Panasonic DMC-TS1: new rugged compact digicam

http://micurl.com/tjoyf5

Wow! Pretty tasty little camera. What a great way to take canyon videos. Looks like it's going to sell for about $525.

--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "onkaluna" <onkaluna@...> wrote:
http://micurl.com/tjoyf5

Digital point and shoot cameras & potential outdoor "canyon" cameras? The body, size and lens focal length looks ok. High price. Lens speed though at the widest focal length is "average". Below is what is listed on the dpreview site as to aperature. Panasonic has a recent P&S with a fast 2.0 lens; 2.8 aperature is found on many good P&S lenses and 3.3 is a norm or average. When the lens zooms out,the aperature opening is very small(4.9-6.3).Also, as a rule, extensions beyond 3X focal length is a stretch(eg.30-90mm equiv.)Still, if one has the $ and if and when the camera arrives,it might be a nice niche offering for some corridors.

Canon and Nikon for example, currently have P&S(not waterproof though) systems with "compact" and "wide" 2.8 lenses that sell for half of what the above is listed. Another ramped up system; digital single lens reflex. And still another group;35mm & medium or large format film systems(that generally don't lend themselves to canyoning.)With the right group though, one might carry "all three" (P&S, DSLR & film).Digital so nice though; small, quick and spontaneous; and instantly, the shot can be reviewed and later "adjusted". And w/digital, short video can be shot too.

Re video:recently introduced and now on the market; some nice light weight, small camcorders, with fine lenses. Not waterproof or sand and grit proof though.

Panasonic DMC-TS1 • F3.3 - 4.9 / Iris Diaphragm (F3.3 - 6.3 (W) / F4.9 - 6.3 (T))

--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "flutedwalls" <flutedwalls@...> wrote: >

> The body, size and lens focal length looks ok. High price. Lens speed though at the widest focal length is "average"....

Note that for pictures in the slots having a "fast" lens will do nothing for you since it limits depth of field. You want a wide angle lens, with low noise at high sensitivities, and image stabilization to help you shoot at a small aperture.....

-tom(w)

Stepping off the "stage" of "bolting for just a minute. (Oh, one can go to the Fixe web site and see a nice video description of a chap drilling and placing a glue in bolt)

Cameras and lenses: Before the digital age, when describing camera systems and shooting, the terms lens, lens speed, shutter speed, and film speed were the catch words. Once the lens was on the camera a) the aperature could be adjusted; b)shutter speed could be adjusted and (c film speed could be pushed (or pulled) eg. shooting 100 asa film at 200. Professionals, balancing weight of lens and cost, most often sought out the the "speediest or fastest lenses" knowing that "optimal light" was a keystone in successly photography.

Take a fixed 35mm focal length lens (film or digital SLR)and look at the "back" of the lens, comparing a 2.8, 3.5, 5.6 or 8 lens. Or, in your mind put the number one over each of these numbers (1/2.8; 1/3.5) If you had the lenses in your hand and looked at the back piece of "glass" you immediately see that the 3.5 is almost half the size of the 2.8 and the 5.6 nearly half the size of the 3.5. It's this "back side" glass of the lens that determines the "speed". 2.8 is "faster" (more light) than 3.5 and 3.5 faster than 5.6.

Don't confuse lens speed though with aperature adjustment. Use the same "four" lenses described above. Each will have an aperature ring that "starts" number wise with it's defaulted "speed size. The 2.8 lens, on it's aperature ring will have 2.8, 3.5,(or 4)5.6,8, 11, 16, and 22. The "3.5" lens will have the same, except it "starts" with 3.5. The same with the 5.6 or 8. (same concepts apply to the inner workings of a digital system) The "back side" glass size does NOT change when the aperature adjustment is made. Same concept in digital.

Depth of field: On normal lens systems it's a function of aperature adjustment and NOT lens speed. On each of the hypothetical lenses above, optimal depth of field is going to be found at f 8 - f 16 and possibly f 22. A 2.8 lens at f/16 has more light(speed)than a 3.5 at f/16 and the 2.8 lens at that setting has more than adequate depth of field.

Light, highlights and shadows; If they made them, having a 2.0 digital point and shoot lens would be a nice. Often though, one can find 2.8 lenses, while the norm is often 3.5 or above. Basically we are talking about the amount of light that hits the "film" or digital system (regardless of the defaulted or set aperature ring) and more light is going to translate to better adaption re highlights and shadows in low light settings.

