Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Point and Shoot camera thoughts?

Paul Lee

Paul Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Getting ready to travel and wanted opinions on good point and shoots. Something good for travel, location scouts, continuity, etc.

What I'd like- compact-ish, good battery life, manual controls, good image quality (possibly RAW), low light performance and low latency- I want to snap!

What I don't care about- HD video stuff, 3D, zoom (optical or digital), rapid fire/continuous shooting, face recognition or any of that other junk.

I like the looks of the Leica D-Lux and V-Lux, The Sigma DP's, and the Canon G12. That's the tippy-top of my budget. Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • Voightlander R3a.jpg
    Voightlander R3a.jpg
    67.5 KB · Views: 0
Peter, that new camera looks AWESOME, but not shipping soon enough :-(

But, what the heck is that Voigtlander? Yikes! I could take film shots, what a novel idea!

PS- got a nice Ziess Icon sitting here... maybe some Ilford is in order...
 
Pietro- how is the lag on the shutter? How about low light? Thanks a bunch.
 
LX5 is decent, it's one of the better choices out there. The Samsung TL500 is pretty darn good too. Olympus has an XZ-1 coming up soon, like in just a couple weeks. And it looks decent - really comparable to the TL500, but looks like it might have a little better IQ.

One thing you have to accept with point and shoot cameras though. None of them are fast. The shutter lag is terrible and the best you're going to do is a 1 to 3 fps if you're trying to shoot any sort of action.

The Fuji X100 is a nice take on a rangefinder camera. But at $1K and a fixed lens 35mm on an APS-C sensor, there's no way I would ever buy it. It would be an awesome first camera or something to tinker with if they made it $350.

Another possibility is the new compact mirrorless SLR types like the Sony NEX-5. I have one of those. Overall it handles quite well once you get used to the button funkyness of the design. My biggest gripe is the kit lenses are garbage and, meaning that I have to go all manual with Nikon or Canon glass on it or if I want electronic lens functionality, I would have to buy Sony Alpha lenses and use their adapter. Nikon has a similar camera coming soon, but no solid details yet.

I have not personally looked at the Canon G12 yet, but have been meaning to do so. I own a G9 and it's just OK, it was actually a step BACKWARD from several previous generations of the Powershot G series. My first one was the PowerShot G2 and it owns. It's a bit bulky, but so were all decent digitals back in the day. It has a lens and overall optical path that is far superior to anything that has come since they changed it with the release of the G4. To be fair, if it didn't have a shitty 6 stops of DR and a 4MP resolution, it would still be my point and shoot digital of choice. That and mine has several dead pixels now.

My biggest complaints with point and shoot cameras is the lack of speed speed (shots per second) and lack of decent image quality at ISO 800 and up.

I've tried the micro 4/3 route and couldn't do it. Most of the lenses on the market have plastic mount flanges (yes, cheap plastic) and while the cameras are mostly like rangefinders or full SLR type cameras, they frame size is odd and I don't like the look and feel to their images. They mostly have the image quality of the better point and shoot cameras in a package that's only 10% smaller than a T2i. Where m4/3 really saves on the size is with the smaller lenses. But other than one or two jewels on the market, most of the m4/3 lenses out there are shit. Sorry if I offend anyone with all this, that's just my take on it. And yes, I've bought and tested several m4/3 cameras. I'm a masochist it seems though because I'm planning to pick up a GH2 and give the format another whirl...

Anyway, my suggestions are at the top of this post. Forget the Leica cameras unless you can justify an X1. ...Or an M9 if you're feeling really spendy. The D-Lux and V-Lux series are nothing more than re-branded Panasonics. Or maybe the top Panasonics are re-branded Leicas with a more mass-market price tag (30% cheaper).

You're in Boulder, stop by Mike's Camera and check out the Panny LX5 and the Samsung TL500. Maybe the G12, but it looks to me just like a slightly upgraded G11, which was really just a re-labeled G10, which was just G9 with new menus. I have a G9 and I hate it. I'll sell it to you cheap.
 
Hi Jeff!
The G12 actually had a really nice feel to it- kind of like a JR SLR or something. Didn't take any pics with me but I like it, although the guys at Mike's were leaning towards the LX5. It is pretty cool, and the lag was very short. Nice and compact with a crazy lens cap petal system that was kinda geeky cool. They poo-pooded the Nikon D-whatever.

Hadn't looked at the Samsung so thank you for that suggestion. $350 at B&H right now.

You ever play with Sigma DP cameras?
 
I have the Leica D-Lux 5 and love it, the same as the LX5 just a little better looking and comes with a full version of Lightroom. Having the 24mm lens makes a big difference.
 
I've only tested in store, but the Canon G12 is my top choice for pocket stills until the new cams come out. I currently use a Sony TX7 and I'm very excited about the new TX100V but I'm a bit biased as I do value HD video in a compact. If you want to step up beyond pocket cams, then my choice would be either a Panasonic GH2 or a Sony NEX camera, beyond that is full on DSLR territory and that's a whole different ballgame. I will say that I'd love to get a TX9 right now just for the few extra megapixels over my TX7 as the TX cams are just so fun to shoot with, but I've just gotta wait for the TX100V just for the 60p HD video alone.
 
