I sure like my Optio and you can drown it.

Doc.

Don't get caught up in the CCD numbers game. More doesn't necessarily mean better when it comes to CCD.

There's a reason why your OLDER Optio takes AMAZING photos. It had a good, quality, (but low MP) sensor in it.

I'm not seeing that in very modern cameras any more. Doesn't surprise that a camera from '96 is top notch, and stuff out today is sub-par.

Read up on the technologies, especially about CCD's ,etc.

http://www.dpreview.com/

Looks like a good camera, Dave! I'll have to start keeping my eye out on what Panaphonic is making.

I'm with Parker on this. All that really counts is what type of photos you get.
I bought a waterproof camera that had good reviews and took crappy photos. My buddy had the same camera but one model older. I find that even if you find a good one, say a Nikon Coolpix 600, you really like and then go buy the new Nikon 700 you may not be happy.
I bought this Panasonic model because I had seen some stellar images taken by the same model. I knew there were newer ones out there but was determined to buy what I knew.
Tine Nikon 700 I bought and returned took acceptable photos. Many every day users would be more than happy with it. But I need photos that are razor sharp at 8X10 300 DPI, because that’s what my photo editors demand. Many of you do not need that level of sharpness at that size.
(See the current cover of Western Outdoors. That was about 30% of the image I sent the editor. It was a nice sharp 5 Meg image that they were able to crop significantly and still blow up to 8X 10)


This is the full frame of the eyeball shot. Followed by a sharp bear shot taken with a ful sized digital SLR.

Looks like a very, very nice camera. I have been looking for a GOOD digi P&S with wide angle capabilities, that & the Leica lens puts it on the top of my list. Some waterproofing would be a nice extra, DV in your line of work how do you deal with that issue??


The confines of fishing small water or even the front seats of a 16' DB seem to scream for wide shots.... With the super-sharp macro & wide format I can see some really sweet fish pics in my future.

Thanks for putting this info up.......



c/22

C22:

The water thing is a very real issue. That's why I tried several waterproof cameras. I know the older Optios do a great job. But none of the newer and even more expensive ones I tried did.

I will get a waterproof case for mine and keep it dry. (It will fit oin my pelican case that i use for the large SLR. BTW the Pelican cases are 100 % wtaerproof and schockproof as well.)

That said, I have drowned several cameras. I see at as a cost of doing business.+

OK..... I missed one REALLY big difference:

CONTROL



The LX has it, the TZ does NOT.

The LX caters to SLR users wanting something more portable/less bulky but still retaining the ability to easily control critical parameter.

The TZ really caters more to the pure "point-and-shot" crowd.

I also briefly looked at the FX series. Here's the side-by-side comparison from the Pansonic website:

click here

Pelican® Micro Case # 1010 - Clear with Yellow Liner
Pelican® Micro Case # 1020 - Clear with Yellow Liner
Pelican® Micro Case # 1030 - Clear with Yellow Liner
Pelican® Micro Case # 1040 - Clear with Yellow Liner
Pelican® Micro Case # 1050 - Clear with Yellow Liner

Check these out for carrying a P&S digital camera. cell phone, etc..

The 1050 is large enough to hold my digital camera and cell phone, but too bulky for a pocket. I carry mine in the back of my fishing vest when river fishing.

The 1020 will carry most digital P&S and will fit in a jacket or vest pocket.

Fry's Electronics in Renton carries some of these models.

I don't know if they still make them, but Cascade Designs use to make a small dry bag fanny pack?

The Lumix looks like a nice camera.

One suggestion for keeping your camera dry is a bag made by Sagebrush Dry Goods. They're not cheap, but they are definitely water proof, as long as the zipper is zipped closed all the way.

Man I am S-O-O-O-O ready to pull the trigger, but this one quote is still nagging at me.



One drop of rain = one day of downtime?

ARGGGGGGHHHHH!

Decisions, decisions..... maybe I need two cameras?

Hate to think my photographic arsenal is gonna have to start looking like my fishing arsenal... specialty piece of equipment for every application.

I think if you look hard enough you can find a condom for those type cameras that should help overall but maybe not the lens if you get water on it?

CCD numbers are not really deceiving as much as not telling us what we want to hear. Over the first couple generations of digital cameras, higher pixel counts translated into better photos. However, now they translate into poor pictures at any light level that is not bright sunlight. The problem is related to the number of pixels you have in a given area and the number of photons each pixel captures. Basically, since the sensors are smaller, there are fewer photons hitting the CCD. At the same time, the number of pixels has increased which means each pixel captures fewer photons. Fewer photons per pixel means more effects from sensor noise when the processors format the information into a picture file, which means not so great pictures and large file sizes. This is a limit to current CCD sensor design.

There is a new technology. Article Link Looks promising. I'm sticking with my 5MP camera until this is available.

A banker friend once asked me the question, " Why do you need a new pickup truck?"

I've tried to follow this gem of advice in my purchasing, however lust for a new whatever has triumphed over me more than once.

