I know there are lots of photographers out there, and so I’m looking for a good camera. I have used Panasonic Lumix DMCs (the latest a ZS8) for a while, but have gone through two (about one a year) because the sensor gets dirty and I have no ability to clean it (don’t ask me to do anything technical), so specks eventually appear on the photos. Perhaps I could get it cleaned, but I don’t know where, and don’t want to send it anywhere because then I’ll be deprived of a camera. In addition, the flash sucks, and makes everything overexposed at close distances.
What I liked about it was the 20X zoom, which was awesome. And on one setting (intelligent auto), the pictures were great, although under program AE (autoexposure) everything was grainy and useless.
My requirements:
1. Compact (even the 35mm digitals seem too large for me); ideally able to be put in a small pouch on the belt, as with the Panasonics
2. Good zoom lens capable of at least 12-15X
3. High quality photos (my Panasonics were 5 MB in full resolution)
4. Ability to make movies
Please don’t recommend the 35 mm digital equivalents with interchangeable lenses; I lugged around two Nikon bodies and five lenses for years but simply am not into that now. Until they get as small as my Panasonic DMCZS8, I’m not interested. My price range is about $500 though I could go higher for something really good, durable, and unlikely to get a dirty sensor!
kthxbye
We would like to see movies too and the iPad takes great ones and they are easy to edit,post.
Subscribing in hopes of getting useful advice.
I recommend the Canon Powershot series. 14 cameras to pick from: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras
Canon optics are hard to beat.
Yes. This would be my advice as well (see link above).
The ELPH cameras, in Canon’s Powershot line are very small & very good.
The still small, but “High End”, Powershot S95, S100 & S110 are best in class.
[In point-and-shoot digital cameras focus on Canon, Nikon & Olympus… everybody else takes these cameras apart to learn what to put in their models, next year.]
For wildlife photography the Panasonic Lumix cameras outperform the Canon and Nikon pocket cameras I have seen. Mainly because of their long zoom.
By the way, it is critically important to look at the actual high-end length of the lens in mm, NOT the zoom range (which is a ratio of longest/shortest lengths). A 20x zoom could be 2mm-40mm or 3mm-60mm. The latter would be a much better wildlife camera than the former. The focal length range is usually written on the lens, though the advertising hype tends to focus on the much-less-useful zoom range. The Panasonic Lumix cameras that my foundation has given to our park guards has a Leica (!) lens that goes from 4.7mm to 47mm. This is only a 10x zoom, but the 47mm length at the high end surpasses many cameras with wider zoom ranges. That is a good length (though 50mm+ would be even better).
Our guards take terrible care of these cameras and keep it in 100% humidity and rain and dirt 24/7, yet we have never seen dirty sensors. Our Lumix are newer models with high resolution. Pretty good except for their overly strong noise-reduction.
In this sense, the Sony Cyber-shot I recommended is pretty good for distant photography, as it is a 20x zoom with 25mm-500mm range. On the other hand, I’m not so sure what you give up by not being able to go below 25mm.
Lou, can you be more specific as to the model number of the Lumix you recommend? Thanks.
DMC-TZ5, nearly worn off the camera from heavy use.
I should add that there are surely newer models that would be better, and I would also look into the other long-lens pocket cameras mentioned in these comments.
I’d echo that. I decided on a compact camera for the same reasons as Jerry (portability) and a Panasonic TZ3 being one of the earliest digital zooms to go as wide as 28mm (equivalent). The relatively large lens does help in light-gathering in dim light. Also, the Optical Image Stabilisation really works, maybe half the shots I take leaning out of a train when zoomed out are passable, and this is when things are shaking so much I have trouble getting the subject in frame.
And it just won’t die, I’ve dropped it at least three times, and it’s been for an inadvertent swim in a stream with me (I took the battery out as a precaution, and by the time I’d walked back to the car two hours later, it had dried out and was working again). I’d buy a later model but – like I said – it just won’t die.
Only maintenance I’ve done is clean the battery contacts with fine abrasive ‘CD cleaner’ liquid.
“Wildlife photography” is a pretty broad term. for some, it means squirrels and sparrows in the park to post on BookSpace; for others, it means tigers in the jungle and exotic birds in flight for National Geographic.
For the former, a compact camera is superlative; for the latter, a 600mm f/4 with a teleconverter on a high-performance APS-C DSLR may still leave the photographer wanting more.
Here’s what such a setup looks like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eclipsechaser/2350641676/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/markpayton/4009933763/
For the really serious wildlife photographer, there’s this:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/a-big-addition
Cheers,
b&
The pictures that our untrained guards have taken with this nearly weightless, always-ready Lumix have been published in BBC Wildlife Magazine alongside the best in the world. Of course you can’t blow them up as large as the pictures taken with a full-sized sensor, but a full-size sensor requires a 5-pound, $10000 lens to take the same image. You can bet you won’t have that monster with you when you meet that once-in-a-lifetime Spectacled Bear or Black-and-Chestnut Eagle on some steep slope in a tropical forest.
There’s a difference between a job where you might encounter something worth taking a picture of, and a job where you’re getting paid to make pictures.
In the former, yes, a quality compact makes perfect sense, and you’d be a fool to always lug around tens of thousands of dollars of heavy camera equipment.
But, similarly, in the latter, you’d be a fool to forsake the heavy artillery in favor of the pocket camera.
Also, if your assignment is to go out an photograph a rare animal, you’re not going to be relying upon a chance encounter; you’re going to be using the same methods that hunters and conservationists do to locate them.
b&
Of course the big, $10000 10 lb giant is better than a pocket camera. My point is that a well-chosen pocket camera is capable of good, publishable images, and even has certain advantages over the 10lb giant. Anyway Jerry already made clear that he isn’t interested in even a normal 35mm camera, much less a multi-thousand dollar weightlifter’s special.
I was a professional photographer, and I walked stifling jungles and climbed high mountains with those giant lenses on my camera, attached to an equally heavy tripod. I probably still have a dent in my shoulder where I used to put that thing. I got pics in Sports Illustrated and other mags, but it was hard. It is incredibly liberating to be free of that massive equipment and still be able to get reasonably good pictures!
“a 600mm f/4 with a teleconverter on a high-performance APS-C DSLR may still leave the photographer wanting more”
Ain’t it the truth! How long is long enough? Silly question!
I’m still wanting a medium format 12-1200 f/1.4 with image stabilization and full movements. It should weigh under a pound, fit in your pocket, and cost under $100.
Oh — while we’re at it, it should come with a unicorn pony. Preferably pink and invisible!
b&
Yes, you simply can’t beat the Panasonic Lumix’s if what you want is a digital camera. A superior lens is more important than any other single factor and Leica lenses are still the best. Unless you want to enlarge your photos to more than 11×14 you don’t need lens resolution quality beyond 6 or 7MP’s. Which means you can buy an older model on eBay or elsewhere for $500 or less. The newer models are fine but they put too much importance on unnecessarily higher lens resolution which drives up the price for no practical reason (though if you find one of these in your price range it won’t hurt to buy it if it has all the other features you want.). Jerry needs to narrow his focus down to the Panasonic Lumix DMC less than 10MP models, read reviews, recommendations, etc. and decide which models he prefers and start watching for the appearance of these models on eBay, craigslist and other used camera sites that may be available. Only he can decide what’s best for him.