The difference between 28mm and 24mm is significant for a travel camera. You wouldnt think those 4mm would matter, but they really do.

I had the Canon G9 and G10, the G12 just didnt do it for me...The D-Lux 5 actually fits in your pocket too.

The LX5 and D-Lux 5 beat the G12 hands down, larger sensor, wider and faster lens (2.0 vs 2.8), its smaller, shoots faster, and weighs less. For a P&S, it doesnt get any better.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
LX5 is decent, it's one of the better choices out there. The Samsung TL500 is pretty darn good too. Olympus has an XZ-1 coming up soon, like in just a couple weeks. And it looks decent - really comparable to the TL500, but looks like it might have a little better IQ.

One thing you have to accept with point and shoot cameras though. None of them are fast. The shutter lag is terrible and the best you're going to do is a 1 to 3 fps if you're trying to shoot any sort of action.

The Fuji X100 is a nice take on a rangefinder camera. But at $1K and a fixed lens 35mm on an APS-C sensor, there's no way I would ever buy it. It would be an awesome first camera or something to tinker with if they made it $350.

Another possibility is the new compact mirrorless SLR types like the Sony NEX-5. I have one of those. Overall it handles quite well once you get used to the button funkyness of the design. My biggest gripe is the kit lenses are garbage and, meaning that I have to go all manual with Nikon or Canon glass on it or if I want electronic lens functionality, I would have to buy Sony Alpha lenses and use their adapter. Nikon has a similar camera coming soon, but no solid details yet.

I have not personally looked at the Canon G12 yet, but have been meaning to do so. I own a G9 and it's just OK, it was actually a step BACKWARD from several previous generations of the Powershot G series. My first one was the PowerShot G2 and it owns. It's a bit bulky, but so were all decent digitals back in the day. It has a lens and overall optical path that is far superior to anything that has come since they changed it with the release of the G4. To be fair, if it didn't have a shitty 6 stops of DR and a 4MP resolution, it would still be my point and shoot digital of choice. That and mine has several dead pixels now.

My biggest complaints with point and shoot cameras is the lack of speed speed (shots per second) and lack of decent image quality at ISO 800 and up.

I've tried the micro 4/3 route and couldn't do it. Most of the lenses on the market have plastic mount flanges (yes, cheap plastic) and while the cameras are mostly like rangefinders or full SLR type cameras, they frame size is odd and I don't like the look and feel to their images. They mostly have the image quality of the better point and shoot cameras in a package that's only 10% smaller than a T2i. Where m4/3 really saves on the size is with the smaller lenses. But other than one or two jewels on the market, most of the m4/3 lenses out there are shit. Sorry if I offend anyone with all this, that's just my take on it. And yes, I've bought and tested several m4/3 cameras. I'm a masochist it seems though because I'm planning to pick up a GH2 and give the format another whirl...

Anyway, my suggestions are at the top of this post. Forget the Leica cameras unless you can justify an X1. ...Or an M9 if you're feeling really spendy. The D-Lux and V-Lux series are nothing more than re-branded Panasonics. Or maybe the top Panasonics are re-branded Leicas with a more mass-market price tag (30% cheaper).

You're in Boulder, stop by Mike's Camera and check out the Panny LX5 and the Samsung TL500. Maybe the G12, but it looks to me just like a slightly upgraded G11, which was really just a re-labeled G10, which was just G9 with new menus. I have a G9 and I hate it. I'll sell it to you cheap.
Click to expand...

I'm really loving my GH1 and it's incredible how I don't feel limited even with a slow-ish lens like the 14-140. The GH2 paired with a 14-140 should be awesome considering its improved quality in high ISOs, not to mention more resolution or handy features like touch-screen to quickly select AF area.

It's just such a lovely camera. Small, packed with professional features, makes great images and great video. Practical and effective, the way I appreciate. So definitely give another try.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
I'm really loving my GH1 and it's incredible how I don't feel limited even with a slow-ish lens like the 14-140. ...

... So definitely give another try.
Click to expand...

I plan to pick up a GH2 once they're more readily available. I suppose once Amazon or some place like that has them in stock I'll order. Then I won't be stuck with a re-stock fee if don't like it. I used a GH1 and it wasn't bad. Ended up buying the DMC-G2, big mistake. Even though it was newer, it was a step down from the GH1. I also demoed an Olympus E-PL1. Overall, I just couldn't fall in love with the micro 4/3 format for some reason. I don't know why... Maybe I was just biased due to the plastic lens mounts and other such nonsense I was encountering for the first time. Didn't help when my 14-140 zoom I ordered also showed up defective -- wouldn't AF, it just made clicking sounds.

But what I have found with the NEX-5 and also in the brief time I owned or borrowed one of the m4/3 cameras, is that they're still not a replacement for a pocketable point and shoot camera.

Oh, how I would love for RED to come back to the table with that "professional pocket camera" that Scarlet was originally announced as. The NEX is close. If it had a 32mm f2.x pancake lens, that would be awesome. Oh well... Owned it for nearly 7 months now and have yet to see any new lens for it hit the market. ...Not good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top