This is a short follow-up review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3. In a previous blog post, I described my decision to purchase a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 in great detail. Now that I own one–and have used it for more than a week–I thought I’d give my impressions of it so far…

As when I tested the Canon 5D Mark II, I had high hopes for the auto ISO. What photographer hasn’t suddenly gone from a dark indoor setting to a bright outdoor setting (e.g., from inside a dark church to the bright sunny summer day just outside the front door of the church) and forgotten or not had time to switch the ISO down to a much more appropriate setting? I either shoot aperture priority or manual about 98% of the time, and it was a major disappointment to me that the 5D Mark II doesn’t allow you to specify a minimum shutter speed. In fact, the shutter would go down as low as 1/20 sec for an indoor shot rather than bump up the ISO and take it at a more appropriate shutter speed. Other photographers have confirmed for me that there isn’t a minimum shutter speed setting on the Canon 5D Mark II (as there wasn’t on the Canon 5D before it).

So, when I put the Lumix DMC-LX3 on auto ISO, it too chose lower shutter speeds than I ever would have, especially to photograph moving people (I mostly use the Lumix DMC-LX3 to photograph my children and they hardly ever stand still!).

Well, it turns out that the Lumix DMC-LX3 has a lot of customizable and flexible options, especially for a compact camera. So, I dug down into the menu system, which took a while to get familiar with. However, it paid off. I found my perfect combination of ISO/exposure related settings: 1) set the ISO to Auto, 2) set a maximum acceptable ISO (I specified 1600 because I find 3200 pretty bleak), and 3) set a minimum shutter speed of 1/60 sec.

Even though there are situations where I might want a lower maximum ISO or a slower minimum shutter speed, the combination of the 1600 and 1/60 is ideal for me 80% or more of the time. So, I just put these settings into one of my customizable programmable settings (C1 and/or C2, which you can choose with a turn of the dial on top of the camera) and start there each time. If I need to change anything, I just get into the menu and change things for that photo session. The next day, when I start the camera up again, it’s back to my saved custom settings. Works like a charm!

A nice feature of the Auto ISO setting is that it makes available finer ISO gradations than are available with setting the ISO manually. For instance, you can manually set the ISO to any of the following: 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200. However, in Auto ISO mode, additional ISO settings in between these become available (I’ve seen the camera select them): 125, 160, 250, 320, 500, 640, 1000, 1250, 2000, etc. It’s really nice to have some ISO settings between 400 & 800 and 800 &1600 because 400 to 800 and 800 to 1600 are significant jumps in digital noise. So, it’s beneficial to “ramp up” the ISO more gradually to keep that noise down as much as possible.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3, 80 ISO, f/2.5, 1/100 sec, 9.3mm (44mm)

The other ISO-related issue I should emphasize is that since the Lumix DMC-LX3 has such a large maximum aperture of f/2.0 (wide) – f/2.8 (telephoto), this too helps to keep the required ISO down.

I’ve been pleased with the auto-focus on this camera; I’ve even been able to get it to lock onto moving children. Having a choice of different metering modes–including spot!–has been a pleasure. The tiny flash has been a nice surprise; it’s more powerful than I thought it would be.

Being able to choose whether the camera uses an AF assist light is great; when you’re trying to take photos without your subject being aware of you doing so, you don’t want that red light signaling your intentions! The auto-focus works quite well even without the AF assist light.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3, 640 ISO, f/2.0, 1/60 sec, 5.1mm (24mm)

It’s not all peaches & cream with this camera.

Let me make it clear that the quality of the images from this camera cannot match my Canon DSLRs, not even the Digital Rebel 400D I have. Even though the Lumix DMC-LX3 and my Digital Rebel 400D are both 10.1 megapixels, the digital noise and image quality are hands down better with the Digital Rebel. And even with the large maximum aperture on the Lumix DMC-LX3 (f/2.0 – f/2.8), the bokeh or background blur is significantly better with a f/2 or f/2.8 lens on my Digital Rebel. Really, the main benefit of having the f/2.0 – f/2.8 aperture range with this camera is enabling low-light shooting and keeping the ISO/digital noise down as much as possible. The bokeh isn’t going to knock anyone’s socks off.

Also, the DMC-LX3 doesn’t come with an optical viewfinder (this is a “not cheap” accessary you have to buy), so you have to compose everything on the rear LCD…which ends up wearing the battery down relatively quickly. It is a little easier to catch people unaware by composing things with the LCD (which you can hold down low and away from your face while composing), but it’s nice to have the option of using an optical viewfinder sometimes.

Even though you can record fairly nice videos with this camera (Quicktime MOV), you can’t zoom in or out once the recording begins.

