of any lens by 2.6x. So that 100-300mm lens becomes a 260-780mm lens. Obviously this only works with video though, because it works by only using the middle 2 megapixels of the sensor, rather than the usual method of recording the whole image and then dropping most of the frames.

I've also got this:



which makes everyone look sexy.

and this:



which is possibly the world's smallest lens.

[Macdoc]

Yeah love that lens - unreal sharp and the speed of the af is phenomenal - shooting on the fly

I shot this on a bus, through the window going about 30 kph with just a narrow street framing the old Swiss hotel in Norway ( fire trap )
I did not know I got it til I got back to our hotel if I'd caught it or not.



and it was not a particularly bright sunny day.

it was that lens that really got me hooked on good glass. He loved it too. It's on my camera most of the time. Now that I have the small zoom on LX7 I can stick with 14 on the Gx1 when I want top quality.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/02/1 ... teve-huff/

They are way down in price now. $220 or so and if you have a four thirds you likely start with this. You can sometimes find them bulk without the box even cheaper as Panny is supplying as a starter kit with some bodies now.
You'll feel like an expert with this thing even tho you are just using the auto functions.

It puts the "snap" back into shots as you can shoot so quickly with confidence.

You can just about count the water drops



this is full size but jpeg from the camera so you can down load and check the detail. 4.4 mb

Can't say enough about the little wonder.

[Simon_Gardner]

I've had an Olympus when the early digital cameras came out. I never want to deal with the company (Olympus UK) ever again and the company is a good reason never to have an Olympus. I have four active cameras at the moment and only shoot in RAW which is why I'm processing pictures on Christmas Eve.

The word is the current dog's bollocks in pocket cameras is the Sony DSC-RX100 with a BIG sensor (not to be confused with megapixels). So if you want to treat yourself and know what you are doing, get one.

[Macdoc]

Yeah the shoot out seems be between that Sony and Lx7 now that Pannie has responded.

http://www.techradar.com/news/photograp ... 00-1089834

It would a be a non-starter with no EVF option on that quality camera.
Several mentioned the smaller sensor on the LX7 so maybe next year but I stay way away from Sony consumer products - too many failures whereas Pannie has been wonderful and I'm not gentle on them.

[Simon_Gardner]

I'm not buying another pocket camera of any sort without the facility for a "cable" release. I don't know why the manufacturers can't be arsed since it's a simple bit of electronics but they can't. Not even this spiffy DSC-RX100. I'm guessing it's because nobody else wants it. Just me. You can CHDK hack the Canon S90 - S100s etc to make one through the USB port so it's that simple.

I also require good close focusing - even on a pocket camera - and at least a 5 step bracket would be pretty handy.

[Macdoc]

The LX7 has a macro feature lets you go in as close a 1 CM which blew me away.

[Macdoc]

Macros

LX7


Sony RX100

[chairman bill]

There's a difference between macro & close-up. Macro refers to the ability to render the image at a 1:1 ratio on the film frame or sensor. Anything less isn't macro.

[Macdoc]

Below are two comparisons of the macro capabilities and depth of field characteristics of the three models.

what can I say ...you must argue with the author

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panas ... x_DMC_LX7/

another test - this would seem to suffice for my purposes as the alternative on the Gx1 is $600



http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/p ... LX7MAC.HTM

this is the full image

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/p ... LX7MAC.HTM

[Simon_Gardner]

There's a difference between macro & close-up. Macro refers to the ability to render the image at a 1:1 ratio on the film frame or sensor. Anything less isn't macro.

People tell me I'm out of date when I say that.

[Macdoc]

you would seem to be correct''

Definition: Macro photography is taking extremely close-up images of subjects. The technically correct definition would be to take an image at a 1:1 ratio but, in general usage, the term has come to mean any close-up photography.

and here -

Traditional Macrophotography
Macro photography with a traditional camera requires the use of an SLR, or single-lens reflex camera. An SLR camera shows the image in the lens through the viewfinder in its exact dimensions. When working with macrophotography even a slight deviation between what is seen in the viewfinder and what the lens captures can ruin a photo.
The SLR camera must be fitted with a lens that supports macro photography. There are two types of macrophotography lens: a “macro zoom lens” and a true macro lens.

A macro zoom lens is, essentially, a magnification lens that attaches to the camera. This lens produces pictures that are of inferior quality to those rendered by a true macro lens. However, the macro zoom lens is considerably less expensive and is a good choice for the beginning macro photographer.

Digital Macrophotography
Many digital cameras come with macro photography settings, greatly increasing the number of amateur photographers interested in macro photography.
Once the camera is set to macrophotography, the photographer only has to zoom in on the subject and take the picture. The LCD screen is one of the key digital camera tools used in macrophotography. Using the LCD screen, the photographer can get closer to his or her subject and can quickly check the photo to see if a retake is needed.

http://www.photography.com/articles/typ ... otography/

So shall we settle on digital macro as a term for us plebs with macro reserved for the elite