Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 12:20 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:32 am
Posts: 9
I’m looking for another family camera. We have a Panasonic LX3 and a Canon SX240. I find the LX3 to be good, maybe even better than the SX240. The latter was bought because of it’s zoom capability. In general, I still prefer to use the LX3 as it seems to take better pictures specially in low or indoor lighting. To upgrade, I was looking into the Panasonic FZ200 which have good reviews. I’m not keen on the weight, but it seems that the small cameras just can’t compare with capability of bigger once. It may not be portable, but I think it’s lighter than DSLR’s which I also think is too much for me since I just basically just a novice point and shooter. Someone suggested an Olympus OM-D E-M5 because it’s small and compact. Upon googling this, I learned that it’s a type of camera called a micro four thirds and mirrorless. I’m not exactly sure what type the FX200 is considered but I know it’s not a micro 4/3 nor mirrorless. Frankly, I’m not really sure how I can even compare this to the FZ200 because it’s not apple to apple. It’s also difficult to compare the specs as for instance while one indicates the zoom, the other has nothing shown. Can anyone tell me the merits of one against the other. Thank you in advance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 712
Quote:
I’m not exactly sure what type the FX200 is considered but I know it’s not a micro 4/3 nor mirrorless.

It's considered a "bridge" (because size-wise, it sits between smaller point-and-shoot compacts and larger DSLRs) or "superzoom" (because it has more than 10X zoom). (Although, technically, since it doesn't have a mirror, it is mirrorless, but that's not the "class/style" designation of camera.)

Quote:
Frankly, I’m not really sure how I can even compare this to the FZ200 because it’s not apple to apple.

Correct.

Quote:
It’s also difficult to compare the specs as for instance while one indicates the zoom, the other has nothing shown.

That's because the latter (micro 4/3) is an interchangeable lens system (like a DSLR can mount different lenses) so it will have different focal lengths depending on the lens that's on the camera.

Quote:
Can anyone tell me the merits of one against the other. Thank you in advance.

In a nutshell and in general, the larger 4/3 sensor will have better High ISO performance (pics taken in low light will be less noisy/grainy). The trade offs are that both the camera and lenses will be larger and more expensive. e.g. to cover an equivalent focal length as the FZ200 ($600) with an E-M5 ($900), you would need an Olympus 14-150mm ($500) and an Olympus 75-300mm ($500)*, so you'd be looking at ~$1,900 total vs $600 for the FZ200. Also note that the Olympus lenses are "slower" (don't let in as much light) as the lens on the FZ200 does, so they won't do as well in low light, which mitigates some of the benefits of the larger sensor.

So if you really need that much zoom on a budget, the FZ200 is the better buy. However, since you also mention "low indoor lighting", with the right lens (i.e. a "fast/bright" prime like the Oly 12mm f2.0 or 45mm f1.8), the E-M5 will blow away the FZ200. So that's what your choice looks like it boils down to: zoom or low light performance.

HTH - Mark

*Note: you could also go with Panasonic m4/3 lenses -- 14-140mm and 100-300mm -- but it still wouldn't be close to the FZ200 price-wise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:32 am
Posts: 9
I'm sorry if this seems like a silly question as I'm just coming to know about this micro 4/3 camera. Are you saying that I would need to buy 2 more lenses for the Olympus OM-D to make it comparable to the zoom capability of the FZ200? Is it because one lens is the standard and the other is the zoom? Wow, that could be the deciding factor. It seems quite inconvenient to keep changing lenses. Perhaps that's why the weight seems much lighter than the FZ200. It's because it's only referring to the camera without lens. It's too bad, I was attracted by it's capability at such a light weight cam.

I was told that my Panasonic LX3 is even better in low light than the FZ200 due to the sensor. Is this true?

It seems I can't have it all. It's exactly why I was looking for a new cam... to get a better zoom and taking pics in low light. And in times that I need the zoom it's almost always in low indoor lighting (like a stage). So I'm stuck. I wonder if I'm picking the right cams or are there other models that would suit my need.

Thank you very much Mark. You have been very informative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 815
Location: Boca Raton, FL, USA
wanderintraveler wrote:
I'm sorry if this seems like a silly question as I'm just coming to know about this micro 4/3 camera. Are you saying that I would need to buy 2 more lenses for the Olympus OM-D to make it comparable to the zoom capability of the FZ200?


