It's time to upgrade my compact camera and I'm looking at going for something from the high end market side.

I've looked at the following:

Lumix DMC LX5

Canon S95

Olympus XZ-1

They are all £250-310 mark.

Has anyone used these underground or above for that matter. I know for that money you can get a bridging camera or even a bit more and DSLR, but it's the size factor for me and ease of getting it out and setup (uh ere misses) for on the trot shots or in dirty / really wet places.

---

Quite a few of us use the Lumix LX3 which was the model before the LX5 and it is superb. The only difference between the LX3 and 5 is the lens which in the newer model has an extended zoom range. Given that underground you have little use for long focal lengths you could save some money and find an LX3.

Things I would compare are:
How wide does the lens go
How fast is the lens
What's the longest manual exposure you can take, (this often instantly strikes cameras off your list)
RAW capability

My money is on the LX3 , super little camera , easy to use , set up, next on my list would be decent DSLR & wide angle lens combo.

---

Another testimony for the LX3 / LX5!

Nice and simple to use, takes some good photographs.

Having sworn by the late, great Nikon 8400, I'm taking a little while to adjust to the LX3 but it's a good little camera.

My only complaint is the fact that for long exposure photographs it then spends the same amount of time processing the photograph as it took to take it.

That said, with modern lighting, you're generally only talking about 20/30 seconds, so it's not a deal-breaker.

---

Thanks for the inputs so far, the LX5 does seem good on paper and by your comments.

However as you say Mr Van, the processing time does seem rather long. I tried one of the early Lumix ones and found that to be an issue + it was very noisy - sent it back), and even with a more recent model that my friends girly uses, it does take what seems like ages to process a long exposure.

Maybe I should stick to Canon, to be honest I hardly ever want more than 15s, Canon's seem to be good a light gathering, and then there is the hack...

However saying all that I am wondering about the Olympus option, spec is a good as the LX5

---

Olympus XZ-1 might be another option

Just bought the Lumix DMC TZ20 (Just out) with the GPS meter inside so I can record the mines I fotograph on the moors etc. Wife uses TZ3 very good cameras.

---

If size is an issue, try looking into the Compact Camera Systems. Most (almost all) of the benifits of a DSLR, without the bulk (no Optical viewfinder, bit the bodies on these things are tiny as a result).

Most manufacturers have something out. The bodies are tiny, and if my glance at Simons camera on the recent MF trip was correct, he uses the Canon version.

---

Most manufacturers have something out. The bodies are tiny, and if my glance at Simons camera on the recent MF trip was correct, he uses the Canon version.

The Canon G series are excellent but double the price Mr Mike quotes. Would like one of them myself but unfortunately not rich or daft enough to consider taking anything that costs that much into the wet and mud of a Pennine mine on a regular basis.

The Canon G series are excellent but double the price Mr Mike quotes.

How about this then...?
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/78157/show.html 

---

I've had an offer I may not be able to refuse.

I'm about to state doing some design work for Olympus in the their high speed camera division (they can do upto 40,000fps) and asked one of the contacts there, anyway he got talking with someone, which I contacted and they have offered me the XZ-1 at staff price + if it does not work well underground or fails due to dirt they will repair or money back, "as they were interested to see how it performs"

I need to get to Jessops and have a play with one first to get a feel.

---

That is about the best offer you can get, if it does due to dirt, money back. As long as you don't hate it when you go into jessops, sounds like you're set 😉

---

If size is an issue, try looking into the Compact Camera Systems. Most (almost all) of the benifits of a DSLR, without the bulk (no Optical viewfinder, bit the bodies on these things are tiny as a result).

Most manufacturers have something out. The bodies are tiny, and if my glance at Simons camera on the recent MF trip was correct, he uses the Canon version.

Simon is using the Panasonic GF1, one of the first generation of 4/3rds cameras, he seems to be getting good results, though yet again like the Lumix LX3 the RAW processing time is the same as the exposure time.

The one major asset of the Lumix LX3/5 camera is the quality of the Leica lense.

---

Simon is using the Panasonic GF1, one of the first generation of 4/3rds cameras, he seems to be getting good results, though yet again like the Lumix LX3 the RAW processing time is the same as the exposure time.

The one major asset of the Lumix LX3/5 camera is the quality of the Leica lense.

Indeedy. Si seems to like the GF1 and as you say is getting some good results from it.

The only thing that seems to act against the Micro 4/3rds standard at the moment is the relatively poor choice of lenses.

I was looking at them, but what I wanted was a fixed lens to try and reduce the number of moving parts - but iirc the only lens available wasn't wide-angle enough for what I was looking for.

The big advantage of the LX3/LX5 and the GF1 etc is the ability to shoot in RAW - with decent editing software, you can tweak the settings and get a good image very quickly.

I've found that colour temperature has a remarkable effect, particularly to cope withe the green-tinting that some mines seems to cause (Moel Fferna and Penarth seems to be particularly bad). The ability to just move a slider is a *lot* easier than selective colour replace, which tends only to wash out the image and leave something rather dull.

---

Just been in Jessops, but the only worth while camera looking at in the high compacts was the Canon G12, (they did not have anything else in) very nice especially the tiltable screen, but it is a a fair bit more than I wish to pay. Maybe one of the lower G types might be an option.

I will be in Manchester tomorrow so hopefully can get a look at the Oly XZ-1

---

The big advantage of the LX3/LX5 and the GF1 etc is the ability to shoot in RAW - with decent editing software, you can tweak the settings and get a good image very quickly.

I've found that colour temperature has a remarkable effect, particularly to cope withe the green-tinting that some mines seems to cause (Moel Fferna and Penarth seems to be particularly bad). The ability to just move a slider is a *lot* easier than selective colour replace, which tends only to wash out the image and leave something rather dull.

Mr V, if you are using the Silkypix Studio 3 that is shipped with the camera, it is worth upgrading to the latest version,ie Studio 4, IMO, it runs a lot faster without the glitches that V3 has on my computer, ie occasional freezing whilst editing.

Like you say very quick & easy to make the few slight adjustments that you may need.

Seconded re the lack of lenses for the micro 4/3rds, they really are not wide enough either.

Why the bold text then?

---

Why the bold text then?

A bracket was missing ;)

quote="Brakeman"]Mr V, if you are using the Silkypix Studio 3 that is shipped with the camera, it is worth upgrading to the latest version,ie Studio 4, IMO, it runs a lot faster without the glitches that V3 has on my computer, ie occasional freezing whilst editing.

Like you say very quick & easy to make the few slight adjustments that you may need.

I'm using PhotoShop CS4 - sometimes it's handy to need software for "work"... 😉

---

Ah I see , tried Photoshop, didn't like it, suppose I got too use to the other prog, actually I needed My Lumix camera to photograph my work to show my clients . 😉

---

Photoshop is a bit of a pain if you're using the full programme, albeit the clone tool is *very* hand for retouching.

The real benefit comes with the RAW input which you get before you open the image in the software proper - I can generally now fix most problems in that and it takes about 30 seconds per photo.

If I get bored sometime, I'll post up something un-processed and then the steps through processing - it may be of some interest to people wondering what can be done.

---

Yes I think that might prove useful, I may have another look at Photoshop sometime.

I can obtain CS5 legitimately for £160 via the student software site as my daughter is taking up photography at college this year.

---