Thinking of getting a new compact camera...

[LEDninja]

I find compacts are too light for me and hand shake is a major problem. The optical stabilization does not work as well as the marketers want you to believe. Never had a problem with my old hefty 2 pound SLR. When zooming in, a tripod, monopod or solid supporting surface is needed.

 

[NonSenCe]

good topic.. why start a new one.. so.. im thinking i need a new cheapish compact /mini compact camera..

-old camera is really cheap digi no-name brand from 2006 or something.. so i think its 2 to 4mpx and 5X optical zoom. (didnt find it now for reference..) so my reference is low. kinda any camera sold today would be lot better than it. if i cant find a camera that really want for the budget i have.. or that they still/yet dont make one that fits the bill.. i can once again look for really tiny camera, that has some of the features i wish to have but not all of them.. but then i will not be willing to pay as much.. cheap will do like so far.

so i think this is my wish list:

under 200 (euro) if possible (around 250dollars).

would like to have more than 5X zoom (10X is enough) optical zoom that is. i dont like the digital version at all. (maybe because in my previous ones the technology was crap and cheap.)

12 mpix or more (they seem to go up all the time so maybe higher the better now.. i know i will be using it for atleast 3 years or so like i have done with all my previous ones)

size matters. so small. small enough that i take it with me. (something like 300grams is already in heavy side)

anti shake system.. to lessen the amount of blurry images im famous of.

then comes the difficult one.. i would really really like it to run with:

AA batteries. or the spare li-ion batteries should be easy and cheap to buy so i can get atleast second one. (i just hate the fact im half way thru a car show or some other gathering like weddings and the battery inside the camera dies on me. no way to charge it. so i miss half of the memory snapshots. eneloops i got plenty of so 2AA camera would be cool.)

-----------

so if there is no AA powered camera with these or more features.. or a camera which has cheap spare batteries available that i can change when the first set empties.. i can just go look for smallest and cheapest camera that has some basic upgrades over my old one and live with that.. for few years until they CAN make a camera that runs only with 1 AA or AAA (nowdays i think they still need 2AA at minimum)

as i do not NEED the camera that much or often.. so i dont need a good one nor see need to pay much for one. yearly snapshot amount has been around 500 or so.. about 200 are decent ones and needed and are without hand shaking.

more i type more i try to convince myself just to buy a new cheap one and go with it. hahah. so let me know if there is a pocket mini compact camera i might like or not..

 

[EV_007]

good topic.. why start a new one.. so.. im thinking i need a new cheapish compact /mini compact camera..

-old camera is really cheap digi no-name brand from 2006 or something.. so i think its 2 to 4mpx and 5X optical zoom. (didnt find it now for reference..) so my reference is low. kinda any camera sold today would be lot better than it. if i cant find a camera that really want for the budget i have.. or that they still/yet dont make one that fits the bill.. i can once again look for really tiny camera, that has some of the features i wish to have but not all of them.. but then i will not be willing to pay as much.. cheap will do like so far.

so i think this is my wish list:

under 200 (euro) if possible (around 250dollars).

would like to have more than 5X zoom (10X is enough) optical zoom that is. i dont like the digital version at all. (maybe because in my previous ones the technology was crap and cheap.)

12 mpix or more (they seem to go up all the time so maybe higher the better now.. i know i will be using it for atleast 3 years or so like i have done with all my previous ones)

size matters. so small. small enough that i take it with me. (something like 300grams is already in heavy side)

anti shake system.. to lessen the amount of blurry images im famous of.

then comes the difficult one.. i would really really like it to run with:

AA batteries. or the spare li-ion batteries should be easy and cheap to buy so i can get atleast second one. (i just hate the fact im half way thru a car show or some other gathering like weddings and the battery inside the camera dies on me. no way to charge it. so i miss half of the memory snapshots. eneloops i got plenty of so 2AA camera would be cool.)

-----------

so if there is no AA powered camera with these or more features.. or a camera which has cheap spare batteries available that i can change when the first set empties.. i can just go look for smallest and cheapest camera that has some basic upgrades over my old one and live with that.. for few years until they CAN make a camera that runs only with 1 AA or AAA (nowdays i think they still need 2AA at minimum)

as i do not NEED the camera that much or often.. so i dont need a good one nor see need to pay much for one. yearly snapshot amount has been around 500 or so.. about 200 are decent ones and needed and are without hand shaking.

more i type more i try to convince myself just to buy a new cheap one and go with it. hahah. so let me know if there is a pocket mini compact camera i might like or not..

