New cam

Paul McGowan · 05-19-2006, 04:30 AM

I just bought a Panasonic DMC-FX01 today and first use will be this weekend to take to a wedding...

I bought it because it's small, and offers 28mm lens, those are the two big reasons. Having optical image stabilizer and a 4x zoom are big plusses.

Oh, another plus, they gave me a printer to go with it. I've never printed out any pictures before, but I'll give it a try when I get home. It's the HP Deskjet 5940. Is this a decent model?

I've heard this cam produces a lot of noise, esp. on higher ISO settings, however I'm not so sure I will notice it.

I understand that camera noise can be photoshopped out. Is this an easy process that produces quality results? I've never used Photoshop before.

I've got a 2G SD card that's just waiting to be filled!!

Scott Merryfield · 05-19-2006, 10:28 AM

Sounds like a nice camera, Paul. I think you will really like the image stabilization (assuming Panasonic implemented it correctly).

Just yesterday I received my first image stabilization lens for the Canon Digital Rebel XT dSLR that I bought a couple months ago. This is a 70-300mm Canon telephoto, and I was amazed at the pictures I was able to take handheld at dusk last night.

Bryan X · 07-15-2006, 09:32 AM

I bought the Rebel XT recently too, Scott. I got the 17-85mm IS lens with it. IS is really nice. I was looking for a second lens for more reach and was really interested in the 70-300 IS you have. But decided against it because of the focusing issue Canon is adressing with the recall. Have you noticed the problem much on yours?

I ended up getting the 70-200mm f/4 L. Excellent image quality, but the IS would have been nice. I'm not real steady at 200mm.

Man-Fai Wong · 07-15-2006, 04:46 PM

Do it the old fashion way. Get a monopod for manual IS that works for all your non-IS lenses (across all camera brands).

Scott Merryfield · 07-15-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Have you noticed the problem much on yours?

My copy of the 70-300 IS works fine in portrait mode as of now, Bryan. The serial number is part of the recall, though. I will probably send it in eventually for "the fix", but not until after the summer is over. I need the lens for a trip later this summer, and the lens is working perfectly now. In fact, it is very sharp.

Quote:

I got the 17-85mm IS lens with it.

I really debated this lens vs. the Sigma 17-70mm, but ended up with the latter. I am very happy with the Sigma, but still at times regret passing on the 17-85mm because of the IS and USM focusing (the Canon focused faster and quieter than the Sigma during my in-store tests). I do like the semi-macro capability of the 17-70, though.

Quote:

Do it the old fashion way. Get a monopod for manual IS that works for all your non-IS lenses

If you haven't tried image stabilization, Man-Fai, you are missing a nice feature. Monopods and tripods are useful tools, but there are times they are just not practical. With IS, you are always sort of carrying a monopod/tripod. I hike a lot on vacation and do not like to carry a tripod then, so IS is quite useful.

**HTF Ads**

Bryan X · 07-15-2006, 06:51 PM

I'm glad you haven't had the problem with your 70-300.

I'm like you, Scott. We do a lot of hiking on vacation and a tripod is not a good option then. I did buy a monopod since my 70-200 L doesn't have IS. It's more convenient than a tripod but not as convenient as IS. I'm not as steady with the monopod as with IS either.

The 17-85mm IS is pretty nice. It's has some distortion at 17mm, but other than that, very sharp, very nice.

The other lens I'm looking at is the Canon 100mm f/2.0. I think that would be a good choice for shooting pics at my son's basketball games.

Scott Merryfield · 07-16-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

The 17-85mm IS is pretty nice. It's has some distortion at 17mm, but other than that, very sharp, very nice.

That, along with the smaller maximum aperature and higher price, are the main reasons (along with the macro capability) I decided on the Sigma 17-70 instead. However, I have since added the Canon 10-22mm to my bag, so the poorer performance at 17mm would not be as big an issue now.

Man-Fai Wong · 07-18-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield

If you haven't tried image stabilization, Man-Fai, you are missing a nice feature. Monopods and tripods are useful tools, but there are times they are just not practical. With IS, you are always sort of carrying a monopod/tripod. I hike a lot on vacation and do not like to carry a tripod then, so IS is quite useful.

Oh, I have no doubt that IS will often be more practical. I was mainly just suggesting the alternative of monopod as better than nothing at all since Bryan already owns the 70-200 f/4L.

Bryan,

RE: IS working better than monopod (when the latter is useable). Since you went w/ a lens that offers larger aperture than the IS option, I suspect the effectiveness of the combo of lens + monopod will be very close, if not the same. Of course, this assumes that you don't need the extra DoF of a particular aperture you'd otherwise use on the IS lens. OTOH, it's not like IS will help you stop action like the extra stop that the non-IS f/4 telezoom would.

Anyway, for myself, I prefer to go w/ the better/faster glass first before going for IS even though I hate to lug a tripod and would also prefer to leave the monopod at home as well. I guess if I could afford it, I'd add something like the Nikon 18-200mm VR on top of better glass to cover the same range for travel-lite IS-enabled shooting.

OTOH, I'd probably want to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR first before doing something like that.

_Man_