Surprised to enjoy my Panasonic ZS6 travel-zoom camera

Most serious photographers like having a pocket point-and-shoot camera to throw in their bag or keep in a pocket, so that they’re rarely without a camera. It’s the idea behind the adage, the best camera is the one you have with you.

However, if you are serious about photography you tend to like to have some manual control over your camera and the potential to obtain technically good pictures in a variety of conditions. My first digital camera was a point-in-shoot, Olympus Stylus 300, which I bought in 2003. It had no manual controls, but I wasn’t very good at using manual controls then anyway. I upgraded in 2005 to another Olympus, the Stylus 800, which jumped me to 8 megapixels, better ability to take low light pictures without a flash and manual controls. Then in 2008 I bought an Olympus 830 on eBay. It had a longer 5x zoom lens, but no manual controls. I gave the 800 to my wife, but it felt like the 830 was a step down in picture quality and control from the 800.

There are several models of point-and-shoot camera that offer that combo of compactness, manual control and good picture quality, but they’re also on the expensive end of the spectrum. And I’m cheap. But earlier this summer I found a camera deal that I’ve been quite satisfied with.

At the daily deal site woot.com I bought a Panasonic DMC-ZS6 for about $130. I was drawn to the camera’s long 12x zoom lens, combined with real manual controls, like aperture and shutter priority. It was a clearance because it’s a year-old model, and one that was primarily sold at warehouse stores like Costco. While the zoom is long, the widest point is a very nice 24mm equivalent. The camera is a member of what has come to be called the “travel zoom” class of cameras, offering long lenses in a compact package. However, the lens is not particularly fast, with a maximum aperture of f/3.3 at the widest, but a relatively fast f/4.9 at the full 12x zoom, which is better than the f/5.6 or f/6.3 you might find in other cameras.

The camera is little bigger than the most compact point-and-shoots, but I’ve found it to be no big deal to have in a bag. It’s not great for a pocket, but few cameras are. It’s still very compact for having such a long zoom. The optical image stabilization is also very effective, letting me take still sharp photos at the maximum zoom range.

A nice feature Panasonic has added to it’s travel-zoom cameras is the ability to extend the zoom range by reducing the pixel count. While many cameras offer a so-called “digital zoom” which really just blows up the picture like in Photoshop, Panasonic actually let’s you take a picture from patches of the center part of the sensor. The camera’s normal resolution is 12 megapixels, but you can take photos at 8 MP with a zoom of 14.7x, 5 MP at 18.8x or 3 MP at 23.4x. The effect is the same as cropping the photo later in your editing app, but in the field it’s nice to be able to just shoot it that way, seeing accurately on the screen what you’re going to get, without having to edit later. The quality is much better than a digital zoom if you don’t mind the smaller pixel count. For 4×6 prints or the web 8 MP or even 5 MP have plenty of resolution, and are good for even 5×7 or 8×10 prints.

I think the camera performs very well up to 400 ISO, and is quite acceptable even at 800 or 1600 ISO, provided you don’t underexpose. When it comes to exposure I find that the camera is pretty spot-on, requiring me to compensate only when exposure is typically challenging.

I’ve even used the camera to shoot a rock concert in a small theater and managed pretty reasonable results shooting from the middle of the place. Being able to set the exposure manually–fixing both the shutter and aperture–allowed me to get many more decent shots under low light and lots of action than if I had to rely on the camera to meter for each one.

I expected I would like the camera, but also thought that the compromises in terms of lens speed and size would keep it from being a constant companion. So I was surprised to find that it has become my grab and go camera, especially when I don’t want to think about selecting lenses or packing a kit.

Still, if I’m going to be more serious about my picture taking on an outing or trip I choose my Sony NEX-5, which is a bit bigger with a lens, but a much better performer until almost all conditions. But sometimes even the NEX is more camera than I want to carry, or I’m going somewhere I don’t want to worry about having a more expensive camera. In that case I don’t hesitate to bring my Panasonic ZS6.

Although it’s a 2010 model camera, you can still find the ZS6 online. You might not find it for as cheap as I got mine, but it does pop up at Woot and other deal sites with some regularity. Although I haven’t tried them, the Panasonic DMC-ZS5 and ZS7 are very similar cameras that ought to offer the same performance. Also, if you want a current model-year camera the Panasonic ZS8 and ZS10 should perform at least as well.

It is a great time to be cheap-skate photographer.