Point and shoot cameras are confusing when it comes to comparisons. 6mp vs. 10mp is difficult to distinguish if simply looking at a computer screen or printing an 8x10 or 8x12. And image stabilization sytems vary. Digital noise often translates to "inadequate light" in the camera system. Personally, I like a wider lens, a 2.8 lens speed and a viewfinder, so I can keep the back screen off and conserve batteries. In full open outdoor light, it's likely tough to distinuish shots with a 2.8, 3.5 or maybe 5.6 lens. But note that when a digital p&s is "zoomed out" the lens size opening "speed" decreases. In lower light the lens speed makes a good deal of difference.

Once upon a time I was either unaware of or confused by camera lenses and systems. Later I realized cameras were the "black box" and the lens and light(and nature of course)were the guide and magic.

The digital age is upon us, but still the issue of light through and into that lens is keystone. All things being equal, I'll take the faster lens - for it can potentially do "everything for you" vs. "nothing for you"? No! It can assist you though in potentially getting more effective photos. And please, depth of field is determined on a separate and different platform (as noted above).

(Or maybe this clarification and discussion does "nothing for you" (or for some of you)? I am NOT a photo professional; rather, in the range of knowing nothing or something re camera & photo systems.

(Now back to the disharmony and off key orchestration of, messing with nature(in part)and battling the personalities, notoriety, ethics & veracity of inspecting "deadman", bolts and bolt removal.) ______________________ In Yahoo Canyons Group, "tom" <tj_wetherell@...> wrote:

Note that for pictures in the slots having a "fast" lens will do nothing for you since it limits depth of field. You want a wide angle lens, with low noise at high sensitivities, and image stabilization to help you shoot at a small aperture.....

-tom(w)

--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "flutedwalls" <flutedwalls@...> wrote:

> Cameras and lenses: Before the digital age, when describing camera > systems and shooting, the terms lens, lens speed, shutter speed, and > film speed were the catch words....

Great post, and exposes my attempt at simplifying the factors, while using an absolute "...does *nothing* for you" where I shouldn't have!

My point, was that in a tight slot (*I*) desire maximum depth of field and wide angle, so I use a very wide lens (17mm or 24mm, 35mm equivalent), use a large (numerical) aperture, and shoot at higher sensitives. I have the benefit of a great camera and lens which makes shooting at those high sensitives possible without getting much noise, I also will post-process to reduce noise if necessary.

If you are hand holding in low light, and your camera gets very noisy at high sensitivities you really have little choice other than to shoot with the lens wide open (lowest numerical aperture). This is the fate of most people who use small point-and-shoot cameras - they aren't getting much light begin with.

-tom(w)

Couple things should be addressed as I don't agree with them...

Being a professional photographer and having worked producing images for advertising among other publishing credits for over 30 years I do have some experience with camera systems. I know that in itself doesn't really matter, as the proof is in the pudding. Cost has always been the least factor for me as in, can't use that for an excuse when you don't bring home the bacon (or tofu) for a client or with my personal images for that matter. Faster lenses are preferable in lower light situations or when faster shutter speeds are needed. For my personal work I'll usually go for the slower lenses in that they are lighter and a Hasselblad is heavy enough and I don't have me no sherpa and have to carry everything myself. Faster lenses also facilitate focusing with manual systems as the viewfinder is brighter. Not only can the rear elements be larger in faster lenses but also the front elements as well, and it depends on the lens design. Super Angulon lenses come to mind as the f5.6 has a huge front element as compared to the f8 90mm lenses. Having the right tool for the job and knowing how to use them is the keystone of successful photography. Depth of field always increases the more you stop a lens down, with the smallest aperture yielding the greatest depth of field with the lens stopped down all the way. Most lenses resolution decreases the more you stop the lens down. That's why it's not a great idea to stop lens down all the way unless you need the depth of field as the image will have less resolution. One of my peeves with most digital cameras is they don't usually provide depth of field scales on the lenses to figure out the amount of depth of field you actually will have. As far as the camera only being a black box, and not be part of the magic and guide doesn't take into account view cameras, as they most definitely have an effect on how an image looks as you can control perspective by tilting and or swinging the back. Additionally by swinging or tilting the front standard to control focus as well and if that ain't magic I must be in the wrong business.