Finally, this camera has a 35mm full-frame equivalent zoom range of 24-60mm. I really like having 24mm on the wide end…sometimes, I’d like to have more! The 60mm limit on the telephoto end can certainly be a little limiting sometimes; but I knew this before I bought the camera and still prefer the tradeoff of limiting the telephoto range in order to keep the maximum aperture up to a nice large f/2.8 at the telephoto end.

So, after using this camera for more than a week now, I would recommend it to anyone looking for a compact camera that:

• fits into a large pocket or small pouch
• can take photos in dimly-lit indoor settings
• has a nice wide-angle reach of 24mm (35mm full-frame equivalent)
• is able to keep ISO relatively low in most shooting situations because of the lens’ large apertures
• has to have good image quality, but not necessarily as good as a digital SLR
• can be customized to fit the photographer’s shooting style and/or subject matter
• can take photos of active children
• doesn’t have to zoom out beyond a 60mm telephoto range
• has enough megapixels (10 mp) to make relatively large prints when desired

If a camera with these features sounds pretty good to you, buy one! If you love Leica, buy the Leica version; it’s more likely to be in stock. Either way, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

If you follow this blog at all, you know I recently purchased a Canon 35-350 L zoom lens for use with my full-frame Canon 5D. The 35-350 L is no longer manufactured by Canon; it’s been replaced by the 28-300 IS L. But you can still get a 35-350 L in great condition (around $1100), and they’re only about half the cost of the 28-300 IS L (around $2200).

The 35-350 has turned out to be a great lens for me on a full-frame camera. I’m still blown away by the fact that this lens has the farthest reach of any of my lenses, yet includes a respectable wide angle focal length of 35mm. It would be nice if it had a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 throughout the zoom range (rather than f/3.5 – f/5.6), but then it would be unbelievably heavy, I’m sure!

Anyway, 35mm on a full-frame DSLR meets, probably, 90% of my wide angle needs. But every once in a while, I want to be able to reach 28mm, 24mm, or even a little wider. Now, granted, my desire for 28mm or wider is usually an indoor phenomenon. However, there are situations outdoors (e.g., next to a tall waterfall) or semi-outdoors (e.g., on a open boat for a cocktail cruise) where I could use some “serious” wide angle capability.

Well, it turns out I own a Canon 17-40 f/4 L lens which gives me true wide angle coverage to 17mm on my 5D. I don’t use this lens a lot; but when I need it, it *really* comes in handy. (New 17-40 f/4 L lenses can be purchased for around $700.)

I’ve got a *mostly* outdoor wedding coming up (some of the reception will take place inside an actual building; otherwise–weather permitting–everything else is going to be outdoors), and it occurred to me that with my 35-350 on one 5D and my 17-40 on the other 5D, I’ve got an awesome focal range of 17-350mm using professional Canon L zoom lenses! Total lens cost: $1800.

Now, matching the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L with the 35-350 would also work (and pick up another 1mm on the wide end), but a new 16-35 f/2.8 L is about twice the cost of the 17-40 (about $1400). The total lens cost of uniting the 35-350 with the 16-35 f/2.8 would be $2500.

Of course, you could buy just the 28-300 IS L for $2200 and only have to deal with one camera and lens. However, you would be cutting off some of your coverage range at *both* the wide and telephoto ends (you would lose 16-28mm or 17-28mm and 300-350mm). You’d also miss out on the nice added capabilities of having an ultra wide-angle zoom, which can really come in handy.

Because the 35-350 is a bit slow aperture-wise (f/3.5 – f/5.6) and reaches 350mm (total overkill for most indoor situations), I would never recommend it as a good indoor lens for weddings. However, combined with the 17-40 f/4 L, you’ve really got an amazing outdoor wedding lens combo for $1800 or less (if you can get some good used lens deals), that could capture practically any shot you could throw at it! (Note: For you bokeh lovers…even with the relatively small maximum apertures of the 35-350, you can get some really nice bokeh in a large portion of the telephoto range: 150-350mm.)

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Have you ever had this problem? You’ve got your DSLR camera hanging in front of you on the neck strap. You grab it and turn it on its side to take a vertical/portrait shot and this happens…

…the camera strap goes right in front of the viewfinder so that you have to shove it out of the way with either your hand or the side of your face?!

I’m not sure why, but this little annoyance only recently struck me…probably because I didn’t have a vertical grip on my camera previously and so could easily use the thumb on my right hand to keep the strap out of the way of the viewfinder (since my hand was already on the horizontal shutter release button near the place where one end of the strap attaches).

I think the other reason I’ve noticed this problem is that I’ve been using a Black Rapid R-Strap for the past year.

