Do I actually need a DSLR?
Discussion
Vocal Minority said:
It is tough.
I have to say that I though a compact system was the answer, except there is the little auto focus niggle in my mind, that on the 4-6 times a year I watch some live racing, I would be disappointed....
Just for the record I would likely only keep one jack of all trades lens, maybe treat myself to a second if I got very carried away - I wouldn't bother with a tripod or extra flashes etc.
In that case you'll be disapointed those 4/-6 times a year to watch live racing. You'll need a long lens, at least 200mm for motorsport.I have to say that I though a compact system was the answer, except there is the little auto focus niggle in my mind, that on the 4-6 times a year I watch some live racing, I would be disappointed....
Just for the record I would likely only keep one jack of all trades lens, maybe treat myself to a second if I got very carried away - I wouldn't bother with a tripod or extra flashes etc.
Vocal Minority said:
It is tough.
I have to say that I though a compact system was the answer, except there is the little auto focus niggle in my mind, that on the 4-6 times a year I watch some live racing, I would be disappointed....
Just for the record I would likely only keep one jack of all trades lens, maybe treat myself to a second if I got very carried away - I wouldn't bother with a tripod or extra flashes etc.
Unless you are very close to the action they will cope with motor-racing quite happily. Worst case scenario you pre-focus on the apex and then wait for the car to arrive.I have to say that I though a compact system was the answer, except there is the little auto focus niggle in my mind, that on the 4-6 times a year I watch some live racing, I would be disappointed....
Just for the record I would likely only keep one jack of all trades lens, maybe treat myself to a second if I got very carried away - I wouldn't bother with a tripod or extra flashes etc.
Regarding lenses, this is where interchangeability becomes a big plus point. You can pick up a cheap telephoto (aka zoom) lens for when you go to watch races but you don't need to drag it around the rest of the time when the smaller, lighter, general purpose lens is more than enough.
Craikeybaby said:
In that case you'll be disapointed those 4/-6 times a year to watch live racing. You'll need a long lens, at least 200mm for motorsport.
You should search out the motor racing photos by somebody on Pistonheads called tim.b or motion-captured.com.His are some of the most interesting motor sport images I've come across (great use of colour and a very different approach to composition) yes there are some long lens shots but not too many.
It's so easy to say I'm going on a safari and I need a really long lens, or I'm going to shoot landscapes, I need a really wide lens.
I think it shows a lack of photographic imagination; yet another boring encyclopaedia type close- up of a lion,
or yet another beautifully crafted wide landscape with a rock in foreground, water beyond, a few hills, all under a nice sky
.Rant over
.I'm not getting at you Craikybaby, but yours is the easiest post to use as a quote
.
Rosscow said:
Have any of you guys watched the video posted above by Elderly?
It appears the A6000 is plenty fast enough for action sports? 11 fps and an amazingly fast AF system?
Or am I missing something (more than likely!).
The problem with CSCs that use contrast detect auto focus is that contrast detect systems aren't clever enough to know which way they need to rotate the lens in order to gain correct focus. This means that the camera will need to hunt until it finds focus which it detects by finding sharp contrast areas in the image. Once the camera finds that sharp contrast and confirms focus, if the subject moves again, the camera needs to start all over again as it doesnt know if the subject has moved towards or away from the camera, it can only guess and hope it rotates the lens the right way.It appears the A6000 is plenty fast enough for action sports? 11 fps and an amazingly fast AF system?
Or am I missing something (more than likely!).
Phase detection is better in that it knows where the object is and which direction it is moving and so knows which way to rotate the lens to focus. It may still need to hunt a bit to get accurate lock but it knows which way to turn, speeding up the process massively. Phase detection falls down in that it isnt always accurate. The auto focus sensor is seperate from the imaging sensor. This is what the mirror is for in a DSLR. When the imaging sensor isnt being used to capture an image, the mirror directs the light from the lens onto the auto focus sensor. If alignment is even a fraction of a millimetre out, focus will be off. Hence why we see so many reports of front/back focusing in DSLRs.
Contrast detection is much more accurate at getting focus just right as the imaging sensor actually looks for focus. Phase detection relies on distances and calibration rather than actually checking that the image is indeed in focus.
