New Lumix LX5

Well, I finally did it. I bought a Panasonic Lumix LX5, my first "real" digicam (manual everything, raw files). The idea is to keep everything as light and simple as possible for backcountry use and to be able to have reasonably good workable files and video most likely only for electronic display, the sensor not being sufficiently large to make decent prints. MF and LF film is for that. Two questions:

1) As I'm preparing for a 5 day hike and my pack grows to 30 lbs., I'm thinking of leaving the 1 lb. "toy" tripod at home, and freehanding it with the camera only. This would be the first time I've not shot on a tripod in over 15 years. Is the optical stabilization, given good light, sufficient to produce crisp pix for this, or other cameras of its ilk?

2) I'm trying to translate my film skills (I'm an unapologetic "Zoney") to the metered operation of this camera and its histograms. I do know how to interpret the histograms, and honestly the auto exposure modes do seem to do a good job on their own, with minor compensations. It's already been suggested that I just let the camera's auto functions handle exposure, but I was hoping for a little more intimate interaction with light than simply snapping pix. Tips, advice?

Thanks.

I've got an LX5 as well and I've been very happy with the quality.

In bright sunlight I find no need to use a tripod for most shots. My stability significantly improved when I bought the electronic view finder and could stop holding the thing away from my body. I don't get great results with the macro mode unless I brace the camera or put it on a tripod.

As far as metering, I just leave it in a P mode most of the time. It usually tries to use a wide open aperture which has plenty of depth of field given the small sensor. So sorry not to have any good advice on this. Also, the exposures are almost always right on so I rarely use the exposure compensation.

As far as quality, I made a 16x20 from a shot and I was really happy with the results. It came out much better than I expected. Certainly not up to 4x5 quality if you press your nose to it, but looks great from 18 inches away.

In addition to the electronic view finder I put a new lens cap on the thing, Amazon.com: Auto Lens Cap For PANASONIC LUMIX DMC LX5 LX-5 LEICA D-LUX 5(Black) + 1 Premium GOJA Microfiber Lens Cleaning Cloth: Camera & Photo as well as a really right stuff quick release plate. I'm happy with both additions. Also getting the filter adapter lets you use a polarizer or ND filter, which I find useful. Though I frequently just hold them in front and cal it good enough.

It may be digital but there's nothing stopping you from running a full series of zoned exposures. Be sure to expose out to a few zones below 0 and a few zones above 10. Once you have the raw files, take a look in photoshop and see how much more info is actually available at the upper and lower ends. You'll come away with a much better understanding of just what the sensor is capable of. This is way quicker and easier than doing the same with 4x5 film.

I jumped a bit earlier and have the LX3 version. I think it's a wonderful little camera for happy snaps, but it has enough power behind it to make reasonably good images on a 13 x 19 paper. I refer to it as "the noisy cricket" (homage to MIB) and I take it with me quite a bit. One of the features that will pleasantly surprise you is the quality of the video captures these little things make.

It doesn't seem quite right that something that small can make large images that good.

L Gebhardt said:

I've got an LX5 as well and I've been very happy with the quality.

In bright sunlight I find no need to use a tripod for most shots. My stability significantly improved when I bought the electronic view finder and could stop holding the thing away from my body. I don't get great results with the macro mode unless I brace the camera or put it on a tripod.

As far as metering, I just leave it in a P mode most of the time. It usually tries to use a wide open aperture which has plenty of depth of field given the small sensor. So sorry not to have any good advice on this. Also, the exposures are almost always right on so I rarely use the exposure compensation.

As far as quality, I made a 16x20 from a shot and I was really happy with the results. It came out much better than I expected. Certainly not up to 4x5 quality if you press your nose to it, but looks great from 18 inches away.

In addition to the electronic view finder I put a new lens cap on the thing, Amazon.com: Auto Lens Cap For PANASONIC LUMIX DMC LX5 LX-5 LEICA D-LUX 5(Black) + 1 Premium GOJA Microfiber Lens Cleaning Cloth: Camera & Photo as well as a really right stuff quick release plate. I'm happy with both additions. Also getting the filter adapter lets you use a polarizer or ND filter, which I find useful. Though I frequently just hold them in front and cal it good enough.

Click to expand...

Plenty of good thoughts here. I had read in White's LX5 book about the viewfinder/stability body mechanics enhancement. Good to know it's working for someone. For now, its another piece of equipment (though smaller than a tripod) to carry, and more commitment to the LX5 (or m 4/3) system. My analysis of the automatic lens caps is that they all allow dust through there winged closures, and aren't so protective of what is arguably a pretty nice lens. I have the adapter tube and I am leaving an inexpensive 52mm polarizer I once used with my Nikon FM lenses on it. Will take a look at the RRS plates. Considering the sensor size, I figured the IQ hype might be just that. Good to know it's delivering.

