# Thinking of getting a new compact camera...



## DM51 (Jun 17, 2011)

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? 

I've heard good reports about the Sony HX9V. Anyone know it?


----------



## tam17 (Jun 17, 2011)

I've read some reviews on HX9V, but megazooms aren't realy my thing. Besides, I prefer cameras made by traditional camera manufacturers.

I'm a happy owner of Nikon P300 - loads of manual controls and 1080p video, 320 Euros in my area. Still experimenting with it 

Cheers,

Tam


----------



## Zeruel (Jun 17, 2011)

First of all, please fill up the beginner's FAQ questions. What's your budget, are you using it for camping, what kind of cells are you using.... oops. 


I had the same dilemma last week and ended up getting Canon S95. Sony HX9V is very new and from the specs, it looks to be a powerful compact, but I picked S95 because it gives me more control via Manual, AP, Program etc, the features of a DSLR camera. Put these in a compact body and that decided for me.  Its macro isn't as great as the best ones, but it's all about good balance of everything, I guess.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jun 17, 2011)

I like to have a camera with me all the time and gave up my SLR years ago in exchange for wearing a pouch on my belt that assures I can always take a picture. One of the biggest problems with non-protruding lens super compacts like I carry though is the lack of glass, which makes them very weak in area of 'light collection' and none of the super compacts I've tried has been able to work well in the dark. 

Compacts using a lens that telescopes out of the camera body do much better in very low light situations though and going with some of the better compact cameras with more glass, I've seen some excellent results out of manufacturers like Ricoh and the Panasonic Lumix series, which will easily get you into a 10x optical zoom and the ability to shoot virtually in the dark.


----------



## mikra (Jun 17, 2011)

The most important difference between compacts and dslrs is the sensor size. A big sensor allows you to blur the backround of your photos (bokeh). If you want to use that effect, than you should consider the sensor size in your decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

You could also consider one of the new "EVIL" cameras, which are a mix betwen DSLR and compact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera


----------



## tam17 (Jun 17, 2011)

Sensor size makes a big difference. On P300, Nikon tried to solve the smaller sensor issue with backlighting, but results are not so spectacular IMO (or perhaps I shouldn't try compare performance of a compact with a DSLR).



kaichu dento said:


> I've seen some excellent results out of manufacturers like Ricoh and the Panasonic Lumix series, which will easily get you into a 10x optical zoom and the ability to shoot virtually in the dark.



Please correct me if I'm wrong, 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). Or not 

Cheers, 

Tam


----------



## EV_007 (Jun 17, 2011)

I find that I like having the Canon s95 on me since it is very compact and has manual controls and shoots in RAW.

I'd also consider the Panasonic LX5.

The micro four thirds are nice too, but approach the price of DSLR cameras. 

As I always say, the best camera is the one you have on you.


----------



## sprinkle (Jun 17, 2011)

For a compact camera I would look into the Canon S95 like others have suggested. Not only does it have RAW and manual controls, it also has a slightly larger sensor than the vast majority of compact cameras (1/1.7" vs 1/2.3" on most) and the quality is noticeably better because of this. That is one of the major reasons I chose it. It is nice to have such a small capable camera when I am not wanting to lug the big DSLR around.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jun 17, 2011)

tam17 said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong, 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).


Yes, long focal lengths are not good for low light photography in general, but having low light sensitivity coupled with a decent range of zooming capacity in the same camera widens it's range of usefulness, which was the point I was trying to make.


EV_007 said:


> As I always say, the best camera is the one you have on you.


+1 :thumbsup:


----------



## Bass (Jun 17, 2011)

The Sony HX9V looks to be a nice camera. Nice lens, great backlit Exmor R back lit sensor with nice image quality. Video functions are impressive, if that interests you. No RAW mode though.

As mentioned, the Canon S95, Canon G12 or Lumix LX5 are probably the photographers choice in compacts. All have RAW.

If sensor size (and image quality) are paramount, a Sony NEX 3/5 is a good option. These have APS-C size sensor. Not exactly compact (with a lens on) but smaller than equivalent quality DSLR set up.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 18, 2011)

Thanks very much to everyone for all the input. 

If the Sony doesn't have a manual setting option, that will rule it out for me. RAW is something I don't really know much about. I've seen RAW vs. JPG comparisons where the JPG version actually looks better. 

