ChristianHass
Veteran Member
Well to be pendantic it can't actually be used for selfies since the screen doesn't flip 180 degrees.
It's a great sensor though, if I was into lowlight/high ISO shooting I'd probably find more use for it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Do you use your compact MORE than your mirrorless/DSLR?
- Thread starter kwa_photo
- Start date
It's a great sensor though, if I was into lowlight/high ISO shooting I'd probably find more use for it.
pda4you
Senior Member
Agree....and interesting answers thus far.
Ditto - I am using it more and more.
Ditto for me it is the D7100 that is weather sealed.
Me too. I dig out the D7100 for low light and when I need the best possible IQ where the LX100 struggles a little more.
Yep - and no other glass options to decide, what lens should I take?
True - the m4/3 does need to get with it though. The 1" sensors are as good or just nearly as good. Sony may be a touch better in fact but it beats my v2 or v3 Nikon 1 gear.
Yep the old style works for me, adjust what you want, I am rarely in the menu's and it does what I need and is so much smaller and easier to carry. The controls are excellent and it is easy to use. I am extremely happy with mine.
So much so I need to see what the LX200 offers and will likely upgrade.
Mike
Entish 1
Active member
Cyril Catt
Veteran Member
Entish1, you express my feelings entirely.
But "Amen Richard" implies you are agreeing with Richard.
-- Cyril
Last edited:
boninsegni
Forum Enthusiast
I personally use two different compacts: most of the time my Pana TZ100/ZS100 and in low light situation my Canon G7X Mk2. IMHO it's an ideal combination.
davesurrey
Senior Member
An excellent example of why one size definitely doesn't fit all and why we are so lucky these days having so much choice.
Cameranoobie
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,979
- Reaction score
- 411
True but 95% of people don't care for a standalone camera let alone more than one. Every single person I know just uses their phone as their main camera. These people truly believe that spending money on a camera is a waste of money.
davesurrey
Senior Member
Perhaps you should get out more then.
old jim
Veteran Member
I suspect they are not interested in Photography as a hobby? Perhaps as a recording devise in connection with their Friends/activities etc. Easier than a journal!
Warmest regards,
Warmest regards,
Cyril Catt
Veteran Member
For many people's needs, and even for the more fastidious who may find themselves without their preferred equipment when a great photo opportunity arises, some phone cameras can produce reasonably acceptable results. See: http://www.chrisfeichtner.com
davesurrey
Senior Member
Yes, I'm sure you are right Jim, in that the bulk of "image taking" today is by folk who want a record of some moment/event to share with others, mainly on social media.
But I guess it was a lot like that in days gone by before the iphone existed and when Kodak Brownies were prevalent. Most "snaps" then were also for sharing with others or just a record of an occurrence.
Most of us on this forum see photography as something very different where the artistic element comes into our "hobby".
There was nothing wrong with the Brownies as there is nothing wrong with camera phones per se. But the laws of physics are standing in the way of camera phones taking over completely.
But I guess it was a lot like that in days gone by before the iphone existed and when Kodak Brownies were prevalent. Most "snaps" then were also for sharing with others or just a record of an occurrence.
Most of us on this forum see photography as something very different where the artistic element comes into our "hobby".
There was nothing wrong with the Brownies as there is nothing wrong with camera phones per se. But the laws of physics are standing in the way of camera phones taking over completely.
The photos from this Mr Chris Feichtner are really fantastic !!!
However, if one goes through the effort to get these kind of (pro-) shots ...
I wonder ... why not simply buy a COMPACT LX100/D-Lux 109 or even a Leica Q with FF sensor !?
That way one does *not* have to lug around a heavy camera either and get even better results.
Anyway, it -again- proves that -in this case- a dedicated iPhone/Android app can yield fantastic results.
One thing is sure ... all camera equipment mfr have to come up with some real wizardry if they want to keep in business !
A high end smartphone with add-on (photo- and zoom-) attachments can easily replace a digicam. Carrying both devices then sure may seem like a burden.
However, if one goes through the effort to get these kind of (pro-) shots ...
I wonder ... why not simply buy a COMPACT LX100/D-Lux 109 or even a Leica Q with FF sensor !?
That way one does *not* have to lug around a heavy camera either and get even better results.
Anyway, it -again- proves that -in this case- a dedicated iPhone/Android app can yield fantastic results.
One thing is sure ... all camera equipment mfr have to come up with some real wizardry if they want to keep in business !
A high end smartphone with add-on (photo- and zoom-) attachments can easily replace a digicam. Carrying both devices then sure may seem like a burden.
Last edited:
davesurrey
Senior Member
Cyril,
I would class many of these shots as more than just "reasonably acceptable."