Essentially, yes. That's actually a selling point of the interchangeable lens cameras - in that you can fit the lens that best suits your needs for optimal quality in any shooting situation. But some folks are used to having superzooms that cover a huge focal range all in one package. One way to look at it is this: The superzoom is sort of like a Swiss Army knife - it can cover a huge range of tasks that can do a dozen or more different tools' jobs in a compact package. Yet at the same time, it isn't the best tool for any of those jobs, except in convenience. Any individual tool will do the job better than the Swiss Army knife, but be a lot larger and bulkier to carry them all around. Most of the time, a person might choose the 1 or 2 tools they'll need for a job, and leave the others home. That's what an interchangeable lens camera can do - it WILL be bigger and heavier overall and require multiple lenses to cover the same range as the superzoom - but it also allows EACH lens to be specifically designed for the task at hand and usually better than the superzoom, and the camera itself will provide advantages with the larger sensor.

Quote:
Is it because one lens is the standard and the other is the zoom? Wow, that could be the deciding factor. It seems quite inconvenient to keep changing lenses. Perhaps that's why the weight seems much lighter than the FZ200. It's because it's only referring to the camera without lens. It's too bad, I was attracted by it's capability at such a light weight cam.


Note too that with the interchangeable lens cameras you CAN get what's known as a 'superzoom' lens - one lens that covers a big range so you can avoid having to change lenses so often. They won't deliver quite the range you can get with a superzoom, mostly in the long telephoto end...but can still cover a vast majority of focal range most people need. For the M4:3 cameras, for example, you can pick up a 14-150mm lens...that lens will cover the equivalent of 28mm to 300mm...a similar wide to telephoto type of range like you'd get in the FZ cameras. In the NEX range, there's an 18-200mm lens which gives you the equivalent of 27mm to 300mm. And all DSLRs have such a lens available - such as the Sigma 18-250 or Tamron 18-270mm lenses, which will give an equivalent reach of 27mm to 375mm (or 405mm for the Tamron). All of these would be very similar to the range you get from a superzoom P&S camera, but fall a little short at the very long end.

Of course, with an interchangeable lens camera, you can stick on a 10-20mm lens to get ultrawide reach, a 30mm F1.4 for very low light needs, a fast long prime like a 300mm F2.8 when you want to do some birding, a fisheye for some fun experimentation, a tilt-shift for specialized distortion correction, and so on - all things you couldn't do with the superzoom P&S camera. All will cost extra money and involve extra weight, but that's the tradeoff for more flexibility and range. The interchangeable lens cameras can shoot in near-total darkness and crank up ISo to 6400 or higher and still get good detail and low noise, whereas the small sensor in the P&S is an utter mess at high ISO and smears away all detail. Again - convenience or maximum flexibility? That's your choice to make. Some folks don't need low light cameras, or specialized lenses, or large prints, and maybe the convenience and size of a superzoom is best for that wide focal range.

Quote:
I was told that my Panasonic LX3 is even better in low light than the FZ200 due to the sensor. Is this true?


Indeed it should be true. The larger the sensor, the better in low light. The sensor in the LX is a bit bigger than the sensor in the FZ. The sensor in the Sony RX or Nikon 1 is even bigger than that. The sensor in the M4:3 cameras is bigger still. The sensor in the NEX and most DSLRs is even larger than the M4:3. Comparing your superzoom P&S to a DSLR's APS-C sensor, it's about 12 to 1 in size difference! At the same time, this is the very reason you can't get a lens that covers the same focal length as the FZ - that lens would be massive, having to feed light to that huge sensor - most people wouldn't carry around a 3-foot long lens all day! The itty bitty sensor on the superzoom cameras is so tiny, that it only requires a little tiny lens circle to project light to it - the lenses can be built so much tinier. Consider what the 'actual' focal length is on a superzoom camera like the FZ200...hint: it's not 25-600mm! It's 4.5mm to 108mm. But the camera has a 5.5x crop factor due to the tiny sensor, which makes that lens deliver a 35mm-equivalent reach of 25-600mm. Superzooms always express their focal range in 35mm-equivalent terms, not actual lens focal numbers. 4.5mm to 108mm doesn't sound nearly as impressive, does it? With larger interchangeable lens cameras, the lens' focal length is always stated in actual numbers, and to arrive at the 35mm-equivalent reach, you have to multiply the crop factor of the sensor. With Nikon's Series 1 sensor, it's a 2.7x crop. With the M4:3 cameras, it's a 2x crop factor. With the NEX and DSLRs, it's a 1.5x crop (1.6x in the case of Canon cameras). So if you put an 18-250mm lens on an APS-C Nikon camera, you get a 35mm equivalent reach of 27mm to 375mm.

