Best Camera for Hiking?

[Ross Polete]

I would look at the Panasonic Lumix DMC TZ3 or TZ5 instead. See reviews here. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicTZ3/

[Dondo .]

The TZ series looks like a great group of cameras. I got a chance to play with the TZ1 a while back and was amazed that you could get a 10X zoom in a camera that small. As attractive as the big zoom looks, I think I'm even more attracted to the full manual controls and even wider lens of the FX500. The Panasonic reputation for noise still bothers me, though.

[John Carter]

The FX500 indeed looks tempting; I would love to have that kind of WA range on a compact (no more panorama stitching!). But I went with the TZ5 as it seems to be a better all-around camera. There are image quality issues with the FX500 at 125mm, and I can imagine using 125mm quite a bit. Having 28mm-280mm is a really full-featured zoom range, with good IQ through much of the zoom. The manual features would be nice, but the images I've seen of both cameras show a very smart IA (especially with the mixed dynamic-range feature) that will really minimize the need for PASM. I won't know this for sure until my TZ5 arrives, but take a look at the shots taken straight out of the camera on full auto here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&message=27962555&q=fx500&qf=m

Most impressive to me is the shot in the building with the sailboat and canon in the windows. On my LX1 (or any other camera) I would have wanted to go to manual to make sure the sky was not blown out and that the foreground was in focus. Even then I'd have to under-expose the building walls and lighten the shadows on the computer later. Also look at the sunset shot, using sunset mode. Again, I would have needed to make some major manual adjustments for that. The fact that these images came from full-auto from the TZ5 gives me great confidence in not needing PASM. Of course, the FX500 should produce similar results as they share the same IA features, but I no longer think of PASM as 'necessary' on these particular compacts.

I think if you plan on shooting mostly really wide, go with the FX500. I think the barrel distortion would become a bit too much for my tastes, and really 28mm is a huge improvement over the vast majority of 35-37mm compacts out there.

For me, I started with a 35-420 suer zoom and found I wanted WA far more than super tele, so I switched to the Panasonic LX1 for 28-125mm. I was much happier with the 28mm, but still feel a bit restricted with the 125mm max. So the FX500 would further satiate my desire for WA, but I'd still feel limited at tele. The TZ5 strikes a great balance with it's 28-280mm, covering the vast majority of shots.

[Franco Darioli]

Hi
I tested the FX 35 (actually 36 here) and was happy with that, as reported on another thread. The FX500 is a deluxe version of the 35 with the bigger LCD and a bit more tele, from 100 to 125mm. Since I have rediscovered the joy of extra wide, I prefer to have a 25-100mm than a 28-125mm if that was the choice. Obviously for most a longer than 125mm zoom is "wanted" so the 28-280mm of the FZ series caters for that.
Would be interesting to compare the FX500 at 125mm with the FX35 at 100mm cropped to match the 125mm size.
The new Venus engine does manage noise better than before. Not as well as the Canon DigiX or Fuji but getting closer.
Since there cannot be a single "ideal" backpacking cameras, maybe we should just look at a list of suggested cameras. Maybe an article on that could be welcomed by some.
BTW, the FX35 has almost no barrel or pincushion distortion throughout the range.

[Michael Davis]

Almost 1 year ago, I recently replaced a broken camera with a Panasonic Lumix DMC TZ3. While there probably isn't any one camera that is the "best" for hiking, I am very happy with this one!

It's good points are, a 10x zoom lense that starts with a wide angle 28mm and goes to 280mm. This is it's #1 attraction for me. Also, you can choe the aspect ratio from 4:3, 3:2, 16:9. These features proved extremely useful on my recent trip to Grand Canyon. It's resolution is 7 megapixels. Also, it has "image stabalization" which 8 thought was a sales gimmick but now I am a true believer! To my amature eye, the pictures look fantastic.

The bad points are that is weighs 1/2 pound, it's not waterproof, and not shock resistant.

All in all, if I could do it over again, I would still buy the Lumix TZ3.

[Dondo .]

Hi John,

I read your posts both here and at dpreview (I'm assuming that you're JohnTheBaton) and have to admit that you make a very argument for the TZ5. Looks like I'll have to throw that one into the mix. Keep us posted as to how it works out for you.