Canon Powershot S100. 24-120 equivalent zoom. HD video. No optical view finder, but most people don’t care nowadays. Under $500
Don’t do it!!! 120mm equivalent lens? That is way too small for even the most rudimentary wildlife photography.
A friend of mine recently bought a Sony NEX-7, which is compact, has interchangeable lenses and fantastic features. Here’s a review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex7/
That’s too large, I think; not capable of being put in a small belt pouch; plus one has to carry around extra lenses. Thanks though.
I was going to suggest you consider the Canon EOS M, which is just out this week, as something similar…but it’d fall short on similar grounds.
However, there *might* be something in the Micro Four Thirds system that would tick enough checkboxes for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system
My next best advice would be to take a trip to a local electronics store and play with everything they’ve got on display. What looks large in a photo on the ‘Net may actually be small in your hands, and vice-versa. Since ergonomics are so high on your list of priorities, I think you’re not going to be happy unless you’ve first held the actual camera in your very own hands.
b&
Agree with the hands-on decision. Dutifully did the research on many cameras only to change my mind in the store when I tried one that “just felt right.” (I was also a Lumix a couple of models prior to JAC’s.)
I would get the Sony cybershot DSC-R100 for its huge sensor and other advantages. I also like the Canon S100. I have the Canon SX260 which has 20x zoom, but isn’t as crisp as the other. The Sony has great picture quality, so you could just magnify without the optical zoom, IMO.
Functional specialization generally improves performance, efficiency, and lowers overall cost. To have a single camera that takes both great movies and great still photos — well it used to be the case it cost significantly more than getting two separate cameras. Not sure that is as much the situation anymore.
I don’t care so much about the movies.
The best compact right now by far is the Sony RX100. It’s more expensive than most compacts ($650 – just above your budget), the reason being that it has a bigger sensor. It’s worth every penny though – the images you’ll get from this large sensor and Zeiss lens will be better than any other pocketable camera.
Some reviews:
Luminous Landscape
NY Times – a bit hyperbolic, but does explain the main benefits.
A more sober review from DP Review.
It doesn’t have a 12x zoom (it’s 28mm-100mm equivalent), so if that’s a deal breaker for you then it won’t work. But to be honest, if you want quality optics you don’t want more than about a 4x zoom – more than that and the compromises begin to show in the image quality.
I’m currently trying to justify to myself why I want to buy one in addition to my interchangeable lens camera.
What a shame about the lens length. This is not a useful camera for general nature photography.
If you need more than a 100mm equivalent then I respectfully suggest that you need something more than a compact.
I would agree with this.
Though I’d also note that, to paraphrase a certain genius, “If it looks good, it is good.” That is, if you get results that you like with a super-ultra-mega-zoom compact, then you get good results (even if National Geographic would laugh in your general direction).
I’d also note that most people who want much more than a “standard zoom” are going to be more likely to be happier with the results from something other than a compact.
b&
I think you are not up to date on the abilities of compact cameras. You just need to choose carefully. See my reply to Ben Goren under Comment 3. Our Lumix pictures have been published in decent mags, and I wouldn’t rule out Nat Geo. These are cameras you will take everywhere, and that means you’ll have it when something special and unexpected happens. A giant lens, tripod, etc is great for an eclipse that can be predicted years ahead of time. It is not so great for unplanned and unrepeatable wildlife experiences that happen on the fly.
No one here is saying you need a giant camera.
The RX100 has a 37mm lens while the DMC-TZ5 you are talking about only has a 47mm one. That’s really not much longer, and the bigger sensor of the RX100 more than compensates – the RX100 has a 14X digital zoom in addition to the optical. A digital zoom crops the sensor and enlarges. Since the sensor on the RX100 is so much bigger, you can crop and still get a better image. Generally, I wouldn’t do that, but a large sensor cropped (if you really have to) is still better than a small sensor.
Correction:
With all this talk of the RX100, I finally decided to order one myself (as a carry-all-the-time camera, that of course I really need). Anyway, I’ve been reading the manual. The digital zoom is actually an (up to) 4 times zoom on top of the 3.6x optical zoom. There are three settings for the digital zoom:
1) Off (ie optical only)
2) 2X – zooms using optical only first, and then up to an additional 2x by cropping the image. Therefore gives up to 7.2x zoom (28-200mm equivalent), with a small loss in picture quality (although still better than other superzooms, due to the larger sensor).
3) 4X – same as above only up to 14X zoom with more loss in quality.
I hope that helps with the decision making.
I’d agree. In my ‘film’ days I used to lug around a Canon AE-1 and bag of lenses, which eventually cut down to a 28-200 ‘superzoom’ (and I often wanted a ‘little bit more length’). When I went digital, no way was I going to lug all that weight up hillsides, and the 28-280 (equivalent) of the TZ3 is just enough. And I can carry it as a matter of routine, instead of having to make a special effort as I would with an SLR. After all, the photo you actually take is way better than the one you ‘might have got if you had a camera on you’
” the photo you actually take is way better than the one you ‘might have got if you had a camera on you”
Yes, every time! Right on. I always (more or less) have my LX5 with me.
I’ve found my iPhone to be perfect for those “always have it with you” types of things. Then again, I’ve never been one to take pictures of everything I stumble across…generally, to me, photography means loading up with gear and heading out with a specific shot in mind — or, at least, a specific subject to shoot.
b&
@ Ben
Well, I often go for long walks in the ‘bush’, so I carry my pocket TZ3 about half the time – it’s light enough that I can do so without worrying about the weight. And some of the places I visit, the degree of photogeneity (is that a word?) of the scenery is totally dependent on the light, the clouds and the angle of the sun… so being able to take advantage of the scene when the circumstances are favourable does put a premium on having a camera with me much of the time.
Probably my favourite shot is one of those – a small figure walking across the top of a huge sand dune, with the facets on its lee face picked out by the slanting sun. And I didn’t even know I’d ‘got’ it till later, as I didn’t have my glasses on me so could just barely see enough to frame the shot, and I just took it as a ‘holiday snap’ for my friend on top of the dune 200 yards away…
That’s the other great thing about digital (compared with film), photos cost nothing so one can afford to be insanely shutter-happy when an opportunity arises. I’m thinking of waves breaking on the rocks, for example, where just one in a hundred is the ‘perfect’ break…
newegg.com has the best search features on their web site. have a look. Their service and prices are not bad either.
have a look at:
Sony CyberShot DSC-H90 – 16X zoom
Canon PowerShot SX260 – 20X zoom
Nikon Coolpix S9300 – 18X zoom
I own SX260. I do not recommend it though. While the zoom is 20x it does not produce effects for which I would be proud. The details of picture are blurred and grainy. It is decent as a travel camera that fits into the pocket.
I do not agree that Canon’s optics in compact cameras is superior, however I like their processors and intelligent functionality – they have a mode when the camera decides what mode to choose (portrait, landscape etc) automatically. So no unnecessary thinking necessary.
I’ll repeat my comment above–these quoted zoom ranges don’t tell you what you need to know. You need to know the actual range of lengths, eg 2mm-20mm, or 4mm-40mm. The latter would be a reasonable wildlife camera, the former would be a poor one, though they are both 10x zooms.