Quote:
It seems I can't have it all. It's exactly why I was looking for a new cam... to get a better zoom and taking pics in low light. And in times that I need the zoom it's almost always in low indoor lighting (like a stage). So I'm stuck. I wonder if I'm picking the right cams or are there other models that would suit my need.


In almost all cases, the increased flexibility of the larger sensor will outweigh the superzoom's seeming advantage in fast aperture...the superzoom cameras will begin to struggle at almost any ISO above 200 - and really fall apart at the highest range. The large sensor cameras are very comfortable at ISO1600, 3200, some even at ISO6400. So while you may feel you need to stick to ISo200, maybe ISo400 max on the superzoom camera, you can easily push another 3 to 4 stops on the interchangeable lens camera. If you're shooting with an F5.6 lens vs an F2.8 lens, that's a 2 stop difference. F6.3 is 2 1/2 stops difference. And that doesn't even get into the increased detail, lack of smearing, ability to shoot in RAW, and ability to switch to shorter, faster lenses if needed for indoor low light work.

_________________
Justin Miller
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 150-600mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony A6000 / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / 10-18mm F4 / 35mm F1.8 / 16mm F2.8 / via manual adapter, lots of Pentax K mount, Konica K/AR mount, and Leica M mount manual lenses

Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 712
Justin covered everything above, but briefly, so as not to appear rude, since you asked:

wanderintraveler wrote:
I'm sorry if this seems like a silly question as I'm just coming to know about this micro 4/3 camera. Are you saying that I would need to buy 2 more lenses for the Olympus OM-D to make it comparable to the zoom capability of the FZ200?

Not a silly question, and the answer is "yes".

Quote:
Is it because one lens is the standard and the other is the zoom?

Essentially, yes.

Quote:
Wow, that could be the deciding factor. It seems quite inconvenient to keep changing lenses.

Depends on how often you would really need to change lenses. i.e. most folks don't repeatedly go back and forth between, say, birding (with a long lens) and indoor family gatherings (with a fast/bright lens). Sure, one might go birding during the day, then go home, switch lenses, and then go to a party that night. But most folks won't go birding, then to a party, then back to birding, then to another party with no chance to re-equip in between. But if you do, then yes, an interchangeable lens camera would be rather inconvenient.

Quote:
Perhaps that's why the weight seems much lighter than the FZ200. It's because it's only referring to the camera without lens.

Yup.

Quote:
I was told that my Panasonic LX3 is even better in low light than the FZ200 due to the sensor. Is this true?

In theory, yes. But note that there isn't a huge size difference between the LX3's 1/1.63 sensor and the FZ200's 1/2.3 sensor. (see the Image sensor format wiki) At least, not compared to a CX Nikon 1" sensor or a Four Thirds sensor. (You may also want to have a look at Gordon's High ISO samples for the LX3 and FZ200. Not a huge difference to my eye. At least not like there is relative to the much larger APS-C sensor in the Canon 450D/XSi on the LX3 page.) Also keep in mind that the zoom on the LX3 is nearly ten times "shorter" (2.5X zoom) than the zoom lens on the FZ200 (24X).

Quote:
It seems I can't have it all. It's exactly why I was looking for a new cam... to get a better zoom and taking pics in low light. And in times that I need the zoom it's almost always in low indoor lighting (like a stage).

Yes, unfortunately, you can't have it all because technology still hasn't reached the point where it can beat physics. The larger the sensor, the more light it can absorb, so large sensors tend to do better in low light. But physics dictates that the larger the sensor, the larger the lens has to be to cover it. Also, since aperture is a ratio (focal length / pupil diameter), as the lens gets longer, the opening also has to get larger to let in the same amount of light. e.g. a 100mm lens with a 50mm pupil is f2.0 (100 / 50 = 2) but to maintain that f2.0 aperture with a 400mm lens requires a 200mm pupil (400 / 200 = 2). In short, the longer a lens is, the wider (or "fatter", if you will) it has to be to be good in low light.