Maybe that is why I have 43 fishing rods and numerous reels?

DiverX brings up a good technical explanation and I definitely agree about keeping what you have if it is doing the job.

In Dave's case he needed a camera he was happy with, and it looks like he found it. I have been very pleased with this camera or wouldn't have recommended it.

In the industry, it is commonly said that all pixels are not equal. More megapixels may not guarantee a better photo.

It also is important to know what fits your personal needs. If it is a bunch of prints to show your buddies, a less expensive camera may do you fine. If your goal is to see images in magazine print the requirements may be more demanding.

When Dave and I tested his new Nikon Coolpix P&S which was a 12 MP camera, my Lumix LX2 was definitely sharper to our aging eyes. My Lumix produced a 8.5 meg file in the 35MM mode so if all pixels were equal the Nikon should have prevailed, but it didn't.

That doesn't mean that the Nikon is a bad camera, only that it was less sharp than the Lumix in our unscientific test.

My only concern, like Dave's is that I get the best publishable image I can with the tools I use.

FNP,

I checked out the specs on the TZ5A and one concern is that it only shoots JPEG files.

The DMC-LX2 shoots both RAW and JPEG. Dealing with RAW is an extra step, but provides a higher quality file since it is uncompressed. JPEG files discard some information in a file in order to make it smaller (compressed)..,

While fine JPEGs will reproduce very well in most publications, some editors will prefer that the the image be shot in RAW, then converted to JPEG or Tiff.

I'm not sure I understand the logic, but if you read writer's and photographer's guidelines from various magazines you will see.

I use the camera settings on the LX-2 that makes a RAW file and a JPEG file on each image as they are shot, I use the jpegs for email and the RAW files for preparing for images for publication.

I don't know what to tell you about the water drop, except that is happened and could happen again if the camera is used in heavy rain, or water is splashed on the camera while netting or playing a fish.

it is interesting to note that dpreview.com does not give the camera high marks....ive been looking at getting a new camera. i have an optio (thanks bob!) which works great for its intended purpose but i would like to take some nicer photos.

i think now i am just confused and dont know what i should get.

Yall probably don't recall my long winded response to the last round of Digi camera discussion. It was long and boring, I probably wouldn't have read it either.

I recommended two models as part of that, the DMC LX2 and Canon SD800. Both at or near the same level with regard to consistent quality. Neither are waterproof. I have been using the DMC LX2 for a little over a year and have only had the lens fog one time and it was in conditions where you would expect it, crappy, wind, fog, rain etc. I keep it in my jacket in a case when not in use and pull it out just for photos.

My only gripe is the processor. It is very noisy in low light conditions. The Canon is much better in that respect. It is more compact as well.

The Lumix shoots in 30fps video as well which is more than adequate for fairly quality amateur use.

I would caution that the 10.2 MP processor eats memory cards fast. For longer trips I take two 2 Gig cards and two batteries. The camera runs off of a proprietary Li/Ion battery.

Good luck.

It's the Leica lenses in the Panasonic....

I just purchased an Olympus Stylus 1030 SW to replace my old Pentax Optio W33. Hopefully, its an improvement from the old 3.3 mp "brick." It should arrive any day now. If it goes back, I'll keep this one in mind.

Not to hijack a discussion with a bunch of photos, but here are a few recent ones from the newest DMC-LX2 model. A few examples of the low light noise at the bottom. Please pardon the non-fish pics.




















Low light noise


Close up of low light noise.

How much "tweaking" did you do on the settings to get these shots? Did you have to change the f-stop, ISO, etc, or where these taken on the "Auto", or the "Almost As Auto as it Gets" settings?

The shots are amazing.

How much post-production (AKA, photoshop work) was done on these photos.

All the serious camera geeks I know love RAW images and use Photoshop to make them "real".

For most of us, RAW is NOT needed. Compressed jpgeg is fine.

What model Panasonic is similar to this camera, but maybe doesn't offer raw, and has a few more "auto" type features? That's the one I think people would be MOST interested in - the masses who are not professional level photographers.

Honestly, I need a camera that just "points and shoots" and I don't have to mess with too many buttons, other than to fill flash, zoom, or shoot a macro.

Hey Parker. No tweaking on those photos other than cropping the images. All were taken on the highest res. .jpg setting and not RAW. I would only shoot in RAW if I was shooting for a project that would be going into print.

When I do tweak photos, I primarily do very small adjustments for exposure (in camera), saturation, and contrast in B/W.

I don't have a record of what setting were used on each photo. I usually use the Aperture priority and Auto and compensate for exposure based on light levels.

All of these are with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2, same as Mr. Vedder, ISO 100. It does very well in Auto mode and you don't need to be savvy with all of the aperture and shutter speed settings to take good photos with it.

The Canon SD800 is one step better with regard to brainlessness I think.

Coley

Just one more point to make in choosing a camera is the time it takes to store each image between shots. That is where the more expensive DSLR cameras excell. Even with the high speed memory cards more mega pixels means more time to store each image.