Okay Mr. Three different cameras in 2 weeks photographer.

I agree shooting JPG's is the easiest way of going from A to B. My idea was that the yabors already have a JPG shooter that zuster Petra uses. Knowing broeder yabor as we do he is the type that likes to get down to conjugate those verbs all the way out. Indicative, imperative, subjunctive, future perfect, active and passive.

RAW files are digital negatives that would allow him to turn his images inside out. Besides he doesn't have to shoot RAW files exclusively. You can shoot JPG's only but having access to RAW files when they want them is not a bad thing.

I wonder if Double H took the plunge. He indicated he may not post back for a month. This may be a case of being in the doghouse for a month for saying surprise honey her is your new Mark II.

quote:

My idea was that the yabors already have a JPG shooter that zuster Petra uses. Knowing broeder yabor as we do he is the type that likes to get down to conjugate those verbs all the way out. Indicative, imperative, subjunctive, future perfect, active and passive.

Okay, you win, Rico. That's a good case. We could turn broeder Yabor into a Photoshop guru. Who knows? We may unlock his inner Andy Warhol or something like that. But I screwed with RAW a bit and it seemed like a lot of work for very little return. The creative features I think are tops are a good zoom range (with quality throughout the range). It's better to frame that shot in the first place rather than throwing away too many pixels. And I think a camera with good, not just average, macro ability opens up all kinds of creative possibilities. You want a good zoom in order to frame those long shots (or wide angle to frame the wide ones), and if you have a good macro you'll be able to frame the universe in a grain of sand. Oh, and good movie quality and length are a must. I find myself taking movies with the camera a lot. It's just much more handy to have both in one small camera. And a good lens, of course. But that's your department. It all starts with the lens. And whether the camera should have removable lenses usually, of course, depends on the price of the camera. But my 570 IS, via a lens adaptor you have to buy first, has a couple lenses you can add on, including a macro. I haven't done so yet, but that could be in my future.

A good manual focus can be useful at times. But perhaps more important is just to get a camera with good auto-focus. And part of that story is getting a camera with as high of a resolution LCD screen as you can get. If you plan to do manual focus, it's nearly a useless feature unless the LCD screen is of high resolution. And if you want to check the focus on auto-focus shots after the fact, the higher the resolution the better for doing this. But, again, one thing I've learn from my Asberger anal-retentive ways is that, yes, you can let go and just let the camera software do most of it. I highly recommend getting a camera that takes great shots (both in terms of color accuracy and focus) automatically. By all means, be sure to get a camera that allows for aperture and shutter priority, which are musts for full creative control. But you might not end up using these as much as think you will. There's no substitute, of course, for making sure the background is blurred when you want it blurred, sharp when you want it sharp, or setting the fastest (or slowest) shutter to either capture fast action or allow a waterfall to blur nicely. But I'm also of the mind that when the camera is solid in terms of color accuracy and focus that this also offers up creative possibilities because you spend less time fiddling with controls and more time looking over nature with a creative eye.

Thanks for the replies, brothers; Danke smithz.

Our internet connection is at the moment non-existent most of the day and night, or I would have replied sooner. I'm now in the house of my parents-in-law, in Vista typing this in a hurry.

Rico is right--once I get into digital photography, it is probable that I will want to learn about processing pictures on the computer. Petra wants to learn too (we have Graphic Converter but not Photoshop Elements). So I'll go with a RAW-files-capable camera.

And I want a small one that I can and will take with me when I'm delivering newspapers and mail etc. Like a Leica M model.

Macro I don't care about--at this point in time.

Smithz, Du hast recht, the Sigma does indeed not seem flexible enough, certainly not for the price.

It will have to be the Lumix, I suppose.

quote:

And I want a small one that I can and will take with me when I'm delivering newspapers and mail etc. Like a Leica M model.

Small is definitely good. And given your modus operandi, I think you'll find yourself taking many more pictures with a small, high-quality camera than with a big lugger.