Lou Jost: You need to know the actual range of lengths…”
Well, to be thorough, you need to know the actual focal lengths AND the size of the sensor. Some manufacturers list “35 mm equivalent” focal lengths to facilitate comparison.
Yes, thanks for the correction. That’s getting to be important since some of the cameras mentioned here have non-standard sensors.
Canon Powershot S100 is one of the best. Fast f/2 lens, excellent video, dual microphone for stereo sound, pocketable.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/s100.htm (note, Ken is a diehard Nikon fan).
About @340 on Amazon.
I used the Canon G-series for years until quality and features actually started to go backwards.
In recent years I’ve been using a mix of Panasonic and Olympus micro-4/3 cameras which are the same size (if used with pancake lens) and have the virtue of easily swappable lenses.
Although I can get them into my large pockets, they may be a bit bigger than you need though.
You should look at the Wirecutter site, which makes a single recommendation in a variety of camera and other technology areas, which they keep up to date. http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/sony-rx100-best-point-and-shoot-camera/
Ditto Jim and with a similar past history to Jerry C. I used to carry a Nikon DSLR and 3 lenses, especially for macro, and am now very happy with a Canon Powershot S100, easily meets my needs for research and teaching images.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras
dpreview is an excellent and trustworthy site.
Yes, it is trustworthy and technically accurate.
If you want to switch from Panasonic, here are two possible fresh candidates
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_dschx20v&products=canon_sx260hs
The PowerShot S100 only has a 5X zoom.
True, but with such high res and cropping I find it does nicely…
no no no….
I have a Sony DSC-HX10V which takes good pictures in low light with intelligent auto, it also takes movies, sweep panorama has 18Mp and has a 16x zoom. It’s great for travel and although not the thinnest camera it fits in a belt pouch. However my previous DSC-5V also got some dirt on the sensor which I managed to clean off by disassembling it. If you’re worried about getting dirt on the sensor then look at a waterproof camera there’s a Lumix or Olympus. Only problem is that they don’t have as long zooms because the optics have to be kept within the case.
I have a new Sony DSC-HX20V that I’m generally quite happy with, though long zooms tend to be grainy. The pictures have significantly better color balance than my old Canon (which was itself a good camera, though not quite as compact, but got run accidentally through the clothes washer).
For years, I needed a camera that ran on drugstore batteries, because I’d get stuck out in the desert with a dead camera and needed to get new batteries at Small Town Corner Store. Something to consider when you’re traveling a lot.
I have the LUMIX DMC-LX5 which has a 4X zoom Leica lens and functions more or less like a tiny DSLR (for instance exposure control, exposure compensation, manual focus available, exposure modes just like DSLR, RAW format available, goes to f/2.0, etc.). I have had no issues with sensor debris. I love this camera. But it fails your zoom range criterion.
The LUMIX entrant with the big zoom range Leica is the ZS8, the same one you’ve used. (16X zoom). For the price, this seems hard to beat for me. For your specs, this camera will be hard to beat. And at the price, you can buy several for less than $500.
We have also had great luck with the Canon SDXXXX series cameras (several different ones.) The latest ones with the big zom range is the SD4500 (10X zoom). Canon makes great lenses too. It took MANY years of rough treatment by my wife before her SD1100 began to show signs of dust on the sensor.
I have always stayed with lenses of 4X or less zoom range due to the IQ impact for most wider range lenses (and loss of large aperture). If this is no an issue for you, then go for the big zoom range.
The Mpixel count doesn’t matter much above 8MPx. I can print pin-sharp photos from my 6MPx Canon P&S. If your lens IQ fails, you will be limited by lens resolution, not pixel count.
You can very easily spot out dust with Photoshop Elements, Photoshop, or Lightroom, where it really matters. Most of the time, in most areas of most images, no one will notice …
You can limit dust ingress by using your camera cable rather than pulling the SD card for download (I prefer to pull the SD card for reasons of speed.)
The spots can’t simply be taken out by the iPhoto retouch function: they’re too large. In fact, they’re not spots but blotches! And I have used my cable: I never use the SD card.
cheers,
Jerry
Hi Dr. C.: I don’t use iphoto, so maybe that’s the difference. I can adjust the clone/heal tools in PS, PSE, and LR to fit almost any blotch situation.
You’ve had bad luck with dust! Serious bummer!
I’m surprised that the LUMIX ZS8 has such a dust issue; but my guess is that the bigger zooming mechanism (much greater len telescoping/protrusion) is what allows for more dust enrty. This may be inherent in the general type of design (large telescoping movement with many nested lens barrels.)
I looked around for Leica entrants in this design space and I found: Leica 18176 V-LUX 40. (I was thinking maybe they would have better sealing along with the red dot for all that extra $.)
The thing is, Leica and Panasonic have a partnership on these cameras (LUMIX and the LEICA). Panasonic builds the electronics and Leica builds the lenses and they each execute their own integrations. I would guess that the final designs are extremely similar but maybe Leica does something special with the case that Panasonic does not. I would recommend looking carefully at reviews before plunking down for the Leica. For my LUMIX, the LEICA version was more than 2X as expensive (extact same techincal specifications.)
In this case, it’s ~$700 for the Leica vs. approx. $220 for the Lumix ZS20 …
Panasonic also make the lenses, under license from Leica – the only real difference is some tweaking of the electronics and a copy of Lightroom in the box. Minolta (of blessed memory) used to build some of Leica’s lenses and a few were marketed under both names, Minolta of course being somewhat cheaper; the wonderful thing is I can still use my 70-210 f4 and 35-70 f4 (yes constant aperture zooms) with a Sony NEX C3 (and an adapter) for relative peanuts.
Actually I’d say, on the basis of experiments with varying the resolution, that with compact cameras the pixel count doesn’t matter much above even 3 Megapixels. The quality of the lens and size (in cm) of the sensor is much more important. Manufacturers have gone overboard with the pixels because (a) in the early days of digital photography the pixel count did matter and (b) it’s the only thing a lot of people understand.
I agree about the pixels ~ hyped
And they suck up more storage on your computer/server/drive!
This is absolutely the case.
There are damned few situations in which the number of megapickles a camera has makes any difference…and, frankly, in most of those cases a bigger number is a disadvantage.
The bigger the sensor, the better, period. First-generation full-frame DSLRs are still better than today’s top-of-the-line latest-and-greatest APS-C sensors, and the most lowly of 645 sensors is better than the best of the full-frame sensors.
Within a particular format, almost without fail, the newer the better. This year’s Canon sensors are better than last year’s Nikon sensors, and last year’s Nikon sensors were better than the Canon sensors of the year before. Who has the better sensors this year? Toss a coin.
With overwhelmingly rare exception, it would be a huge mistrake to purchase a camera solely on its sensor specifications. Unless you’re printing bigger than 8″ x 10″, any camera on the market has more than enough megapickles to make a great print — and far more than enough to post on a Web site.
The specs that matter are the traditional camera-related ones. How good is the lens? How good are the autofocus and autoexposure systems? How well does the camera fit in your hand / pocket / whatever? That sort of thing.