More recent CSC cameras are being built with phase detection sensors in the imaging sensor. It's quite a new tech and i've no experience with it but it's definitely the way forward imo. Panasonic at pushing ahead with another method called depth from defocus. Basically the lens characteristics are profiled so the sensor can read the scene and knows which way it needs to rotate to get accurate focus. Apparently it works quite well.
Sony claiming 11 frames per second doesnt mean you will get 11 frames per second of perfectly in focus images. It means the camera can take 11 frames in a second and will continue to hunt for focus on the subject whilst it takes them. THat means the first image might be in focus, then the next 5 might be the camera hunting the wrong way and then the remaining 5 being the camera hunting the other way. Think of FPS as MPG in a car. It's all marketing. The camera might be able to do it in the right conditions every now and then, but most of the time you'll achieve half of those 11 as usable shots.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Thursday 19th February 14:48
MysteryLemon said:
The problem with CSCs that use contrast detect auto focus is that contrast detect systems aren't clever enough to know which way they need to rotate the lens in order to gain correct focus. This means that the camera will need to hunt until it finds focus which it detects by finding sharp contrast areas in the image. Once the camera finds that sharp contrast and confirms focus, if the subject moves again, the camera needs to start all over again as it doesnt know if the subject has moved towards or away from the camera, it can only guess and hope it rotates the lens the right way.
Phase detection is better in that it knows where the object is and which direction it is moving and so knows which way to rotate the lens to focus. It may still need to hunt a bit to get accurate lock but it knows which way to turn, speeding up the process massively. Phase detection falls down in that it isnt always accurate. The auto focus sensor is seperate from the imaging sensor. This is what the mirror is for in a DSLR. When the imaging sensor isnt being used to capture an image, the mirror directs the light from the lens onto the auto focus sensor. If alignment is even a fraction of a millimetre out, focus will be off. Hence why we see so many reports of front/back focusing in DSLRs.
Contrast detection is much more accurate at getting focus just right as the imaging sensor actually looks for focus. Phase detection relies on distances and calibration rather than actually checking that the image is indeed in focus.
More recent CSC cameras are being built with phase detection sensors in the imaging sensor. It's quite a new tech and i've no experience with it but it's definitely the way forward imo. Panasonic at pushing ahead with another method called depth from defocus. Basically the lens characteristics are profiled so the sensor can read the scene and knows which way it needs to rotate to get accurate focus. Apparently it works quite well.
Sony claiming 11 frames per second doesnt mean you will get 11 frames per second of perfectly in focus images. It means the camera can take 11 frames in a second and will continue to hunt for focus on the subject whilst it takes them. THat means the first image might be in focus, then the next 5 might be the camera hunting the wrong way and then the remaining 5 being the camera hunting the other way. Think of FPS as MPG in a car. It's all marketing. The camera might be able to do it in the right conditions every now and then, but most of the time you'll achieve half of those 11 as usable shots.
Is it 11fps of RAW and while using aufocus? Or set focus, JPGs and buffer needing to empty for 10 sec after each burst?Phase detection is better in that it knows where the object is and which direction it is moving and so knows which way to rotate the lens to focus. It may still need to hunt a bit to get accurate lock but it knows which way to turn, speeding up the process massively. Phase detection falls down in that it isnt always accurate. The auto focus sensor is seperate from the imaging sensor. This is what the mirror is for in a DSLR. When the imaging sensor isnt being used to capture an image, the mirror directs the light from the lens onto the auto focus sensor. If alignment is even a fraction of a millimetre out, focus will be off. Hence why we see so many reports of front/back focusing in DSLRs.
Contrast detection is much more accurate at getting focus just right as the imaging sensor actually looks for focus. Phase detection relies on distances and calibration rather than actually checking that the image is indeed in focus.
More recent CSC cameras are being built with phase detection sensors in the imaging sensor. It's quite a new tech and i've no experience with it but it's definitely the way forward imo. Panasonic at pushing ahead with another method called depth from defocus. Basically the lens characteristics are profiled so the sensor can read the scene and knows which way it needs to rotate to get accurate focus. Apparently it works quite well.
