• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Panasonic LX5 a new contender for Digiscoping ? (1 Viewer)

Wait to hear if it will vignette with an eyepiece. More dynamic range? Already great. Sharper lens? Already beats the G1 at Iso 200. (See IR Comparitor) Great that it has gained no weight. Looks like they have kept the very necessary tube mount to the front body. Will have completed by EPL1 evaluation in a few weeks and be ready to sell it. Gene
 
There's already a lot of hoo-ha on dpreview about how the sample pics from the LX5 seem to show it to have inferior IQ to the LX3 but I'm still quite hopeful about this camera.
 
I suspect the longer length lens will make it harder for digiscoping,not easier. Vignetting should be worse,especially with zoom eyepieces as the lens will move more when zooming. You would would expect it to be a better camera than the LX3 though so let's hope for the best.
Neil
 
I've just bought an LX5. It works great with my Leica APO 82 with 25-50x eyepiece and the Leica over eyepiece adaptor which fits on to the thread on the camera. The image vignettes at the lower end of the camera zoom range but at 2x on wards the image is clean and it delivered excellent images.

Admittedly I've bought this as a compromise/stop gap camera. Having just switched from my trusty Leica APO 77 with Leica Digilux-3 using an adapted lenscap cover (digiscoping at its minimal best) I wanted a new camera to use with the APO 82. I could have used the Digilux-3 but it would have involved a new adapted lenscap, and my scope setup sits higher and at normal scope height the camera screen isn't viewable when attached without dropping a tripod leg.

So I went and tried out a host of cameras over the last week, focusing on models with a swivel or tilt screen. If the Panasonic GF1 had a swivel or tilt screen I would have bought it with the 20mm pancake and sorted out an over the eyepiece adaptor. The same goes for the Sony NEX5, metal bodied, and the tilt screen is brilliant. Unfortunately I couldn't find a lens, inc. the 16mm pancake, that suited my scope setup.

So its the LX5 for the immediate future, despite no swivel/tilt screen and having to drop a tripod leg when I want to use it!
 
Hi Steve,
What is the diameter of the screw thread on this Camera? I have the Swarovski DCA tube adapter and I'm very interested in upgrading to this camera. Any chance of posting some images.

Cheers Steve
 
Thanks Steve, a lot of people wanting information on this camera. Count your blessings.
I am not happy with my 20mm on my ELP1, not sharp enough. I am sure it would be the same on the G1. In addition, as person LOSES 2 STOPS OF SPEED in going from the Lumix to the larger 4/3 type sensor. That is a lot to lose.

Do you know the eye relief of the 20-50 eyepiece, or does anyone? Can you hand hold the eyepiece and get less vignetting? I saw some real killer images posted in a review of this camera. Can you post some digiscoping images? I have been quite happy with my LX3.

I am checking out the new Lumix FH1 (FS10) and finding it a great and sharp digiscoping camera for only $120 USD and only 140 grams of weight. Will post that info. soon. Thanks again. Gene
 
I too am interested in the quality of the photos with the LX5 and APO82 with the corresponding adapter. I've only just bought this telescope and am looking for the (perfect!) Cameras out. I first wanted to buy the LX3 but if the LX5 delivers the same quality I choose the latter course.
 
OK, admission time! I'm a plonker!

When I went in store last week to do the test I asked for an LX5 and was handed a camera. I tested it alongside the others and at the end of the session bought one. I paid no attention in checking what I had been handed for the test or the box of the camera I took home. The boxed camera has sat in its bag until today as I've been away and I've just unpacked it to charge the battery up before going on a birding trip in the morning - and its an LX3! I've just rang the store where I did the test and they say they didn't have any LX5s in last week so I couldn't have tested one. The staff member who served me is part-time and isn't in to ask why they didn't tell me they didn't have one and that they'd handed me an LX3 in stead (although to be fair I should have noticed/checked).

Oh well. Its too late for my trip. I need a camera and at least I have one that both fits my scope and I know works.

So this renders various questions above useless. Sorry!

Note to self - check, check . . .
 