Cheers,
b&
Ben,
I agree that the bigger sensors will consistently out-perform the smaller (APS-C, etc.) sensors. (Caveat throughout: All things being equal.)
However …
The even larger sensors of, for instance, the PENTAX 645 digital system will outperform the 35mm-equivalent full-frame sensors.
From my knothole, the history of photography has been a consistent push for smaller and more versatile film/sensor/camera rigs that get smaller, cheaper, quicker, better.
As lenses get better (and they are so much better than the fine lenses designed in the 1970s) and sensor technology gets better, the needle has decidedly tipped (for me) to the APS-C sensor size. This is because it provides such a huge benefit in lens size and cost at the telephoto end of the range (and to a lesser extent, lens maximum aperture.) And I can buy lenses designed for full frame and use them on my APS-C (edges? we don’t have no steenking edges! vignetting? not so much …)
I am (truly) blown away by the IQ I can get with my wife’s little Canon SD1100: Printing at 13X19 looks magic. And from that tiny sensor. The only real drawbacks are the FL limitations of the lens, lack of RAW format, and limited exposure controls.
And my little LUMIX LX5 is even better, because it has a better sensor and lens and solves all the issues with the SD1100 except for the lens range: It’s better but I’d be happier if it went to 35mm equivalent of 105 instead of just 90, though 24-90 ain’t bad!
Anyhoo … for me, the slight IQ ding from APS-C vs. FF is well worth it for the additional lenses I can afford to buy and carry.
Didn’t I make the point that medium format is better than 135
But, yes — APS-C is amazing, and more than enough for most. And many of the compacts are also amazing and still more than enough for most.
I shoot full frame because my printer is an iPF8100…there’re times where I’ve wished I were shooting 645 rather than 135. However, 135 is the sweet spot right now in terms of overall performance. You don’t get the image quality of 645, but you get far superior autofocus, framerate, high ISO performance, and the selection of lenses can’t be beat. APS-C doesn’t have the lenses and the manufacturers are still positioning them as middle-of-the-line bodies and building them accordingly.
There’s no better action camera than the Canon 1Dx, and there’s no better all-purpose camera than the Canon 5DIII. With each, you can find another camera that’s better at one particular task, but only by compromising its suitability for some other task.
That even applies to those two cameras…the 1Dx is a 12 frames per second monster, but it’s big and noisy; a wedding photographer will prefer the 5DIII because it’s small, lightweight, and has a nearly inaudible shutter.
b&
All excellent points, as always.
I should ahve noted that my main body is the Pentax K-5 which is a mighty fine body. (When it came out, the sensor stacked up well; not so much now) And one of the things I appreciate about it, as you noted, is a quiet shutter and mirror mechanism.
I’m surprised how important that has become to me. And the HSM AF: So quick, so quiet. (Though Pentax has a ways to go with AF and projected indicators in the viewfinder for AF. I do have to be carefully to verify AF before shooting really importtant shots. 95+% of the time it’s spot on; but you don’t want that special shot to be in the 5%.) And most of the line is screw drive which is annoying, especially after your main lenses go to HSM.
The limitations of the Pentax offerings do rub sometimes.
A good friend just bartered for a 5D (earlier model I think) along with one L lens (I think it is the 70-200 f/4) and a 28-100 walkaround. Fine set of equipment. (He makes something valuable enough to barter for such things: Really good wine.) I used it and it’s great. The L really delivers on IQ. But my rig is much smaller and lighter.
Make that 28-105 …
Even though the original 5D is getting a bit long in the tooth, it’s still an excellent camera. Its successor, the 5DII, has just been replaced by the 5DIII. The 5DIII improves somewhat but not hugely on image quality, and so many are happy to stick with the 5DII. The 5DIII, however, has Canon’s best-ever autofocus system, has a frame rate at the slow end of adequate for sports photography (6 FPS), and adds a nearly-inaudible 3 FPS silent mode that really is amazing. It’s the perfect photojournalist / wedding / event camera.
The 70-200 f/4 non-IS is the least expensive L lens Canon makes, and another of those generally considered top bang for the buck. It’s a great lens for outdoor daytime sports.
I’ve never used the 28-105, but the 24-105 f/4 is a frighteningly good lens. One wishes it were a bit faster, but there’s clearly a reason it’s the kit lens with the 5DIII…there probably isn’t a better general walkabout lens. The 24-70 doesn’t have any better optics, but it’s a stop faster, but it’s lacking at the long end, and it’s not stabilized.
Granted, the 5DIII with grip and pretty much any lens is big and heavy…but, with something like a Black Rapid strap, it’s actually not at all cumbersome. It fits great in the hand and is well-balanced. But, again, not something you’d want with you unless the purpose in whatever you’re doing is photographic.
b&
How large are you printing Ben? OK, I just checked that printer: You are much more serious than I am! I have the Pro 9000 (13X19) and that’s about what I can afford and justify. And I love the results.
Where you are printing: Definitely need the FF sensor! You will surely see the limitations of APS-C (and lenses).
What paper are you using? I have tried a few things but always come back to the Canon glossy papers (plus II glossy).
If you don’t mind discussing them, please tell us where you find PS beats LR for processing? I’ve got both PS5 and LR3 and even after studying a bit in some books, I find I always go to LR …
I do not use layers (maybe I should). When I shot film, I was a simplist: All manual, capture with the camera and straight printing (mainly) and slides. Maybe this is why LR appeals to me more.
I would really appreciare your views on the advantages of PS.
Cheers,
I’ve printed everything from business cards to door-sized posters with the 8100. It’s not very good for lots of copies, and the margins on fed sheets are rather wide (but it’ll do borderless on roll fed stock), but those’re its only significant shortcomings. (Aside from the fact that it takes up one end of a 10′ x 20′ room, of course!)
No discussion of paper can be had without starting with color management and ICC profiles.
Unless you’ve got an ICC profile for that combination of printer and paper, it’s very likely that you’ll be dissatisfied with the results. That’s why my general recommendation is to stick with the manufacturer’s paper; if you specify the paper in the print dialog box, chances are good that everything will “just work.”
You can check the Web site for the paper manufacturer to see if they’ve got ICC profiles for your printer. The better ones do. I’m a big fan of Red River paper; they score very well on the price / quality ratio, and they make profiles for most popular printers for their papers.
However…I make all my own profiles using an i1 Pro spectrophotometer and Argyll CMS software. If you’re serious about printing at home, I’d recommend doing something similar. The i1 Color Munki is a superlative low-cost way to get started. Your other option is to work with a third-party profiling service…they send you a file to be printed, you print it and mail it to them, they send you the resulting ICC profile. I think it generally costs $50 / profile, so it only make sense if you know you’re not going to be wanting to print on many different papers.
My favorite photographic paper would be Hanehmüle’s Fine Art Baryta. Canon’s Fine Art Watercolor is a great matte paper, with Red River’s Aurora Natural being almost as good.
All those have no optical brighteners / fluorescent whitening agents. Papers with FWA have more “pop” when you first look at them, but they have a blue cast to them and they look quite different under different types of illumination. The whiteners also fade with time. If you like the FWA look and you’re not wanting something archival, Canon’s ultra-pro-whatever glossy is at least as good as anything else on the market, if not better.
