Cameras Cameras Cameras

February 7, 2025

Almost every cycling blog relies a lot on photos, saving of course thousands of words with each one. Lately, cell phones have gained popularity for taking these photos, but some form of "real" camera is still needed, especially when the cyclist is trying to record something that stands at a distance and needs a fair amount of zoom. We started to go for ever increasing zoom when we were shooting castles high on the banks of the Rhine. We would shoot birds too in that era, but once our interest in birds increased, ever more zoom became a quest.

Since camera size and weight is critical on a bike, we think most bloggers gravitated to the small super zoom point and shoots. We had some 20x Nikons, but eventully went to the 30x Lumixes. In this we were emulating some of our eminent bloggers, like Scott Anderson, Suzanne Gibson, and Susan Carpenter.

The thing about these small cameras with relatively big zoom is that the zoom function is sensitive to dust and moisture. And dust and moisture are automatic companions, out on the road. Consequently, these cameras died like flies. But unlike flies, these things cost something like $CAN 700, so it's no joke.

Someone who really must not have been laughing was Scott, who had no fewer than five of these cameras die or at least become untrustworthy on him. Our own ZS-60 died repeatedly, but seemed able to temporarily recover after spending about a week in purgatory, packed among our socks. It also landed in a camera repair shop, but we are pretty sure all they really did was to put it in their sock drawer until we came with our $200 to pick it up.

Susan eventually took the bold step of moving away from Lumix, acquiring a 40x zoom Canon (the SX740 HS) from FNAC (Best Buy equivalent) in France. But she hated it, allowing us to convince her to sell it to us. And Scott went to the larger 65x zoom Canon SX 70 for birds, and his cell phone for general shooting. Meanwhile we got the Nikon P950 (83x) while hanging on to both the SX740HS and the flaky Lumix.

All that is just background, and maybe all those model numbers already crossed your eyes. But the fun came when Scott packed up his five Lumixes and sent them to us. The idea for this might have germinated when it seemed our local camera shop might know how to fix these things. And some are still working well enough to be of use as a backup for the ZS-60, or for someone else.

In any event, the cameras arrived, and I had a fine time cataloging what they were, and figuring which battery went with what. Of the five, only two were actually identical. The others were each subtly different, adding to the interest of the pile. Here they all are. The photo includes the stranger in the group - Susan's Canon, on the extreme left.

The Lumix graveyard, or maybe just hospital.

I started watching Youtubes to learn how to disassemble these things. But honestly, it's too delicate and complicated. It takes almost a complete disassembly to get to and clean the lens mechanisms. Notwithstanding, at least two are working now. So four of the seven cameras in the photo sort of work. Now what? The "sort of" rating may not be good enough to send them off to anyone, but maybe yes.

One thing about these Lumixes is that when working they take very good zoom photos - not much worse than the big Nikon, and much better than the Canon 740. See:

Lumix at 720 mm. The subject is about 100 feet away.

Canon at 40x (1000 mm) It probably could have focussed better with more effort to hold it still.

Canon at 65x (1600 mm) (partly digital zoom)

Lumix at 1440 mm (Lumix digital iZoom is doubling the native 720 mm optical zoom)

The Canon struggles to focus on and stabilise the shots, while the Nikon P950 is very good, with its viewfinder, at getting a clear and focussed picture. But the Lumix has good image quality, and can rival the Nikon for closeup, by cropping of the photo.

Cycle touring offers a lot of scope for gearheads to play with all sorts of equipment. This one little area has been a lot of fun. Now, don't get me started on the 800 lumen headlight we just bought!

Rate this entry's writing	Heart	10
Comment on this entry	Comment	13

Bob KoreisOriginal retail total for the lot?
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Steve Miller/GrampiesTo Bob KoreisAfter a bit or internet research, my best guess is $US2800 for Scott's various models. My ZS-60 is about $US 450 and the Canon SX 470 is currently listed by Canon Canada at $629, so that's also in the $US 450 range. That gives a total for the cameras shown on the table of $US 3700.
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Karen PoretA great idea! (🤔)? Your photos as “replacement” for the eye chart.🫣
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Steve Miller/GrampiesTo Karen PoretOnly problem would be: Is it the "chart" or the eyes that are fuzzy?
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Karen PoretTo Steve Miller/GrampiesThat’s for the optometrist to figure out. 😁 Thanks for the fun, Grampies! I need all the diversions I can get from DT these days..
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Scott AndersonTo Bob KoreisI tended to get reasonable prices for them by buying the minus one generation after the newer models came out. I’d say on the average they cost me around $500 USD apiece in today’s prices. Also there were more than these - there were at least two Lx10’s from before the zooms came out that got replaced.