So since larger sensor = larger lens and low light = even larger lens, there really isn't another style/model camera/lens that can do low light zoom/(super)telephoto really well in a small package.

It's sort of like that saying, "good, fast, cheap; pick two". You can have:
  • small and good low light, but no zoom.
  • small and zoom, but not good low light.
  • good low light and zoom, but not small. (This last option also won't be cheap.)

Quote:
Thank you very much Mark. You have been very informative.

You're welcome. Nice to know you found the info useful - Mark

P.S. Sorry, that got not so brief at the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:32 am
Posts: 9
What is a rangefinder style mirrorless as against SLR style mirrorless?

Regarding lenses, if say I pick this Olympus OM-D it means that I also have to find an Olympus lens? I was looking into the variety of lenses listed in dpreview.com and I have no idea which one fits. Ok say I bought this OM-D, I need to find a lens. If I get only one lens that is capable of zooming like Mark have mentioned Olympus 75-300mm, does it mean that it’s always zoomed because I don’t have a lens that is smaller? I see some options like 17mm 1:1.8? What does that ratio mean? For instance I see 2 options for the lens 75-300mm. One is 1:4.8-6.7 and the other is 1:4.0-5.6. Or Justin mentioned a 14-150mm lens which is similar to most telephoto lens of compact cams. Is that enough to have for my need (usual indoor scenes and zoom for stage plays) My friend also mentioned about slim lens called pancake. But I don’t think they are capable of zooming right?

I also noticed that the OM-D has no flash, so it means I have to buy a flash to complete this?

There is one more thing I forgot to ask about. I have mentioned that I got the Canon SX240 because it got 20x zoom and the reviews seems to be good. The reason for my upgrade is because this camera didn’t match my expectation. I was hoping it would be better in quality than the LX3 and there is the plus factor of the zoom. In addition it seems to be slow. After I click on the shutter button, it takes awhile for me to be able to click it again and by that time the moment is lost. The LX3 was considerably faster, hence up to now, it’s the LX3 that I use more often even though I think this camera is obsolete and definitely older than the SX240. I would like to know what is this speed called so that when I check on the specs of the camera I would know where to look? Is this called min and max shutter speed? I’m looking at a side by side comparison and LX3 has a min of 60sec while SX240 has 15sec. It would seem that the SX240 is faster on paper, but from my experience it doesn’t seem so. Am I using the camera the wrong way or what?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there is a camera with a sensor bigger than the LX3 but with a zoom like the FZ200 and where I don’t need to change lenses? It may even be lesser than 24 times zoom, as long as I’m able to capture my kid’s performance on stage. I actually don’t know how much zoom is needed, I just figured if there is extra length then why not. Actually this is all I need for zoom. No birding or any landscaping. I hope it’s not asking too much, after all a stage should be nearer than birds up in the sky. As Mark says, with a bigger sensor it can do better with low light so I guess by finding a cam with a bigger sensor plus zoom, then it could fit my need. Yes I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of weight to accomodate this big sensor and a bit of zoom. However I think I would limit it to below 500g or the lightest possible it can get. Any models in mind that I can look into?

Thank you both for your patience and understanding in explaining these concepts to a beginner like me. I will still look into some technical vocabularies that I didn’t quite understand, but in the mean time these are the questions at the top of my head. I hope you guys would be able to enlighten me once more. Thank you once again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 712
wanderintraveler wrote:
What is a rangefinder style mirrorless as against SLR style mirrorless?

Basically, an external (cosmetic) styling choice. I'd place more emphasis on how the camera performs.

Quote:
Regarding lenses, if say I pick this Olympus OM-D it means that I also have to find an Olympus lens?

Nope. As I mentioned above, you can also use Panasonic micro 4/3 lenses. And there are adapters for other types of lenses, but you will generally lose at least some, if not all, automatic/electronic control functions. (i.e. autofocus, aperture control, lens based image stabilization, etc.)

Also note that there is a difference between regular/standard 4/3 and micro 4/3. (Both Olympus and Panasonic make both types.) Regular/standard 4/3 lenses can be used with an adapter, but again, you may lose some functionality. There's a webtool at:

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lenses/ ... source=web

Quote:
If I get only one lens that is capable of zooming like Mark have mentioned Olympus 75-300mm, does it mean that it’s always zoomed because I don’t have a lens that is smaller?