Tried it out today on my Swa 80HD, 30X eyepiece, DCA connection.
With a calculated adapter ring joining the Lx-5 and DCA, Vignetting will only happens at the two extreme ends, say when coming around 24mm (5.1mm) and 90mm (19.2mm). Very sharp in overall.

http://images4.fotop.net/albums2/cwchan/digiscope/P1000071_copy.jpg

http://images4.fotop.net/albums2/cwchan/digiscope/P1000071_copy2.jpg


http://images4.fotop.net/albums2/cwchan/digiscope/P1000167_copy.jpg

http://images4.fotop.net/albums2/cwchan/digiscope/P1000168_copy.jpg
 
Tried it out today on my Swa 80HD, 30X eyepiece, DCA connection.
With a calculated adapter ring joining the Lx-5 and DCA, Vignetting will only happens at the two extreme ends, say when coming around 24mm (5.1mm) and 90mm (19.2mm). Very sharp in overall.

http://images4.fotop.net/albums2/cwchan/digiscope/P1000071_copy.jpg

http://images4.fotop.net/albums2/cwchan/digiscope/P1000071_copy2.jpg


http://images4.fotop.net/albums2/cwchan/digiscope/P1000167_copy.jpg

http://images4.fotop.net/albums2/cwchan/digiscope/P1000168_copy.jpg

Solid images...what was the distance? ....
Nice looking camera, not sure if it will work on a swaro or not but at $500, I think I would wait a while to bring the cost down and do with what I have.
 
Yes, those are fine shots of the Heron. Are there any issues with the lens extension snubbing into the eyepiece at zero zoom, as I have with the LX3. When the LX3 resets it goes through that stage.

The LX3 is quite sharp, and I say beats most cameras, SLR or whatever. But, when I compare the LX3 and LX5 on the IR Comparitor I see the LX5 is just a small bit softer on the still images. Perhaps just a small variation in the procedure or camera. Or, since there is no free lunch, it could be the cost of designing a longer zoom. Thanks, Gene
 
This also happens in Lx-5. Special care is required when putting the dc close to the eyepiece.

I don't have the chance of trying out Lx-3, thus, could not make a comparision. However, compare with my old Nikon 8400, Lx-5 is a bit softer than my workhorse, in addition, it has slight purple fringe while 8400 is free of it.
 
The LX3 is quite sharp, and I say beats most cameras, SLR or whatever.

Gene, would you like to expand on this and based against what exactly ? if it as good as you say why is not everybody using this camera? I think we know the answer to that one ;)

You seriously need a reality check with some of your statements. lets see some real life digiscoped pictures of birds to back your statements rather than the theory please ? it would help all concerned when looking for advice

Thanks

Paul
 
One of the reasons the LX3 has not been popular as a digiscoping camera is that is requires special attention to prevent snubbing into the eyepiece at zero zoom. The mounting extension tube also needs to be shortened for use. I agree that it does not have good high ISO, for people that want to shoot in the dark.

The sharpness and resolution is wide open for everyone to see on the IR Comparitor. Just pull up a SLR, P4000 or whatever and take a look side by side. Yes, I will scout out some more bird shots. Unfortunately I do not live at a bird sanctuary. Gene
 
One of the reasons the LX3 has not been popular as a digiscoping camera is that is requires special attention to prevent snubbing into the eyepiece at zero zoom. The mounting extension tube also needs to be shortened for use. I agree that it does not have good high ISO, for people that want to shoot in the dark.

At what point do you see you are flogging this to death? you have answered the question yourself with the above paragraph

The sharpness and resolution is wide open for everyone to see on the IR Comparitor. Just pull up a SLR, P4000 or whatever and take a look side by side.

Which part of my reply did you not get? IR Comparitor? it has no real relevance in our world of digiscoping as i explained previously which you have chosen to ignore, and more to the point how do you arrive at these conclusions and generalisations? please show me a digiscoped bird picture that proves your point/opinions, not some comparative camera shots on a website, thats what digiscopers can relate to.

Yes, I will scout out some more bird shots. Unfortunately I do not live at a bird sanctuary. Gene

Neither do i, i just use my fieldcraft when i do get to the bird reserve like the rest of us digiscopers do ;)

Paul
 
Hi Folks

Thinking about getting a digiscoping camera and a Leica Adapter 4 to fit on my Apo82. As Leica's own camera is silly money, will the Panasonic LX5 just screw onto the adapter without modification and work ok? I've not ventured into digiscoping before so excuse my lack of knowledge.
 
Hi Folks

Thinking about getting a digiscoping camera and a Leica Adapter 4 to fit on my Apo82. As Leica's own camera is silly money, will the Panasonic LX5 just screw onto the adapter without modification and work ok? I've not ventured into digiscoping before so excuse my lack of knowledge.

Hi Den,

I don't recommend Lx5 to be used for beginner in digiscoping. The adapter ring ( including the original made by Panasonic or those made from the third party ) in the market is too long, making too serious vignetting. The adapter ring needs modification. As a beginner, I would recommend a Nikon P6000.

CW
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top