Pro COMPACT digital camera

[Emile Kelman]

Greetings All,

I'm Asher Kelman's son and I'm sure he'll be thrilled that I am posting a new thread on his forum. I'm actually a very serious photography, who at a young age "stole" my father (and grandfather's) many film cameras. I had wonderful times using my father's medium format Bronica and my grandfather's Kodak 4'5' press photography camera.

At 17, I was working for Elite model management taking test shoots of many of their new girls. My father was generous enough to let me use all his wonderful strobes and his brilliant Bronica for these shoots. I eventually went on to UC Berkeley to study music and economics. In Berkeley, I streamlined my photo gear with one of my favorite purchases: a Yashica body with a straightforward 50mm Zeiss lens; a very practical camera for every day use.

And eventually, after univeristy, I submitted to digital photography and purchased a digital snap shot camera. This was the wost camera I used, but I may have taken some of my favorite pictures on this. The size of the camera was exceptionally functional. So, for me as a photographer, SIZE REALLY DOES MATTER!

Having said all this, I need your all help in purchasing a new compact digital camera. About the size of the Canon powershots; something that will comfortably fit in my pocket. I'm just looking for the highest quality compact digital camera; best sensor, best lens, etc.

And, to make my dad happy (because he requested this), I'll post a few of my recent digital photos:

Emile

 

[Nill Toulme]

Welcome Emile! Get your dad to show you how to insert photos correctly. ;-)

The Fuji F30 seems to be most popular as a "serious" pocket cam. Other likely candidates include the Ricoh GR (or maybe it's the GR5), and the Canon SD700IS, SD800IS and SD900. There are significant tradeoffs in each case, and there's no slamdunk clear choice at the moment.

EDIT: It appears that the F30 has just been supplanted — or perhaps joined — by the F31fd.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well, that's done! I downsized them too!

Asher

 

[Nill Toulme]

The kid definitely has the eye...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Emile Kelman]

Nill,

I think the Canon SD900 looks like a safe choice.

Here's a moronic digital camera question: Are there cameras with Higher pixel count (example: SAMSUNG NV10 10 MegaPixel Life-Style Digital Camera) that are worse in in quality than camera's with lower pixel count (and say a better sensor?)? Simplified question: does pixel size matter?

Also, I'm probably gonna go with the Canon, but would the Ricoh (or other cameras) have more "character"?

Emile

 

[Asher Kelman]

Emile is deliberate and selective. No spray and pray! Also he has done a lot of B&W.

So I wonder about the Panasonic Lumix/Leica Digilux offerings, which have the Leica lenses? However, I have no experience with them.

Asher

 

[Nill Toulme]

Here's a moronic digital camera question: Are there cameras with Higher pixel count (example: SAMSUNG NV10 10 MegaPixel Life-Style Digital Camera) that are worse in in quality than camera's with lower pixel count (and say a better sensor?)? Simplified question: does pixel size matter?

Hardly moronic — in fact a very perceptive question that most people miss entirely, and the answer is a resounding yes. In fact, within certain parameters, with other things being held equal, it can be argued that in a lot of cases more pixels are indeed worse than less, because they frequently mean more noise. IMO 5 or 6 MP is plenty for a pocket cam, more than that starts to be nothing other than marketing hype, with other more useful things being traded off in the bargain.

Take a hard look at the SD700IS. I think it has the same sensor size as the 900, but also has IS which is more useful than you can imagine.

Also, I'm probably gonna go with the Canon, but would the Ricoh (or other cameras) have more "character"?

Hard to say without firsthand experience. My pocket cam is still an old Canon S500.

The great thing about the Fuji is its low light performance. Based on the images you showed, that might be important to you. Read a few reviews before you make up your mind.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Nill Toulme]

Asher the rap on the Pana/Leica seems to be high noise, offset by heavyhanded noise processing at the expense of loss of detail. All of this is third hand, mind you, I have no personal experience with any of them.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Ray West]

Hi Emile,

Welcome to here. btw. you should use your real name here. You'll probably have to tell the opf site owner what it is, so he can change it for you.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Welcome, Emile!
Nice shooting
Strictly IMHO: Last image just begs to be b/w
Cheers!

