Tom’s Graphic Design Journal

Ok. So after a small debate with this point and shoot camera, I decided to keep it. From the sample photos on the internet I believe that the Canon SD800 has a better photo quality. However, not by much.

The reason I decided to keep it was because of it's compactness (I believe it's one of if not THE smallest cameras in it's class) and because of a few other reasons namely the video and ease/speed of use.

While the Canon SD800 also has video, it's not as high quality. The FX07 records in 16:9 which is cool. The only thing I wish you could do is zoom in/out while recording. You can only set the zoom first, then record. Maybe a firmware update?? Highly doubtful after how long the camera has been out...but they really should've thought about that if they took the trouble to do 16:9. The Canon SD800 apparently does zoom while recording...but again the video quality isn't supposed to be anywhere near as good...and I'll believe it.

I had some good success with the FX07 in low light situations. Not just with photos but also video. While I wish the prints were a little better (4x6's are fine and even 5x7 depending on the lighting in the photo...I just wanted 8x10's), the other features are making up for it. Plus...you really have to spend more than $250 on a camera to get better and I didn't want to.

I've posted a sample video here that I took on my way home from work the other night (24mb). The video recording is about 1mb/sec. Fortunately the FX07 can use the new high capacity SD cards so I guess if you want to make mini movies (great for YouTube) you can get an 8GB SD card off NewEgg for about $75 and go record for a little over 2 hours with this camera! The resolution? 848x480 pixels 30fps. Not bad!

So I just got a Panasonic FX07 the other day...and I still have mixed feelings about it. I researched it quite a bit online and read all the specs. On paper this camera looks amazing! For the price, it's perfect. The leica lens? Wow.

BUT... Unfortunately I was disappointed with the image quality. Of course I'm still debating and I started looking online for sample photos from various cameras in the same price range. I also keep comparing everything to my 20D. I have to realize that I can't expect to find a point and shoot camera that's as good. However, I remember my 2 and 5 megapixel point and shoot cameras being better before. The Panasonic (and many others in the same range) I find to have some weird splotchy "water color" type effect to the images. I suppose this is some sort of noise reduction software inside the cameras or how the sensors work. I do remember my photos from old point and shoot cameras being more "grainy." However, I think the grainy dots seem to work better for inkjet printers as you can't tell which is the camera and which is the printer. Maybe my printer is old too then.

Not that this photo of my horse here is the best in the world...it was a quick snap with absolutely no adjustments. Hence point and shoot. It should be brainless...and I will defend this camera and say it does a pretty good job of balancing out the exposure and the skies were very pretty. Maybe it's just a good day out, but colors are rich and exposures are for the most part nice. You can probably tell from this photo that it wasn't the best conditions with the strong sun...but there is detail across this entire photo (if I bothered to process it better).

I just think they don't make these small point and shoot cameras like they used to. They are smaller. The FX07 is smaller than my phone and my wallet, which I love...and it has a 28mm equiv. lens which is perfect for what I got it for. Plus the image stabilization. That's why I got the camera.

I guess the Canon SD800 and the Nikon Coolpix S50 are better cameras now looking at sample photos, but they are only a little better. I'm disappointed that less of these cameras shoot in RAW formats. So for the price, I guess I'm going to stick with this one.

If anyone out there was trying to decide on this camera. I would say go for it if you fall into the following category.

1. You want a cheaper image stabilization camera
2. You want the smallest possible digital camera you can get
3. You want a wide angle (28mm) lens to get better group shots in small places
4. You won't be printing out many of the photos (mainly online use)
5. You don't want to spend a ton of money

To the right here is an example of the water color like pattern you'll find in actually many point and shoot cameras. Perhaps more prominent in the Panasonics (so I've heard) but I've seen it more subtle in the Canon and Nikon sample photos as well. You can actually get a nice 4x6" print (about 7x10" at 300dpi should be the max print) from the DX07. I've tested it. Indoor/darker shots aren't so hot but they work. Without image stabilzation they would be blurry. So you gotta decide on this water color like pattern or blur.