my 2¢ Scary Larry

flutedwalls wrote:
> Stepping off the "stage" of "bolting for just a minute. (Oh, one can > go to the Fixe web site and see a nice video description of a chap > drilling and placing a glue in bolt)
Cameras and lenses: Before the digital age, when describing camera > systems and shooting, the terms lens, lens speed, shutter speed, and > film speed were the catch words. Once the lens was on the camera a) > the aperature could be adjusted; b)shutter speed could be adjusted > and (c film speed could be pushed (or pulled) eg. shooting 100 asa > film at 200. Professionals, balancing weight of lens and cost, most > often sought out the the "speediest or fastest lenses" knowing > that "optimal light" was a keystone in successly photography.
Take a fixed 35mm focal length lens (film or digital SLR)and look at > the "back" of the lens, comparing a 2.8, 3.5, 5.6 or 8 lens. > Or, in your mind put the number one over each of these numbers > (1/2.8; 1/3.5) If you had the lenses in your hand and looked at the > back piece of "glass" you immediately see that the 3.5 is almost > half the size of the 2.8 and the 5.6 nearly half the size of the > 3.5. It's this "back side" glass of the lens that determines > the "speed". 2.8 is "faster" (more light) than 3.5 and 3.5 faster > than 5.6.
Don't confuse lens speed though with aperature adjustment. Use the > same "four" lenses described above. Each will have an aperature ring > that "starts" number wise with it's defaulted "speed size. The 2.8 > lens, on it's aperature ring will have 2.8, 3.5,(or 4)5.6,8, 11, 16, > and 22. The "3.5" lens will have the same, except it "starts" with > 3.5. The same with the 5.6 or 8. (same concepts apply to the inner > workings of a digital system) The "back side" glass size does NOT > change when the aperature adjustment is made. Same concept in > digital.
Depth of field: On normal lens systems it's a function of aperature > adjustment and NOT lens speed. On each of the hypothetical lenses > above, optimal depth of field is going to be found at f 8 - f 16 and > possibly f 22. A 2.8 lens at f/16 has more light(speed)than a 3.5 at > f/16 and the 2.8 lens at that setting has more than adequate depth > of field.
Light, highlights and shadows; If they made them, having a 2.0 > digital point and shoot lens would be a nice. Often though, one can > find 2.8 lenses, while the norm is often 3.5 or above. Basically we > are talking about the amount of light that hits the "film" or > digital system (regardless of the defaulted or set aperature ring) > and more light is going to translate to better adaption re > highlights and shadows in low light settings.
Point and shoot cameras are confusing when it comes to comparisons. > 6mp vs. 10mp is difficult to distinguish if simply looking at a > computer screen or printing an 8x10 or 8x12. And image stabilization > sytems vary. Digital noise often translates to "inadequate light" in > the camera system. Personally, I like a wider lens, a 2.8 lens speed > and a viewfinder, so I can keep the back screen off and conserve > batteries. In full open outdoor light, it's likely tough to > distinuish shots with a 2.8, 3.5 or maybe 5.6 lens. But note that > when a digital p&s is "zoomed out" the lens size opening "speed" > decreases. In lower light the lens speed makes a good deal of > difference.
Once upon a time I was either unaware of or confused by camera > lenses and systems. Later I realized cameras were the "black box" > and the lens and light(and nature of course)were the guide and > magic.
The digital age is upon us, but still the issue of light through and > into that lens is keystone. All things being equal, I'll take the > faster lens - for it can potentially do "everything for you" > vs. "nothing for you"? No! It can assist you though in potentially > getting more effective photos. And please, depth of field is > determined on a separate and different platform (as noted above).
(Or maybe this clarification and discussion does "nothing for you" > (or for some of you)? I am NOT a photo professional; rather, in the > range of knowing nothing or something re camera & photo systems.
(Now back to the disharmony and off key orchestration of, messing > with nature(in part)and battling the personalities, notoriety, > ethics & veracity of inspecting "deadman", bolts and bolt > removal.) > ______________________ > In Yahoo Canyons Group <mailto:canyons%40yahoogroups.com>, "tom" > <tj_wetherell@...> wrote:
Note that for pictures in the slots having a "fast" lens will do > nothing for you since it limits depth of field. You want a wide angle > lens, with low noise at high sensitivities, and image stabilization > to help you shoot at a small aperture.....
-tom(w)


--

Watch what you ask for...and be VERY specific

www.cytafex.com

web site of fine Photography

--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "Bill" <wmjaho@...> wrote:
Wow! Pretty tasty little camera. What a great way to take canyon > videos. Looks like it's going to sell for about $525.