The R-Strap attaches to the bottom of your camera (to the tripod screw hole) and keeps your camera hanging at your side. (Follow the link I provided to a Black Rapid R-Strap demonstration video in the previous paragraph to see it in action.) When you grab the camera and bring it up to your eye–in either horizontal or vertical orientation–the strap is nowhere near the viewfinder! It really works well.

Up till now, I’ve shot with one DSLR hanging from a neck strap (this is the camera I put the flash on) and the other hanging at my side on the R-Strap. However, I’ve noticed that having a hotshoe flash on the camera hanging upside down at my side doesn’t appear to be a problem. If you have a big or flimsy flash diffuser attached to it, maybe you’d have a problem. But I’m not a big fan of exotic flash diffusers–like the LightSphere–anyway.

So, if you find yourself having a problem with the neck strap getting in the way of the viewfinder when you go to take vertically-oriented shots–especially if you have a vertical battery grip–take a look at the Black Rapid R-Strap. I’ve been quite happy with mine…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

I recently purchased a Canon 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM zoom lens. (This lens was replaced by the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM and is no longer in production.) Due to some of the complaints I heard, I was a little worried the size and weight of it might be a problem…especially over the course of a long day of shooting.

Well, I haven’t used it during a long day of shooting yet; but I have used the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM at some of my weddings and haven’t noticed any major problems with weight. So, just out of curiosity, I thought I would compare the two purely in terms of size and weight.

First, I weighed both of them with their hoods and caps on. The 35-350 weighed in at a fairly substantial 3 pounds and 4.6 ounces. When handling them, it’s a little difficult to tell which is heavier because the weight is distributed differently. The 70-200 IS has a larger diameter and looks more substantial. And, as it turns out, it *is* somewhat heavier: 3 pounds and 8.3 ounces.

So, the 70-200 is heavier even though it covers a smaller range of focal lengths. However the 70-200 has two attributes that make it especially heavy: 1) a relatively large and constant maximum aperture of f/2.8, and 2) an image stabilization system.

I took a few photos to further illustrate their differences in size. In the first photo, they’re standing upright on a table (the 70-200 is on the left; the 35-350 on the right):

As you can see, when the two lenses are not extended, the 70-200 is longer/taller than the 35-350. How about when they’re fully extended?

Actually, the 70-200 doesn’t extend when you zoom it out; so its length is unaltered (I know, I know…the 70-200 shows it’s at 70mm, not 200mm. Trust me: it’s the same length at 200mm). The 35-350, on the other hand, has now surpassed the length of the 70-200 (it’s a push-pull zoom like a couple of Canon’s other L zooms: 28-300 and 100-400)…and there’s a relatively large and heavy piece of lens glass inside that extended end.

How about a photograph of the two with their hoods on?…

To the casual observer, they look like they’re almost the same length! I guess this is good as far as the 35-350 not making me “stand out” any more than the 70-200 does. However, much of the length on the far end of the 70-200 is lightweight plastic. The 35-350’s hood is quite a bit shorter.

So, even though the 35-350 weighs less than the 70-200 IS, the weight distribution is quite different. I’m a little concerned that when the 35-350 is fully or nearly fully extended, it’ll act as a substantial lever with my upper back acting as the counterweight….possibly making it ache after a few hours of shooting.

I guess the proof will be “in the pudding” once I actually shoot an event with it! More on that sometime soon…:-)

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

I like large maximum aperture prime lenses. The variable maximum aperture consumer grade zoom lenses (usually something like f/3.5 – f/5.6) can be good for outdoor daytime photography; but for general purpose indoor/outdoor, daytime/nighttime photography, a f/2 or larger maximum aperture prime lens can get a lot of shots the consumer grade zoom lenses just can’t get. In addition, you get better image quality with a prime lens and a really nice background blur that can be difficult to get with those smaller apertures.

Now, a standard entry-level prime lens that I and many other photographers start with is the plastic Canon 50mm f/1.8. For the price (under $100), the image quality and bokeh (background blur) can’t be beat. And it gave me a normal focal length lens (between wide angle and telephoto) on my 35mm film SLR camera. 50mm can be (and is for me) a very good general purpose focal length.

When I bought my first 1.6 crop factor DLSR (the Canon EOS 20D), the 50mm f/1.8 lens went from having the angle of view of a normal lens to that of a 80mm telephoto lens. This isn’t necessarily bad if you want a telephoto angle of view; but it *is* bad if you really want normal lens coverage.

