What about the panasonic Lumix DMC F1? I have read in some reviews that it might be better then Canon G11; I am thinking of getting a G11 as well...but seems a bit put off by its relatively big size ( I have been a Canon Ixus PnS user)
I think the Lumix DMC F1 is an old camera and a bit outdated. The best P&S bunch would be the Lumix LX3 and the two Canon G10 and G11. There was a proconsumer group test of the top P&S cameras and the LX3 topped the group followed by the G10. However both LX3 and G10, especially the G10 or even the G11, are rather large P&S cameras. The LX3's strength is its very fast lens of F/2.0 which no other P&S camera has. If you are in G11 or even LX3 territory why not go for the Panasonic GF1, which has lens interchangeability to such an extent that almost every lens made todate by all manufacturers can be used in this camera? If you have a dslr outfit you can use all your dslr lenses on the gf1. Or you can buy a used 1960s era Leica M lens, the F/2.0 50mm summicron, for very little money and use it on the GF1 as a 100mm F/2.0 lens. It will beat any of your current dslr lenses.
If not mistaken.. ..there are even a few compact digicams which people can choose & adjust the apertures..If compact digicams can do so, why not a G10/G11??..
All P&S digicams, including the LX3 and the Canon G10 and G11, are not semi dslr cameras by any definition. Even with their aperture-priority features any meaningful use of dof is non-existent. How on earth can a puny size range of focal lengths of say the Canon G11 of 6.1mm-30.5mm be useful? Even if it can come up with a high speed F1.0 lens its dof is still quite useless. Yes, P&S cameras have their role, and nearly every photographer owns one. They are great if you want everything to be in focus-how more idiot-proof can you get?
Have you bought and used your "that" digital camera yet ?? Still waiting for those 'brilliant' photos...
Is manual focus on P&S cameras really useful? Almost all P&S cameras more or less align focus to the hyperfocus distance, rendering the miximum dof in shot after shot. This is quite useless for capturing that "center of interest" selectively. The only meaningful dof one can get out of a P&S camera is to do macro, but even here you cannot get the image size larger than the subject size. There are 3 areas you can play around with dof, namely focal length, aperture, and distance from camera to subject. One important objective of selective dof is to emphasize the "center of interest" in the picture you want to take. With focal length and aperture selection, 1/3 of the dof is in front and 2/3 behind the subject. This is not shown in all modern digital cameras. In film slrs these are shown on the lens. Playing around with apertures, if you double the f-stop (not merely one stop less) from f/4 to f/8, you double the dof. On the focal length, if you use a lens of half the focal length you can quadruple the dof. Or you can move twice as far away from the subject to achieve the same thing. But all these are for larger cameras to be used selectively for creativity. For P&S that is basically what they deliver, just one set menu with hardly any choice.
No, I have not despite an offer from my son to get me a GH1 or GF1 so that I can put my many Leitz M and Zeiss rf lenses to good use. Maybe, I will wait for a full frame camera of similar dimensions as the GF1, but then what do I do with a camera I will hardly use? BTW, too many photos today are "doctored" photos in which chance replaces creativity. The only fair way to judge any photo is to evaluate and then critique a photo, because at least this phase of photography is still more fool-proof.
[QUOTE = Mini Me; 1283509] we're still waiting for one of your masterpieces to be submitted for critique ...[/ QUOTE] All my photos are slides that come in 24x36 and 60x60 and are best viewed with 35mm and mf projectors on a large screen, which I still have. With so many boxes of slides, I will leave it to the next generation to transfer them to something more orderly and more easily accessible and retrieveable. BTW, I haven't come across any earth shattering comments from you, if at all, on some of the photos offered for critique here.
why would i be expected to make earth shattering comments about topics in which i'm not an earth shattering expert (self proclaimed or otherwise)? on the other hand, you keep knocking cameras that you've never used before and keep recommending other cameras that you've never used before.
By critiquing any visual art, including photographs, one reveals one's opinions and maybe expertise or otherwise in the field. The number of pictures and the equipment one takes or owns is not a good indicator of quality or expertise. Everyone is free to have, and also to express, his or her opinions on equipment. Having owned a certain camera does not guarantee that the owner knows more about his camera than a non-owner. BTW, I do have more than a rudimentary knowledge of cameras. Maybe, when handed a digital camera I may be lost for a while on how to operate it but I should be able to get it to work after a short while. The basics in cameras and lenses have not changed, unless it can spit out money when I command it to do so..
i can see that you dont have experience in advance p&s camera. before this, complained about the puny size of the lens. please re-check the sensor size. i did mention before about the lens distance to sensor do affect DOF. here, i read your lecture about DOF but it is not complete, is ok. how about this DOF? nice? macro photography, can i know which lens can do image size larger than the subject size? by the way, we want to see your masterpieces isnt to critique but to admire and share the experience.