I'm going to need to do more research!


----------



## Tazzdad (Jun 18, 2011)

I'd like to second (or third) th suggestion that you take a look at the Micro 4/3rds cameras. Though I'm not a very "advanced" photographer, I think the larger sensor really does make a difference. 

The new Panasonic Gf3 is really small and if you can get by without a zoom lens it's a pretty small package with the pancake lens. The interchangeable lenses give you a "growth path" if you really get into photography. Looking at it that way, it isn't that much more expensive, especially compared to something like a canon G12.


----------



## Erich1B (Jun 19, 2011)

My $.02 - For a pocket camera I would suggest looking into the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LX5/LX5A.HTM

However, I would agree with Tazzdad about considering a 4/3rds format. I just purchased my father a Olympus E-620 with 40-150mm Zuiko lens for Father's Day. While it won't fit in your pocket, you'll get much better photos with a 4/3rds sensor than a point and shoot sized sensor.



Tazzdad said:


> I'd like to second (or third) th suggestion that you take a look at the Micro 4/3rds cameras. Though I'm not a very "advanced" photographer, I think the larger sensor really does make a difference.
> 
> The new Panasonic Gf3 is really small and if you can get by without a zoom lens it's a pretty small package with the pancake lens. The interchangeable lenses give you a "growth path" if you really get into photography. Looking at it that way, it isn't that much more expensive, especially compared to something like a canon G12.


----------



## Witnessonly (Jun 20, 2011)

+1 LX-5 My personal EDC-C


----------



## samm (Jun 20, 2011)

I have the S95 with the Richard Franic grip from Lensmate. http://www.lensmateonline.com/store/S95S90grip.php For me the $32.95 grip make a huge difference on the S95. And it fits 100% perfectly and is easy to put on and makes it so much easier to grip and manuever. There is none better, you'll be glad you got it. If you can go for a little bigger compact the Canon G series is imo the very best. I have the G10, but the most recent is the G12. Here is a useful link that compares the G11, G12 and S95 on one page. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG12/ I get great pictures from my G10, some comparable to an SLR imho. My G10 with free Picasa version 3.8 (editing, straightening, enhancing, redeye, and organizing, and super simple to use) and you would be set to go. http://picasa.google.com/#utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na-us-bk&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=picasa Good luck.


----------



## X Racer (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm a professional photographer and I would recommend the Canon S95 as well. The Canon G12 and the Nikon P7000 are also good choices. These are the only three compacts that I would consider, and I really love my S95...


----------



## Flying Turtle (Jun 20, 2011)

A few months ago I picked up a Samsung HZ30W superzoom (15X) and I'm very pleased. I think it had just been discontinued, so the $129 price from BJ's was too compelling. The pics are very well exposed on auto as is white balance. There are also full manual settings, including focus. I'd never had a camera with image stabilization before, and this really works well. It's no problem to get good shots handheld at full zoom, and even possible adding the digital (75X). And, unlike an old Sony V-1, the lithium-ion battery really has good life plus a spare was fairly cheap. I don't think it gives up much to the likes of Canon, Nikon, or Sony.

Geoff


----------



## blub (Sep 9, 2011)

Canon S95 here too.


----------



## lite brite (Oct 7, 2011)

Witnessonly said:


> +1 LX-5 My personal EDC-C



Awesome camera...


----------



## RBR (Oct 8, 2011)

.....


----------



## LEDninja (Oct 8, 2011)

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 (Nov 18, 2011)

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 (Nov 19, 2011)

NonSenCe said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2011)

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 (Nov 19, 2011)

rickypanecatyl said:


> 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 (Nov 20, 2011)

> 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 (Nov 20, 2011)

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 (Nov 20, 2011)

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 (Nov 20, 2011)

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 (Dec 20, 2011)

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

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


----------



## Erich1B (Dec 21, 2011)

DoctaDink said:


> 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 (Mar 28, 2012)

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 (Apr 11, 2012)

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


----------



## 0dBm (Apr 12, 2012)

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 (Apr 17, 2012)

DM51 said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2012)

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 (Jul 18, 2012)

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


----------



## Walterk (Jul 20, 2012)

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 (Jul 21, 2012)

.....


----------



## Alland44 (Jul 21, 2012)

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 !