The first lens I bought to accommodate the APS-C sensor of the 20D was a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom lens. 28mm on the 1.6 crop factor DSLR is about 45mm…slightly wide angle compared to a normal 50mm view. Of course it also gave me the full-frame equivalence of a 120mm at the 75mm end. It was a good lens for me, until my daughter accidentally knocked it off of our kitchen counter and permanently crippled it (I was a little surprised how fragile it was).

I eventually went on to a full-frame Canon 5D DSLR and my 50mm lenses (the f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2…I’ve owned all of them at some point) went back to being true normal angle of view lenses. However, I still have a 1.6 crop factor Digital Rebel that I like to travel with.

On our family vacation to a New York state park last summer, I brought the Digital Rebel and two lenses: a Canon 24-105mm f/4L and a Canon 35mm f/2. Even though the 24-105 gave me the better range of coverage (full-frame equivalent of about 38 – 168mm), I found myself preferring the 35mm f/2 for a few reasons:

1) It’s much more compact (here’s a photo of the larger 24-105mm next to the 35mm, both with their hoods on)

2) Significantly larger aperture that allowed shooting at lower ISOs indoors and made it possible to shoot in much less light (e.g., photos of my family next to a campfire lighted only by the fire light)

3) Less worry about losing or damaging the lens since it’s much cheaper than the 24-105 zoom

A 35mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR is equivalent to a 56mm lens on a full-frame DSLR. It’s slightly telephoto compared to a true normal lens angle of view, but it’s not far off. Canon makes a 28mm f/1.8 that I think I would slightly prefer in terms of angle of view (approximately equivalent to 45mm on a full-frame), but compared to the 35mm f/2, it’s: 1) bigger, 2) more expensive (around $420 new compare to $240 for the 35mm), 3) has poorer center sharpness wide open (i.e., at large apertures).

I have found the 35mm f/2 to give me great photos and to focus quickly and accurately, even without a USM autofocus drive motor (it makes a high-pitched whizzing sound when it’s focussing because it’s not USM; but this doesn’t bother me).

I really think the Canon 35mm f/2 is a great lens for anyone who owns a 1.6 crop factor Canon DSLR (includes the Canon EOS 10D – 50D and all the Digital Rebels) and would recommend you try one out if you haven’t already!

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Over the past week, I photographed two events at my children’s small private school…one as an observer and one as a participant. (It’s much easier to photograph an event as a non-participant!)

In any case, during the event when I was an observer, I put the Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM on my Canon 5D with the assumption I’d mostly want close-ups of the children. On the other day (when I was an event participant) I brought the 5D again, but had two lenses: the Canon EF 24-105 F4L IS USM and the Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM again.

On the day I had just the 70-300, I did run into some circumstances where I wanted a wider perspective. But being outdoors and fairly mobile, I just retracted the zoom to 70mm, ran some distance away from the children, turned around, and took the shot. Of course, during a little run like that, you’re liable to miss a few shots..! (I can just imagine telling the wedding couple at an outdoor wedding to go back and walk down the aisle again so I can run some distance and get a wider perspective…:p).

On the other day when I had two lenses, the 24-105 came in handy when I was taking shots of the people around me…especially, when I was right in there with them participating in some group activities. It was a little difficult, though, to get any decent shots of the people that were far away from me (we were quite spread out over a large grassy area).

Later–when I got a chance–I changed to the 70-300 lenses to get candids…mostly of children who, hopefully, wouldn’t notice me focussing on them. This was fine until the children got into groups and lines for some games. Again–as I did on the previous day–I had to run back away from them to get them all into the 70mm view.

Two cameras

When people pay me to shoot an event–like a wedding–I normally bring and wear 2-3 cameras with 2-3 lenses to cover a wide-angle, normal, and telephoto perpective simultaneously. When I travel or go to an event that I’m covering with little concern for fiscal remumeration, I don’t want to walk around with two or three cameras hanging from me! Not only is it nicer to have only one camera to tote around, but having multiple cameras hanging from me puts me in “work” mode…and tells all the people around you that you’re truly a camera geek!

No, I’d rather have one camera and one lens (maybe one additional small lens that fits conveniently in a pocket) when I’m traveling or photographing my kids. Yet, I want that camera and lens to yield “professional” images that could be sold as prints or stock images should I happen upon shots with such promise.

One Good Camera + Lens Combo

I’ve toyed with the one perfect camera + lens scenario a number of times over the past couple of years. I have seen the Canon EF 28-300 F3.5-F5.6 L IS USM out there on the market and thought that 28-300 on a full-frame sensor would do a pretty good job of covering most shots I would want when traveling or when photographing my kids’ school events.