 

[Diane Fields]

Sorry--out of town and checking in quickly on my PDA I saw this thread but didn't have a chance to chime in.

I don't have a pocket cam but bought my husband the Fuji F30 after several people that I respect recommended it. David does a lot of interior shots connected with his work, so the lower noise/higher ISO was what pushed me over to it. I'd recommend you check the review of the camera and the Fuji forum at dpreview.com to see what to expect. David is coming up with quite nice images--but is shooting primarily in P with flash suppressed. I'm pushing him to use M (which is pretty much like P but allows you to add the option of switching to a specified higher ISO if needed). He has not tried the Av or Tv---or even changing his ISO---he's 'working up to it' LOL. Nonetheless--it does what its supposed to do for the most part--quite nice images, good color with little input. He does understand where he meters affects the overall exposure though and is doing a good job with that. I've changed the WB for him the one time it was needed--but its all pretty easy from the menus. For me--it was fairly intuitive and I think for anyone that has used a camera and recognizes the usual icons. Very long life battery too. My niggle---like all of them---no viewfinder (bad as they were but I have trouble seeing even the best of the LCDs--and the F30 is pretty good) to compose in daylight. One of the reasons I liked the swivel LCD on the old Canon G series.

Nice photos BTW--and welcome Emile. Glad to see you here.

Diane

 

[Chuck Bragg]

I'm looking for the same thing Emile is, and am homing in on the Canon SD700is. There are several review sites, and one must be careful of shills, but ... it looks pretty good. (I know less about the SD800is - it has a wider short end at 28mm equivalent, another million pixels, costs $50-100 more, and some users are complaining about the soft lens at the wide end. Danger, Will Robinson.) As someone already said, the Leica C-Lux 1 / Panasonic DMC-FX01 has a rep for a high noise sensor, but what surprised me was DP Review calling the Leica lens less sharp than the Canon 5.8 - 23.2mm lens. Of all things - go figure. I lust after a Leica, but not a second-rate Leica (or a second-rate Panasonic/Leica collaboration). I'll also cast a vote in favor of a 6MP limit on a P&S - the cost/return ratio goes up quickly, and 10MP in a P&S seems a bit like putting a Merlin engine in a Piper Cub.

The only two 'bad' things about the Canon are (1) no RAW, and (2) virtually no manual adjustment. But that's the world of P&S. The advantage of always having the camera with you is a *big* advantage. I'm going to wait for after-Christmas sales and cross my fingers.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well, i'm getting into this too. My impression is that the F30 and heirs are probably the very best point and shoot digicams for indoors no flash and little noise. They seem to be on a platform here all alone.

One flaw is that with flash, ISO sets to 800 for some reason!

Otherwise the camera pretty well beats everything else and almost ties with the D50 Nikon under the most optimal conditions, even though the surface area of the latter is 5 x the 75 square microns of the Fuji sensor. The latest cameras have AV and shutter priority modes as well as face recognition.

However, putting aside considerations of low light, noise and need to use natural light, then the Canon DD500 family of cameras, now including the latest ones, the SD 7850IS and SD900 at 7.1MP and 10MP respectively are the best pocket P&S on the market today.

These cameras differ in the the 10MM SD900 has a 37-111mm lens whereas the 7.1MP SD900 is designed for more wide angle work going from 28-105mm (equivalent framing to 35mm full frame cameras).

I think one has to test them in store with one's own SD card and then look at the files at home before deciding!

Asher

 

[Ray West]

I do not think number of pixels matters too much for these cameras, but I think 'raw' does, and a viewfinder, as compared to an lcd screen, which never shows well in bright light. Another important aspect is time to power up, buffer size, etc. But, it depends on the sort of thing you want to photograph, how small the camera has to be, the size of your pocket (physical, not monetary), etc. Also, you may need to carry spare memory cards, and a battery, if you intend it to be always available. It may be, that you go for an older model, with raw, rather than a later one with more pixels. There will be a lot of new surplus stock, at giveaway prices for last year's models, buy a few, have one in each jacket pocket ;-).

