Comments on: The Camera You Need http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/ Creativity x Technology Sat, 17 Mar 2012 05:09:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: psu http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5482 psu Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:30:07 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5482 I guess you all are right... Check out the iPhone curve here: http://www.flickr.com/cameras/ I guess you all are right…

Check out the iPhone curve here:

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/

]]> By: mlehrian http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5481 mlehrian Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:51:30 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5481 Point-and-shoot cameras have never been fast enough for me to be happy with even moderate-light pictures, which drove me to a D50 with a 28mm f/2 lens (I actually loved my old, cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens from my Nikon 5005, but the field of view on the D50 isn't wide enough for most indoor shots on the DSLR). I've had a couple Nikon and Canon P&S cameras and they were all adequate, but none of them were great. BUT, the Panasonic LX3 has really closed the gap and pretty ended my camera woes. The fast lens makes it great for low-light pictures, it's small and light weight, good battery life, 8GB card holds like 1700 pics (I use the highest quality jpeg setting), it does 16x9, manual controls, decent UI. I almost never dig out the D50 anymore to capturing real life - the LX3 is just more convenient. I'm glad somebody finally made a *real* improvement to the P&S camera world. My advice, get a Panny LX3, toss it into a Crumpler bag and call it a day! Point-and-shoot cameras have never been fast enough for me to be happy with even moderate-light pictures, which drove me to a D50 with a 28mm f/2 lens (I actually loved my old, cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens from my Nikon 5005, but the field of view on the D50 isn’t wide enough for most indoor shots on the DSLR). I’ve had a couple Nikon and Canon P&S cameras and they were all adequate, but none of them were great.

BUT, the Panasonic LX3 has really closed the gap and pretty ended my camera woes. The fast lens makes it great for low-light pictures, it’s small and light weight, good battery life, 8GB card holds like 1700 pics (I use the highest quality jpeg setting), it does 16×9, manual controls, decent UI. I almost never dig out the D50 anymore to capturing real life – the LX3 is just more convenient. I’m glad somebody finally made a *real* improvement to the P&S camera world.

My advice, get a Panny LX3, toss it into a Crumpler bag and call it a day!

]]> By: ncodding http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5473 ncodding Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:13:12 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5473 I sold my 80-200/2.8L just a couple days ago. I guess I knew this post was coming. I sold my 80-200/2.8L just a couple days ago. I guess I knew this post was coming.

]]> By: Vick Khera http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5474 Vick Khera Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:50:51 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5474 When you put that Canon P&S in your pocket, make sure it is not your pants pocket, but your shirt pocket. Why? Here's the story: One of my employees bought such a "pocket" camera. He had it in his pants when it somehow turned on and opened the lens. Not being able to get to the button to turn it off, he managed to damage it pulling it out of the pocket. When he called canon to complain about the camera turning on in his pocket, they told him he was not covered because he put the camera in his pocket... He found on their website how they advertise the camera as a pocket camera and even had a picture of a guy with the camera in his (shirt) pocket. They then mulled this contradiction over for a few days and came back and said that it only applies to shirt pockets, and because he had it in his pants pocket, it was misused and therefore not covered in warrantee. He now uses a Panasonic P&S camera :-) When you put that Canon P&S in your pocket, make sure it is not your pants pocket, but your shirt pocket. Why? Here’s the story:

One of my employees bought such a “pocket” camera. He had it in his pants when it somehow turned on and opened the lens. Not being able to get to the button to turn it off, he managed to damage it pulling it out of the pocket.

When he called canon to complain about the camera turning on in his pocket, they told him he was not covered because he put the camera in his pocket…

He found on their website how they advertise the camera as a pocket camera and even had a picture of a guy with the camera in his (shirt) pocket. They then mulled this contradiction over for a few days and came back and said that it only applies to shirt pockets, and because he had it in his pants pocket, it was misused and therefore not covered in warrantee.

He now uses a Panasonic P&S camera :-)

]]> By: psu http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5472 psu Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:08:50 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5472 The Olympus 12-60 (24-120 equiv.) for 4/3rds is another one of those "single lens" solutions that I wish Nikon had. The clostest thing that Nikon has are either the 16-85 (24-120 equiv.) for cropped sensors or the 24-120 for full frame. But both lenses are too slow to be enjoyable IMHO. It's also too bad the 4/3rds cameras don't have the sensor from the D3. The Olympus 12-60 (24-120 equiv.) for 4/3rds is another one of those “single lens” solutions that I wish Nikon had. The clostest thing that Nikon has are either the 16-85 (24-120 equiv.) for cropped sensors or the 24-120 for full frame. But both lenses are too slow to be enjoyable IMHO. It’s also too bad the 4/3rds cameras don’t have the sensor from the D3.