So, what’s stopping me from buying it? A $2300 price tag and mediocre image quality reviews. And if I’m going to pay that amount of money, I would want to replace a bunch of my lenses. The 28-300 can’t replace my Canon F2.8L zooms (24-70 F2.8L and 70-200 F2.8L IS) or my F2.8 – F1.4 primes, which are critical in indoor low-light situations. And although I don’t use my 17-40 F4L zoom that often, when I need it I *need* it. I suppose the 28-300 could almost replace my 24-105 F4L IS, but I’d have to be convinced the image quality is close enough before I could get rid of a dependably good performer like the 24-105; same with my 70-300 F4-5.6 IS.

Canon has recently come out with a EF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 IS that covers the equivalent of 29-320mm on a full frame DSLR; but it’s gotten even more mediocre reviews than the 28-300, and I don’t have a good APS-C format DSLR (1.6X crop factor) to put it on…and don’t really want to buy one this year.

I started looking around at third-party lenses, but the only one that came close to what I wanted while achieving acceptable image quality was the Sigma 50-500mm (nicknamed the “Bigma”). But I’d be giving up any wide-angle coverage. I guess I could carry around something like a 24mm F2.8 in my pocket for wide-angle shots; but I hesitate to give up on my quest for that single affordable, good quality lens that I can just leave on the camera the whole time. Also, even though I’ve owned a good third-party lens or two in the past, I’m most comfortable sticking with the original manufacturer’s lenses to keep compatibility issues–especially with future DSLRs I might buy–at bay.

Since I’m not afraid of older Canon lenses (I’ve had a great Canon 80-200 F2.8L zoom that went out of production in 1996), I started to look for a blast from the past. Well, I found the Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM zoom, which apparently went out of production in 2004. It doesn’t go as wide as the 28-300, but it’s got more telephoto reach (350mm vs 300mm). From my past use of a 24-70mm on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR (24mm becomes effectively 38.4mm on the APS-C sensor), 35mm on a full-frame DSLR should work quite well for me, especially outdoors. The 35-350 doesn’t have the image stabilization (IS) of the newer lens, but it’s about 10oz lighter than the latter.

What about image quality? I haven’t been able to find a side-by-side comparison on the web, but I’ve been led to believe there isn’t a huge difference in image quality: both are “L” lenses with the superior build and image quality that the “L” designates; but the image quality ratings are dragged down for both by their trying to perform well at such a huge range of focal lengths.

It seems that the image stabilization is pretty important for some commentators and the wider wide-end is a big factor for people with 1.3X or 1.6X crop factor sensors. People complain about the heaviness of both, but–as I said–the newer lens is the heaviest (those IS systems add significant weight).

Well, I discovered you can get a used 35-350 in immaculate shape for about half the price of the 28-300. I saw a “bargain” quality 35-350 selling for around $800 without a hood; but I fear getting a well-used lens that is no longer in production because getting it fixed could turn out to be difficult. No, give me a lightly-used out-of-production lens every time!

So, I went and bought the 35-350 L and haven’t even received it yet. You can be sure I’ll post some sample shots and some observations in coming weeks. I should also get a chance to compare it head-to-head against the newer 28-300 L in about a month because I plan to borrow that for an outdoor wedding. Keep an eye out for that if you’re interested!

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

The first Polaroid Land camera came out in 1948. For the first time in photography, the photographer could see his/her photos only a minute after taking them. Color Polaroid film was introduced in the 1960s. The general public bought up Polaroid cameras like hot cakes and professional photographers used Polaroid film and film backs to take test shots before using their regular negative or slide film to capture the final image/s.

By the the late 1990s, digital photography was beginning to take off and started to cut into the Polaroid market. After Polaroid’s recent announcement that they will stop making Polaroid film at the end of this year (2009), it seemed that Polaroid’s run as a special player in the photography market was finally over.

But digital photography only replicated one feature of the “Polaroid experience”: the instant viewing of a photo just taken. What about the instant *print* feature? Sure, you can connect a digital camera to a printer and get a print reasonably easy; but you still need another piece of equipment to make the print possible.

Apparently Polaroid finally realized the initial inspiration for the Polaroid Land Camera still had some mileage to give them. So they’ve come up with the new Polaroid Pogo which is a digital camera with a mini printer build into it! You can print a nifty 2″x3″ print right in the camera and hand it to your friends and family to “ooh and ah” over. The camera has a 3.0″ LCD on the back; so unlike the original Polaroid film camera, you can sort through the images and only print the ones you like. It’ll be available this June (2009).

I don’t how much it’s going to cost or how good the images or prints will be, but I have to say they’ve done it again! They come up with a product that rekindles the original Polaroid magic and I, for one, would like to take a look at one once they become available…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!