The AA battery requirement is a tough one since most cameras use rechargeable battery packs.

That being said. I do like the convenience of using standard AA batteries. Cameras that come to mind would be the Canon PowerShot SX20, SX10, S5 and S3. They have awesome zoom ranges as well. The new ones might exceed your price point, but I'm sure you can find a used one within your target zone.

 

[rickypanecatyl]

Can I add a question on this thread...

I'm a camera dummy but my wife just ordered a panasonic lumix LX5. I'm just curious does that camera have what it takes to compare beamshots? I've only had camera's that auto do everything and so there's not a huge difference in the pics between an SR90 and 2D mag lite after the camera balences it all out...

 

[LEDninja]

Can I add a question on this thread...

I'm a camera dummy but my wife just ordered a panasonic lumix LX5. I'm just curious does that camera have what it takes to compare beamshots? I've only had camera's that auto do everything and so there's not a huge difference in the pics between an SR90 and 2D mag lite after the camera balences it all out...

It has Manual exposure & manual focus. You just have to learn to use those features.

Write down what settings you used so you do beamshots with a new light with the same settings.

 

[precisionworks]

a compact isn't going to give the sort of results you get with a DSLR, but what do you experts think - is the difference really all that noticeable these days?

For images of objects the size of a flashlight & larger, probably no noticeable diff. The DSLR really comes into its own with a dedicated macro lens & tripod support for shooting tiny subjects.

Trit vials 1.5x5mm:

Haiku bezel with 1.5x5mm trit:

Both images above are sized "as shot" without any cropping to enlarge a portion of the image. A DSLR isn't the camera for every user but it can produce outstanding results on tiny subjects.

 

[mattheww50]

As other posters have suggested, the big deal with digital camera is indeed the size of the sensor. There are a couple of criteria for determing the maximum performance of the optical system, the Dawes Limit, and the Rayleigh criterion. Both produce essentially the same result. If the pixel size is smaller than the Dawes limit, then you sensor provides more pixels than the optical system can actually resolve. That implies that the actual image resolution is considerably worse than the megapixel count would suggest. This is a common issue in compact digital cameras . My brother( A Ph. D. who makes his living designing and analysing optical systems) has pointed out to me that between the sensor size, and the F/stop required in daylight, compact camera optical systems are at best 8mp (and often considerably worse), regardless of the number of pixels in the sensor. The secondary issue is that the smaller the pixel size in the sensor, the few photons falls on it, and worse the low light and noise performance.

Consider this for a moment. The sensor on a Nikon Coolpix P500 (2/3, 12.1mp) is about 58mm^2. (8.8 x 6.6mm) and that is actually LARGE for a camera in that class, but it still undersized for the number of pixels. A Nikon D-90(12.3mp) has about the same number of pixels, on a sensor that has roughly 6 times the area! There are some DSLR's out there with even larger image sensors(about 12 times the area of the sensor in the P500, but still only about 12 mp).. The bottom line is that if you really could produce a 12-14mp image with 1/2 sensor (fairly typical for compact cameras), there would be no need to produce sensors that are an order of magnitude larger.

I'll let you guess which ones really can produce a 12mp image, and the better low light performance.

It is only when you get into the high end compact cameras, like those with interchangeable lenses, that you start to get image sensors that are commensurate with the number of pixels on them.

As far as optical quality goes, you are pretty much going to get what you pay for. The rise of cheap, enormously powerful computers in the past 20 years had made it possible for just about anyone to design top knotch optics at reasonable cost. It has been the great equalizer in optics.

Much of the difference today between various digital cameras isn't in the optics or the sensor, but in the post procesing of the raw image. Some of these do a better job than others, and often it is more a matter of liking or disliking the shaprness, contrast or color saturation of the JPG images that are produced.


So as others have pointed out, the size of the sensor is more important to the image quality than the number of pixels, next is the post processing of the raw images. Pixel count in this class of camera is often much more than what the optical system can actually provide, so is often not espcieally meaningful.

 

[rickypanecatyl]

How about speed? I know that DSLR's are faster as well - are there any more compact camera's getting closer to their speed.

A good example, last week I was on an island and just before sunrise there was a plethora of these new to me birds that were ok looking when they sat but really beautiful when they flew and distint if you were seeing them from the bottom or top. (Turned out they were "hornbills".)