My intent in sending this pile north was to try to give a home for them to anyone who thought it might benefit them to try to revive one - as well as to give Dotie in particular a backup in case hers fails on her in the middle of some fantastic delta refuge in Spain. If anyone out there thinks they might have an interest in one I’m fine with Steve passing it on. My suspicion is that any or all of themmnpmight be salvageable and good for a few hundred shots if you find a decent repair shop. Before buying the SX70 I planned to bring them all down to Tucson and shop around the repair shops here.

Also, the Lx10 is essentially brand new and has better optics than the zooms.

Also, as far as costs go I think the Canon SX70 cost $650, which by comparison looks like a great bargain. Its only drawback I can see at this point is the fact that it’s not pocketable - a problem I’m learning to live with so that I can bring in the little occasional goldfish:
https://www.cycleblaze.com/journals/winterlude2024/bowen-stone-house-agua-caliente-a8e/#57755_ffxxqb78o7cyms95r5i8ikxr64c
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Steve Miller/GrampiesTo Scott AndersonThat goldfish shot was terrific. And the Canon SX 70 does seem like a good deal compared to the Lumixes. On the other hand, the darn Lumixes are capable of some surprisingly good shots (when working).
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Suzanne GibsonInspired by (envious of) the zoom on Scott's Lumix when we were together in Burgundy 2022, I bought my Lumix. Although it does have a terriric zoom, I never liked working with it and didn't use it enough to get it to break down. I was soon back to my mirrorless Sonys and happier. I don't do birds anyway. Now with the aid of Deutsche Post my Lumix is in Susan's hands. I'm looking forward to her pictures of lions.
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

marilyn swettI had to laugh at your picture of all of the Lumix cameras lined up on the table! We've owned maybe 3-4 of these same/similar models but each one always developed a problem with the zoom mechanism or lens cover not opening/closing correctly. I still liked them for their ease and size of carrying in a waist pack plus I could always quickly pull in out of my waist pack when riding our tandem to take a picture on the fly. The pictures were usually always clear and in focus despite the fact that we were moving. Vs my newer Kodak camera that has a much bigger zoom. I have to be standing still in order to hold it so it doesn't shake when I zoom all the way out. The Lumix cameras were also a moderate price compared to the very high priced cameras that both you and Scott own. I've also never been good at taking phone pictures when moving on the bike. Oh well, maybe someone will resurrect the Lumix again.
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Steve Miller/GrampiesTo marilyn swettFor some reason (size, location of on/off/zoom?) Dodie seems to find Susan's Canon easier to deal with than the Lumix, so she is sticking with it for now. It is still good to have a backup with us, especially on a long trip, so we will be carrying a few more cameras than might be thought strictly necessary. Ah well, it's only a couple extra ounces.
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Jacquie GaudetI was impressed with Scott's photos and, in need of a decent digital camera at the time (the waterproof one I got for kayaking only had one really good feature and I've mentioned it already), I acquired a Panasonic Lumix ZS50. It does what it does well enough, but just couldn't compare to my old film camera. I had by then acquired my Olympus E-M1ii and decided to take it on tours. It's weatherproof and dustproof (when paired with a weatherproof/dustproof lens) and so far, it's survived. It travels in my handlebar bag, though it takes up somewhat more room than the littly Panny.
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Steve Miller/GrampiesTo Jacquie GaudetClearly those Lumix 30x zoom models are lacking in weatherproofing, in a way that has them all die sooner than later. But of course, there is no way to really use a film camera any more. That Olympus E-M1ii has a large (well, micro 4/3) sensor and consequently only 4x zoom. It's hard to capture the castle on the hill with that. Included in the line up of Scott cameras was a Lumix LX-10 - that's a 1" sensor and 4x zoom. It is still working, but Scott revealed that he had run through a few of these too in the past.

I think I will use this space to do some whimpering: today we went birding at Cowichan Estuary, along a snow covered path. I was carrying the Nikon on the end of a monopod. I had just exchanged pleasantries with some passers by about how slippy it was, when I slipped, wrenching the pod and camera. When I got home I saw that the bottom had been ripped almost out of the camera! It still sort of works. No time before Tuesday to buy another, since none are in stock on the Island! We have slapped a ban on birding on any further trails now before we leave!
Reply to this comment
1 week ago

Jacquie GaudetTo Steve Miller/GrampiesActually, the lens I take travelling is a 14-150 zoom (equivalent to 28-300 FF angle of view) so that's not quite 11x. With an interchangeable-lens camera, you can choose different lenses for different purposes. If I really wanted to photograph birds, I have a zoom with much longer reach (not the $10,000 one!) but then I'd need a tripod and I'm not carrying either of those on a bicycle.

For your purposes, that Nikon seems like a good choice and I hope it's okay. On some cameras, the tripod mount is sort of sacrificial...
Reply to this comment
1 week ago