I've got a new camera for travel. After researching for days, I got the Panasonic DMC-LX100. It's light. It's quick. It's been critiqued as being a good substitute for a dSLR when traveling. I may not know how to use the camera as well as my trusty (and HEAVY) Nikon D700, but I was comparing shots today.
Abraham Darby
 |
| New Camera |
 |
| Old camera |
|
|
Falstaff
 |
| New camera |
 |
| Old camera |
Bishop's Castle
 |
| New camera |
 |
| Old camera |
Bolero
 |
| New camera |
 |
| Old camera |
|
The old camera is much, much better at capturing color accurately, and has better control over DOF. The Bolero photos show that the iHDR setting on the new camera is better at capturing shadows (but not necessarily the highlights), although this looks like it may just be a matter of metering. The old camera is much better at macro. So the new camera will stay what it was intended for, a travel camera.
Thanks for this comparison - the last SLR I owned wasn't digital, and I can see the limits on using my hand-held digital camera, even though this new Nikon is better than the last Canon. Same thing - clarity, sharpness, exposure.
ReplyDeleteThe Darby and Falstaff both prove the point...travel camera vs. regular camera.
What these photos also don't show is all the distortion that the little lens of a travel camera has.
DeleteGood point. I see some distortion around the edges, at times...I'll need to look at actual images more closely.
DeleteTired of this heat yet? (everyone says, "it's not that bad")