Prev: Photomerge panorama problems
Next: New Pentax 645 and the death of the CF card
From: Chris Malcolm on 14 Mar 2010 06:42
Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2010 06:29:24 GMT, ted(a)loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>I carry a Panasonic LX3 with me all the time and I agree with your
>>>analysis of those results.
>>>
>>>I just bought a Panasonic GF1 to replace it. The GF1 doesn't shine at
>>>high ISOs either, but the shots at ISO 1600 are acceptable, and far
>>>better than those from the LX3.
>>>
>>>Anyone want to buy an LX3? High miles, one careless owner ...
>>>
>>
>>I'm quite happy with mine. Why push the ISO?


> Because, sometimes, I have no choice.


>>You can get some very nice
>>pictures at night if you go to aperture priority and use a tripod:


> I carry the LX3 because it fits in a pocket. I don't carry a tripod.

> The whole idea of the LX3 is that it is always with me when I am not
> carrying a DSLR, so I don't ever miss an opportunity through not
> having a camera available.

> I always keep a tripod in my car and I often carry a monopod, but they
> are for use with my DSLRs. If I need to carry a tripod, I might as
> well carry a DSLR too. The LS3 is about keeping things small and
> light. A tripod doesn't fit those requirements.

There are small light tripods that fit in a pocket too.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: ron_tom on 14 Mar 2010 14:19
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:34:01 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 14, 1:29�am, t...(a)loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>> In article <89qmp5pkcpr8opo2c4dpddt3ikebfqc...(a)4ax.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce �<docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:35:05 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >>Seems to hang in ok until 200 ISO, then starts to hurt. �1600 & 3200
>> >>are a write-off. �IMO, these cameras are no better than the old bridge
>> >>P&S's with their bigger, better 2/3" sensors.
>>
>> >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/panasonic_lx3_iso_noise_
>>
>> >I carry a Panasonic LX3 with me all the time and I agree with your
>> >analysis of those results. �
>>
>> >I just bought a Panasonic GF1 to replace it. �The GF1 doesn't shine at
>> >high ISOs either, but the shots at ISO 1600 are acceptable, and far
>> >better than those from the LX3.
>>
>> >Anyone want to buy an LX3? �High miles, one careless owner ...
>>
>> I'm quite happy with mine. �Why push the ISO?
>
>Handheld shooting in dim environments, shooting when you can't use a
>tripod, shooting moving subjects in less than perfect light, etc, etc,.

Yes, I see how much of your photography revolves around those situations.

<eye roll>

From: Rich on 14 Mar 2010 18:48
On Mar 14, 2:19 pm, ron_tom <fin...(a)someaddress.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:34:01 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 14, 1:29 am, t...(a)loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> >> In article <89qmp5pkcpr8opo2c4dpddt3ikebfqc...(a)4ax.com>,
>
> >> Bruce  <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:35:05 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>Seems to hang in ok until 200 ISO, then starts to hurt.  1600 & 3200
> >> >>are a write-off.  IMO, these cameras are no better than the old bridge
> >> >>P&S's with their bigger, better 2/3" sensors.
>
> >> >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/panasonic_lx3_iso_noise_
>
> >> >I carry a Panasonic LX3 with me all the time and I agree with your
> >> >analysis of those results.  
>
> >> >I just bought a Panasonic GF1 to replace it.  The GF1 doesn't shine at
> >> >high ISOs either, but the shots at ISO 1600 are acceptable, and far
> >> >better than those from the LX3.
>
> >> >Anyone want to buy an LX3?  High miles, one careless owner ...
>
> >> I'm quite happy with mine.  Why push the ISO?
>
> >Handheld shooting in dim environments, shooting when you can't use a
> >tripod, shooting moving subjects in less than perfect light, etc, etc,.
>
> Yes, I see how much of your photography revolves around those situations.
>
> <eye roll>

Yes, mine doesn't therefore no one's does, right? Plus, it's like
people saying, "I don't need a high megapixel count."
Really, not ever?
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Photomerge panorama problems
Next: New Pentax 645 and the death of the CF card