User comments btil June 2003

[yinkhoon]

Dear David and Crag, thanks for the kind suggestions.. but if softness is already obvious from postcard prints, then changing to slides and enlarging big won't make much difference where image softness is concerned, no? Of course there are many sharp pictures too, which I suppose I can enlarge and enthuse over the fine quality of the lens when it is in focus. But my concern is I can never be totally sure that all shots I take using the spot AF will be tack sharp and in focus.

As for hand held shots, but that's what primarily compact point and shoot cameras are for, ya, to snap pictures conveniently and quickly, when I want to take a stroll or short travel with my hands in my pockets whistling and nothing else to encumber me haha! (of course, sometimes when i am in a jolly photographic mood, I will bring a SLR, flashlight, wide angle and telephoto lens, tripod, filters etc, but there are really some lazy days i dun feel like bringing anything at all to weigh down body and spirit... ok maybe just a compact camera on the belt).

And remember, even when using ISO400 in sunny bright conditions still rendered a couple of unfocused shots, as per Marc's previous finding. Haha, maybe it's due to user ineptness, I'm certainly not a pro, but honestly, I have very few of this type of unfocussed problems with handheld shots using the Minolta Dynax 500si super, the Dynax 5, and the Canon Ixus v3 and Canon Ixus 400. Ok, maybe my hands are not steady enough to hold this camera for handheld shots, but then that means this compact camera is not for me, but for others with steadier hands then!

 

[gob]

Ya, I think David and Craig are a bit off here. Slides, tripod, 16x20.... from this type of P&S? I borrowed a friends C3 and thought the results were marginal at best. Results I've seen from the Konica Lexio 70 were at least as good (with the exception of some light fall off in the corners in some situations) and the camera is much smaller, cheaper, and the lens is as fast. The C3 is way over priced for what it is. Haven't seen results from the T-zoom but they can't be worse. Then again I'm use to single focal length P&Ss (T3, Ricoh GR1, T5). If you have to have a zoom and are willing to spend this much, spend an extra $100 and get a used minilux zoom, which I have heard is better and cheaper then the TVSIII.

 

[adeeh]

Your comments have made me re-think my photos, but I can think of few ex&les (over about 20 films) where the focus has let me down - though I must admit I do tend to shoot landscapes with the focus is less critical (ie the whole scene is within the depth of field). I must admit, I was uncertain about my C3 for the first film or 2, but I think expectation was my main problem, and also using 400 iso film.

The only comment I can make is that I found my photos with 400 ISO film a little bit soft generally, and it's only with slower film that the real lens sharpness shows (but I realise that this cannot account for Yin's variable quality of sharpness). When I first got the camera I thought that modern ISO 400 films would be as good as 200/100 for 6x4 prints, but my experience with the C3 has shown that this is really not the case. My Royal Supra 200 and superia 200/100 prints have a wonderful sharpness (and the expected saturation) that is distinctly better than the 400 superia (or 400 portra - though I do like the portra 400 UC for its colours).

It may be worth trying a 100 film just to be certain that it is not the film that is letting your photos down.

Otherwise I'd be interested to know how you get on with a different camera. Good luck.

One of the features that unsettled me at first was the overpowering flash. Since the aperture setting during flash photography is set by the focal distance, it is useful to focus fairly close, this gives a good depth of field and lessens the blast somewhat by using a smaller aperture. This helps a bit - but the anti red-eye is useless (I think it is on all compacts to be honest).

 

[yinkhoon]

Dear Adrian, yup i will keep all updated. My current interest in the yashica tzoom vs the leica c3 arises from the contaxinfo.com, where there is one whole thread on the yashica, and users reported tack sharp pictures and no misfocused shots with many rolls of film. Unlike Marc and my personal experience with the c3. Maybe you want to take a look too.

 

[Craig24]

I can't speek for David but the suggestion of the tripod was more aimed at obtaining valuable information regarding the real siuation for optical performance.

Set the C3 on a tripod and make a series of images throughout the zoom range, blow them up large and have a good look. This will take the possibility of camera shake out of the equation. The general bulk and inertia of an SLR makes it much easier to hand hold and get acceptable results. Not all lenses perform well throughout the full range of focal lengths and aperture, even the ones with Leica engraved on the front.

I don't have a C3, but I too don't use my Leica Ms as if they were a view camera on a tripod for every shot. There would be no point.

But PLEASE someone run some impirical tests with a tripod on fine grained film. That will lets us all know how the lens performs and whether camera shake is an issue with this image making tool.

best of luck all, Craig

 

[david40]

> Agree with Craig. I didn't mean shoot slides or do big enlargements all the time - just to test the performance of the lens/camera. Please give the C3 a decent trial, I am sure it is an excellent camera.