And Photoshop v Lightroom? Camera Raw in Photoshop gives you all the exact same controls as you have in Lightroom, and I do indeed do a lot, often all, of my creative work in Camera Raw. However, Photoshop also has all the rest of Photoshop’s tools in addition to those, so you get the best of both worlds.
When I do HDR work, such as the Eclipse (which I still need to finish working on), rather than use one of the tonemapping gizmos (whose results I never care for — too saccharine), I’ll essentially create a virtual custom-shaped neutral density filter by using a broad brush to mask in and out the different exposures. You can do something similar with a single exposure and the adjustment brush in Lightroom, but you have a lot more latitude with multiple exposures and masks in Photoshop.
And then Photoshop has all the graphic arts functions, including paths and type and masking and filters out the wazoo and a Brazilian and one ways to sharpen and reduce noise and and and….
Lightroom is better for event shooters or other people who generate lots and lots and lots of pictures at an outing. Photoshop has no tools for managing a large collection like that and for culling good photos from bad. (Adobe Creative Suite includes Bridge, though, which does have good tools for that sort of thing.)
Cheers,
b&
Ben,
Thanks very much for your detailed answer — that is very helpful.
I did load the ICC profiles from Red River for the paper I got from them; but I still wasn’t as happy with the results as the Canon paper. Very nice; but just didn’t quite have the snap of the Canon/Canon/Canon combo (paper/ink/printer). Is wasn’t buyingthe high end paper, just the more basic glossy heavy paper, comparable in price to the Canon paper.
I will look into working more with PS5. The learnig curve on using the SW is kinda steep and LR is SO intuitive, I’m not sure when I’ll be able to put in the time with PS.
I SHOULD do all the calibration and profiling — and maybe I will some day. ;^)
Right now, I just want to get more shooting time!
And I’ll say it again: The eclipse photos you posted, esp. the composite, were really wonderful and thanks again for sharing them. More photo sharing, please, Ben!
Cheers!
I should have noted: “I can print pin-sharp 13-inch X 19-inch photos from my 6MPx Canon P&S.”
I’m a pro photographer using pro Nikon SLRs. But for a convenient camera just to carry around I like the Nikon P510. They’re about $350 in Canada right now and take really good shots. My daughter also bought one. It has a 43x zoom, which is overkill on the tele side, but also has good wide angle. It’s 16 megapixels, again which is overkill for most uses, but you can set it lower. Takes 1080p video.
The P510 fails his size criterion (I think).
Lens specs (from NIKON):
Lens 42x optical Zoom, NIKKOR glass lens
Lens Focal Length 4.3-180mm (angle of view equivalent to that of 24-1000 mm lens in 35mm [135] format)
Lens f/-number f/3.3-5.9
Lens Construction 14 elements in 10 groups Lens Zoom 42x
The optical compromises to achieve this zoom range have to be severe (at a $400 price point).
I’m not sure how they achieve f/3.3-5.9 over that zoom range.
f/3.3 at 4.3 mm is on the hairy edge of diffraction loss of resolution. Stop down at all and you are well into it.
I’m upgrading to the Sony Cybershot DSC-HX30V. Nice panorama mode, 18.1 megapixels, and a 20x optical zoom. Also shoots HD movies which can be formatted for the web easier.
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sony-cyber-shot-dsc/4505-6501_7-35153336.html
I love my Lumix. All my camera geek friends have one for a point-and-shoot. I don’t know how you’re getting dirt on the sensor – I’ve travelled with mine for 6 years and not seen that! Have you tried cleaning the lens?
“Have you tried cleaning the lens?”
Lens dirt will not show up as a distinct blob in the image unless it’s REALLY severe. I doubt that’s it.
This can’t be over-emphasized. I don’t have time to look them up right now, but there’re some wonderful…erm…blog posts out there that show the effects of increasing abuse done to a camera lens. Even after taking a hammer to the front element and making a nice crater with a star radiating outwards, a lens will only show a bit of haze in that spot that you won’t even notice on most shots.
There’re exceptions with certain close-focussing lenses, but that’s some really specialized equipment.
b&
I stand corrected! I was thinking about my DSLR – but there, of course, the dust problem is on the inside lens (and the sensor – but I still don’t know how you would do that to a point-and-shoot! Must be the cats).
Dust on the rear element of a DSLR lens can be a real problem, even when similar dust on the front element isn’t even theoretically visible. And, of course, dust on the sensor itself is the bane of all DSLR photographers….
b&
+1. Keep everything clean, including your bags, cases, caps, etc.
My wife, who has done a lot of research for her next camera purchase recommends the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX30V as a really good value for the features you want (the price has dropped since its introduction and you should pay less than $420): http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406285,00.asp
20x zoom, 18Mpixel, tiny, substantially under $500, etc? The reviewers’ only complaint is the price:
I have the HX20V rather than the 30V (I suspect there isn’t a huge difference, it’s also 20x optical zoom and 18mp).
Very happy with it myself, it takes good standard photos and I’m sure there are more options if only I could be bothered. But for a standard point and click, it’s doing a good job!
The Sony RX100 is the has far and away the best image quality of any compact, though it costs more than your target price. See David Pogue’s review: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/technology/personaltech/a-pocket-camera-even-pro-photographers-can-love-state-of-the-art.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sony is about to release The Alpha Nex 6 which is shown fitting comfortably in the palm of a hand. It does allow didn’t lenses but comes with an 18-55 mm (I think). But is is selling for $998 at Amazon.com and is to be available sometime next month.
I would just like to say that you DO deserve a better camera, Jerry. Been watching your eye develop over the years and have wanted to recommend that you upgrade. 🙂
You are now sharing shots with us which have artistic content beyond the documentary significance ( I was struck by a recent photo of the brick and fire escape of an eatery which had very nice geometric and light quality content). There is an artist inside you which wants to emerge, I think.
To that end, if I may be so bold, I would say rather than eschew post processing, you might want to embrace it. Truly, it is where your artistic expression will be most fully realized. And, it is a hell of a lot of fun.
And, as an educator, you can purchase Photoshop at an enormous discount.
I agree with what you say about JAC’s artistic progress & that fire escape pic [& similar recent productions], but…
Don’t you think Photoshop is complex & requires many hours of study to understand before it’s a tool one can even begin to deploy effectively? [I’m wanting your professional opinion rather than making a criticism ~ I use Paint.net because it’s free & although it’s wonderful it requires a lot of digging & experiment to get into it]
I teach photography and Photoshop. Which means I don’t think I can give you an unbiased reply!
Yes, PhotoShop takes a few hours to learn the basics, and the learning never really stops.
But the those few hours go by in a flash – post processing is *fun*, and IMO, represents the lion’s share of the artistic process of photography. Especially nowadays, with the digital darkroom and the really great sensor technology available on the better cameras, one need only capture what is ‘good enough’ in camera to produce a stunning final product.
I do photography to express myself in a creative way. Post processing is an indispensable part of that, and is not something to be afraid of, or to be avoided, but, IMO, should be welcomed and embraced.
With a proper introduction to the program, if you like photography with a camera, you are going to *love* photography with a camera and Photoshop.
Just two or three hours with a tutor – or a good tutorial from the net, and a person can be well on their way to getting some pretty nifty results with Photoshop or Lightroom.
