Panasonic LX3 - My Newest Point and Shoot

After a lot of obsessive compulsive research and hemming and hawing, I finally found a replacement for the venerable Sony point and shoot that we got the year we got married. It was (and still is) a fantastic camera, but it developed a blemish on its sensor (well, that's my best guess, since the glass looks fine) which shows up on pictures where there are large areas of solid color.

It hadn't gotten a lot of use lately, partly for that reason, and because I've been shooting exclusively with the A300 for the past year. The only time we really use the P/S has been for capturing videos of Mac.

My mind had always been set on a Panasonic Lumix LX3 (or its successor), but for a brief period of time, the announcement of the Canon S90 and G11 had my attention. Being a total sucker for rangefinders, I also thought about the Olympus EP-1 and the Panasonic GF-1.

The problem with the S90/G11 was that they have a smaller sensor than the LX3, focal length starting at 28mm (vs the LX3's 24mm) and no widescreen 720p video support. While Canon offered longer zooms, the 24mm-60mm focal length was much more useful to me. The fact that the LX3 lens was faster across the entire zoom spectrum than the Canons also fell in the LX3's favor.

The Micro-Four-Thirds rangefinders from Olympus and Panasonic are uber sexy. They're also pretty expensive. I'm not quite ready to adopt a second camera with interchangeable lenses. The only way I could reasonably justify going with something like a GF1 would be if I completely left the Sony/Minolta investment that I've made. I don't see that happening any time soon. Not being a pro, I don't see a need to really get beyond an intermediate level SLR for the foreseeable future. My current entry-level camera takes better pictures than my skill level can handle (don't even get me started on the idea of APS-C vs. Full Frame), so why bother?

Moving back to the LX3 - it's a fantastic camera. I'm not going to go into any length with a pixel peeping review, there are already plenty of those on the Internets.

In my preliminary use, the LX3 has a few major shortcomings:

• its crazy bad user manual
  
• the lack of an optical viewfinder
  
• the annoying lens cap
  
• the flimsy battery door
  

Those shortcomings are definitely annoying, but they're not dealbreakers for me. There are tradeoffs that you have to make to get a compact with a 24-60 f2/2.8 lens. The LX3 also has a hot shoe, while not a must have, is handy, and works with my "Poverty Wizard" remote triggers, a.k.a. Cactus triggers. The LX3 is widely considered to be a photographer's camera. That is to say, if you love taking pictures, this is one of the cameras to have. The JPEGs out of this camera are more than satisfactory. Sure, the camera does RAW, but let's keep things in perspective. The sensor is still tiny compared to a Micro-Four-Thirds or an APS-C sensor, so how much more is the average prosumer really going to squeeze out of a RAW file? I've been shooting with the Dynamic colour and black and white modes, and I've been pretty content with them. Where I'm generally tweaking the RAW shots coming out of my DSLR, I find that I don't spend much time tweaking the JPEGs out of the LX3. Does that mean the LX3 shoots better images than my SLR? Heck no, but the way they look out of the camera is in line with how I want the final product to look.

There are two primary uses for this camera - it's the "in-a-pinch" camera, and our HD camcorder. I don't have the same aversion to lugging my SLR that I used to, but because I have a tendency to be lazy about putting the 50mm back onto the camera, it makes it easy for the Missus to take a quick shot. It's also a good travel camera, for those times I don't really plan to use an SLR. The LX3 shoots 720p motion JPEGs. Not a space saver, but definitely an edit friendly format.

For the longest time, I was at odds over whether I needed a decent walkaround zoom. I'm a prime shooter, and I'd only use a walkaround zoom for traveling (begrudgingly, I might add). Well, getting the LX3 prevents me from having to get a walkaround zoom, and that money is now better spent on a fisheye, or a superfast portrait lens for my SLR.

I've probably only used 20% of the camera's functionality, and while the GUI is a little quirky compared to my Sony DSLR, it's not too hard to pick up. I managed to get a great deal at Blacks (yeah, you read that right) for $499 CDN. That was about 50 bucks cheaper than the Pacific mall places. Apparently, the cameras are still hard to find in the US. Five bills is pretty spendy for a point and shoot these days, but my first digital camera, which barely had a single megapixel of resolution, set me back seven bills.

I'll post some further thoughts later, but the initial conclusion - I really, really like this camera, especially the in-camera B&W.

My first DSLR, a year later

The Hobby, Born Again

I got the Sony A300 SLR a little over a year ago, and photography as a hobby for me has been revitalized. Here are some "long term" thoughts related to my born-again hobby.

When I was around 18, I got my first SLR, a Nikon F801. It was a fantastic camera, but being prolific meant film and processing costs. Not anything to sneeze at as a student. The lack of instant gratification to improve the craft, of course, was another issue. After being tired of lugging the gear around, I gave it up in my mid twenties, and swore to myself to go point and shoot only.

Picking a Camera

So last year, I bit the bullet and got an SLR. I'm not a brand whore, and didn't have a pre-existing collection of glass to influence my buying decision, so I went into this with an open mind. While cost wasn't an issue, I'm also not a poseur. I know the limits of my talents - there was no point for me to consider a full frame camera just for bragging rights.