Sony claiming 11 frames per second doesnt mean you will get 11 frames per second of perfectly in focus images. It means the camera can take 11 frames in a second and will continue to hunt for focus on the subject whilst it takes them. THat means the first image might be in focus, then the next 5 might be the camera hunting the wrong way and then the remaining 5 being the camera hunting the other way. Think of FPS as MPG in a car. It's all marketing. The camera might be able to do it in the right conditions every now and then, but most of the time you'll achieve half of those 11 as usable shots.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Thursday 19th February 14:48
MysteryLemon said:
Ok so I just bought an LX100. I am weak. The lure of a camera I can actually take places with me without it feeling like a chore is too much
So, D7000 with nice lenses for sale if anyone fancies?
Great choice, you will love the DFD focus speed, even in low light environments.So, D7000 with nice lenses for sale if anyone fancies?
Elderly said:
Craikeybaby said:
In that case you'll be disapointed those 4/-6 times a year to watch live racing. You'll need a long lens, at least 200mm for motorsport.
You should search out the motor racing photos by somebody on Pistonheads called tim.b or motion-captured.com.His are some of the most interesting motor sport images I've come across (great use of colour and a very different approach to composition) yes there are some long lens shots but not too many.
It's so easy to say I'm going on a safari and I need a really long lens, or I'm going to shoot landscapes, I need a really wide lens.
I think it shows a lack of photographic imagination; yet another boring encyclopaedia type close- up of a lion,
or yet another beautifully crafted wide landscape with a rock in foreground, water beyond, a few hills, all under a nice sky
.Rant over
.I'm not getting at you Craikybaby, but yours is the easiest post to use as a quote
.Just to prove that I'm not a long lens only jockey, this was taken with a 17-40mm lens:
MysteryLemon said:
Ok so I just bought an LX100. I am weak. The lure of a camera I can actually take places with me without it feeling like a chore is too much
So, D7000 with nice lenses for sale if anyone fancies?
Ooooh... I missed this post! Please keep us updated So, D7000 with nice lenses for sale if anyone fancies?
I think I've read somewhere that the DFD technology is limited to stills only? So not able to use in the 4K video mode? Unsure though.
Edited by Rosscow on Friday 20th February 08:44
I made the full move from Nikon (D750) to Fuji (X-T1) last week. AF has come an awful long way since I last experimented with Mirrorless a few years ago. I literally unboxed the lens as I arrived in the Forest of Dean last weekend, so with no experience whatsoever (and about 10 shots taken in total on my Fuji) I was able to pick it up very quickly...
Wyedean Rally 2015 by Harry_S, on Flickr
Wyedean Rally 2015 by Harry_S, on Flickr
These aren't one-offs from a batch of a thousand either, I only took 200 and 75% were very usable.
I didn't bother much with panning as that's 90% ability, AF has very little to do with it, but did test 'freezing' motion quite a bit in the 2 hours I had free, as that's where mirrorless AF normally falls over. I think the samples speak for themselves, very sharp and despite it being pretty dark it coped really well. These were with the 55-200 f3.5-4.8, apparently the 40-150 2.8 is significantly quicker to AF.
I've also got the 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, the Fuji lenses really are staggering (and there is no faffing around with micro-adjust, they just work!)
Wyedean Rally 2015 by Harry_S, on FlickrWyedean Rally 2015 by Harry_S, on FlickrThese aren't one-offs from a batch of a thousand either, I only took 200 and 75% were very usable.
I didn't bother much with panning as that's 90% ability, AF has very little to do with it, but did test 'freezing' motion quite a bit in the 2 hours I had free, as that's where mirrorless AF normally falls over. I think the samples speak for themselves, very sharp and despite it being pretty dark it coped really well. These were with the 55-200 f3.5-4.8, apparently the 40-150 2.8 is significantly quicker to AF.
I've also got the 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, the Fuji lenses really are staggering (and there is no faffing around with micro-adjust, they just work!)
Edited by ukaskew on Friday 20th February 12:34
Rosscow said:
Ooooh... I missed this post! Please keep us updated
I think I've read somewhere that the DFD technology is limited to stills only? So not able to use in the 4K video mode? Unsure though.
I should probably put a proper post together with samples and so on for this but as you asked, may as well put here.I think I've read somewhere that the DFD technology is limited to stills only? So not able to use in the 4K video mode? Unsure though.
Edited by Rosscow on Friday 20th February 08:44
Had the LX100 for a couple of days now. Not really used it for much of any use, just playing about. Came out to Pizza Hut with the kids yesterday and then generally just about the house.