Yabor the major difference between the LX2 and LX3 is the lens. The LX2 has 28-112mm f2.8/4.9 lens. The LX3 has a 24-60mm f2/2.8 lens. The LX3 is a wider and faster lens. The LX2 does have twice the telephoto. The LX3 also has a larger and better LCD. Though the aspect ratio of the LCD is now 3:2. The LX2 it was 16:9 which matched the sensor. So what will happen on the LX3 shooting in the 16:9 aspect ratio a small portion of the screen top and bottom will be cropped. It probably is not as big a deal as the screen is now a 3 inch screen. On the LX1 the LCD was 4:3 aspect ratio. That sucked big time shooting in 16:9. As the sensor for the LX series has a 16:9 aspect ratio I always used the 16:9 aspect ratio as I felt I could always crop the image smaller but you can not make the image larger after the fact. It is a pleasure though shooting in 3:2 which is the classic film ratio. With the LX3 it will be even more so as the LCD is now 3:2.

The advantage I would give to the LX3 is the fact you have much more options regarding accessories. Namely the lens tube that allows the attachment of filters. The original Leica Digilux 1 had this feature. I enjoyed being able to do infrared photography this way. P&S are highly infrared sensitive. I would keep my lens tube on the D1 all the time as it really protected the lens too. It made the camera a real tank.

Canon and Nikon both have P&S cameras that do RAW. I don't think they are as compact as the LX3. Ricoh has great form factor and flexibility but I don't think the IQ is their for the price. Though the LX3 does have the grip my experience with the DLUX3 brother to the LX2 is that the DLUX3 has no grip at all. Being that the camera is so compact I wish it had a grip. Personally I think Panasonic got the grip right finally on the LX3. With any P&S the first thing you should do before holding the camera is putting your hand through the wrist strap.

The LX3 also has a larger and better LCD.

I sure like the better zoom range of the LX2, but the above might override that consideration. And if the camera has enough megapixels, throwing away a ton of them by cropping isn't the worst sin in the world. The LX3 does have the advantage of the 24 mm which is wider than the 28. For landscapes and street scenes, this is not a small advantage, although 28 is pretty wide-angle as well.

The advantage I would give to the LX3 is the fact you have much more options regarding accessories. Namely the lens tube that allows the attachment of filters.

I'm just reading over your shoulder, but that is a BIG advantage. Although purists don't like to have anything between their subject and their $1200 Nikon lens, it's common to put a UV filter over the lens just to protect the lens. And, crap, think of the great sea/sky shots you can get if you screw a polarizing filter over the lens. Yummy. That (or an orange filter for black-and-white?) will tend to really pop the clouds out, and it will certainly enhance any photos of water.

I vote the LX3. But I could change to the LX2 tomorrow. And then back to the LX1 on Thursday. But I do think the LX3 sounds like a really good bet unless you need that extra zoom on the telephoto end of the spectrum.

The LX3 seems to be an excellent choice if the price is OK with you. I'll also go for the LX3 because of the amazingly fast and wide lens. Respect! Kudos to Leica.

And honestly if the Cam doesn't satisfy after purchase you can still give it back and get full refund - Yabor, is this possible in the Netherlands? Here nearly every shop accepts that in the first 14 Days after purchase, without asking for a reason.

Smithz shouldn't you get a discount on the Leica version?

Sorry to hear the R7 didn't work out.

I think the Panasonic should cover all the bases except for time lapse. The Panansonic and Leica LX2/DLUX3 didn't have time lapse but they do have what they call flip animation that allows for clips up to 20 seconds. Not sure what is in the New Pana LX3.

Yeah you can not beat the lens on these cameras. Leica does work with Panasonic to optimize the lens to the sensor. Very little distortion great sharpness. 24mm f2 summicron Leica lens what more can you ask for. That is the cream of the crop in M and R lenses.

quote:

Originally posted by RicoX:
Smithz shouldn't you get a discount on the Leica version?

That would be so great. :-) And besides that i would like my Ricoh sporting an ultrafast Leica-Lens combined with the new High-Dynamic Fuji CCD. That cam would also brew fresh coffee and have a Pizza-Oven inside. Oh, and that fridge for icecold beers of course...