. Categorically, that is incorrect, way oversweeping the idea. Try that hyperfocus thing using a 270mm (equivalent)ultra-zoom PnS, it does not happen that way. By the way, what is 'miximum' ?? Its either "minimum" or "maximum", please decide. For full size DSLR's there is one and only one exception whereby you can get past 1:1 magnification straight out of the lens without extra accessories. So, I don't see why would you expect a PnS to be able to do better ? Its only show in film era lenses of pretty old vintage, something way beyond 25 years old as of today. The last major film cameras ( read mass adapted) exited the market less than 10 years ago. That again is incorrect. Its only applicable to certain focal lengths and certain apertures and not everything else. On a 35mm film equivalent FF 5DmkII, a 50mm at f/4, 20Ft has a DOF of 12.7ft; at f/8, 20ft, DOF becomes 35ft at f/4, 10ft, DOF becomes 2.94ft at f/8, 10ft, DOF becomes 6.28ft For a 100mm at f/4, 20ft DOF is 2.89ft at f/8, 20ft, DOF becomes 5.88ft at f/4, 10ft, DOF becomes 0.71ft at f/8, 10ft, DOF becomes 1.42ft In fact, as the calculations show, it does not apply to the most common 50mm focal length at all!
[QUOTE = drifit; 1283674] i can see that you dont have experience in advance p & s camera. Before this, complained about the puny size of the lens. Please re-check the sensor size. I did mention before about the lens distance to sensor do affect DOF. here, i read your lecture about DOF but it is not complete, is ok. how about [URL = "http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1273101&postcount=11"] this DOF [/ URL]? nice? macro photography, can i know which lens can do image size larger than the subject size? by the way, we want to see your masterpieces isnt to critique but to admire and share the experience. [/ QUOTE] P&S cameras can do close-up photography but no macro. My Leitz 65mm Elmar macro lens which I used to take macro photos with my Visoflex can go down to a reproduction scale to 1.2. If I add a bellows unit, it goes to 1.85. With my 50mm summicron lens plus bellows I can get to a reproduction scale to 3.2. If I use Leitz's special photar macro lenses with an adapter I can go to 19 X. A typical P&S sensor measures a mere 4.29mm x 5.76mm. Can you get a subject this small to fill up the sensor, to call it a true macro? Or divide 4.29mm x 5.76mm by 19 and try to fit the product into 4.29mm x 5.76mm, to qualify as super macro.
taneepak, what's ur take on lumix gf1 (not sure if u have had the opportunity to check it out, but if you did...)? tnx vm. MetalOrange
So, Mr.T... ..so, what is "a good indicator" of quality or expertise???.. Just simply by spewing infos gathered from the many souces on the internet???.. NATO = No Action Transcribe Only
Err.. so what and who cares? Are you buying a camera just so that you can qualify to own an "true macro"? I am quite certain Master Drifit fully recognises the limitation of his G11 and is getting around them taking excellent photographs instead of bitching about what his G11 cannot do (or be called). Photography (and many things) are like badminton, there are people who cannot any results despite the best equipment and there are people who can get the best results despite their equipment.
On the contrary I think P&S cameras are very useful and are quite indispensable for quicky shots not possible with larger cameras. Yes, great pictures can be taken with any type of camera, including P&S cameras. There are many news events that only P&S can access, simply because they are so ubiquitous. Perhaps out of a crowd of 50 people there maybe 45 people who have P&S or a mobile phone that can record any news-worthy event. You will be lucky to find even one out of a crowd of 50 who carries a f/f dslr. No camera, no pictures, and it is for this reason P&S now is king. Let us stay focussed on the issue here-that P&S including the likes of the better and larger ones like the Lumix LX3 and Canon G10 and G11 are not a semi dslr by any definition. Also fixed lens with small imaging sensors in P&S cameras are not maco capable, only close focussing. For true macro and micro capability the lens must be interchangeable to allow for use of macro lenses and other accessories like bellows and adaptors/extension tubes and microscope adapters for looking into the really small world. BTW, macro lenses are optimized for close focussing, not like the average infinity lens although they can be used like an ordinary lens for infinity focussing. I feel obliged to clarify as Drifit seems to come out strong on P&S being great for macro. FYI, close focussing is not the same thing as macro. Photography with lenses which cover a magnification range up to 20X is known as photomacrography. For higher magnification a compound microscope consisting an objective lens and an eyepiece lens is used. The eyepiece magnifies the image created by the objective. Photography through the microscope is referred to as photomicrography. Both photomacrography and photomicrography should not be confused with microphotography which is just the opposite-the technique of making a very small precision photography of a large object rather than producing a greatly enlarged image of a very small object. They should also not be confused with close focussing. Now do you stii think P&S with their small fixed non-interchangeable lenses make great photomacrography?