It really came down to Pentax vs. Canon vs. Sony. What drew me to the Sony family of entry level cameras was usability. I'm not the only person who is going to use the camera, and it had to be easy to use. And really, if you have to spend more time fiddling than shooting, the fun is gone.

The lagless Live View and articulating screen were the two criteria that kept me from going with the other two. There's no arguing that the Canon's image quality was a hair better than the Sony, but all three cameras on my short list could produce better images than I was capable of shooting, so why waste time on being a pixel peeper?

Now that I selected a Sony, I still had a choice between a 10MP and 14MP model. I opted for 10MP because I'm one of those guys (rightly or wrongly) who thinks that we're beyond the point of needing more than 10 megapixels. For that reason, I opted for the 10MP model.

Glass

Ironically, I didn't do a lot of research on lenses before buying the camera, but I really lucked out on the fact that Sony DSLRs use the Minolta A-mount. Canon and Nikon glass don't really depreciate. The availability of great Minolta glass at a very low price was definitely icing on the cake. While the growing popularity of Sony DSLRs is quickly driving the price up on vintage Minolta AF lenses, I was lucky enough to get in on time to get a few good buys.

My wife hates flash, which led me to really think about the glass I bought. The first two lenses I bought were the two most lauded Minolta lenses, the Beercan F4 70-210 zoom, and the 55mm F1.7 standard lens. Great lenses to start out with, especially compared to the kit lens. Another plus, they're full frame, so they're keepers if I ever upgrade to a body with a full frame sensor.

Over the course of the year, I kept an eye out for "steals and bargains" on other lenses, and picked up a bunch of second hand lenses on the way. With the exception of a cheap walkaround 35-105 zoom lens, they are all relatively fast 2.8 primes (a 90mm macro, 28mm and a 24mm). I think I've got all bases covered, although I'd love a 30ish mm F1.4 and really wide prime, either a fisheye or something in the 12mm-16mm range. Really, those can wait.

Each of my current lenses really has a function, and the ones getting the most use are the 90, 50 and 24 primes. I've discovered that I really don't like zooms. The beercan is a fanastic zoom, however, especially outdoors. The best thing was that outside of the kit lens, I got everything second hand at reasonable prices.

Evolving Technique

I generally keep my camera on continuous and hold the button down. I don't need to worry about the cost of film and processing, so why not waste a few mirror actuations to get a winner? For every 100 shots, I get maybe 5 keepers. That's not too bad.

Historically, I've been a pack rat. I keep every shot, including the bad ones. Of course, when your pictures start eating significant disk space, your attitude changes. These days, I've spent a lot of time culling the bad pictures out of my iPhoto library, and my hard drive is thanking me.

The articulating screen has really changed the way I shoot. While I use the optical viewfinder 90% of the time (my wife shoots almost exclusively with the LCD), I use the screen to get shots from odd perspectives, usually from overhead or at ground level. This way, I don't need to get very dirty on those low perspective shots of Mac the dog, or any nieces/nephews. The Live View is more responsive than that found on any other brand of SLR.

For the longest time, I also avoided shooting with a flash, especially at family events. The problem is that the locales I had to shoot at have really bad light. That meant shooting wide open (1.7) with very high ISO. Entry level SLRs sold a year ago aren't that great in high ISO. You don't get those tack sharp images shooting like that, but they are satisfactory for Flickr.

JPEG vs. RAW

At the outset, I shot purely in JPEG. The JPEGS that come out of my camera look great, and take up less space.

It wasn't until earlier this year that I experimented with shooting RAW completely. This coincided with a 30 day eval of Aperture, and dropping iPhoto 08. There were some things I really liked about Aperture with RAW photos.

At the end of the experiment, I went back to iPhoto, but shoot RAW only. iPhoto just kept things simple (I can't leave events) and consolidated in a single iPhoto library.

Strobism

And then I discovered the Strobism school of thought led by David Hobby. Off camera flash. WOW. And you didn't have to spend a fortune. WOW.

Not being ready to blow money on Pocket Wizards, I grabbed a set of made-in-China "poverty wizards" and discovered that you can take some pretty nice pictures when the flash isn't centered above your lens on the camera. Maybe flash photography ain't so bad after all.

My Tools

When I upgraded to iPhoto 09, I no longer missed any of the little perks from using Aperture. It does everything I need. 90% of my edits are related to cropping, tweaking the histogram and white balance. I don't need a pro-level tool to do that.

With respect to memory cards, I use 2GB cards and rotate them while I shoot. My philosophy here is that I don't want to put all my photos in a single large memory card. I'd rather keep them split up and deal with the inconvenience. This way, my losses are more likely restricted to 2GB of photos, and not more.

I have a few cheap flashes. Originally I was going to buy a top-end flash for my Sony. Fortunately I got into Strobism and bought a few cheap manual flashes, and have gotten fantastic results.

I'm still in dire need of a travel sling and a gadget bag to hold all of my gear. I haven't seen anything that I like yet. Those plastic shoeboxes I'm using will have to do for now.