----------



## groutboy_1 (Oct 12, 2012)

I like my Sony Wx-100 (very small-fits in a shirt pocket. 10x super zoom with +I auto modes, 3d stills/3d panorama/3d sweep in mpo file. Takes 1080i/60i avchd video, and is a great all in one media device.) Also, I have a Samsung stb w150, a Fuji fine pix real 3d- Digital autostereoscopic 10 megapixel camera- takes .mpo, and 3d AVI. And a Sony T99 cybershot digcam with 3inch touchscreen.


----------



## ibcj (Oct 27, 2012)

I have been through many cameras and formats (full frame, crop dslr sensors, micro four thirds and point and shoots), and recently picked up the Sony RX100. It is an incredibly small point and shoot sized camera with a larger sensor that any other point and shoot. It comes with a Zeiss (branded) lens that shoots at f/1.8. It is an amazing camera in such a small package. It is more expensive than your typically p&s, but to me at least, it is worth it.


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 27, 2012)

nystrpr said:


> I have been through many cameras and formats (full frame, crop dslr sensors, micro four thirds and point and shoots), and recently picked up the Sony RX100. It is an incredibly small point and shoot sized camera with a larger sensor that any other point and shoot. It comes with a Zeiss (branded) lens that shoots at f/1.8. It is an amazing camera in such a small package. It is more expensive than your typically p&s, but to me at least, it is worth it.


How is this camera for low light without flash? I've only found one brand so far that did well, even in light that I could hardly see in, yet was able to capture the image. Unfortunately it was one of the incredibly breakable Ricoh.


----------



## ibcj (Oct 27, 2012)

kaichu dento said:


> How is this camera for low light without flash? I've only found one brand so far that did well, even in light that I could hardly see in, yet was able to capture the image. Unfortunately it was one of the incredibly breakable Ricoh.



For a compact p&s, it is very good. It is still a p&s with a relatively small sensor compared to M43, dslr or dslr full frame.


----------



## samuraishot (Oct 27, 2012)

kaichu dento said:


> I like to have a camera with me all the time and gave up my SLR years ago in exchange for wearing a pouch on my belt that assures I can always take a picture. One of the biggest problems with non-protruding lens super compacts like I carry though is the lack of glass, which makes them very weak in area of 'light collection' and none of the super compacts I've tried has been able to work well in the dark.
> 
> Compacts using a lens that telescopes out of the camera body do much better in very low light situations though and going with some of the better compact cameras with more glass, I've seen some excellent results out of manufacturers like Ricoh and the Panasonic Lumix series, which will easily get you into a 10x optical zoom and the ability to shoot virtually in the dark.



I've got a Ricoh GRD IV and couldn't be happier  People are amazed when they look at the Ricoh files and find out it's from a P&S.


----------



## Overclocker (Oct 27, 2012)

get sony rx100 is price isn't an issue, else nikon p310 and you're not too demanding of the camera

move step up with nikon j1, still a bigger sensor than a point n shoot but still half the size of a micro-4/3 camera but you do get super fast AF, super fast burst, slow-motion video. but UI isn't suited for "serious" photography, and you won't get as much BOKEH

micro-4/3. pretty large sensor, just a bit smaller than aps-c. these are more suited for "serrious" photography. good lens selection.

sony NEX. these have aps-c sensors, larger than micro-4/3, this is a DSLR sized sensor


----------



## kennethsross (Dec 26, 2012)

+1 for the Sony RX100. As soon as I can find an excuse that I can give to our family CFO, I will be buying a Sony RX100. Until then, my S90 (predecessor to the S95 /S100 mentioned elsewhere in this thread) will be my constant companion. When I have the luxury of baggage, my EOS 7D + lenses comes along for the ride.


----------



## Greatguns (Oct 31, 2013)

Having lost a Nikon CP5000 to water damage from a leaky tent, and a Nikon CP7700 to water damage while shooting video in the rain, I've pretty much decided that my next camera will be a Nikon AW1. Interchangeable lenses, waterproof, shockproof, freezeproof, GPS, etc.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Mar 29, 2014)

A Fujifine pix XP 200, or a Sony all weather pocket Handicam Gr77. I own both and love them! Or if your on a budget a Canon Sx160 budget camera with long zoom, 16x, decent 720p video with optic stabilizer. Its a bit slow, but makes up by taking very pictures, and videos. 100.00$ for the Canon at Wal-Mart.


----------