I have a tiny Leica mini 3 and have been very pleased with the results. I also have a classic IIIa and an M3 -- more fiddly, but fun to use! The thing about point and shoots is that they are not really point and shoots at all - you have focus on the main subject using the spot in the middle of the finder; if necessary lock it by half depressing the shutter and recomposing.

Bear in mind also that depth of field (the area of apparent sharpness) is greater at 28mm than 80 or 90mm, and also that DOF extends further BEHIND than in front of the subject. You don't have control over apertures, but fast film (400) will give you a faster shutter speed and smaller aperture - hence more parts of the scene in focus.

For portraits you don't really want everything in focus; try to find uncluttered backgrounds. For landscapes, use infinity mode. There are various other P/S resources on the Internet and in your bookshop; well worth the time! Have fun with your camera!

 

[Craig24]

Guys

If a Kiwi (David) and Aussie (craig) actually agree on something it just has to be right! (toungue in cheak no arrogance intended). At the end of the day the C3 is a camera like any other and the general "rules" of photography still apply. Poor results just spoil the fun of using what is supposed to be a good camera, especially when they cost serious money.

Interested in how it all pans out

oh and enjoy your photography with what ever P&S you eventually go with.

craig

 

[yinkhoon]

Dear all guys,

I am no pro.. but I do know the rudiments of how to hold a camera (including compact cameras) and keeping it firm and steady while pressing down the shutter. I also know what situations require use of a tripod and what situations I can safely take handheld shots. As mentioned in my previous posts, I do use spot AF each time, ie focus on the subject first with halfway click, wait for the focus ok signal from the camera, then recompose the shot.

But if doing all that, and in bright sunlight with ISO400 film, and using my regular photo processing lab, and some of the pictures still turn out softer than I like, then there is a problem somewhere.

For a compact camera, my usual usage parameters would be ISO100 to ISO400 print film, handheld. And that's the testing conditions I would put a compact camera through. If it comes through with sharp, in focus shots at least 95% (ie 34 out of a 36 frame roll) of the times under optimal shooting conditions, good! If not, then I deem it unacceptable, given my past experiences with other cameras (both SLR and compact).

Well, it's just my self imposed shooting conditions. I don't intend to make it too scientific. No doubt I can give the leica c3 a fairer and more exhaustive run through (slides, blow-ups, tripod shots, etc) before final conclusion. But hey, under my own shooting conditions, if it fails, then that's that where i am concerned.

The shop i bought it from was real nice. It offered me the chance to take out both the Yashica Tzoom and the Contax TVS III to shoot a couple of rolls before deciding which one i want to exchange to. This coming Sunday! Hurray, I will let you guys know the result of my testing! I will shoot ISO200 superia film, test wide angle and telezoom extremes, full auto modes, spot AF and recompose, Multi spot accuracy, etc. but still handheld, sorry, because that's really how i intend to use compact cameras 95% of the times, except for the occasional night long exposures.

Let you guys know. I will be fair. Heck, if the Leica C3 proves better than the other two cameras, I will eat my words and keep the Leica c3 and use it while keeping in mind its limitations, ok?

I just want to get the best camera for my money. Within my practical usage, non-scientific, shooting expectations

YK

 

[sonc]

>>>>Posted by yeo yin khoon on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 3:23 pm:

>>>>>Dear all guys,

>>>>I am no pro.. but I do know the rudiments of how to hold a camera >>>>(including compact cameras) and keeping it firm and steady while >>>>pressing down the shutter.

Dear Y, I don't think anyone was critical of your camera handling. We all wonder if the C3 is a good camera, and wanted to know if you had eliminated techniques as a problem, that is all. Certainly, I have found a number of otherwise fine cameras that don't suit my shooting style, or that I never could get the hang of handling. I sell the camera, and the next guy is delighted with it. We were just asking.

Sonny

 

[mattinasi]

I was looking at some Kodachrome 200 slides from the C3 last night - there are some really nice ones in there, when the focus is right. I am going to do a head-to-head against my Rollei Prego 90, which I think is sharper and generally more accurate. In the process I am going to try and figure out what is up with that focus-indicator and see if I can arrive at a solution to the missed-focus problem. I love the C3, but it is not as good as the price would suggest - so far the $150 Prego 90 seems way better (though it is nowhere near as nice looking or pleasurable to hold). But then, I have a lot more experience with the Prego, having had it for 5 years.

I'll post my results when I can - it will take a couple weeks. Stay Tuned!

- marc