Leica V-Lux 4 camera

[abax]

I've been shopping around for cameras and I find I like the size and
the 25-600mm zoom on this camera. Might anyone have any experience
and/or opinions on this one. Leica used to make great SLR cameras, but
I have no idea about the quality of the digital.

 

[ehanes7612]

if you really want a non interchangeable dslr..( I dont trust them myself)

read this

http://snapsort.com/cameras/Leica-V-Lux-4-competitors

 

[abax]

Thank you, Ed. I did some research on the Lumix FZ70 and read some
reviews. Since Canon is absolutely out of the question, it comes down
to Leica or Nikon and under a $1000.00. The Leica deal I found comes
with everything included for $899.00 including an extra battery, detachable
lens hood and USB and AV cables and cap. Also some free software that
can be downloaded from Leica's website.

At this point I'm not even sure I want to get into the whole camera and
equipment stuff again. However, I think I don't do justice to my orchids
or ST with the sorry results coming out of my Galaxy 3 phone.

Thank you for link. It clarified my thinking a bit

 

[jtrmd]

Thank you, Ed. I did some research on the Lumix FZ70 and read some
reviews. Since Canon is absolutely out of the question, it comes down
to Leica or Nikon and under a $1000.00. The Leica deal I found comes
with everything included for $899.00 including an extra battery, detachable
lens hood and USB and AV cables and cap. Also some free software that
can be downloaded from Leica's website.

At this point I'm not even sure I want to get into the whole camera and
equipment stuff again. However, I think I don't do justice to my orchids
or ST with the sorry results coming out of my Galaxy 3 phone.

Thank you for link. It clarified my thinking a bit

You must have missed B&H's Cyber week email list. They offered many great package deals, and a couple of them were so tempting I was going to toss my camera in the can to get a new one LOL! Just no sales on a tripod that made the investment worth it. I have never been disappointed in Canon cameras, but a lot of people have. I think their lenses are on the decline, so I buy aftermarket lens for mine. I will point out the only good point and shoot camera I ever had was Nikon.

 

[naoki]

Angela, I'm not so keen on that Leica camera (it's just a rebadge). I would love to have Leica digital M series, but other Leica products are nothing special (other than the high price). Would you consider a mirrorless camera? For macro photography of static objects, micro four-thirds systems (Olympus/Panasonic) are great. 1st, for macro, you frequently want to get deeper depth of field, which is an advantage of smaller sensor cameras. 2nd, Olympus macro lens has been great (currently and historically). I got a highly regarded Oly 60mm/2.8 macro lens this summer, and I'm very satisfied. The price is right, too ($450 vs $850 for Nikon 105mm micro). 3rd, the JPEG engine of Olympus is great for nature photos (some people think they are over-saturated, but you get photos with nice punch).

In addition, the smaller size of the system is great. For DSLR, I have a Nikon D300 (and fair amounts of lenses since I grew up with the Nikon system), but I tend to grab the smaller cameras most of the time (Olympus or Sony NEX).

For example,
Olympus E-PM2 ($370)
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Inter...&qid=1386713889&sr=8-1&keywords=olympus+e-pm2

and
60mm macro ($450)
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-MSC-6...8&qid=1386713933&sr=8-1&keywords=olympus+60mm

are within your budget. E-PM2 is cheap, but it has the newer generation sensor (same as OM-D E-M1). With this system, you can use Leica branded Panasonic Lens (a lot of them are pretty good quality), too. I also occasionally use my old screw-mount Leica lenses with my Olympus E-P2 for fun.

jtrmd, it's interesting that you like Nikon P&S. For me, it is opposite. In my experience, Canon is the one who makes reliable (somewhat boring) P&S (even though I'm a Nikon guy in the last 25 years).

 

[abax]

I have a VERY big grudge against Canon...two shutter freezes on very expensive cameras, sent to factory, waited six or so weeks, got them back
and both froze again within a month. Costs me lots of money and several
photo ad jobs missed...running war with Canon which I lost. Tossed all the
equipment and haven't picked up a camera since. Very sour grapes!

Here's the thing, Naoki: I don't want to shuffle lenses anymore and I'm
far too shaky for a camera that doesn't compensate. Add to that, I don't
want to carry a damned tripod around. Picky, picky, picky. I know.

 

[naoki]

Oh, I see the reason why you want this type of camera. If you don't mind the price, V-lux 4 has some interesting aspects. I haven't paid much attention to super-zoom fixed lens camera, so I don't have much recommendation. I've heard good think about Sony DSC-HX50V, though. If you don't need super tele range, there are lots of other interesting high-end fixed lens cameras. Also, I'm sure that you have thought about this, but you don't have to change lenses with a DSLR; you could stick one lens and you could be done with it.

Almost all modern camera has lens-based or in-body image stabilization. (Olympus "5-axis" in-body stabilization is supposed to be quite advanced). But isn't a higher shutter speed a better bet against the shaky hands?

 

[gonewild]

But isn't a higher shutter speed a better bet against the shaky hands?

No it is not. Not when it comes to closeup macro shots or long lens telephoto shots. Rarely is there ever enough light to be able to use fast shutter speeds to eliminate camera shake blurring.

 

[naoki]

I agree that tripods and multiple speed lights helps a lot, Lance. Lots of people prefer to do hand-held, though. But my point was that with image stabilization, you can't avoid motion blur. Even with flowers, when you are doing macro, wind can cause the motion blur. I know that we aren't talking about expensive cameras, but with the modern full frame (e.g. D4 or Df in Nikon), you can have easily 3-4 stops of advantage over 1/2.3" sensor. Well, if we consider the depth of the filed, then the advantage of larger sensor does decrease.