Sort of. More technically correct would be to say you can't get any wider than 75mm. So, for example, to get a group shot of several people, you would have to back up pretty far, and that may not be possible indoors.

Quote:
I see some options like 17mm 1:1.8? What does that ratio mean? For instance I see 2 options for the lens 75-300mm. One is 1:4.8-6.7 and the other is 1:4.0-5.6.

The first number is the focal length(s) and the second is the maximum possible aperture(s).

So the 17mm has no zoom; it's permanently fixed at 17mm. (This type of lens is called a "prime".)

The 75-300mm can zoom from 75mm to 300mm and the maximum possible aperture in the first case also goes from f4.8 to f6.7 as you zoom in. (In the second case, the maximum aperture is slightly "faster/brighter" (lets in more light) since it goes from f4.0 to f5.6 as you zoom in.)

Quote:
Or Justin mentioned a 14-150mm lens which is similar to most telephoto lens of compact cams. Is that enough to have for my need (usual indoor scenes and zoom for stage plays)

Depends on how much light there is and how far you are from the stage. But my guess would be "no" because, as I noted previously, that lens is on the "slow" side. i.e. it won't do well in low light. (The zoom/focal length range might be OK, tho.) For low light, ideally you want a lens that's f2.0 or faster (smaller f number--f1.8, f1.4, etc.).

Quote:
My friend also mentioned about slim lens called pancake. But I don’t think they are capable of zooming right?

Sort of. But there are exceptions. e.g. the Panasonic X Vario pancake lens. Better to rely on the specs--as noted above, a zoom lens will list a focal length range (that Panasonic lens lists 14-42mm), while a prime lens will list just one focal length.

Quote:
I also noticed that the OM-D has no flash, so it means I have to buy a flash to complete this?

If you need a flash, yes. But, for example, if you're far enough from the stage to need a super-telephoto lens, any camera mounted flash won't impact the picture, at all.

Quote:
After I click on the shutter button, it takes awhile for me to be able to click it again ... I would like to know what is this speed called so that when I check on the specs of the camera I would know where to look? Is this called min and max shutter speed?

No, it's not called max shutter speed. That refers to the maximum amount of time the shutter can stay open.

It could be called shot-to-shot or cycle time, but unfortunately, I don't think this spec is usually listed (because it's dependent on several things--image format/size/resolution, buffer size, memory card write speed, etc.). Although you might be able to get an approximate idea by comparing the "burst rate" of different cameras. (Just make sure you're comparing apples to apples, or factor into your decision when you aren't comparing apples to apples.)

Quote:
I actually don’t know how much zoom is needed

There are several field of view calculators on the net. You just need to guesstimate your distance from the stage. But as a starting point, if you are 50 feet from the stage and you have the aforementioned 14-150mm lens zoomed all the way in to 150mm on an Oly OMD E-M5 (2X crop factor), your picture will cover an area around 6 feet wide by 4 feet high. (I'm guessing your kid is around 4 feet tall?) Obviously, if you are closer than that, the area captured will be smaller, and vice versa, if you are farther back.

Or you could check the EXIF data in the pics you've already taken to see what the focal length was.

Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:32 am
Posts: 9
I have processed everything that you all said and I was open to the idea of having the m4/3. However, the lens not only makes it very complicated for me, but I found out the cost is just too much, specially the fast lenses. Hence, I've again reconsidered my options. Yes, the purpose of the upgrade is to get a good zoom, but image quality is more important for me. Besides, this stage shows happens just once or twice a year, so I'm willing to let go of the super zoom for better quality images. I still would like a zoom, but I'm not expecting a 20x anymore. I've been looking into larger sensors because it seems to be a big factor in getting better pictures than the usual point and shoot cameras.
From what I have searched there are several in contention and it's making it difficult for me to pick. These are: Panasonic LX7, Panasonic LF1, Canon G15, Nikon P7700, Sony RX100. Now I have to figure out how to narrow this down. Any thoughts? It would be helpful.

By the way, when I see some comparisons on cameras, this viewfinder usually is mentioned. Just to confirm, the viewfinder is the small hole that one peeks into to shoot a picture right? Sometimes they would mention if it's optical or electronic. How can it be electronic? While I have often ignored this feature. It seems that for some it's a deciding factor. Is this really important or am I missing something?