Photoshop Elements (version 11 is just out)is much cheaper and really has everything a non-pro photographer needs, plus there is a choice of interface so you can build up skills without getting overwhelmed by choices.
I have been using a Lumix LX1 for 6 years, and have had no problems with dust on the sensor, as someone above suggests, it may well be a cost of those high zoom lenses.
Agreed on PS Elements and the general user. But for just a bit more, you can get LR3 … which, IMO, is much better.
I would strongly recommend Lightroom 3 in lieue of PS. I have both plus several versions of PS Elements. And LR3 costs much less as well.
LR image controls are much more user-friendly (IMO) and easier with which to acheive the desired effect. Unless you need layers for heavy image manipulation (inserting other images, color layers, etc.) I think LR is much better for most people. I also think the clone/heal tool is better in LR.
Especially if you are coming to photo SW from a film background: LR is the only way to go. I was VERY resistent to post-processing. I went from there to never-wanting-to-be-without LR3 in about a week.
Get the Kelby book on LR3, read through it in few days and you are off and running.
All the Adobe photo SW is available to educators for crazy discounts, as you noted.
Lightroom is the one to use IMO. And Lightroom 4 is a big improvement over 3. It still takes quite an investment in time to get the best out of it though. It’s essential of you’re a photo-hobbyist, but I don’t get the sense that Jerry is interested in processing RAW files in PS or LR. Neither are most people, to be honest.
Or you can use GIMP, which is free. It may not have all the bells and whistles of Photoshop, but it’s way better than Photoshop Elements which is so cut-down as to be missing important bits – and still too expensive for what it is. IMO…
Roger, you are right: Jerry deserves a better camera.
So what say you: we all join in a Kickstarter-like project, contribute, say, $50 towards a new camera, and present Jerry with the new Sony RX1 when it becomes available?
For those who don’t know it:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1
No zoom, but a humongous full-frame senor in a tiny body, a gorgeous Zeiss lens, and the potential to crop to kingdom come.
In the meantime, my firm recommendation goes to the Sony RX100. I’d rather crop than put up with a crappy sensor and a shaky zoom.
Vibration reduction has advanced considerably, so long zooms are no longer necessarily shaky. The quality of the vibration reduction is an important consideration in compact cameras, and one that hasn’t been mentioned yet. DPReviews often tests this, so look there for data on prospective purchases.
Photoshop is the tool of choice for graphic arts professionals (and dedicated amateurs) for good reason, but I’d only ever recommend it to somebody if they started complaining about the limitations of more user-friendly software.
Basically, unless you already know that you need it, Photoshop isn’t for you. But, if you know that you need it, nothing else will do.
b&
I am a photographer and former student (college class) of yours. We’ve been in contact before when you were trying to change a feature on your current compact. I field this question constantly to my family as I’m the guy with the cameras (I have an enormous Nikon D800, which I would not recommend to you) and I run a photoblog (http://thegoldensieve.com).
For those looking for a total and compact solution, I recommend to my family the Sony RX100. It’s pricey (~$650) but it has an enormous sensor (correlated with image quality) and a very high quality lens. Sony sensors are unparalleled—more than half of the top 10 sensors on DxO Mark are made by Sony. You mentioned zoom being an important feature of the lens, but so is aperture (the amount of light the lens is capable of transmitting) and this camera is best in class. The flash is good as well, and the whole thing fits in a pocket. It takes full HD 1080/60p movies and has a great battery.
Finally, on cleaning: any dust on the sensor with any camera can be a problem. Traditionally a compact (non interchangeable lens camera) will be well sealed and avoid this problem—this camera in particular has great build quality—but you can’t take it apart to clean the sensor. In contrast, the larger cameras will allow you to remove lenses to clean the sensor, but will (by virtue of having removable lenses) expose you to more dust. Should you want to go the interchangeable lens route (approaching size of DSLRs), I’m happy to make a further recommendation, but I would go with the RX100 and not look back.
That’s generally good advice, but I’d just point out that DxO has little, if any, grounding in reality. They’ve rated APS-C cameras as having better image quality than full-frame, claimed that a camera with a 14-bit ADC has a 15-stop dynamic range, rated mediocre consumer zooms as being sharper than flagship supertelephotos, that sort of thing.
b&
Ben, I agree that it would be a mistake to equate IQ and a higher DxO mark. IQ is 99.9% photographer-driven. I do think, however, that DxO’s ratings give an indication of the level of performance one can expect from a sensor across a number of dimensions and it’s clear that Sony’s engineering of late has given them a clear lead in signal/noise at high ISO and DR. Now, is a D800E comparable to an IQ180 back in resolution? No, clearly not. Does it have an advantage at ISO >800 though? Yes, clearly.
The real question is, what camera is the least limiting and most capable for Jerry when it’s time to take a photograph and I think the RX100 checks a lot of those boxes.
Except that its lens is too short.
It’s not a 12-15X, but it’s a better lens in other ways than any 12-15X available. Again, it’s my recommendation, take or leave it.
They certainly claim as much, and one would like to believe them…but their scores are so far out of touch with reality that they’re really not useful for much of anything other than fueling Internet flame wars.
Sony’s making some great sensors, yes, but the Canon 5DIII is significantly better than the Nikon D800 (which has a sensor made by Sony, for those who’re wondering why I’m mentioning Nikon) at high ISOs while the D800 holds a similar edge at base ISO.
The 5DIII also cleans the D800’s clock on everything not related to the sensor, especially frame rate and autofocus performance. Plus, Except for the 12-24, Canon’s lenses are significantly superior to Nikon’s, including a lot of lenses that Nikon just doesn’t make.
That writ, 99 44/100% of the people buying a Canon would be just as happy with a Nikon and vice-versa. Both companies make fantastic gear that only a very few of their users can make full advantage of.
Cheers,
b&
Okay Ben—I’m off to take images instead of spend more time writing comments on the internet. Best.
Ben,
I am a looooonnnnggg time Pentax user. I fell into it by accident in the 70s (well, probably the low cost of the K-1000 did it.)
I found their lenses in those days very comparable to Nikon, Canon, Minolta, OLYMPUS (I’ve also used Schneider, Zeiss, and Leica lenses.)
I had a hugue array of Pentax lenses from the 70s, 80, and 90s. I sold them in the late 1990s with the intent to buy 2 F3 bodies and a smaller array of Nikon lenses. Somehow, that never happened and I went along with a couple of K-1000 bodies for a long time.
I was a very late adopter of digital and DSLR (very Luddite photog — nothing but KR64 and Tri-X, mostly did not use light meters (though I still have a Pentax TTL 1-degree spot meter), all manual, all the time) When I did jump to DSLR, I had another chance to go Nikon or Canon and I should have. However, I thought I would continue to use my old Pentax lenses.
Turns out, the new lenses blow the doors off the old lenses and I ended up selling those lenses (my main core, the ones I swore I’d never sell: 20mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/2.0, 200mm f/4.0).
Now I’m so deep into Pentax Digital, I’m pretty stuck again now. I like the gear just fine and the lenses are great (and I have many of the Limited series lenses which are really nice and tiny).