]]> By: Mike http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5480 Mike Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:32:32 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5480 I find that my anxiety rises (and consequently my enjoyment decreases) with the number of lens options I have. When I was shooting film I had Nikkor primes covering an absurd range that I never used, from a 15mm lens I was paranoid about protecting to a 600mm behemoth I never took anywhere (the adage that the only things photogenic are within fifty feet of your care has some weight to it). I started that system with a 50mm f/1.4 and loved every moment; I took a trip to Banff with a 24, 50, and 85 and loved that trip as well; the downfall, I suspect, was buying a 180 I didn't need but was cheap enough that I didn't have to consider how much it dented the budget. Looking to avoid that, I rebooted into the 4/3 system a few years ago; when I had the one lens (22~44mm equivalent) I was incredibly happy. With three lenses, though, I'm finding excuses to leave things behind, and once again there's a boat anchor (300mm equivalent) that I'm paranoid about because of size and weight (plus I managed to drop it over the weekend, bending the lens flange -- it's that massive). Panasonic (LX-series), Ricoh (GR/GX) and now Canon (S90 looks promising, if the control rings work out well) look to have taken the right track with compacts: useful range, well-sorted controls, and decent quality. However I submit the iPhone is not so crazy an idea; chances are that most digital photographs don't end up in prints, but shared on-line somewhere, and as computers and cameras reach some convergence, the more conveniently you can get your photos to the sharing site, the better the camera. The iPhone has a lousy camera but great sharing convenience, and that makes it a better device than most cameras. I like being able to create, tag, and comment photos in the same device -- the added context makes the photograph make a little more sense to me, and that's what keeps me from jumping on the eye-fi wagon. I find that my anxiety rises (and consequently my enjoyment decreases) with the number of lens options I have. When I was shooting film I had Nikkor primes covering an absurd range that I never used, from a 15mm lens I was paranoid about protecting to a 600mm behemoth I never took anywhere (the adage that the only things photogenic are within fifty feet of your care has some weight to it). I started that system with a 50mm f/1.4 and loved every moment; I took a trip to Banff with a 24, 50, and 85 and loved that trip as well; the downfall, I suspect, was buying a 180 I didn’t need but was cheap enough that I didn’t have to consider how much it dented the budget.

Looking to avoid that, I rebooted into the 4/3 system a few years ago; when I had the one lens (22~44mm equivalent) I was incredibly happy. With three lenses, though, I’m finding excuses to leave things behind, and once again there’s a boat anchor (300mm equivalent) that I’m paranoid about because of size and weight (plus I managed to drop it over the weekend, bending the lens flange — it’s that massive).

Panasonic (LX-series), Ricoh (GR/GX) and now Canon (S90 looks promising, if the control rings work out well) look to have taken the right track with compacts: useful range, well-sorted controls, and decent quality. However I submit the iPhone is not so crazy an idea; chances are that most digital photographs don’t end up in prints, but shared on-line somewhere, and as computers and cameras reach some convergence, the more conveniently you can get your photos to the sharing site, the better the camera. The iPhone has a lousy camera but great sharing convenience, and that makes it a better device than most cameras. I like being able to create, tag, and comment photos in the same device — the added context makes the photograph make a little more sense to me, and that’s what keeps me from jumping on the eye-fi wagon.

]]> By: psu http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5479 psu Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:08:31 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5479 Yeah well I already own the point and shoot too. Hmm, maybe that's the point. Oh yeah, one other thing I forgot to note in the article, to my chagrin: jesus don't buy the god damned battery grip. Just don't. Leave it alone. Yeah well I already own the point and shoot too. Hmm, maybe that’s the point.

Oh yeah, one other thing I forgot to note in the article, to my chagrin: jesus don’t buy the god damned battery grip. Just don’t. Leave it alone.

]]> By: ClumberKim http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5478 ClumberKim Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:01:23 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5478 I agree with peterb. My iPhone 3gs has replaced both my Flip and my little canon point & shoot. I only get out the canon when I'm silly enough to want to do something involving a tripod, so the 90% solution still holds. In my case, it's more like 98%. I appreciate the over-thinking though. I will no doubt be referring back to it later. I agree with peterb. My iPhone 3gs has replaced both my Flip and my little canon point & shoot. I only get out the canon when I’m silly enough to want to do something involving a tripod, so the 90% solution still holds. In my case, it’s more like 98%.

I appreciate the over-thinking though. I will no doubt be referring back to it later.

]]> By: peterb http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5477 peterb Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:41:30 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5477 But I already own one. But I already own one.

]]> By: psu http://tleaves.com/2009/08/21/the-camera-you-need/comment-page-1/#comment-5476 psu Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:40:30 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=2094#comment-5476 Yeah, but the iPhone is more expensive than the point and shoot you need. Yeah, but the iPhone is more expensive than the point and shoot you need.

]]>