Angela, Panasonic DMC-FZ200 (not FZ70) is the one equivalent to V-lux 4. As you mentioned, the lens is interesting with constant f2.8 super zoom (new Olympus Stylus 1 has a bright lens, too, but more limited zoom lens). After reading about it more, I didn't know that V-LUX 4 (and FZ200) can do tele-macro, which is very useful for flower, and one of the key feature I look for. So if you can be happy with the super small sensor (i.e. limited capability in the dim/dark situation), this sounds like a nice camera.

 

[gonewild]

I agree that tripods and multiple speed lights helps a lot, Lance. Lots of people prefer to do hand-held, though. But my point was that with image stabilization, you can't avoid motion blur. Even with flowers, when you are doing macro, wind can cause the motion blur.

Notice I said "camera shake blurring". I'm not referring to motion blur caused buy a moving subject. I am talking about camera movement.

Image stabilization is like a miracle for handheld photography.
Even if you gain advantage with a higher shutter speed from a good light source when you add the "stabilization" on top of the fast shutter you have a huge advantage.

 

[abax]

Wow! The conversation went right past me...whoosh. All I was noticing was
a lot of camera shake. I see this calls for a bit more research on my
part. I need to compare different stabilization issues. To be fair, I've had Leicas and Leica lenses in the past and really loved both.

 

[gonewild]

To be fair, I've had Leicas and Leica lenses in the past and really loved both.

The key in your statement is the word "past".

German made Lecia are fantastic but Asian made are no better than other brands.
Canon, Nikon, Pana, Oly are all basically the same quality lenses and produce excellent quality for internet use.

I have a little Canon powershot that has lasted 3 years on my belt in the Peruvian jungle. it produces great photos and video, cost me $150 at Costco.
I bought a last year I bought a newer model of the same camera ($220), after a year it no longer stays turned on more than a few seconds, the old one works fine still. This year I bought two Nikon AW100 underwater cameras at about $300 each hoping the waterproof would allow me to be less careful and the great Nikon quality was my assurance. Both Nikons failed in the first week. both have internal lens fogging issues. Checking with Nikon it is a know issue and considered as normal when used in high humid locations....IT IS AN UNDERWATER Camera that can't withstand high humidity?
No online review mentioned the humidity problem for these Nikons.

The point is none of the companies provide a good product that you can depend on the brand name to make your choice.

Your best bet is to go buy a camera at a local store that has a good return policy, try the camera for a few days and see if you like it. If you are not happy take it back and try another model. Keep this up until you like one.
Start out with the cheapest model and save your money. When it breaks down next year buy another one.

 

[naoki]

Notice I said "camera shake blurring". I'm not referring to motion blur caused buy a moving subject. I am talking about camera movement.

Image stabilization is like a miracle for handheld photography.
Even if you gain advantage with a higher shutter speed from a good light source when you add the "stabilization" on top of the fast shutter you have a huge advantage.

Image stabilization is frequently useful for most users. Most people (including me) don't care about getting the sharpest possible image, but Thom Hogan's recommendation may be interesting:
http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm
IS + fast shutter "could" degrade image. I follow his recommendation, and when I can shoot at a high shutter speed, I try to turn off image stabilization (I usually forget, though). To be honest, when I tested, I didn't see any differences between image stabilization on and off with high shatter speeds.

Also IS can influence the quality of Bokeh.

I mentioned a couple issues of IS here, but overall, I agree with you, Lance: IS is a great technology.

 

[gonewild]

Also IS can influence the quality of Bokeh.

I mentioned a couple issues of IS here, but overall, I agree with you, Lance: IS is a great technology.

Well I also agree with you!
The point here is that any of the issues that IS causes to degrade image quality will never been seen on a picture posted on the internet. BUT all of the defects that are in a picture because IS was not used will be seen. (does that make sense?)

Buying an expensive camera to improve image quality is a waste of money for digital pictures transmitted for online viewing.

 

[SlipperFan]

...

Buying an expensive camera to improve image quality is a waste of money for digital pictures transmitted for online viewing.

With that, I agree!

I think many people have the idea that they can make great pictures if only they have a great camera.

 

[abax]

I don't aspire to great pictures. I just want to be in focus without a lot
of hassle like lens changing and tripods. Perhaps it's my eyes and not
the Galaxy phone cam.

Lance, dear heart, good advice, but I don't have a camera store within a
hundred miles. When I say I live waaaaay out in the country, I'm not
exaggerating. I'm stuck with whatever I order for a good, long time.
You're quite right about the "past". It was the German made cameras
and lenses I used to have.

 

[gonewild]

Lance, dear heart, good advice, but I don't have a camera store within a
hundred miles. When I say I live waaaaay out in the country, I'm not
exaggerating. I'm stuck with whatever I order for a good, long time.

COSTCO! Fantastic return policy. Even mail order, no questions asked.

 

[naoki]

If you don't care too much about controlling the camera, a pretty cheap P&S camera can take decent pictures. Even ones under $200 have image stabilization. So V-lux 4 is probably an overkill. As Lance said, any cameras are good enough for web purpose (most of the time). I still occasionally use my first 4MP digital camera from 11 years ago, and it can take decent photos.

 

[ehanes7612]

you could always just opt for the Nokia Lumin 41 MP cell phone camera

 

[naoki]

Wow, I didn't know about it (I don't use a cell phone...). But it is a crazy stuff! I'd love to play with it.