IMHO, there is of yet no primarily still camera that produces high quality video (except for the Canon 5D-2 = $$$$ and long wait). I've tested a lot models including Canon A-series, G-sereis, and TX1 (that claims high quality HD video). Many P&S's do shoot video, but the processors are not able to record material at low enuf compression and the high bitrates necessary to produce stuff that will look good on an HD (1920x1080) television. Some do make marginally acceptable standard def (640x480) clips. I think if one wants to make good videos, it is better to get a quality video-cam (like Canon HF11, Sony CX12, Sanyo VPC-FH1 1080/60p, etc.). The stills produced by these are quite good too (i.e. better, in a relative sense, than the videos produced by a good P&S still camera costing ~ $500).

HTH

John www.crystalcanyons.net www.stereo3dgallery.com

Big time, appreciation to John for his note re "video"; to Larry for his insightful piece and Tom for his clarification.

Digital P&S video. During the winter of 2007-2008 I shot extensive 15 second pieces of friends skiing on backcountry ski tours with a small Sony P&S. The video when launched on Vista or a Mac turned out "adequate" with nice enough segments. I agree though, a camcorder is the better tool. Especially the new HD systems.

Chatting and not knowing who's out there in the audience? I've used 35mm film cameras for decades; have used two medium format sytems for the past two decades and I have used but no longer own a 4x5 large format system. I've also gone through a full quiver of digital systems in the past 5-6 years. My telephotos' because of weight concern, are average speed lenses. I accept and understand that something less than the speediest lens is often prudent. Had I known a 4x5 user was in the crowd, I'd have offered a loud exclamation stating, that process is an art into itself. Still, think about those that use 5x7 or 8x10 systems, shoot 1-10 (or whatever)minute shots at f64 (a real pin hole concept with an old black box atop). Forgive me for use of that term; many old timers (friends)I've gone out with "that are professionals" almost always referred to their camera as "that old black box." Even some that carried a Hasselblad. They knew they had a good camera system, but it was often the single or multiple lens', that they spoke about or were real connected to.

The context of my note was intended to apply to small P&S digital cameras and potentially single lenses for DSLR systems. Why settle for a 3.5 35mm lens when a 2.8 (that doesn't weigh anymore) is available? And why get a digital point and shoot with a 35mm equiv lens at 3.5 when for a similar price one could get a 24 or 28mm equiv at 2.8? I accept there are many variables, some depends, and plenty of exceptions. For example, in mountaineering or mountain trekking; or strictly personality or family shots, I might want a tighter lens? From what I've seen though, many people pay little or no attention to the systems they have. They buy word of mouth or are price sensitive and don't know what the lens speed is, or the width of the lens. On the scale of things that matter though, maybe this doesn't that much?

I've a friend Diane Orr that shoots a medium format 360 degree (rotating) camera, using color negative film that is then scanned. She has some of the most remarkable rock art and related landscape photos I've ever seen. Her photo shoots are an arduous endeavor - but often pay great dividend. Above me is a monthly calendar (with large photos) by (icon canyoneer) Dennis Turville. He often shoots with a 4x5 film system and makes $ with calendars, posters and books.

Canyoneering offers a good deal of wondrous reflective light and many water filled corridors that I most often am never able to capture digitally or on film. After wrecking tripods, countless film and digital systems, I've gone minimal of late.

Talking about this stuff, to an audience at large, really doesn't work. Best to have a one-on-one show and tell and hands on description. Tom J knows the game of photography well. He has a great "eye" and has captured numerous stunning images in canyon settings. He could tell us, I suppose, shoot lots of photos and some, one or many will turn out well. And, there are countless other folk with DSLR or P&S systems that are also primo "canyon" photographers. John H has a most laudable web site with a cavalcade of stunning art. And some are advanced at the "photoshop stage" were images are merged, adjusted and contoured. In this digital age though, many can transform from novice to advanced fairly quickly, depending though on how one uses the photos and what one expects out of the photo process. But still that old wizard "light" (if you have a threshold good or great camera system)is the lynchpin in the process - in my view.

> standard def (640x480) clips. I think if one wants to make good > videos, it is better to get a quality video-cam (like Canon HF11, Sony > CX12, Sanyo VPC-FH1 1080/60p, etc.). The stills produced by these are > quite good too (i.e. better, in a relative sense, than the videos > produced by a good P&S still camera costing ~ $500).

That's what I found in my research too, but glad to see that someone with a LOT more experience thinks so too. Thanks John.

> HTH
John > www.crystalcanyons.net > www.stereo3dgallery.com >