My biggest beef with Pentax is the very limited lens lineup at the extreme ends of the range that Pentax offers. The longest is 300mm (and f/4). Yikes. That said, Tamron and Sigma have some really great lenses that have filled the gaps (Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is amazing, I’d put it up against any lens in the range, the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and 150-500 f/5-6.3 are also both very very good. The IS in the long Sigma is like magic.) I do like the emphasis at Pentax on small and light.
OK, enough now, blah, blah, blah
Tamron and Sigma do have some very noteworthy lenses (in addition to the cheap crap that probably sells the best). In particular, Tamron’s got a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 that’s got image quality second only to Canon’s just-out flagship lens…and Canon’s lens isn’t stabilized. Oh — and Sigma has a 200-500 f/2.8 rocket launcher that’s absolutely insane.
Many of their other lenses are 80% of the quality of the brand-name lenses at 50% of the price — an excellent bargain.
There’ve been some build quality concerns, and they have to reverse engineer the electronics and there’ve been some problems with that, but both Sigma and Tamron generally have warranties of several years compared to the 1-2 year warranties for the major brands. All in all, they’re well worth considering, and worthy additions to a lens collection should their strengths and weaknesses line up with your needs better than the strengths and weaknesses of the brand names.
b&
I’ve had a Canon Powershot S3 for about six years and am very happy with it. It can’t compete on picture quality with my Nikon SLR, especially in low light, but given the price and weight it is very good.
I don’t have a camera recommendation. However, I have also taken photos of people using a flash and found the illumination too harsh. So I tried putting a single ply of tissue over the flash and found that I got a much better result.
All you’re doing with that trick is reducing the output from the flash. Most (but not all) cameras have a way that you can do that by dialing down the flash power, and that’ll probably give you better results.
But you’re never ever going to get good light from direct on-camera flash. Period, full-stop, end of story. No matter what sorts of fancy modifiers you attach. (There are exceptions for ringflashes and certain macro rigs, but just the flash units cost way more than Jerry’s budget.)
If your flash head swivels (as is the case with hotshoe flashes from the mid-level on up), you can “bounce” the flash against a ceiling or wall and get very good results.
Otherwise, getting good results with flash requires expensive and bulky equipment.
Built-in flash is only useful if it’s better to get a shot with ugly light than to not get the shot at all — and that’s very often the case, especially at parties and the like. But it’s purely a utilitarian feature, not an artistic one.
Cheers,
b&
Really well said Ben.
I don’t completely agree. While the tissue certainly will reduce the output, it will also act as a diffuser. Dialing down the power of the flash will not do this. The diffuser should soften the sharp shadows cast by a naked flash unit to some degree.
It’s a question of geometry.
A bare flash is a light source of roughly a square inch just barely off the lens axis.
The tissue might realistically make that a few square inches, but it’s still going to mostly be concentrated in a small spot right in front of the bulb, and it’s in exactly the same spot as before.
The ideal single-light source would be something like this:
http://www.paulcbuff.com/plm-softsilver.php
placed at about a 45° angle above and to the side, and as close as you can get it without it being visible in the shot — literally, right on top of the subject. Oh — and that’s over 20 square feet of area of illumination, as opposed to the few square inches of the tissue.
So, while there might be some measurable difference with the tissue, it’s like switching between “stream” and “spray” on your squirt bottle to put out a fire where what you really want is the full pressure of a hydrant.
Cheers,
b&
I have a Panasonic TZ20 compact. I’m very pleased with it and I think it ticks all the boxes: Small (fits in a belt pouch easily), 16x zoom (non interchangable). Huge amount of scene modes but I keep it in Intelligent Auto 95% of the time. Also does HD video. Has a GPS if that’s your thing but I prefer to save battery so switch it off. I have a Nikon DSLR but use the Panasonic much more often. Here’s a review with sample images:
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/compact-cameras/panasonic-tz20-939809/review
We have a Panasonic Lumix LX5. It takes surprisingly good movies, decent macros, and beautiful wide-angle landscapes. My husband uses his 1980s Vivitar flash with it (on a cable, with a piece of index card stuck on top as a reflector) with excellent results. It’s the best compact successor that I’ve seen to the Nikon Coolpix 990.
At work, my husband just got a new Sony (larger sensor, less macro ability than the Panasonic, and the camera itself is slightly smaller). It will replace his worn-out Canon G9 (we didn’t like the later G-series). We’ve tried the Sony a bit – its movie function is far inferior to the LX5. I am unimpressed with the photos, despite the larger sensor size, and find it difficult to use.
I don’t use the compacts much. I take a lot of macro photos and prefer my clunky Nikon D90 DSLR.
Try before you buy, if possible.
Two thumbs up for the LX5. Lovely little camera and very versatile. Great control over almost everything.
Just like a tiny DSLR except: No TTL view and no lens changes.
I am not a professional photographer, but I recommend Sony Cybershots. When excavating (I’m an archaeologist) I use a variety of cameras, mostly DSLRs nows (slides and B&W back in the days) with 3-4 different lenses. But the pictures I end up using all the time are often the ones I took with my Sony cybershots. I have owned several, am upgrading every few years, and I love their Zeiss lenses. It’s the one camera I usually carry when visiting cities and don’t feel like dragging my camera backpack around.
Sorry, Jerry, can’t help you much. However, go to Digital Photography Review for the best and most consistent reviews.
High quality and small are incompatible. OK and small is more what you’ll find.
I used a Sony P40 for years because it used AA batteries (easy to find, especially on hiking trips – easy to carry) but the picture quality was limited.
I now carry a Nikon D3100 and I’m not all that careful with it as I was back in the day with my Nikon F3.
The glass makes all the difference and Kink and I are Nikon guys; you can’t beat the quality of Nikon glass.
In a parallel universe I’m probably a Canon guy with the same argument, only Kink is a girl.
Nikon makes excellent stuff, to be sure, but they’ve basically only got one lens that gives them bragging rights over Canon: the 12-24 f/2.8.
Canon, on the other hand, has the TS-E 24, the TS-E 17, the MP-E 65, all the Canon supertelphotos weigh a third less than the Nikon counterparts, and a lot more….
b&
And the Canon 85mm f/1.8 costs less than my Pentax 70mm f/2.4 Limited. Sheesh! That 70 is the sharpest lens I’ve ever used, but still …
The Canon 85 f/1.8 is one of the best price:performance deals in Canon’s lineup. It’s a lot cheaper than their f/1.2, and the f/1.8 has a better autofocus motor. The f/1.8 is a favorite lens for indoor sports photographers, especially gymnastics and basketball. The f/1.2 is a legendary portrait lens, but it’s one of those where the iris can be in focus and the tips of the eyelashes can be soft.
But you know what works great for studio portrait photography, especially where you’re stopping down to f/8 or f/11 for depth of field? Macro lenses, like Canon’s 180mm f/3.5. Wicked sharp!
b&
Indeed, my 100mm f/2.8 macro is great for portraits! (+1.5 crop factor on my bodies)
Please save yourself and don’t get too into this, as other have. Really, nearly all cameras today are of a very high standard. It is hard to make a wrong choice. Some people care immenely about the tiniest of details, but really this just takes time away from, and adds worry to, shooting.