Probably, anything over 5 Mpixels is not required.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Mary Bull]

Welcome from Mary, from Honorary Senior Member M&M, and from OPF Royal Mascot Thistle

Hi Emile!

You said:

I'm Asher Kelman's son and I'm sure he'll be thrilled that I am posting a new thread on his forum.

Let me assure you that he is indeed thrilled. He's told me personally that he is very proud of you.

I want to join the others in welcoming you. I am the owner of OPF's Honorary Senior Member--my pet cat M&M--and of her housemate, Thistle. (Or perhaps it's that they own me.)

Your father honored Thistle by putting his picture in a rosewood frame for me and dubbing him OPF's Royal Mascot. See him here:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8133#post8133

I can't recommend a shirt-pocket size digital camera for you to consider, but I will say that I find my Canon G2 very handy. It will fit in a jacket pocket, or in a deep pocket of some pairs of my slacks. I put a spare battery into the other slacks pocket, when I do that.

OT: I notice your interest in music. If you'd start a thread about that in the Layback Cafe, I would enjoy participating in a discussion on that topic over there.

Best wishes,

Mary

 

[Diane Fields]

One flaw is that with flash, ISO sets to 800 for some reason!

Asher

Asher, I just tried this. If you shoot with it in P---then it will revert to ISO800. If you use M and set it for Auto or Forced flash, it will stick to the ISO you set up.

Diane

 

[Will_Perlis]

I'd go with the SD 700 IS or SD 800 IS (I haven't played with the latter tho'). What I like about the 700 is that it is *always* with me when I'm out and about.

The form factor means it can sit in a belt pouch without banging into stuff nor giving that Batman-in-training impression, it's quick to get into action and it's easy to put away.

Living in Lalaland, one never knows when a celebrity like Sam Beckett might appear:

http://picasaweb.google.com/hwillpix/VehiclesVanityPlates/photo#4973633561452675090

 

[WillGood]

Emile
Your criteria is small: used Oly 5050 f1.8
Time magazine photographer used this & published in Time.

You also might want to handle a canon 400D w/ a little prime on it.....in silver it will look like a non-intimidating P&S on the street ; )

It has the excellent canon 30D AF system, good 800iso- which none of the "pocket" cameras can compete with.
cheers

 

[Emile Kelman]

Thank you all for your wonderful suggestions! What a great place this forum is to share ideas and obtain valuable information. I'm very excited about purchasing a new compact camera and value its functionality tremendously. I'll be investigating the competition shortly. I'm going to go to Samy's camera or Bell Air (both in LA) to check out what's out there, including the Canon 700is and the Fuji. Thanks again for looking into this.

 

[Diane Fields]

Emile, curious if you have found your camera. I've pondered this for awhile and really would like to add a compact and did consider a 400D with a small prime, but its really not as small or as compact as I'd like. I really really don't want just an LCD and I'd like RAW. I would consider the new G7 with RAW but it doesn't have it (even tried to find a G6 but haven't found one new) and on another forum someone suggested the Fuji E900. I wonder if this ever came up when you were looking. Its quite reasonable now---and I'm considering it for myself.

Diane

 

[Nill Toulme]

MR's postscript to his G7 review is pretty telling.

I sure hope Chuck has communicated up the line the community's astonishment and dismay at Canon's dropping RAW support from its non-DSLR cameras. The decision seems so wrong-headed you just have to shake your head at it.

All the speculation seems to be that Canon thinks having RAW capability in a P&S camera will cannibalize sales from the DSLR line. That makes no sense to me at all. I simply can't imagine that anyone who might otherwise be a candidate for a DSLR would choose something like the G7 instead just because it has RAW. I think, to the contrary, there are many potential G7 buyers who already have a DSLR and want something competent to supplement it, and who will be deterred from buying the G7 (or the SD900 or some other relatively pocketable Canon digicam) because it doesn't support RAW.

