12-15-2011, 03:05 PM
AllGold wrote:
[quote=Billybob]
It blows highlights, but I've been disappointed by how little detail I can recover either from highlights or shadows. I've been shooting with negative EC. This will give me more highlights and, hopefully, I will be able to pull details from the shadows. I'm still experimenting, so I'll let you know how that works.
Does the camera have any contrast settings? Or perhaps a tone curve or highlight-related setting?
It does have contrast, saturation, sharpness etc. settings. However, I typically don't bother with these because I shoot in raw. With LR and an 2TB hard drive, why not? I haven't played with it or the manual enough to know if it has a histogram or other settings.
After shooting some more, I've found that there is recoverable detail in the shadows. However, there still doesn't seem to be an advantage in raw shooting because I was able to recover as much shadow detail from jpg as from raw. Blown highlights stay blown regardless of file type.
yeoman wrote:
[quote=Billybob]
My recommendation is that if you want a bridge camera to be your go-with-you-everywhere-and-all-the-time camera, then the FZ150 is a better choice.
However, if you value reach over everything else, then go with the SX40.
I'm undecided. I have an LX3 which is a GREAT camera but question whether it's up to the task for a forthcoming trip to big game country. Friends who did this trip last year said they rarely used zoom because the animals were up close so maybe the LX3 will suffice, especially at 5 megapix in EZ mode which gets 5x optical zoom. The LX easily slips into my cargo pants pocket, ready to capture the unexpected shot whereas friends don't always have their ultra zoom with them. If I take both cameras there's the worry about theft when leaving the FZ in the hotel room 'cause I wouldn't want to always carry it around my neck when the LX is more suited. Then there's two set of batteries and chargers, etc. Hmm...what to do, what to do - I have a few more weeks to ponder.
Yeoman, I wouldn't consider relying solely on the LX3 for such a trip. My other P&S is an LX3, and I am constantly amazed by how limited it is. Beautiful pictures but its range is the equivalent of 24mm-50mm, right? I wouldn't go on a nature trip without at least 300mm equivalent. Yes, the animals may come to you, but what if you want a snap of that bird 50yds away? Or that big cat in a tree branch? Or what if you want a picture of a chimp's facial expression but that chimp is 30 yds away?
You need to mate the right tool to the right task. I took my LX3 on a European tour in 2009, but I also had my D90 DSLR with an 85mm lens on hand on most outings. Both cameras got plenty of use.
If the FZ150/SX40 cameras were available then, I would have definitely considered taking just one camera–maybe not, because it was great having a camera that was pocketable.