Relevant to this thread, size wise, it's basically the same as my old Lumix GX1 with Sigma 19mm prime. At least to hold you wouldn't notice any difference between the two. It fits in my jacket pocket but you won't get it in a pair of skinny jeans as you can imagine. It has a nice weight to it and feels very well built. External controls are a decent size and easy to use, which is what sells it to me over the RX100 really.
Operation is very nice. I have no issues leaving it in Auto and just using it that way, although you do need to keep an eye on the shutter speed in lower light conditions as auto tends to try and keep ISO low rather than going for a faster shutter speed. Easily overcome by turning the shutter dial to 125th and letting aperture and iso do its thing. You can set the max auto ISO to whatever you want. I've capped it at 3200 for now and this seems to work pretty well although for some reason, the camera wont select higher than 1600 iso in aperture priority mode. Shutter Priority it does no problem. I guess again, the programming is to go for slower shutter instead of higher ISO so automatically caps itself regardless what you set it too. Shutter Priority and full manual, the camera goes to whatever you set.
Operation is very much like how I remember it on the GX1. everything on the screen is much the same so I've picked it all up pretty easily. Menus are familar etc. It's well thought out though. There are buttons for most relevant options preset on the camera already but there are also 3 assignable function buttons which can be set to pretty much anything. Having the aperture ring and shutter speed dials is fantastic. I wish we would see some DSLRs that did away with the PASM dial and went for this option, just like how I learnt on manual film SLRs.
One thing I really love that I didn't think would interest me is the Wifi. I had a quick play around with it and not only can you fully control the camera via your phone (I have android) including live view, but what I found particularly good is that you can browse all of the images on your camera through your phone and download them to your phone as you go through them. I expected the wifi implementation to be a one by one affair sending images across one at a time taking forever, but this is great. Its almost as if the pictures are on your phone and you're thumbing through your gallery. Very clever Panasonic.
Auto focus seems perfectly adequate to me. AF-S is very very fast in all conditions I've found. You can define the centre point size which is handy. Recommend the smallest setting otherwise you don't really know what the camera will pick within the square as its focus point. On the smallest setting it's small enough that it can't really get it wrong.
AF-C is very fast to adjust and keep focus although accuracy on moving subjects is something I still need to try properly. It's very similar to how it was on the GX1. The camera keeps the centre square in focus by hunting back and forth very very quickly over the subject to ensure it always has the optimal focus on that point. It works very well but is also very quick to react if another subject moves infront of yours or you move off of the subject.
AF-C with tracking works well. The focus point locks on and follows the subject around the frame easily. And with the AF-C doing the above action, can quite easily keep up keeping the subject in focus. The tracking can get confused at times with objects of similar colours or if something else moves in front of the subject you are trying to track but tbh, my Nikon D7000 is exactly the same.
The Viewfinder on the camera seems to get a lot of flack online as not being as good as it could be but in all honesty, it's come as quite a surprise to me how much I've been using it. I've never really got on with EVFs and always loved the OVFs on DSLRs. I've not really a lot to compare this one to but it's perfectly good to me. The only issue I have is that the focus adjustment on the EVF itself seems to do very little. I can adjust my eye to focus on it ok but I do need to adjust my focus. The adjustment on the EVF doesn't do enough imo but something I can live with no problem. I've noticed none of the "rainbow" effect people seem to mention a lot.
The rear screen is also spot on. I don't know what issues people have saying it's not as good as it could be. Really? Seems perfectly fine to me. Also people saying the peaking is hard to see. Really? I can see it perfectly fine...
Video mode is good. Auto focus is fine in this mode. I like how you can just let the camera get on with it and just keep the centre point in focus (or use one of the various tracking/detection modes to pick out subjects) but you can also press the shutter button to make the camera focus quicker on a new subject whilst shooting. I shot a bit of video in 4k yesterday and the quality was very nice About a minute and a half took up 800mb though... My PC also had trouble playing it back though so I ended up using handbrake to downscale it to 1080p. The 1080p file is fantastic tbh. I doubt I'll be shooting 4k much.