After seeing several fly by I dug out the camera and tried to be in "ready mode". It was pretty rare to ever be able to get 2 shots of the same bird as I think its almost 2 seconds between my shots. (And I think my camera slows down if it knows I'm rushing). I'd see one sitting on a branch and take a shot from a distance but knew I was too far for it to turn out good. I would try to quietly walk forward and get as close as possible before it took off to get a better "sitting" picture, but what I really wanted was a few in flight pictures. When I got too close, (no warning when) it would suddenly take off and I could probably get 1 picture but not a good second.

What do I need for that kind of scenario?

 

[will]

Most compact cameras have a lag between pressing the shutter release and the picture being taken. This lag has shortened over the years, but it is still there. If you want better quality pictures and faster pictures, a DSLR is the way to go. I have one of each, both around 12meg, both less than 2 years old. The DSLR will yield better pictures every time under the same circumstances.

Having said that, we like to go to the beach, do some snorkeling. The compact camera always comes along, It is waterproof to 10 meters. I can wash it off at the end of the day to remove the sand and salt.

The DSLR has greater flexibility, availability of different lenses, different flash units. It is also heavier and I won't leave it on the blanket at the beach.

So - it depends on what you want to photograph, how much money you want to spend.

Over the years I have purchased new cameras, reconditioned cameras, and used cameras ( ebay ) Best bet with any camera purchase, do some research.

 

[DoctaDink]

For those with an unlimited budget....Leica M9! Full frame sensor, mirror-less, Unsurpassed optics.

...sure wish I had an unlimited budget :-(

 

[Erich1B]

For those with an unlimited budget....Leica M9! Full frame sensor, mirror-less, Unsurpassed optics.

...sure wish I had an unlimited budget :-(

For those with a limited budget, wanting an upgrade for a pocket point & shoot but not the full sized DSLR should consider the Sony NEX series of cameras.

DxOMark gave the NEX-7's sensor an overall score of 81 - http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Sony/NEX-7

For comparison, Nikon's flagship full frame DSLR the D3x's sensor was given a score of 88.

 

[HarryN]

I am a big fan of Minox. That being said, for every day snapshots, my cell phone camera is not bad (Nokia) and does 80 - 90 % of what most compacts will do for me.

When I am serious about a picture, then there are really two choices IMHO:
- Borrow or rent a $ 2,000 DSLR
- Use a film camera and a good negative scanner

I have a 35 mm compact Minox that I purchased 10 years ago, and it still takes fabulous pictures. I load it up with Kodak pro quality film and it will take better picture quality than my skills will ever allow. It is much more compact than many digital compact cameras, and there is no comparison between battery life.

 

[itsdonny]

I know this is an old thread but I would get the Canon G1x.
Really amazing for a P&S camera!

 

[0dBm]

I hate to do the quote type of response so I'll just focus on a few things.

"OK, so a compact isn't going to give the sort of results you get with a DSLR... is the difference really all that noticeable these days?"
There have been many developments in digital imaging systems during the last decade. Unless there is a deep devotion to remain shooting with film, digital cameras have made it so easy to make the transition. Digital cameras have made it quite easy for me to make a part-time living out of a hobby that I have enjoyed since 1966. They are that good and continue to become better.

Many working pros such as myself have adopted digital imaging. It is that good; particularly when shooting in RAW mode and using software to refine the captured images. Even though the compact or "point and shoot" (P&S) models such as the Canon S100 and Panasonic LX5 have become very good as well, there is still a significant difference between them and the physically bigger enthusiast and professional models. It is NOT the fact that these larger models have many more pixels than the P&S'. My 12-megapixel Nikon D700 is vastly better than my 12-Megapixel Panasonic LX3. The difference is in the capability to make use of the light at the time the image is captured.

That capability is then tied to a physically BIGGER sensor AND a bigger lens aperture of the bigger cameras. This disparity is not something that P&S models cannot intrinsically overcome, at this time, in order to catch-up with the bigger models because it is physically improbable. Digital imaging manufacturers can only fit so big a sensor in those tiny bodies. Same is true for big "glass" (lenses): in order to capture more light, a big aperture is required. Big apertures require BIG glass. To install big glass in a P&S model is to negate the advantage of them: portability in an essentially "pocketable" form.