Considering video/still convergence and Sony’s NEX-VG10 interchangeable lens camcorder

Back in May I wrote about the vexing mix of features in Sony’s new NEX interchangeable lens digital cameras. While visiting a big Chicagoland electronics megastore I finally got my hands on the NEX-3 and NEX-5 cameras and came away liking them more than I expected. Though I only got to play with them for a few minutes I didn’t find the user interface to be as frustrating as I predicted. I rarely shoot in full manual mode, generally preferring aperture- or shutter-priority. So changing aperture or shutter using the back control dial was fairly intuitive and easy.

I was truly blown away by the form-factor. These are tiny cameras! Without the lens they’re the size of a typical compact point-and-shoot. With the lens they’re no bigger than so-called “bridge” cameras of the sort that look like mini-SLRs. The fit and finish is very nice, and the lens casing feels top-notch. Some of my initial concerns still remain, especially the lack of true manual exposure control when shooting video along with the lack of a microphone input for video. Nevertheless, I came away more intrigued than before when I’d only read about them.

Answering some of the concerns about the video capabilities of the NEX-3/5 Sony is releasing a camcorder using the same large APS-C sized image sensor and interchangeable lens mount, named the NEX-VG10. The Luminous Landscape just published a hands-on review of the camcorder, giving it a qualified recommendation. It seems like most of the weaknesses of the camera lie in firmware — that is, features that are programmed in rather than part of the physical mechanics of the camera. In particular, there’s limited exposure monitoring making it difficult to see when you’re clipping the highlights. I find that omission particularly surprising, since it’s included in nearly every pro-sumer Sony camcorder I’ve used in the last decade.

The idea of having a still camera and a camcorder that can share lenses is quite exciting, as is having a true video camcorder–not just a still dSLR with video capabilities tacked on–sporting a large high-quality sensor that’s nearly the size of 35mm motion picture film. All the more amazing is that the still camera costs well less than a grand and the camcorder costs just under $200 with lens. This approach promises to be a game-changer in many of the ways that video dSLRs shook up the digital video world.

Panasonic has also announced its own version of an interchangeable lens camcorder based on still-camera sensor, the AG-AF100. Panasonic’s version is based around the micro 4/3 standard behind still cameras like the Olympus Pen series and the Panasonic GH-1. The AF100 is still a little further away from stores, and looks to be a bit more pro oriented than the Sony, with the inclusion of XLR mic jacks and more exposure options. It also looks to be more expensive, at a price around $6000.

I find the Sony cameras to be so interesting because of their price, and because I’m already an owner of a Sony dSLR. While Sony dSLR lenses don’t mount directly on the new cameras and camcorders, there is adapter that lets you use them.

I’m not quite ready to jump into a new camera, camcorder or lens-mount system, but am seriously considering taking the plunge with the NEX-5 or its successor. To add more grist to the mill, dSLR News Shooter has a short review of the NEX-5 as a video camera for the working journalist.

In any event, I will be keeping close watch to see what develops. Exciting times, indeed.

Pencam shoots and scores

I was pleasingly surprised to find out that a picture I took this weekend was selected to be featured in Today’s Photos on Chicago’s Windy Citizen yesterday.

The interesting thing is that I shot this using an inexpensive “lo-fi” digital camera, the Aiptek Pencam SD. The design of this little cam is about 10 years old, shooting photos sporting all of 1.3 megapixels. There isn’t even an LCD screen to preview or review photos, just a roughly accurate optical viewfinder.

But I really enjoy shooting with the camera because of the combination of its simplicity and unpredictability. In many ways it’s a digital equivalent of a toy film camera like a Holga, frankly only less expensive. What I like shooting with such a camera is that it encourages you to let go of technical details and focus on taking the picture, often taking more risks because you can’t just review your photo and adjust.

The fact that anyone else likes the photo taken with this $19 lo-fi digital camera is just more evidence for the old adage, “the best camera is the one you have with you.”

Rocket Blower, I Love You

Seems that photography is a topic the moves me to write at the ‘geek. So let me get in a quick post about a simple little device that has blown me away, pun intended.

I’ve been shooting, developing and scanning my own black and white film for about two years now. And one of the biggest problems with the DIY method is dust on my negatives. I’ve tried all sorts of methods to keep it at bay. The one that worked the best was canned air, but it’s not particularly environmentally friendly.

Then I heard that a number of DIY photographers swear by Giotto’s Rocket Blower, which is a completely analog solution, if you will. Really, it’s just a big hand-operated bulb blower shaped like a rocket so you can easily set it down.