That said, the RX100 is a fine choice, or maybe check out whatever new Lumix there might be, to see if your issues have cleared up in revision. The Pentax Q is another option, it is an interchangeable lens camera, but you cna always keep only one on. And it is very small.
Bear in mind, as sensors get larger and image quality goes up, massive zoom ranges become more unattainable.
Oh my god that is so full of typos. I really need to proof-read.
“It is hard to make a wrong choice.” I wish you were right. A kind and well-meaning person just donated an Olympus Tough compact camera to our forest guards. The person was probably drawn to it because it is waterproof, a definite plus for us. But it is useless and the guards have stopped carrying it, because its lens is too short. It hurts to see the pictures they brought back with it—lovely Black-billed Mountain Toucans with blue bellies in beautiful light (the guard was up in a tree platform he had made, and the bird was below him in the tree), but so small and grainy it will never be shown to anyone. If he had brought his Lumix instead, that photo would have been one of our most striking images.
You might be more successful in combating dust if you store your camera in a small clean airtight pelican case whenever it is not in your pocket.
Panasonic FZ200. That is all.
Hi, as a long serving professional ducumentary photographer I can reccommend, with total confidence, the Panasonic LX’s – the latest is the LX7. If you take a look at the ‘SKIN’ series on my website under ‘NEW’ you’ll see what I mean. And they’re all jpegs.
In the end it’s not the beautiful Leica lens or wonderful design – it’s just really, really nice to use.
Thanks for your site. I love it. Alex (London)
I don’t only shoot ‘ducs’, I also shoot ‘docs’…
Yes: Love my little LUMIX when I’m not toing my DLSRs and gear.
Have been using a Panasonic Lumix Dmc-FZ20 (about $500) since 2005 and still love it. The lens runs a 35mm equivalent of 36mm to 432mm.
I picked up a Lumix sz2 at Wal Mart a month ago for about $150 (with the intelligent auto)to use as a quick and easy camera for the kitteh pictures and general family use. Pictures , except in low light, are great and I am pleased. At this price, it would not be a great disaster if it was broken. Would recommend an extra battery and external charger for travelling. Also get the biggest SD card you can for video use. (available at Amazon). Note: SZ2 is the retail version and SZ1 is the online version. Same camera, but the SZ1 has a video playback cable to hook to the TV.
Best feature of the Lumix line: The LEICA lenses!!!!
This is a “religious war” that I don’t want to get into.
We (well, “I”) decided several years ago to distinguish between “pocket point’n’shoot” and “try to do something unusual” cameras. The wife (not a photography buff) wanted the point’n’shoot, I wanted more control. Horses for courses. Now, the wife asks me to try to get a shot that shows the light ‘streaming’ effect through the stained glass window .. but I borrow “her” camera (with it’s 40m-rated housing) to go diving with.
Horses, courses.
Better sensors have, for several years, caught up with better glass “out the front”, but the glass out the front is taking effect again. I don’t see this being as rapidly-changing as “my computer is faster than yours”, but it is ultimately as futile. Invest time in really understanding the camera you have, and expect to take 5 years to do that. The camera shops will hate you (“filthy non-capitalist”), but you’ll get better photos.
For the record … Fuji something-XR in a 40m housing for diddy-camera and a Nikon DX-30 with 18-50, 50-200 and 500 lenses. I anticipate getting further lenses in future ; and a different body (with higher resolution and GPS functionality ; one day I’ll write a geology text book and retire on the proceeds).
Rather interesting because I spent a few minutes last week looking for a new camera for you (I was fantasizing that I had money to buy you one). I ended up figuring that you would want a compact but I don’t have experience with them so I gave up after not finding anything that looked fantastic.
You want the compact size so this won’t likely interest you but the super zooms are handy, I don’t need to carry binoculars anymore, with a 26x camera.
I’m currently using a Pentax X90. I’ve found a small case for it that has a belt loop, it works, but the size is slightly bigger than a comfortable belt carry. A tight fitting minimum padding or no padding case could actually allow the camera to be comfortably carried if you weren’t going to be in rough terrain. The picture quality can be surprisingly good but with my limited abilities I’m able to produce some poor pictures as well.
This class of camera is about:
Dimensions (W x H x D) (Canon sx40)
4.84 x 3.64 x 4.24 in.
The Canon sx40 (what I’m hoping to buy) has a 36x zoom $316 (discounted due to sx50 release) and the just released sx50 has a 50x zoom $465. You can find a program called CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit, free and appears to be provided by a legit hacker) that extends the capabilities to include much of what is available to the lower end DSLRs, including RAW, possibly limited remote capability and much more. This class of camera has good macro ability as well.
To me what is also important is batteries – recharge or ordinary. This will depend where you are in the world – but some cameras eat battery life. I got a bridge camera – too big for you – with a rechargeable battery you take out & plug in. Not everywhere you are will that be possible.
Yes. My primary DLSR used a shaped recharge battery. My backup uses AAs (and takes about a year of heavy use to exahust them if they are good Li batts.)
If you don’t want a digital SLR, stick with a high end Nikon (Coolpix) or Canon (PowerShot) point and shoot. You can get the best point and shoots for around $500. And, get two so you’ll always have one, no matter what. The newer Canon G1X is a monster for about $800. I was always a Nikon guy, but had to buy a Canon once and I love it because I can see the LCD in direct sunlight. You can also get good support and repair on Nikons and Canons.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Compact-Digital-Cameras/index.page
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras
Although I have no hands-on experience all my friends who have used the Panasonic long-range series of ‘travel compacts’ have a) been really happy with the cameras and b) been producing very good photos.
So if you already own a Panasonic, you will be familiar with the ‘philosophy’ and you will find it easier to pick one up and just use it. They are, from reviews and what I have seen, the best combination of price, quality, usability, and zoom range. Most other cameras mentioned here have some trade-off, and I don’t seen why you should trade off anything if a Panny can give you everything that you want.
I’m just not sure about the species number, thye might even be different in Europe than in the States, but I’m sure you can find some.
Let me add that the newest generation of these cameras should well be able to take photos in low light without flash (see the comment above about using on-samera flash, very true), as my friends’ cameras already could do this (ISO 1600 pretty decent) and these are a generation or 2-3 older.
I had similar requirements for a camera and ended up getting the Sony rx100. I wanted something specifically for a trip to India, which I’m on now. It’s the best compact on the market and it’s working out great so far.
You’ve been getting a lot of good high end advise on this issue. May I point out a couple of different directions.
The suggestion to use a quality cell-phone as a travel camera is a good one. They are small, easy to upload and generally, always in your pocket.
My “tag-along” camera is an Olympus Stylus Tough. I take it on the boat, out swimming, skiing, hiking etc.. These rugged point and shoot cameras are easy to care for, grease your rubbers every once in awhile. Crap on the lens or playing in a dusty environment? Rinse in clean water. Drop it? No worries they take it. Cold temperatures? Most are freeze-proof.
This is an article that compares some others, http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/05/round-best-rugged-waterproof-compact-cameras
While the zoom numbers seem low, this is for optical zoom only, there is a digital zoom component as well.
I would also like to repeat advise previously given; Go to the store and try them. My Olympus is far from too big and heavy to put in my pockets, except when the flotation strap is attached.
Good Luck.