However, if you want to get better prints and have the money to spare, you may be better off with another camera. I think I just might keep this camera because I know that I'm only going to be printing 25% of the shots I take with it. It's mainly for going out to parties and posting images on the internet. I just wish this camera was cheaper for just web images. All of these cameras are overpriced in my mind for the quality you get. So instead of spending another $70 for the Canon or Nikon I might just stick with this one because I've seen sample photos and they are not THAT much better. However, I'm disappointed with all these cameras and truly believe that they should've just not invested so much in a 7megapixel sensor and put more R&D into a sharper image. Hell, I know of cameras that are 4 years old that take sharper pictures than ALL of these cameras in this class. Example - the Nikon Coolpix 5500. Of course that cost me $500 or more new and it's much larger. However it's 5 megapixels and takes MUCH better photos than all these cameras and has manual controls for setting aperature, exposure, etc.

Why don't these camera companies just take that 4 year old technology and put it into smaller newer cameras? I don't know. I guess then they might not sell as many dSLR cameras. Bottom line...if you want to be a photographer and get great prints get a dSLR...if you want to post images to the internet get one of these cameras, honestly it doesn't matter which one because in my mind they're all junk. I just need something I can run around half drunk with and keep in my pocket...too bad it costs so much for something so simple that doesn't deliver in the end. Oh yea that's how it always is.

It was 70 degrees out today. 70 and it's January 6th! I've been meaning to get some more photos, but haven't had the time between all the work I'm doing. I do have some I shot a little while ago so I went through those, but only came up with two that I liked. That's just the way it goes sometimes.

It was a bit colder when I shot these, but the weather still doesn't feel like winter. Still no snow here. Maybe when I go to Stratton, VT, I can get some nice snow photos...if it's not too warm up there too!

The past few days have been beautiful. The weather is starting to change, the air is cooler and the days grow shorter. I have a terrible time during the winter months, but hopefully I can keep myself occupied this winter with enough work that I won't have to worry about anything else. As sad as I am to see the summer go, I am looking forward to the fall for taking photos. Hmm...can we skip winter and go straight to spring?

Anyway, I've taken some more photos with my new lens and I'm very happy I decided to go with it over the other lenses.

So....after all that research and debate, I get to the camera show and I'm presented with another option. The Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 with image stabilizer. Damn. "Why add another element to my equation?" I asked my friend. I was in a nice self debate on two Sigma lenses, the 18-50mm and the 24-70mm, both f/2.8.

Well, I got the Canon lens. It was technically more expensive, but I found a "used" one that was barely touched and still had the warranty card...score! So I was able to get the lens for $50-$100 below street price and within the price range I was figuring on for the Sigma.

I tried both lenses and I suppose due to the weight, size, and no image stabilizer, I couldn't get as clear shots from the Sigma as I could get (right away) on the Canon. I of course was inside a building for the show. I could not fully test either lens for quality in optics. I had no idea if the Canon lens had better glass than the Sigma. I heard wonderful things about the Sigma...However, I also heard 50/50 people complaining about getting a "bad copy." Umm....That pretty much did it for me. I wasn't going to risk getting a bad copy of a lens. So the Canon it is! Aside from the fact that it covers the zoom range I was looking for -- hence the whole debate between both Sigma lenses.

I tested it at my friend's place. His garden is FULL of very colorful things; flowers, butterflies, humming birds, and more. The real benefit aside from indoor low-light shooting with that image stabilizer is the fact that stacking filters becomes easier. So I had no apprehension about putting on a polarizer and an enhancing filter despite the fact that quality light in the day was leaving. I loaded the images now and saw that I could hand hold shots at even 1/20th of a second! WOW! With 100% PERFECT clarity. The quality of the glass is good, yay! Maybe not L quality, but unless that L had image stabilization (do they?) it wouldn't have been this clear for this shot because the exposure was 1/20th of a second (the image here was shot at ISO 100, f/8, 1/20th sec. @ 28mm with a circular polarizer and enhancing filters). At least not without a tripod or monopod. In photoshop I zoomed into as much as 400% and while you could see all the pixels of course, the image still looked great! At 200% it looked like many of my photos shot with other lenses do at 100%.

So I'm glad I went with this lens. I only wish it was a constant f/4 throughout the range. However, I can live with one stop at the far end of 85mm. The lens should cover a wide variety of applications; portaits, landscapes, product shots, etc. It also has a "macro" feature, though it's not that wonderful. I just consider it a fun bonus for trying while not effecting quality elsewhere negatively.