I’ve had this roll of film that I did a horrible job of developing and drying. I was in a rush and wasn’t careful and just botched it badly. When I first went to scan it the negative was so dirty and messed up that I got too frustrated only got about half-way through. Finally, today I decided to give the rest of the roll another shot wiping it down with an anti-static cloth and blowing off dust with the Rocket Blower.

Holy crap! This neg turned out as clean as anything I’ve ever scanned myself. I had to clone out only a few specs of dust in Photoshop. Pre-Rocket Blower I would have to spend several minutes hunting down specs and tiny hair-like dust particles.

It’s also great for cleaning keyboards or anything where you need to blow some dust out easily, but careful. In that way it’s better than canned air because you have much more control and are less likely to blow dust into something delicate when cleaning electronics. It’s nice to discover that sometimes the simple things work best.

Film’s not dead, either

Oh, no. I’m not ready to give up on the anti-planned-obsolescence rant just yet…

The world of photography has been much less chaotic than the worlds of audio and video over the last century. There’s really only been one significant technological disruption–from film to digital. Yes, there have been multiple formats of film over the century, but they mostly boil down to differences in size. But it is nevertheless the case that you can still buy new film for the vast majority of film cameras made since 1909.

Digital, of course, was supposed to be the death knell of film, but things didn’t quite work out that way. Instead, digital photography sparked new public interested in photography as an art and hobby, which ended up leading a lot of folks back to film. Like the vinyl LP vs. CD debate, there are plenty of passionate photographers ready to argue that one or the other is inherently superior. As one of those people who never took a strong interest in photography until getting my first digital camera, my perspective is that is has less to do with better than different–qualitatively different.

Still, the film business isn’t at all like it was a decade ago, when digital cameras were $1000+ investments yielding the kind of resolution you now get from a $10 keychain digicam from the drugstore. But there still is a film business.

The Rochester, NY Democrat and Chronicle recently published a story about a local business you might have heard of, that’s still hanging on to the film business: Kodak. The article quotes Kodak’s marketing manager for professional film, Scott R. DiSabato:

“We call it the ‘and’ world,” DiSabato said. “We know the professional use will be significant enough the next couple years, we’ll get the investment (into those film lines) back.”

In fact, Kodak introduced a new color film formulation this past year, a time when film still makes up a third of the company’s gross revenue.

Again, I’m not arguing against technological innovation. I have nothing against digital cameras, and I own several. I also own a pile of film cameras (that I picked up for next to nothing). I’m just pointing out again that obsolescence is a business process and a social process. That is, there’s nothing inherent in film that should make it obsolete, so much as that the combination of the need to find new products to sell, the fact that some of these new products actually do offer new and significant benefits and a social shift to embrace that new technology.

The social element is important–Kodak is still making and selling film because people are buying it and using it. They’re finding value in it, whether it’s due to nostalgia, the belief that it is superior to digital, an affinity for film’s aesthetics, or simply because using disposable film cameras when you need them makes more sense than dumping several hundred bucks into a digital cam.

If people choose not to accept the supposed inevitability of obsolescence in significant numbers, then we can interfere with that process. Moreso than with VHS videotape, film has a certain unavoidable market dynamic — someone has to manufacture the film stock and developing chemicals if the medium is to stay alive. I’m certain that the medium can survive even with smaller “boutique” manufacturing, but film’s not something the vast majority of people are going to be able to make at home. So a certain critical mass of buyers and users has to be maintained to keep film viable as a non-obsolete, if niche, technology.

Videotape, on the other hand, is reuseable. Certainly if all manufacture were to stop today eventually the tapes in use now would eventually wear out. But the true death of the medium would come more slowly than if film were to be no longer manufactured.

As (electronic and chemical) media makers we are still dependent on a consumer economy, but that doesn’t mean we are utterly subject to its whims, nor without feedback mechanism. We do not have to buy up every new so-called innovation because it’s supposed to be better, nor do we have to abandon a technique, method, medium or tool just because the industry, press or blogosphere now declares it dead. In fact, fantastic personal innovation, ingenuity and creativity can be sparked in the continued embrace, or reembrace of a reportedly obsolete technology. Whether it’s audiocassette, VHS, film, vinyl LP, laserdisc, minidsc, 8-track or daguerreotype, it’s not dead for you until you don’t want to use it any longer.

Thanks to Ken Rockwell, the most entertaining photography writer on the internet, for pointing me to the Kodak article. For more about practical, technological and qualitative strengths of film, read Ken’s essay, “Why We Love Film.”