Btw, are there any American Companies in the photography tech business? Just wondering... I just know the "RED" Corporation who wants to bring something unique to the DSLR/Movie-Cam Market...

Rico, I ordered the 8 gig SDHC card from NewEgg. I don't know how they can sell it for 20 bucks including shipping. But I assume it will work alright. I'll let you know. Now I'll have that and still have the 4 gig for backup.

Smithz the only American companies I can think of is Kodak of course. The real American effort in photography right now is the digital technology such as Foveon. There are small up shoots companies like DXG. There DXG-595V has gotten some good user reviews as it only cost $200US and does Full HD. I think there is a European equivalent something like Praktica. The CMOS sensor is produced by a small US based semiconductor. I can not remember the name of hand.

The digital end though is really all Kodak. Every camera manufacture has to pay royalties back to Kodak for CCD and CMOS technologies. Every manufacture of CCD and CMOS sensors as well.

OMG, how could i forget Kodak! I read about Foveon also on Dpreview and other sites.
I know Praktika and i think i understood. The product range consists mainly of re-labeled Cameras from various Asian Manufacturers. Back in the Day Praktika was THE top-notch brand of the GDR (Eastern Germany) before the Berlin Wall broke down.

Smithz and yabor you both may want to take a look at the Leica DLUX4 too. It will be more money but this might be offset by Leica offering a 3 year warranty. Plus the software package is generally better.

Leica may be offering Capture One 4 software in the package. This is a really excellent RAW converter.

Besides you could get this cool hand grip for it.

Smithz I was just looking at the LX3 on Panasoncis website USA and it is saying that there is no flip animation on the LX3.

I'm still loving my little LX2. It's been quite the workhorse. I've got a couple of 8 gig cards, those bad boys are sweet. Plus a few 4 giggers. It really hasn't let me down for what I do.

There are some noise issues when trying to capture really fine detail sometimes, but there's usually nothing I can't handle post-processing, now that I take all my shots in RAW. And I'm literally always processing down for web viewing, so it's been fine. I don't think I've ever printed out a photo I've taken with this camera.

Battery life has been wonderful. Holds a charge great. Stays charged after long periods of inactivity, unlike my old Nikon.

But far and away the reason I love it most is look and feel. Size, design, sturdiness. If I had some spare money, I'd probably upgrade to the next version... but first things first. I have to get a new Mac. I just can't afford it right now.

Wow that Leica DLUX4 looks sweet. It's about the same price as the Sigma.

And I can't go wrong with the LX3, Ithink. It has all the features and possibilities I need. My eyes are pretty bad and the big LCD screen will be great. The screen on the Leica is the same size.

So it's the LX3 or the Leica--quite a pleasant choice to have! Yes, Brad, a filter is a must for landscape pictures I find. White skies are a mayor let-down.

Zuster Petra is already jealous of my new camera, which will be better than her Canon, and not ugly like that Canon. It will be a thing of beauty and a joy for almost ever.

Ohhhhh that DLUX4 is gorgeous. Even better design than the Lumix. What the heck is this thing in the hot shoe, a viewfinder? Doesn't look like a flash.

Yes that's a viewfinder . Optional and costs extra, quite a bit extra I believe.

Petra says I should get the Leica. So I suppose I will.

You're mainly paying for the Name "Leica", just to make sure you know that. Everything else is the same, besides that Software Rico mentioned.

Yes, it's a beautiful camera. :-)

Oh, and if Petra also has seen the Leica it's propably too late.

Yes smithz, if at all practical Petra and I always buy German products. We have great faith in German craftmanship (though this model is assembled in Japan, I believe, but still).

Go Krauts, go!

This Leica is so beautiful that I can't wait to own and use one. Nothing on it displeases.

The Leica also has a 2 year warranty. It may even be 3 years as this is what it was in the past.

Panasonic offers Silky Pix as the RAW converter which is excellent. I think I would give the edge to Capture One 4 though. Capture One 4 will have a profile made particularly for the DLUX4.

I didn't realize the DLUX4 was retailing for so much. I think the DLUX3 retailed for $600US.