Denny said:

It may be digital but there's nothing stopping you from running a full series of zoned exposures. Be sure to expose out to a few zones below 0 and a few zones above 10. Once you have the raw files, take a look in photoshop and see how much more info is actually available at the upper and lower ends. You'll come away with a much better understanding of just what the sensor is capable of. This is way quicker and easier than doing the same with 4x5 film.

Click to expand...

Yes! But how exactly do I run a full series of zoned exposures? 10 or more zones, really? Are you referring to HDR bracketing?

Joe Lipka said:

One of the features that will pleasantly surprise you is the quality of the video captures these little things make.

It doesn't seem quite right that something that small can make large images that good.

Click to expand...

Video was actually the deciding factor in choosing from the rather limited group of "advanced" point & shoots. It's possible this will end up being my main use for this camera.


Thanks to everyone so far. Feel free to post any pics here to illustrate the camera's capabilities, if you wish. Everybody shooting raw or are you happy with the jpgs?

When I do zone tests, I place a white textured washcloth on a black cloth background. Meter off the washcloth. Expose from zone -3 to zone 13 in 1/3 stops (I add a card in the photo identifying what zone it was shot in). You'll see when you start to lose texture or tonality at both ends. Then take a look at the underexposed or overexposed images in photoshop and see which ones can be adjusted to show texture (and see if you're willing to live with the results). This isn't about HDR, it's just learning what the camera sensor is capable of capturing. Now I have to add, this is based on shooting for black and white. If you're interested in shooting color, you might want to expand this to include colored washcloths to see if the sensor has different behavior with different colors. (It's easy to include RGB washcloths and check the zone of each one.) Sounds like a lot of work but really it's nothing compared to running the tests shooting 4x5 Velvia (do they still make that?). Anyway, it just depends on how much of a "Zoney" you are...

Denny said:

When I do zone tests, I place a white textured washcloth on a black cloth background. Meter off the washcloth. Expose from zone -3 to zone 13 in 1/3 stops (I add a card in the photo identifying what zone it was shot in). You'll see when you start to lose texture or tonality at both ends. Then take a look at the underexposed or overexposed images in photoshop and see which ones can be adjusted to show texture (and see if you're willing to live with the results). This isn't about HDR, it's just learning what the camera sensor is capable of capturing. Now I have to add, this is based on shooting for black and white. If you're interested in shooting color, you might want to expand this to include colored washcloths to see if the sensor has different behavior with different colors. (It's easy to include RGB washcloths and check the zone of each one.) Sounds like a lot of work but really it's nothing compared to running the tests shooting 4x5 Velvia (do they still make that?). Anyway, it just depends on how much of a "Zoney" you are...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. I'm very "Zoney". It's the only way I shoot monochrome (film, actually color also), using a spotmeter and expanding or contracting development. But this digital is a different cat, or so I was told. I was under the assumption that one always shoots color (raw) to get the maximum information from the sensor, and then convert to black and white, in Photoshop or other image editing software. Not much of a fan of the Velveeta.

I think your assumption about shooting is correct, I evaluate after converting to B&W. You might consider that photoshop will expand or contract for you. Mmmmm, Velvia...I was a big fan.

Being an avid backpacker myself, I would not dream of leaving my tripod at home. Loose something of less importance such as:
spare underwear
extra socks
3 season tent
fishing gear
or perhaps the ultimate sacrifice - eat freeze dried food ( YUCK! )

I could go on, but for me a tripod is an essential. Suck it up, throw it in your pack & share the picts with us when you get back.

R Shaffer said:

Being an avid backpacker myself, I would not dream of leaving my tripod at home. Loose something of less importance such as:
spare underwear
extra socks
3 season tent
fishing gear
or perhaps the ultimate sacrifice - eat freeze dried food ( YUCK! )

I could go on, but for me a tripod is an essential. Suck it up, throw it in your pack & share the picts with us when you get back.

Click to expand...

LOL

The tripod is still on my pack, which presently weighs 17 lbs. w/o food and bear cannister (a required extra 2 lbs., or more, in most areas I choose to visit). I'm just trying to figure out how light and how simple I can go, assuming that this particular P&S digicam will clearly not satisfy my typical artistic goals of making darkroom prints. It's really a 90 degree change in artistic direction.

I think you would be surprised how little I am carrying, but think "ultralight backpacking". My 3 lb. MSR Hubba is the only splurge, necessary at this time because of what has been reported as nightmarish late season mosquitoes. I no longer carry a water filter in the Sierra Nevada, the water is demonstrably clean, despite NPS and USPS admonitions. If I've discovered anything over the last few years, it is that I can no longer stomach dehydrated meals.