It's impressive how good some smartphone cameras are under favourable circumstances. But I wonder how much better some of these shots might have been if the photographer had been carrying a dedicated camera with him. But as the tired old cliche says "The best cameras is the one that......"
I feel I was born 50 year too early as I had to make do with an OM2 and assorted lenses when travelling around the globe years ago. Even with one of today's one inch digital compacts the results would have been better in almost every case.
But there again I doubt I would want to visit many of the places I went to now due the way the World is today.
I would class many of these shots as more than just "reasonably acceptable."
It's impressive how good some smartphone cameras are under favourable circumstances. But I wonder how much better some of these shots might have been if the photographer had been carrying a dedicated camera with him. But as the tired old cliche says "The best cameras is the one that......"
I feel I was born 50 year too early as I had to make do with an OM2 and assorted lenses when travelling around the globe years ago. Even with one of today's one inch digital compacts the results would have been better in almost every case.
But there again I doubt I would want to visit many of the places I went to now due the way the World is today.
Last edited:
pda4you
Senior Member
Convenience matters to people. Of my 4 kids 3 will NEVER own a camera because they can snap acceptable shots on their Android or iPhone's post it to whatever and everyone sees the event/person/etc. That matters.
My 2nd son looks at my DLSR and goes - YOUR NUTS. Well as some of the manual camera controls come out for the iPhone there are times I wonder why I carry another camera. I am not a pro never will be. I just can't imagine using an iPhone to take senior pics of my daughter or of family events.
But I get it convenience simply matters.
To most of us - IQ matters more than convenience. But lets be honest the cell phone cameras are getting good, some really good.
Tough shot for an iPhone - it was tough for the D7100 but I had the ability to lift shadows A LOT to get this...
But this shot....
But this shot - with the LX100 of my wonderful Lobster Pie could have easily been handled by the iPhone 6s Plus.
And just to show the little LX100's real abilities here is another shot the iPhone would have failed at. Look at the detail in this - you should see the RAW it was nowhere near this.
Impressive little camera - in this shot with an iPhone that blue would have been black, backlit with no detail. Anyway......
Life is full of choices.
Mike
Last edited:
davesurrey
Senior Member
Totally agree Mike when you say "life is full of choices" and as camera fans we have never been better served. For most of the young convenience and access to social media are super important and as you say some of the smartphone cameras can do a great job in favourable situations.
But as I type this my new FZ1000 (came an hour ago) is sitting on my desk looking down scornfully at my smartphone. I had to remind them that they both serve a purpose.
Its a bit like the friends who won the lottery and one bought a race horse and the other a Ferrari. The Ferrari owner was boasting how it was faster, more comfortable and could out accelerate the horse. The horse owner had to remind his friend that his Ferrari was pretty rubbish at jumping fences.
But as I type this my new FZ1000 (came an hour ago) is sitting on my desk looking down scornfully at my smartphone. I had to remind them that they both serve a purpose.
Its a bit like the friends who won the lottery and one bought a race horse and the other a Ferrari. The Ferrari owner was boasting how it was faster, more comfortable and could out accelerate the horse. The horse owner had to remind his friend that his Ferrari was pretty rubbish at jumping fences.
Last edited:
pda4you
Senior Member
Cyril Catt
Veteran Member
Possibly because the smartphone is not JUST a camera: it is a telephone, a GPS, a diary, an encyclopedia, an atlas, a wallet, a movie theatre, a television set, a radio, a record player, a voice recorder, a word processor, an account book, a spreadsheet, a notebook, a colossal database,... the list goes on: and it fits more easily in your pocket than a camera, which costa about the same amount, but does only one thing.
Changing from film cameras to digital cameras was not simply a matter of replacing the recording medium. The film medium was chemical. It required accurate, expensive, lenses to focus the image on the film, and reproduction or rectification of the image required more similar equipment, whilst transmission was even more complex and time consuming.
Digital media does not require such accurate, expensive lenses, because digital images can be rectified, reproduced, and transmitted, electronically, faster, and at far less cost; bringing video within its scope.--
Cyril
Cyril Catt
Veteran Member
So would I, but some purists might not
But smartphone cameras are still ergonomically awkward to hold, and their screens wash out in bright locations.
Today's digicams have automatic metering, exposure, focussing, flash, thousands of shots on a single card, zoom lenses, and far less bulk and weight
Agreed! But Google Street View allows a virtual tour without the cost or the yellow fever jabs!
davesurrey
Senior Member
Cyril Catt wrote:
Much the same as in photography.
I suppose they are a bit like the Swiss Army Knife. i have one of those and find it a great do-anything tool at times. But if I want to do some accurate or delicate or specialised work/repair/design I get out my real tools.
Much the same as in photography.
davesurrey
Senior Member
Similar threads
- User review
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum