File :-(, x, )
halp! E
Ahoy there /p/,

I am going on a trip to Rome in september and I don't want to pack a bulky dslr. Besides having one already nearly stolen in an overcrowded bus the last time I simply don't want to carry the weight.
So I want to set out on buying an (ultra-)compact point-and-shoot that is win. It should have a decent image quality of course, be robust and versatile, have a fast wide angle lens (28mm or wider) with image stabilization.
I am currently in favour of the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX100. It's gots a bit much of meggapixlers but it seems ok so far.

What's your opinion on that, /p/? Any advice will be appreciated.
>> Anonymous
How someone can steal your dslr? Cut the strap and get out of bus with the camera? :D
>> Anonymous
>>66837
Get the DMC-LX2 instead. Larger sensor, larger zoom range (also starting at 28), manual control (the FX-100 might have that, but I don't think it does), and most importantly, it shoots RAW. Panasonic's point and shoots are great, but their JPEG processing is shitty. Spending one minute in Camera Raw with a raw file from one will get results four or five times better than the in-camera JPEG.
>> E
>>66841

It was some contest of how to cram as many people into a public bus as possible, due to a strike of the subway conductors. Seriously no one inside the vehicle could move even an inch, but somehow someone did get my camera out of my shoulderbag. When I got off I immediatley noticed it, shouted something about a camera and found it on the floor of the bus. Maybe the hands of the pickpocket were to greasy ;)
It was the classic "sneaky" attempt instead of the hit-and-run tactic...
And yes, I did pay extra close attention because I knew this could happen, but it didn't help anyway.
>> E
>>66844

Raw would be really nice. And I've thought about the LX2. But the problem is, the lens is only 28mm when shotting 16x9. At 4x3 it's only 35mm. Plus it's a 100€ more than the FX-100. Plus an additional 100 for a Leica-Logo ;)
But shooting in Raw would be, um, nice... This could be a tough decision.
>> E
I just looked at some samples of the LX2. It seems the images are unusable at ISO above 100. Even at ISO 200 the image is terribly noisy and terribly denoised. Does it do this while shooting raw, too?
>> E
Unusable at ISO above 400, I mean...
>> Anonymous
>>66847
The camera you posted has a Leica badge, too, except they're not just badges. While not nearly the same in quality, the lenses are designed by the same people who design the Summicrons and Summiluxes and all those. From what I've seen, they are noticably better than other point and shoot lenses, even if they're not "OMG LEICA!"

The additional $100, I suspect, comes from the larger sensor and the novelty of being the only camera so equipped.

As far as ISO and image quality, you'll get that with any small-sensor digital camera. The LX2 will probably be better in that regard, with its larger sensor.

As far as the noise reduction, like I said, Lumix cameras have the shittiest JPEG processing around. I can't personally speak for the LX2, but the FZ8's RAW files are clean at ISO 100, usable at ISO 400, especially with a bit of NR, and messy at 800, like any camera with a small sensor. Noise Reduction can salvage some of them. ISO 200 is a very variable bag- some of them come out indistinguishable from ISO 100, some of them look like 400 or more. It's quite strange.

Keep in mind, though: ISO range is useful, but it isn't everything. David Alan Harvey shot every single frame for his book on Cuba with ISO 50 film, which is half the light you'll have if you stay at ISO 100.
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
>>66886

Carl Zeiss designs lenses of similar caliber.

They also never met a dollar they didn't like, and slaps the CZ name on everything from shit cameraphones to shit Sony digital cameras with sensors the size of a grain of sand.

Fiat makes formula 1 cars; they also make, well, fiats.

That $100 is just the markup they think they can get away with. A chunk of that money goes to Leica for using the trademark.


Leica makes everything from lab equipment to survey gear to, yes, camera bodies+lenses. I've seen Leica "rangefinder" devices which were identical in appearance to cheap taiwanese units.

There is:
-what people think
-what the press releases say
-what the extent of the deal was


Each is lesser than the first. People probably think (like you) that Leica "made" the lens. The press releases probably said "Leica collaborated with us", and what really happened, most likely, was that Leica engineer looked at the Panasonic design and said "okay, looks good enough to me." Maybe tweaked something and sent it back, enough to get away with "lens designed by Leica"...