Upgrades

The one thing I now wish for from my camera is low noise @ high ISOs. In the past year, this has been one of the things popping up in entry level SLRs. Worth an upgrade? For me, not right now. I'm only 20k shots into my current body. I won't even consider a new body until I've hit the 60k+ mark (the presumed life of my body is around 100K actuations - I don't however, intend to take any risks of missing a shot once I've reached 60% of its life span).

My camera has recently been replaced with a new model, the A330. I actually prefer my current camera to the new one, and won't likely upgrade until Sony gets their act in gear for better high ISO performance.

Video has been another big thing for DSLRs in the past year. I can't say that I'm interested in that. I'd rather use a Point and Shoot, an iPhone 3GS or a Flip to capture video.

Lately, I've been wondering if I'll ever need to upgrade to a full frame camera. Part of this mental debate is rooted in the fact that there are some interesting APS-C lenses out there (Sigma's 30mm F1.4, being the main one). As long as the camera manufacturers don't overdo it with the megapixels, and start focusing on improving quality in the areas of noise and ISO performance, I'm not sure that I'll ever need full frame. I'm not going to become a pro any time soon, so why kid myself?

One interesting question I need to ask myself is whether the next SLR body I get will be more of a pro-type of body (i.e., A700 or A900). I'm thinking that the answer is No. Pro features always trickle down to the lower end cameras. As far as I'm concerned, the main things I need in an upgrade are the articulating screen, live view and high ISO performance. In Sony's case, only the last item isn't available in their entry level offerings.

Final Thoughts

Now is a great time to get into DSLR photography. Entry level DSLRs come a long way, and the way things are trending, you can do great things with a current model. High ISO quality and video are becoming standard features.

In terms of picking one, everyone has different needs, and should pick a model that really suits their shooting technique. Given that my current SLR is no longer available, I can't say that it's a slam dunk for me to repeat my decision to go with Sony had I been buying my first DSLR today. That's because I don't like the body shape of the my model's replacement, and that the innards did not change from last year's model. I probably would still go with the Sony because of the screen and the live view, but I'd think long and hard about the Nikon and Canon offerings, which are vastly superior to those I considered last year.

Things get busy, time to reinvent

When I get busy (story of my life), the blog suffers.

I continue to be active online in a variety of areas, and maybe it's time to merge the blog with my social networking stream.

I am dreaming up a method to integrate all of my ideas for a site revamp in an elegant way. Because I do suffer from Not Invented Here syndrome, it will probably mean that I have to find (or make) time to write some code to realize that vision.

Stay tuned.

Torontoist: One TTC Map to Rule Them All

If this ever came into fruition, Toronto would actually have a world class transit system. Until then, we're still in poseurland.

Thoughts on the 3GS

Just about everyone I know in the past few weeks has asked me if I'm going to upgrade to the iPhone 3GS. The answer is short, and simple - No.

The 3GS has the makings to be a fantastic device. Some might argue it's the first iPhone that can shut up its critics. The pundits will probably find a way to harp on the non-removable battery and lack of support for flash cards, but my 16GB 3G averages around 5GB free, and I can count on one hand the number of people who I've known who carried a second battery, regardless of the phone manufacturer.

If you've got a 3G, is it worth forking out another 3 bills for an upgrade, knowing there's going to be an even faster iPhone in around 12 months? I'm probably one of those weird edge cases - a gadget freak who avoids using his cell phone. My beloved 3G is an insanely handy device. Having used more than a few WinMo phones in my life, I can live with what is now, by 3GS standards, a sluggish phone.

My 3G is more of a substitute for a missing computer than a do-everything mobile device. Unlike many of my peers, I'm not a prolific tweeter, texter or mailer. To them, their phone is their primary electronic communications device.

In all my years of WinMo phones, there was always something that really made you want to upgrade a phone a year later. Mostly because it was a pain to get firmware upgrades that would stabilize the phone, or to get features that made the phone easier to use. The iPhone isn't like that. Free OS upgrades are regular and free. The 3.0 upgrade offers many of the features of the 3GS, and that goes a long way in eliminating buyer's remorse.

With the 3G being better than most other smartphones on the market, I don't think people should be swarming to get on the upgrade bandwagon just for the sake of upgrading. Remember, there's going to be an even faster, more capable phone next year.

Turbocharging the Mac Mini

I nabbed one of the first Intel Mac Minis as soon as they came out. Ever since, I've been wanting to boost the performance of this cool little computer.

The bottleneck, in my mind, has always been the internal laptop drive. I mulled over the idea of ripping the internal drive out and jerry-rigging some sort of eSata cable and booting it off an external desktop drive.

Now that SSDs have come down significantly in price (I got my 60GB drive for around 200 CDN), it seemed like a much better way to boost performance than a fugly hack.

So, following the disassembly instructions at MacSales, I popped in an SSD and reinstalled the OS followed by a migration of apps and data from the old hard drive.

And guess what, my Mac Mini now runs faster than my first generation Intel iMac!

Crazy Transparent Headed Fish