EXIF data? No idea where to find this. Anyway, is there no general formula like for every mm multiply by a number? This would be helpful when I compare focal lengths of each cam. Just as an example the LX7 has a focal length of 24-90mm. How far can it reach to still get a good picture? Lets say I am 40 feet away from the stage. I don't know if the height of my children will be significant. They are just 2 and 4 yrs old. :-)

Thank you very much for your patience in explaning all these to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 712
wanderintraveler wrote:
I was open to the idea of having the m4/3. ... but I found out the cost is just too much, specially the fast lenses.

Understandable.

Quote:
From what I have searched there are several in contention and it's making it difficult for me to pick. These are: Panasonic LX7, Panasonic LF1, Canon G15, Nikon P7700, Sony RX100. Now I have to figure out how to narrow this down. Any thoughts?

I believe Gordon/Camera Labs has reviewed all of those cameras, so I would just start reading and compare. Although, I would note that the lens on the LF1 slows way down when zoomed in, so that would rule it out for me. And I would also note that the sensor in the RX100 is much larger than the sensors in the other four (or three, if you also rule out the LF1) cameras. (Refer back to my post above re: the LX3's similar 1/1.63 sensor vs a 1" sensor like the RX100 has.) (Full disclosure: I own an RX100.)

Quote:
By the way, when I see some comparisons on cameras, this viewfinder usually is mentioned. Just to confirm, the viewfinder is the small hole that one peeks into to shoot a picture right? Sometimes they would mention if it's optical or electronic. How can it be electronic? While I have often ignored this feature. It seems that for some it's a deciding factor. Is this really important or am I missing something?

Yes, that's what it is. In some cases, you can be looking at a really small video screen (hence, electronic) instead of looking through a lens (optical).

Many people find a viewfinder in general (as opposed to just a large external LCD screen on the back of the camera) helpful when tracking fast moving subjects -- i.e. sports -- and also when shooting in bright (sun)light (when the external screen may not be bright enough to see and/or when there may be too much glare on the screen).

Many people prefer optical viewfinders because it's easier to see when the lens is in focus than it is on a low resolution electronic viewfinder. (Obviously, this will be less of a concern as resolution increases.) There also can be a small delay on an electronic viewfinder, and the image on some electronic viewfinders can momentarily "freeze" when the camera is busy (say, while processing a burst of pictures). Both of these depend on how good/fast the camera's electronics are. The main advantages of electronic viewfinders are that they can incorporate things like a live histogram and in low light, they can be set to artificially brighten so you can frame the image more easily.

Quote:
EXIF data? No idea where to find this.

There are a bunch of EXIF viewers available, from photo viewing apps to browser add-ons. And Windows 7 and OS X can both display EXIF data natively. Just Google for whatever option is most appropriate for you.

Quote:
Anyway, is there no general formula like for every mm multiply by a number? This would be helpful when I compare focal lengths of each cam.

Yes, it's called "crop factor" and is directly related to sensor size. So since four of the cameras on your short list all have the same size sensor (i.e. every one except the RX100), they all have the same crop factor, and thus are directly comparable focal length-wise.

Quote:
Just as an example the LX7 has a focal length of 24-90mm. How far can it reach to still get a good picture? Lets say I am 40 feet away from the stage.

That focal length range already has the crop factor factored in. If you look closely at the front of an LX7, you'll notice that, on the front of lens it says "4.7-17.7" which is the actual lens focal length range.

In any case, using a Full Frame equivalent (crop factor included) focal length, at 40 feet, a 100mm lens (like the RX100) will capture an area around 14 feet by 9 feet. (The LX7's 90mm lens, being slightly shorter, will cover a slightly larger area.) While a lens that's twice as long, i.e. 200mm (like the LF1 and P7700), will capture around a quarter of that (i.e. half in both dimensions), so around 7 feet by 4.5 feet. And the G15 at 140mm, being about halfway between those two, would therefor be about halfway between those two. So if your kids are, say, 2 feet tall, you can extrapolate how much of the frame they will take up.

Quote:
Thank you very much for your patience in explaning all these to me.

You're welcome. I'm just trying to pay Gordon back for all of the great info he posts - Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:32 am
Posts: 9
Thanks Mark, I'm moving my post to a new topic which will be more about the cam with larger sensors.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group