There has been a viable alternative with the development of the mirrorless, micro-four thirds format where sensor sizes in these physically smaller cameras are somewhat closer to those of entry-level DSLRs.That advantage is a significantly larger sensor size vice those typically found in P&S models. The other advantage is that, with the appropriate adapter, many lenses customarily developed for the larger format cameras can be used. Olympus and Panasonic lead the field in micro-four-thirds camera development and continue to widen their offerings of so-called "native" lenses that do not need adapters. Coincidentally, lenses made by these two giants fit each other's camera bodies. Other well-known makers now offer native lenses. I personally own a Cosina Voigtlander 25mm, f/0.95. Talk about a large aperture and greatly improving my camera's ability to make use of the light at the time the image is captured!

Here is an image taken with a Panasonic DMC-GH2 & Cosina-Voigtlander 25mm, f/0.95.

VB2 by 0dBm Imaging, on Flickr

I have made the transition to this system for recreational use. It is much lighter than my Nikon D700/Zeiss 85mm, f/1.4. The big Nikon is capable of this image; however, the tiny Panasonic LX3 is not.

"...but I've always thought that amount of light that enters the camera inevitably decreases with increase in focal length of the lens: The best results in poor lighting are supposed to be obtained with wide-angle lens i.e. shorter focal length (and/or bigger sensor)."
That statement has more to do with the aperture of the lens rather than the focal length (FL). Many of the lower-cost, consumer-targeted zoom an telephoto lenses do decrease in aperture proportional to FL as a means of design to keep the sheer mass of these lenses to a practical portable minimum. Few if any people I know care to lug around a behemoth for recreational photography. It is the pros who are paid to carry these humongous pieces of glass with a constant large aperture that need them.

"As I always say, the best camera is the one you have on you."
This is a favorite adage on this and several other forums; however, I have found it unsuitable. It may invariably apply to certain things for others; but, I have rarely found it to be ultimately correct for me. I'm not arguing against it; just simply stating that is at best a summarily simplistic generalization.

I have carried several knife types and, on many occasions, what I had in my pocket seemed to be a compromise. Nevertheless, I "made do" with it. Ultimately, the results were just that - doo - because what I had was NOT the best tool for the job, yet it was what was "on" me.

I have also carried a number of different handguns from the big 1911 .45 to the pipsqueak Seecamp .32. Although I have never deployed any of the firearms that I carried for anything, I am convinced that anything that I carried less than the full-sized 1911 would NOT have been "best."

Of these three types of things that I typically carry, the camera is the one that will NEVER be "best" with respect to the one that is "on" me. With a knife, I don't care about how pretty the cut is or how well the light shines on the blade. With a firearm, I wouldn't care of the hole made by the bullet is nice and round or whether the hollowpoint bullets that I exclusively carry will mushroom to a textbook shape when they hit the target. With either of these, I simply DON'T care.

A camera is completely in an altogether different category; something that is an extension of my ability to creatively see the color, texture, and depth of my environment; AND the means to capture that perception. I purposely choose NOT to be satisfied with the camera and lens combination with which I used to record the last image that I encountered because that image can always BE better composed, exposed, or post-processed. It is MY way of controlling MY environment without having to use the blade and/or bullet.

 

[trevordurden]

OK, so a compact isn't going to give the sort of results you get with a DSLR, but what do you experts think - is the difference really all that noticeable these days?

Depends on what you're shooting.

I think there are 2 factors that convinced me to buy a DSLR:
-Depth of field - how blurry the background is compared to the subject
-Speed - how fast the camera turns on, focuses and snaps a picture, very important in sports and wildlife photography
There are other factors too, but I cannot give up these features for the convenience of a compact.

 

[stjohn]

Hi,
for product shots I have a Nikon D300 and 150mm nikon nikkor macro lens. It works very well, however I am now looking to swap it for the new nikon D7000. Same great photos plus full frame video which is also useful. To make the macro lens useful you will definitely need a tripod...

cheers,
st.john

 

[Bevis]

Me too looking for a Camera but i like sony Alpha 500. It has a sensor and it not much expensive.

 

[Walterk]

I am happy with my Samsung EX1, semi compact with big lens F1.8 macro to zoom.
Whatever camera you choose, light gathering or F-number is the keyfactor.
Most of us will have realized that as the same applies for our lights.
Your budget is the roof, for me this camera was the sweet compromise of both.

 

[RBR]

.....

 

[Alland44]

Or save a lotta dollar buying the former generation.
The Canon S95 (Own this) or the Canon G12.

They still shoot great pictures.

Or buy a secondhand DSLR !