In any event, the G7 does look like an awfully nice little camera. How close does it come to being pocketable? I sure wish it had a 28mm wide end.

Ah well, not really pocketable at all, is it. Slightly larger than my daughter's well-thrashed A95, which is a fairly chunky little thing already. Ah well, the G7 does look nice, but I think I'm still down to deciding between the SD700IS, the SD800IS, or just sticking with my old S500 in the pocket category.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Diane Fields]

MR's postscript to his G7 review is pretty telling.

I sure hope Chuck has communicated up the line the community's astonishment and dismay at Canon's dropping RAW support from its non-DSLR cameras. The decision seems so wrong-headed you just have to shake your head at it.

All the speculation seems to be that Canon thinks having RAW capability in a P&S camera will cannibalize sales from the DSLR line. That makes no sense to me at all. I simply can't imagine that anyone who might otherwise be a candidate for a DSLR would choose something like the G7 instead just because it has RAW. I think, to the contrary, there are many potential G7 buyers who already have a DSLR and want something competent to supplement it, and who will be deterred from buying the G7 (or the SD900 or some other relatively pocketable Canon digicam) because it doesn't support RAW.

In any event, the G7 does look like an awfully nice little camera. How close does it come to being pocketable? I sure wish it had a 28mm wide end.

Ah well, not really pocketable at all, is it. Slightly larger than my daughter's well-thrashed A95, which is a fairly chunky little thing already. Ah well, the G7 does look nice, but I think I'm still down to deciding between the SD700IS, the SD800IS, or just sticking with my old S500 in the pocket category.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

For a woman, its quite 'pocketable' or transportable without a camera case or carrying over your shoulder, etc. I've been using either a Domke F3X or LP Sling 200 and just a few small primes with my 5D--but there are times I would like something that will stick in my bag (and I don't carry a large one--but the G1 would fit and this should also). I don't want one as small as the Fuji F30--I found I don't like shooting with it at all though the IQ is good. This is not a crucial thing so I can afford to just wait. I've gotten along without a pocketable camera for years actually LOL. There are very few left with a viewfinder--be it not that great, but an LCD just doesn't cut it for me.

Diane

 

[Asher Kelman]

Diane,

The thing about to eye level viewfinder, electronic or oprical, is that one has to hold the camera away from ones body and so it's unstable.

A non-IS camera with an eye level viewer is going to be sharper than one without and IS!

Asher

 

[Diane Fields]

Diane,

The thing about to eye level viewfinder, electronic or oprical, is that one has to hold the camera away from ones body and so it's unstable.

A non-IS camera with an eye level viewer is going to be sharper than one without and IS!

Asher

I'm not sure I'm understanding. I don't like an LCD because I hate the whole process. I learned, shooting with my husband's cam, that I'll never use any camera without some sort of viewfinder--and of course, as you say, having to hold it at arm's length means less stability. I remember reading on the Fuji dpreview forum when I was deciding on a digicam for David about many using a lanyard, more or less, to help them steady by holding the camera at the end of the lanyard with tension (sort of like the thing of using a string as a monopod I guess). I also admit I really don't like using a very small camera--so the G7 would have suited me quite well. Still might be considered I guess, though I haven't shot jpeg for a long long time.

Since I have a new printer on order and still want to add another TSE lens LOL--this might go back to my 'wish' list since I can't really find one to suit--and that might give me a chance to try a G7 out--or maybe an E900.


Diane

 

[Jeff Donovan]

Emile,

I have nowhere near the expertise of most of the people on here, but I just bought at Canon Powershot A540 for my semester abroad (almost finished, regretfully) in Asia.

Very nice little camera. Some issues with getting proper exposures in tricky light settings, but all in all a very nice camera. Easily fits in my pocket too.

As mentioned above, no RAW but you can put the camera on full manual, though it is not the most user friendly way to take photos (better if you're using a tripod and setting it up to take a number of shots, etc.)

