Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 announced - looks good!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: The horror of the small sensor P&S image
Next: Scott Linstead's high-speed photographs capture creatures frozen in time
From: David J Taylor on 22 Jul 2010 04:35 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:p2tf46t59jgr71pk23l1bodef395p1pmrq(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:36:33 +0100, "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:mdqe46l3c6ffjt514ae042sgh1bp023vff(a)4ax.com... >>> The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus >>> better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3. >>[] >> >>Good, yes, but those huge add-on lenses remind me rather of the >>ill-fated >>Sony DSC-R1 - large and ugly. > > > Why ill-fated? A successor is under development. Nearly five years since the camera first came out, and no updates, certainly helps give the impression of a failed line. > The DSC-R1 wasn't particularly large for a camera with an APS-C > sensor. It had an outstanding Carl Zeiss lens giving excellent image > quality. > > As for ugly, I think most cameras (apart from Leicas) are ugly, and > "handsome is as handsome does". On that basis, the DSC-R1 was a > handsome camera. > > I was so impressed with mine that I bought a second. The first got a > lot of hard use on construction sites and never let me down, so I > never actually needed the back-up. Despite all the dust and grit they > were exposed to, their sensors never needed cleaning. > > The DSC-R1 was the best non-SLR camera I have ever owned, and it was a > steady earner for me over a three year period. Who cares if it was > large and ugly? It was a fine camera. The add-on lenses made it a very large and ugly brute, and that wasn't just my view. I nearly bought one myself, as I agree the lens was excellent, but for what I needed the zoom range with the fixed lens alone was inadequate. I appreciate your needs are different. In the end, I'm glad I waited, and got a DSLR which could be used with similar zoom range lenses, but where you could easily add an extended zoom lens for walk-round use (e.g. 18-200+mm) or wider aperture lenses for low-light or subject isolation. Cheers, David
From: Bruce on 22 Jul 2010 04:53 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:35:03 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >The add-on lenses made it a very large and ugly brute, and that wasn't >just my view. I agree, I would never have considered the add-on lenses either. Thankfully, I had no need of them. The contract that was the R1's main use was renewed earlier this year for another three years. Bizarrely, the client specified that "more advanced" equipment must be used. That's a pity, because the R1 would have been more than adequate. But the person signing the contract wanted to show his fellow directors that only the best equipment was being used, so he specified a minimum of 24 MP. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. ;-)
From: David J Taylor on 22 Jul 2010 05:16 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:g71g46lvcl7aho27ucqs4nao7d0qo8qfth(a)4ax.com... [] > I agree, I would never have considered the add-on lenses either. > Thankfully, I had no need of them. > > The contract that was the R1's main use was renewed earlier this year > for another three years. Bizarrely, the client specified that "more > advanced" equipment must be used. That's a pity, because the R1 would > have been more than adequate. But the person signing the contract > wanted to show his fellow directors that only the best equipment was > being used, so he specified a minimum of 24 MP. > > A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. ;-) Oh, dear! Good news about the renewal, though. Cheers, David
From: Peter on 22 Jul 2010 09:08 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:g71g46lvcl7aho27ucqs4nao7d0qo8qfth(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:35:03 +0100, "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >> >>The add-on lenses made it a very large and ugly brute, and that wasn't >>just my view. > > > I agree, I would never have considered the add-on lenses either. > Thankfully, I had no need of them. > I strongly suspect hat you have little need of any lens. > The contract that was the R1's main use was renewed earlier this year > for another three years. Bizarrely, the client specified that "more > advanced" equipment must be used. That's a pity, because the R1 would > have been more than adequate. But the person signing the contract > wanted to show his fellow directors that only the best equipment was > being used, so he specified a minimum of 24 MP. > > A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. ;-) > Sure is. -- Peter
From: SMS on 22 Jul 2010 10:26
On 21/07/10 2:46 PM, Bruce wrote: > The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus > better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3. > > > From DPReview: > > "Panasonic has officially unveiled the DMC-LX5, successor to the > popular LX3. The latest model features a revised sensor, longer zoom > range and improved control layout without fundamentally changing the > existing model's formula. It offers a more flexible 24-90mm equivalent > lens with a bright F2.0-3.3 maximum aperture range and a comparatively > large 10MP sensor in a small body. The body itself is barely changed > compared to the LX3 - gaining an improved hand grip, clickable control > dial, direct movie record button and a 1:1 position on the aspect > ratio slider. Most significantly it gains a connector to add the > DMW-LVF1 electronic viewfinder originally launched with the GF1. Other > than this, the LX5 gains the AVCHD Lite format for its 720p video, and > its image stabilization is branded with the company's latest 'Power > O.I.S' designation. It will be available from the end of August for a > suggested retail price of $499.95. We've had a chance to use an LX5 > for a bit, so have prepared some notes on our first impressions." > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072110panasonicdmclx5.asp Looks like Panasonic finally got the message about their reputation for noise boxes and is addressing the problem. Still, the upcoming Canon G12 is probably a better choice with no need for a funky extra-cost add-on viewfinder. Just when CHDK is finally available for the G11, Canon is coming out with the G12! The G12 is said to have 1080 HD video and a CMOS sensor, but remain at 10 megapixeels. |