Seeking camera advice

Posted by: Jonathan Gorse on 04 October 2007

Now chaps, I know many of you are very keen and knowledgeable photographers and I'm really keen to buy a new digital camera to shoot pics of the stunning views I see everyday from the Flightdeck!!

My camera requirements are:

Compact (I already have a Pentax Ist DS Digital SLR that is fabulous but too bulky to fit in my flight back and so I never take it with me)
Wide lens (ideally 28mm zoom or less) - the cockpit is a cramped space and sometimes I want to shoot pics of me or others flying
Decent telephoto for zooming in on other aircraft or landmarks
Fairly robust
At least 4 megapixels resolution
Ideally £200 or less.

I keep finding myself coming back to the Panasonic Lumix Tz2 and Tz3 - can anyone propose anything better? I have always been a Pentax man but can't find anything in their range with a wide zoom facility.

I'd be grateful for any advice.

Thanks,

Jonathan
Posted on: 12 October 2007 by Chris Kelly
Rockingdoc

I managed to get one of the new wide-angle Tri-Elmars(21, 24 and 28 equivalent) for my M8 at a very good price. Don't know if you have tried one, but my initial results are extremely promising.

Sorry for the off-topic post Jonathan.
Posted on: 12 October 2007 by northpole
And there was me thinking I had done well picking up a 35mm zeiss biogon for my m7!!

Peter
Posted on: 12 October 2007 by Chris Kelly
Peter
From all I read that's an excellent lens! I like Zeiss glass too, though I only have it in Vseries mount - no 35mm stuff.
Posted on: 14 October 2007 by Rico
Rockingdoc said
quote:
I like the Leica look produced by the Leica D-Lux3/Panasonic TZ3 way beyond the contrasty clinical look of the Canon out of the camera.

I found your comment interesting. When you mention 'Leica look' I assume you are referring to a look similar to that produced by using a Leica film body with Leica optics (pretty magical when in the hands of a good photographer). I appreciate what these fine cameras do; they certainly don't include the flat, soft results I saw in viewing 30-odd real-world images made by the TZ3 (rather than looking at test charts from a camera test) from a variety of photographers. The colour aspects did seem a little above the standard results one sees from run-of-the-mill P&S's, well done Pana.

your follow-on comment also caught my eye:
quote:
BUT once you start manipulating RAW data from either and then play with it in Photoshop, I doubt if many could tell them apart, unless a truly expert hand was getting the best from each lens. Development of RAW images is a huge skill and I don't think many non-professionals (like me) get close to what can be achieved.
Obviously we can't always try out all the options, especially not under testing conditions, so need the the opinions of other users.
Neither the TZ3, nor (as a topical example, the Canon G7) produce RAW images, so the question of this kind of depth of editing techniques for the kind of camera we're discussing here is irrelevant. Your stuck with jpeg!

Once the preserve of the professional, the tools are now accessible and within reach of interested amateur. You'd be surprised what a 'non-professional' can acheive in RAW with some simple software like Adobe Lightroom; a pro might get the nth degree out of a given image; someone with a good eye and a little patience and experience can get most of the way with Lightroom. Any pro will tell you, however, that there's no substitute for getting a good image 'in camera'. Once you accept that, the camera's pretty much irrelevant.
Posted on: 14 October 2007 by rupert bear
I use a Canon S70 compact which has 28-80 and cost about £270 3 years ago. Similar spec today would cost less. It also has a full manual options count. I don't think many of the cameras mentioned above fulfil both of your requirements.
Posted on: 15 October 2007 by Rockingdoc
quote:
Originally posted by Rico:
Rockingdoc said
quote:
I like the Leica look produced by the Leica D-Lux3/Panasonic TZ3 way beyond the contrasty clinical look of the Canon out of the camera.