Argh! This picking a camera business is a lot tougher than I thought it would be.

[Dondo .]

Hey Franco,

Sorry I missed your earlier post comparing the FX35 with the DP1 and the GX100. I would certainly welcome a new article comparing suggested cameras for backpacking.

BTW, anything new on the Fuji F100? I haven't been able to find much on it besides the pink banding complaints.

[John Carter]

Dondo,

Glad to see my dpreview post helped someone. People over there can be rather unforgiving! Keep in mind I was comparing the LX2 to the TZ5; both the TZ5 and FX500 will offer the same AI benefits over the LX2.

Now that you've got me looking more closely at the FX500, I see that the FX500 does have a few other things going for it over the TZ5. Most important, it has a brighter lens, F2.8-F5.9, significantly better than the TZ5's F3.3-F4.9. It also offers AF tracking to maintain focus with a moving subject even after the shutter has been depressed half-way. And of course the touch screen could be more useful, or a gimmick, depending on how it is implemented. Panasonic also claims to have further improved the noise reduction technology on the FX500 vs. previous cameras, though this remains to be proven (though the technology behind it sounds promising).

Lastly, it does have up to 8.9x optical zoom using the 3 megapixel Extra Optical Zoom. It's not as good as true 9x, but would still be better than digital zoom. In other words, you'd still be deciding on better image quality on the WA side vs Tele, but at least you'd be able to capture optically zoomed shots at 9x.

Hmm…I'm going to have to give this some more thought. I guess I had written off the 25mm options when I saw the limited tele range on the FX35 (100mm), so I didn't scrutinize the FX500. Now you've got me all ambiguous again! I've got a TZ5 arriving on Tuesday, now I'm all confused. Thanks a lot Dondo! =)

Is anyone else getting confused by Panasonic's naming system? Why can't companies come up with easier to remember camera names! I had to triple check this post for accuracy.

[Dondo .]

>>>>Now you've got me all ambiguous again! I've got a TZ5 arriving on Tuesday, now I'm all confused. Thanks a lot Dondo! =)

Not a problem, John. That's why I'm here. ;-)

[Dondo .]

New Sigma DP1 review

[Franco Darioli]

No news on the FD100. Fuji have released a patch for the pink banding but I still have not seen the camera.
As others have pointed out, a tripod is still the best type of stabilization, however with the Pana I can easily drop two shutter speeds without noticing any difference.
Franco

[John Carter]

Dondo, Franco, et al:

I found a very useful comparison of the Panasonic TZ5 and the FX500. Something VERY interesting to note: the TZ5 only gets 25mm in 4:3 mode. In 16:9 mode, it gets 27mm because it simply crops the top and bottom of the sensor.

The TZ5, on the other hand, gets 28mm at all 3 aspect ratios.

Check out Panasonic's examples, towards the bottom of the page:

FX500:
http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx500_fx520/hd_photo.html

TZ5:
http://panasonic.net/pavc/lumix/tz5_tz4_tz15_tz11/lens.html

Since I shoot almost exclusively in 16:9 mode, it's a no-brainer for me: I'm keeping the TZ5. If you shoot mostly in 4:3 or 3:2, you may still want to consider the FX500. But I highly recommend 16:9; it's a very fun format to shoot, and it fits much better on today's widescreen monitors. So for me, the FX500 offers 27-125mm, whereas the TZ5 offers 28-280mm. And I don't have to worry about the IQ issues with the FX500 at 135mm.

Too bad the Sigma only received an above average rating. It would be great to see more compact cameras with a large sensor.

[Franco Darioli]

Good point John, the difference between theory and practice..
I look at my test shots on my computer screen at 4:3 and print some on that ratio, however particularly of late I have been using a 50" Full HD panel (not mine…) and I see viewing the shots on the "TV" the new version of a slide night, particularly since we print less and less and LCD panels are coming out with flash memory slots.
I pestered Sony and Pana for a couple of years to include a 16:9 sensor in their line up.( for a few months I was buying more Pana still cameras than any other single shop in Australia and stocked every model sold under that brand) After all they already had a movie mode and TV connectivity via the composite cable. Eventually Panasonic came out with the first 16:9 camera, the LX1.
Franco

[John Carter]

I'll admit that a 25mm in 4:3 mode would add a lot of drama to the foreground that I loose in 16:9 mode. But you're exactly right; ever since my purchase of a 24" iMac, I haven't felt the need to print my photos out except for rare occasions. So for me I'd rather squat down lower to capture the dramatic foreground, and use the 28mm 16:9 to fill my computer monitor. It's a trade off for sure, but one that I am convinced is the wave of the future. So who's gonna be the first to come out with true 25mm 16:9? =)

[Dondo .]