By the way, I used to run as much in a day as it takes me to cover these days with pack in a week. My pack back then, in the early 80's, was a 1 lb. fanny pack with "Polish bivouac bag" (i.e., XL Hefty garbage bag). In those days, I never even considered bringing a camera. Even prior to that, I used to do what I referred to as "rucksacking", carrying minimum gear in a soft (as opposed to frame) pack of my own design. The redoubtable Ray Jardine aside, I may actually be the father of light packing. Arthritis in one knee and Father Time has unfortunately forced me to re-evaluate what I can realistically carry on mountain trails in terms of photo and support gear. For me, it has been a long difficult road (trail) to acceptance of the these facts and how best to deal with them. I can only hope that you will not experience the ravages of time the way that most other mere humans are subject to.

Alas I can relate. While my body is holding up reasonably well, my enjoyment is is exponentially related to my pack weight. Ray Jardine is my hero and I have made many of the items he recommended in his book. The home made pack went away when the manufacturers started making quality ultra-light gear and I finally upgraded my insulated blanket with a 2lb Downworks mummy bag. I still use my homemade tarp tent which I incorporated some strategically located bug netting.

But I'll concede to you on the "polish bivouac bag", that's hard core. My pack in the 80's weighed in at 70lbs and now I'm down to 17lbs w/o food, water, bear canister or camera gear. I'm usually right around 40lbs fully loaded for 5 days. I was up in Tuolumne back in early July and the mosquito hatch had not yet occurred, so probably buggy now.

Where ya headed to?

I've been using a sub 2 lb. Western Mountaineering Ultralight for many years now (it also packs well into the stern bags of my kayak with multi-day gear). With its down collar it can easily be made to open "quilt" status, but more adaptable when the temperature drops. My pack in toto, now weighs in at 29 lbs. for 5 to 6 days, tripod included.

Going to do the Southern Yosemite Loop: Granite Ck –> Isberg Pass –> Red Pk. Pass –> Merced Pass –> Fernandez Pass –> Clover Mdw., hopefully tomorrow. Haven't been there in some 45 years. I will try to post back my first LX5 attempts, if anything sticks to the sensor. They will probably be camera jpgs. as my raw "developing" capabities are limited presently to the included SilkyPix, on my ancient G5 iMac.

OK, I'm back...


I only ended up shooting a fraction of the time I'd otherwise wished, due to the ever present distraction of MOSQUITOES. Natural lighting conditions were not ideal for my normal monochrome/film work, but I felt that shooting color and video might make up for less than aesthetic likelihoods. Everything was shot at 80 ASA. I used one battery for 76 RAW + FINE JPG stills and a little less than 7 minutes total HD video. A few notes:

Video:

• I shot all the video in Programmed Mode (mosquito induced), mostly on tripod. Sorry for the jerky panorama/360. The cheap/ultralight Zeikos I used (found, actually) would not move smoothly due to its plastic to plastic interface. I wouldn't have kept it in except for the fact that the video is also a wilderness conditions report I'd promised to several people (see summitpost posting).
• I found hand holding to exhibit a less than gratifyingly stable result (i.e., Post Creek), despite the internal stabilizer. Was I expecting SteadyCam performance?
• In some lake scintillations, noise (i.e., rainbow interference colors) appears in presumably blown out areas of exposure.

Stills:

• No sharpening,or unsharpening, was applied to any pic. All pics below are worked-to-taste RAW reduced to 72 DPI JPG for web. I really can't consider any of these anything but "happy snaps".
• I shot mostly in programmed mode with a few exposure compensations. I relied on a combination of the LCD display feedback and histogram to arrive at "correct" exposures, as best as I could determine:
  
  
  Lower Ishberg Lake (Program ISO 80, 1/250, f2.8)
  

  
  ​
• I explored the macro functions as liberally as possible (given the damn mosquitoes):
  
  
  Shooting Star (Program ISO 80, 1/500, f4)
  
• I used manual primarily in a series of the "moonset" shots, from which one was selected for the video. Otherwise I could barely discern the value of A,S,M shooting modes given exposure feedback as above. I couldn't see the moon in the LCD when shooting, until it wrote to memory, and the blown highlight warning flashed at me (no resolution of the moon itself):
  
  
  Moonset, Triple Divide Ridge (Manual ISO 80, 1/5, f8)
  
  
  
• My issue with exposure in any mode is that I prefer aperture priority, but cannot discern credibly what the DOF is for any particular aperture by looking at the LCD - and how else would I know ballparking that it's probably pretty large for a sensor of this size, within a general landscape composition, in daylight anyway:
  
  
  Rutherford Lake Stumps (Manual ISO 80, 1/30, f8)
  
• There seems to be considerable "noise" in the blue sky of Rutherford Lake (below), despite ASA 80 and full daylight:
  
  
  Rutherford Lake (Manual ISO 80, 1/40, f8)
  

  
  ​
• I tried the "Starry Sky" scene mode on the final night. Hmmm, I just don't really know...
  
  
  Rutherford Lake Stars (Program ISO 80, 60, f2)