I found your comment interesting. When you mention 'Leica look' I assume you are referring to a look similar to that produced by using a Leica film body with Leica optics (pretty magical when in the hands of a good photographer). I appreciate what these fine cameras do; they certainly don't include the flat, soft results I saw in viewing 30-odd real-world images made by the TZ3 (rather than looking at test charts from a camera test) from a variety of photographers. The colour aspects did seem a little above the standard results one sees from run-of-the-mill P&S's, well done Pana.

your follow-on comment also caught my eye:
quote:
BUT once you start manipulating RAW data from either and then play with it in Photoshop, I doubt if many could tell them apart, unless a truly expert hand was getting the best from each lens. Development of RAW images is a huge skill and I don't think many non-professionals (like me) get close to what can be achieved.
Obviously we can't always try out all the options, especially not under testing conditions, so need the the opinions of other users.
Neither the TZ3, nor (as a topical example, the Canon G7) produce RAW images, so the question of this kind of depth of editing techniques for the kind of camera we're discussing here is irrelevant. Your stuck with jpeg!

Once the preserve of the professional, the tools are now accessible and within reach of interested amateur. You'd be surprised what a 'non-professional' can acheive in RAW with some simple software like Adobe Lightroom; a pro might get the nth degree out of a given image; someone with a good eye and a little patience and experience can get most of the way with Lightroom. Any pro will tell you, however, that there's no substitute for getting a good image 'in camera'. Once you accept that, the camera's pretty much irrelevant.



Do you know what, you are correct.

I was confused by all the "names" of the countless Panasonic compacts, and my Panasonic comments refer to the LX range NOT the TZ range.e.g. LX1, LX2, LX3 etc. So, to be clear, the Panasonic LX compacts beat the Canon G compacts in every way apart from the lack of viewfinder. Apologies. They also have RAW capture.

As to RAW manipulation, I have Lightroom and Photoshop CS3 extended, and Phase One Capture. If you find Lightroom "simple" you're a better man than me. A great piece of software though and I think many could do without Photoshop if well versed in Lightroom.
Posted on: 16 October 2007 by Rico
Well, the G5,6,7,9 also have a hotshoe for crash-hot dedicated flash which I see as a distinct advantage. Smile

What's this Phase One Capture like? I've not seen it.

regards
Posted on: 17 October 2007 by Rockingdoc
The G9 also has RAW Smile
I don't think external TTL flash works with digital cameras yet, apart from high end DSLRs with MATCHING high-end strobes, to do all the fiddly pre-flash and distance value stuff. So the G9 would have to use an external flash in manual or perhaps A mode to get reliable results. TTL systems work much better with film.

I prefer the familiarity of Lightroom, but Capture One does give a very nice final result.
Posted on: 17 October 2007 by GraemeH
I'm borrowing an M8 at the moment and it truly is a wonderful machine. Ultimately flexible with fantastic handling and superb image quality.

Graeme
Posted on: 17 October 2007 by northpole
quote:
I'm borrowing an M8 at the moment and it truly is a wonderful machine.


It's a bugger's muddle trying to fit the film in....
Posted on: 17 October 2007 by northpole
Powershot G9 is reviewed in Amateur Photographer this week if anyone is interested (haven't read it yet myself).

Peter
Posted on: 17 October 2007 by Asp
quote:
Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
I don't think external TTL flash works with digital cameras yet, apart from high end DSLRs with MATCHING high-end strobes, to do all the fiddly pre-flash and distance value stuff. So the G9 would have to use an external flash in manual or perhaps A mode to get reliable results. TTL systems work much better with film.


G9 supports E-TTL with Speedlite 430EX and 530EX-II.
Posted on: 18 October 2007 by Rockingdoc
Unfortunately, "supporting" E-TTL doesn't mean it actually works reliably in practice. I wouldn't advise trusting it to shoot that expensive wedding job.

p.s. I have an M8 and while it has its good points I doubt if its biggest fan could claim that a rangefinder has the versatility of an SLR, and it could never be considered a compact camera (unless a D2-X is your benchmark).
p.p.s. The M8 is also rubbish for TTL flash use.
Posted on: 18 October 2007 by Asp
quote:
Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
Unfortunately, "supporting" E-TTL doesn't mean it actually works reliably in practice. I wouldn't advise trusting it to shoot that expensive wedding job.


You shouldn't use a G9 when you're shooting "that expensive wedding job" in the first place.

TTL not withstanding.
Posted on: 18 October 2007 by GraemeH
[QUOTE)
It's a bugger's muddle trying to fit the film in....[/QUOTE]

Not heard that expression before.