This is a question for early adopters of the Sigma DP1. You've had a chance to play with it a bit. Any comments on the good, the bad, and the ugly about this camera?

[JAMES CALL]

Has anyone used the Optio M50?

[John Roan]

Check out the Olympus Stylus 770 SW. It may not be the lightest, but for what we do, it's great since it's Shockproof. Waterproof. Freezeproof. Crushproof. You actually clean this thing under water!

[Michael Schwartz]

I'm looking for a new camera. I know very very little about dig cameras. I have a basic 7.2 MP Canon P&S dig camera and like it, but I'd like to get better photos on the trail.

I've read all the posts here, and it seems like the following, not including the Sigma, are the most popular choices now:

Ricoh GX100, Canon G9, and Panasonic Lumix FX500.

The FX500 is advertised as easy to connect to HDTV.

Is it easy to view pics taken with GX100 and G9 on HDTV??????

Also, I like the GX100 because it offers the option to use AAA batteries, which is a useful feature, I think.

Any advice???

–Mike

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Michael

> I have a basic 7.2 MP Canon P&S dig camera and like it, but I'd like to get better photos on the trail.

I use a Canon A95 with only 5 MP. I too would like to get better pictures, but in my case I know that changing my camera won't do much to correct my mistakes. I know that I can take better pictures by being more careful about exposure settings, composition, holding the camera steady, and so on. So I am concentrating on improving how I use my existing camera.

But I DO agree that a camera that uses AA or AAA batteries is better for long-distance walking use than one which uses custom rechargeable batteries.

Cheers

[Franco Darioli]

Michael
You can use the composite cable (yellow and white (plus red for stereo) RCA plugs) to connect most still cameras to any HD panel (you get a Standard Definition image with this) . Another way is to use a card reader via the USB port on the Playstation 3 . Or get a DVD player that can play JPEG files (you need a CD or DVD burner for that)
Some DVD players also have an SD slot and a few a USB slot as well (generic brands)
Franco

[Mike Barney]

Is anyone aware of a camera that has an HDMI interface to an HDTV?

[Franco Darioli]

The Sanyo Xacti HD1000 and HD1010 have a component cable in the box. The HD Sony Cybershot (DSCW110/120/150/300/T170/T2/T300/H10H50) can output HD via an optional component cable (VMCMHC1)
Panasonic has the CDHG50 HMI cable ($99) for the Lumix TZ5/15, FX35/500
Note that the Sonys are optimised for a component output.
Franco

[Michael Schwartz]

Thanks all for the info and suggestions. I think I'll take Roger's advice and try to see if I can get better pics by using a tripod more often and re-reading the camera's manual. I'll see how it goes, but if I'm not happy with the results, I think the GX100 will be for me, though I'd rather go with the Canon cause I've had good luck with Canons. And Franco, thanks for the tips on getting pics on HD TV; I think the PlaySation 3 and reader might be the way to go for me. @@@@ Anyone have good reports with GX100 or another similar camera that has the option to use AA or AAA batteries?? –Mike

[Rick Dreher]

Hi Michael,

Please be aware that the AA/AAA backup capability for cameras designed primarily to use Li-ion rechargeables is an emergency stopgap, as the number of shots drops tremendously.

e.g., The Ricoh GRD II specs 370 shots from the OEM battery and 45 from AAA alkalines. Disposable lithium or NiMH cells will outperform alkalines, but Ricoh doesn't provide a spec.

That said, the GRD II and GX100 are among the top few compact backpacking digicams and spare Li-ion cells aren't terribly expensive.

[Roger B]

And the spare Li ion batteries probably weigh less than a set of Li AAA batteries for the GX 100

[Author]

Posts