I also agree that anything over 6MP is a waste of money for the most part.

Good luck and let us know what you end up buying.

Jeff

 

[Asher Kelman]

The Canon SD800IS is one of Dave's pick's at ImagingResource.com.

Dave sums it up:

PRO

You can't beat image stabilization
Face recognition really works
28mm wide angle is very nice
Fast start-up with virtually no shutter lag if you pre-focus
Dependable auto white balance
Flash power can handle normal rooms while recycling at a reasonable rate
Helpful Scene modes
Category assignment is a time saver
High ISO options (but don't expect noise-free results)
Refined user interface easy to grasp
Accurate LCD
Excellent battery life

CON

A little bulky compared to its competitors
Optical viewfinder is not accurate
No digital zoom in Wide Screen aspect ratio shooting
No manual control over aperture or shutter speed
Easily blows out highlights
Optical zoom is just 3.8x from 28mm

I bought one of these for my wife and she's delighted. Of course Emile tried it out. It does have a nice Macro function and the 28mm field of view is excellent for landscapes.

There are a lot of special modes for the thumb enabled generation, but no manual control of shutter speed and aperture.

This is not for me! I prefer the little Leica M8. I don't like that a little orange light tells everyone when the camera is switched on. So in the concert hall or cafe it is not my camera!

To me the perfect pocket camera should have dials for shutter speed, ISO and aperture!

Asher

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

An older s-60 ,I have one does raw, manual control and is great and has 28mm lens but is Digic II ,S-70 is Digic II as well but is good. The SD800 and 900 have Digic III but no raw .I would take raw over Digic III right ? I am not sure how much better Digic III
would make camera .

 

[John Sheehy]

I sure hope Chuck has communicated up the line the community's astonishment and dismay at Canon's dropping RAW support from its non-DSLR cameras. The decision seems so wrong-headed you just have to shake your head at it.

Canon is beginning to scare me - looking at the history of their RAW files, the fossil record suggests that at one time Canon had people in their engineering department who *really* understood RAW data, but they're gone, and didn't leave their knowledge behind. I'm basing this on the DSLRs, of course, as I've never seen RAW data from any of their small-sensor cameras. From the gaps in the RAW histogram that started appearing with the 5D, to the wasted 1/3 - 2/3 stops of headroom at 1/3-stop ISOs, ignorance of the horizontal and vertical line offsets recorded in their own RAW data, and the doubling of RAW values instead of halving of the blackpoint at ISO 3200, throwing away slightly over a stop of digitized highlights, one has to wonder if anyone knows what they're doing in the firmware/software end of things.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Diane,

The thing about to eye level viewfinder, electronic or oprical, is that one has to hold the camera away from ones body and so it's unstable.

A non-IS camera with an eye level viewer is going to be sharper than one without and IS!

Asher

I'm not sure I'm understanding. I don't like an LCD because I hate the whole process. I learned, shooting with my husband's cam, that I'll never use any camera without some sort of viewfinder--and of course, as you say, having to hold it at arm's length means less stability. I remember reading on the Fuji dpreview forum when I was deciding on a digicam for David about many using a lanyard, more or less, to help them steady by holding the camera at the end of the lanyard with tension (sort of like the thing of using a string as a monopod I guess). I also admit I really don't like using a very small camera--so the G7 would have suited me quite well. Still might be considered I guess, though I haven't shot jpeg for a long long time.

Since I have a new printer on order and still want to add another TSE lens LOL--this might go back to my 'wish' list since I can't really find one to suit--and that might give me a chance to try a G7 out--or maybe an E900.


Diane

Diane, you quoted me correctly but on rereading this I should have said

"Diane,

The thing about to eye level viewfinder, electronic or oprical, is that one has to hold the camera to one's body and so it's stable.

A non-IS camera with an eye level viewer is going to be sharper than one without an eye level viewer yet boasting IS. "

However, I know a waist level viewer would be better.

Asher