My only real gripe with the camera is the JPGs. The processing engine is pretty poor to be honest but not exclusive to this camera. I had the same problem with my GX1 and it does seem to just be how Panasonic JPGs are. The jpg output loses detail and makes images just look a bit soft and smudgy. It also seems to leave in colour noise and smear out grain when it should really be the other way around I think. Comparing the JPG to the Raw is night and day. the Raw files out of the LX100 are superb. Sharp and detailed and lots of data packed in to pull out detail in shadows and bring back highlights without making a mess. The JPGs just don't cut it on a £600 camera, esspecially not considering just how good the Raw files are. If I was a JPG shooter I would be sending the camera back.
The other problem is that none of my software supports the Raw files. I currently use Lightroom 4.4 and Photoshop CS5.5. Both are updated as much as they can be but neither will touch the files. I've taken to using Adobe DNG converter to convert them into DNG files to them load into lightroom/photoshop to edit. The results are excellent but it's another step in the process that shouldn't really be necessary.
Should you buy one? I think it really depends on what type of photographer you are. The LX100 wont suit everyone, not by a long shot. It suits me because I want the external manual controls and I shoot raw and am happy processing every image I deem to be a keeper. If you primarily shoot JPG then forget about it. if you aren't willing to process your images from raw then go elsewhere. You will be disappointed. If you want a camera that can slip in your pocket so you can forget about it then I would also say not to bother.
I wanted something smaller than a DSLR (and it really is a lot smaller) but that also offered me easy options for controls. It's not the smallest camera in the world. Far from it, but it's smaller than a DSLR. it's also smaller than a compact system camera with a zoom lens. It's much smaller than a compact system camera would be with an equivalent zoom lens would be. As said, it's roughly the same size as the Lumix GX1 with the Sigma 19mm f2.8 prime lens. Infact, the sigma lens would protrude more off the body than the lens on the LX100 does closed so not really that fair to compare.
If you want small, get the RX100. If you want a comfortable to hold size with decent manual controls and like shooting raw and processing images, get the LX100. The A6000 as also discussed in this thread will be bigger than the LX100 still.
Any questions, i'll answer as best I can. Samples I took this morning of nothing inparticular, processed from the raw files.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Sunday 22 February 13:01
the-photographer said:
Don't forgot to compare JPGs with the in-camera RAW processor (which converts RAW->JPG in one of the playback menus).
In honesty, the output from the raw-jpeg converter in the camera isn't all that good either. Don't get me wrong. They're not bad, compared to what you can pull out of the raw file in something like lightroom or photoshop (once converted to a readable file), the jpegs are poor. It's a shame as I can imagine so many people being very disappointed with the camera looking at the Jpegs. I certainly was when I looked at reviews and samples on the internet and the comments generally agreed. Pull raw files off the internet and play around and you can really see what this camera is capable off. The JPGs out of the camera really do not do it justice.A quick detour on the way home from work. Processed from the raw file.
Thanks, Lemon! Some nice info there.
I think I'm pretty won over on the A6000 if I'm honest.
Can see myself getting one with a nice prime lens (possibly the Zeiss Touit 1.8/32) so size wouldn't be much bigger than the LX100 (approximately an additional 60mm front to back?).
24mbps means decent crops possible from the prime lens for everyday snapping, eventually getting a zoom lens of some sort for if and when I want to take particular images.
I think I'm pretty won over on the A6000 if I'm honest.
Can see myself getting one with a nice prime lens (possibly the Zeiss Touit 1.8/32) so size wouldn't be much bigger than the LX100 (approximately an additional 60mm front to back?).
24mbps means decent crops possible from the prime lens for everyday snapping, eventually getting a zoom lens of some sort for if and when I want to take particular images.
Edited by Rosscow on Monday 23 February 10:34
How are people getting on with their cameras?
Seriously thinking about purcahsing a camera now! Can get the Sony A6000 with the Zeiss Touit 32mm/F1.8 lens for £800. Body only for £369 or with the 16-50 kit lens for £439.
The LX100 can be had for £469 and the RX100 M3 for £449.
I notice there is a new RX100 Mk IV now, but that is a £699 touch.
Seriously thinking about purcahsing a camera now! Can get the Sony A6000 with the Zeiss Touit 32mm/F1.8 lens for £800. Body only for £369 or with the 16-50 kit lens for £439.
The LX100 can be had for £469 and the RX100 M3 for £449.
I notice there is a new RX100 Mk IV now, but that is a £699 touch.
Edited by Rosscow on Wednesday 15th July 09:24
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff