pocket size camera for creative/art photography

Being in a minority group of people who are utterly disgusted with

the quality of consumer small-sensor gear and yet not vested in

photography enough to lug around anything beyond pocket size is darn

frustrating.<br><br>

 

I'm willing to make compromises. Lots of them. Fixed focus lens?

Totally fine with me. Can only shoot B&W? Not ideal, but I can deal

with that. Only manual focus? Great. What I'm not willing to

compromize on is image quality and ability to get it in a broad range

of light situations.<br><br>

 

The type of shooting I do is broadly described as "stock photos" -

people, travel, a bit of nature/landscape.<br><br>

 

I'm considering getting a Pentax *ist (whichever is the

lightest/smallest of them) and a pancake Pentax lens (40mm f/2.8).

But this is still a bit bigger than I'm willing to tolerate, although

pretty close. And not exactly cheap.<br><br>

 

GR digital looked promising until I saw sample images. Looks like a

no go, although I haven't yet seen a single shot from it where the

light wasn't absolutely horrible and unacceptable for any

camera.<br><br>

 

Maybe a Canon SD20? No manual controls whatsoever, but it's very

small and has fixed lens.. Maybe if I only shoot B&W and learn to

predict how will it expose/choose aperture I can get something out of

it?<br><br>

 

Other than that film looks like the only choice. But I've never

dealt with film (started shooting with digital, and digital was kind

of the reason I started), looks like too much hassle even if made at

home with B&W.<br><br>

 

What's the current thinking on this topic? Can someone share

experiences/sample shots with something that is small yet gives

acceptable quality? To me, quality level of something like an old

Canon 30D (or was it D30?) and a prime lens would be enough.<br><br>

 

The goal of all this is mostly to develop my photo skills. Right now

I own a decent Nikon D70 setup, but it's just not getting enough

use. My results are available <a

href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dakh">here</a>.<br><br>

 

Thanks!

Epson RD-1 maybe?\

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/epson/rd1/

 

Otherwise you're pretty much out of luck. They just don't make what you are looking for.

Bob,<br>

Thanks for your response. I've looked at what Epson has to offer and it sure looks like lots of fun. It's about the same weight/size as Pentax *ist D though, and 4-5 times more expensive. <br><br>

 

 

All the required technology to produce a high-quality small camera is out there, it's just that there's not much of a market for this. I would imagine that if comeone could produce a B&W sensor, maybe skip the whole big LCD thing and just stick to basic controls and a good prime lens, a very high quality camera could be made ridiculously small.

<br><br>

 

So looks like Pentax *ist D and this would be the smallest thing for high quality images for now, at about $1000. <br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/366728.jpg">

I'm not really a fan of digicams, but how about the <a href="http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&itemId=94142&catGroupId=24999&modelNo=DMC-LX1K&surfModel=DMC-LX1K&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702" </a>Panasonic DMC-LX1</a>? The guy from luminous landscape has a recent review of it. Personally, I'd go with a 35mm film point-n-shoot. But that's just my personal preference/style.

I'd also echo the Panasonic LX-1 and make the comment that very few digitals take bad shots but it is the way people use them.

Before you make a final judgment, take the time to read this camera review about the Canon Powershot A620.

 

http://dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a620-review/index.shtml

Also this one about the Canon Powershot A80

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons80/

 

Or you could wait a few years untill all digicam have APS-C size sensors!

What I'm not willing to compromize on is image quality and ability to get it in a broad range of light situations.

 

Sounds like the Fuji F10 might be the ticket. Usable 1600 speed.

I would no longer consider any camera that didn't support RAW format data output. Both

the Ricoh GR Digital and the Panasonic LX1 support RAW output. <br><br>

 

The Panasonic LX1 shows a bit more noise than I prefer from its JPEG output, but better

than average sharpness and rectilinear correction. None of the examples I've

seen from either of these cameras to date has shown a RAW format file processed through

Adobe Camera Raw, but there's a section in the DPReview.com report on the LX1 that

provides a tantalizing clue as to how much better a RAW output rendering might be ... See

the bottom of this page:<br><br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/page14.asp" target=new>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/page14.asp</a>

<br><br>

Godfrey

There are now 4 different *ist D cameras from Pentax:

 

*ist D (the original)

 

*ist DS (smaller, lighter)

 

*ist DL (lighter still, fewer features than the DS)

 

*ist DS2 (pretty much same as the DS but with a bigger LCD)

 

The *ist DL is the least expensive of the two and is 50 grams lighter than the DS and DS2. Coupled with the 40mm pancake lens you could get in under $1K (probably close to $950)

Just curious, Dmitry. Could you show us what you consider a

bad digital camera shot is.

 

I've been hobbling along using a ten year old Minolta and

Canon90u P&S and am thoroughly disgusted with the way these

minilabs scan the negative to CD. No more high contrast over

saturated images switching recently to a Fuji F10.

 

Here's a sample shot that surprised me coming from a dinky

camera as this. (See below) I don't know what your standards

are, so this may not suffice for your level of quality.

 

<a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload

_id=26435684">Antiquar</a>

Tim,

<br><br>

Small-sensor cameras are limited in many different ways. Dynamic range, low-light performance, availability of fast glass (I know of exactly ONE digicam with f/1.8 lens), color rendition (lots of images out of recent digicams make me think that the whole scene is made of colored plastic), etc.<br><br>

 

Pixel peeping and all sorts of measurbation are not among my interests, but I'm thouroghly enjoying getting out there, making some shots, coming back home and checking out the results. With all P&P cameras that I've had or tried most of the images were "ugly ducklings" out of the camera and required tons of work in Photoshop to get anything beyond snapshots. And they were only pleasing to my eye (well, more or less) in web-publishing size.<br><br>

 

For examples you can check out my old web site with some <a href="http://www.azazello.net/kicks/">shots I made while learning the basics.</a>

 

<br><br>

Almost all of them were heavily processed and they stil look pretty nasty to me - except for the cases where the light was absolutely ideal.<br><br>

 

Now check out <a href="

">what kind of dynamic range, color and image quality you can get out of a D70 with good glass</a> (and I'm not using tripod).

As to Panasonic and Fuji suggetsions, I've read reviews and checked out the images and haven't found a single shot that looks appealing to me (i.e. that I'd want to print and hang on the wall). I'm planning to just get one and try it out.

Tim, also check out <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=45284769&context=set-960774&size=l">this shot</a>. I've tried a big zoom Panasonic camera (FZ-something) on a concert like that, and the results were similar, except that they didn't look good in more than 640x480 resolutions, if that. This one prints very well on 8x12, and I expect it will look good on an even larger print.

Fuji F10 (or F11 if you can wait) usable ISO of 1600 w/6.1MP.

Your original post was asking about a pocket sized camera that

can shoot decent pix. The D70 is a prosumer $1000 camera. It

darn well better take better shots than a Fuji F10.

 

The shot I posted was straight out of the camera. No edits.

 

Your shots are very quite mature and professional looking as

they should be with the work you've done. But If you're looking for

a P&S to deliver the same results, I don't know what to tell you.

Tim,

That's the thing - I'm not expecting full-on DSLR functionality, I just want close to DSLR quality. The SLR part for example - I don't give a damn if I'm composing the frame looking through the lens or a small plastic eyepiece with parallax. That I can compensate for with my brain and skill. But I can't compensate for ugly image that's coming from the camera. Well, it's possible to compensate to a certain extent with PS, but if the initial quality is not there options are very limited.

 

But as noted before, looks like I'm out of luck with what I want. Either lug around something big and heavy, or deal with poor quality. Sigh.

Olympus XA.

>>>But as noted before, looks like I'm out of luck with what I want. Either lug around something big and heavy, or deal with poor quality. Sigh.<<<

 

What is this "poor quality" you are refering to exactly?

 

DR? lack or manual controls? lag? noise? raw files? shallow dof? What do you want specifically?

Taken with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ10, 4MPixel ultrazoom camera. <br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/IoM-4/PoA-

lighthouse-0730s.jpg"><br>

Point of Ayre Lighthouse, Isle of Man<br>

©2004 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br><br>

<i> Full resolution, unprocessed other than crop, rotate and re-save in JPEG format:</i>

<br>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/IoM-4/PoA-lighthouse-0730usFR.jpg"

target=new>http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/IoM-4/PoA-lighthouse-0730usFR.jpg

</a><br>

</center><br>

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the quality from this small-sensor camera

image. It makes a very sharp 11x14" print. Of course, the FZ10 is hardly a pocket-sized

camera either.

<br><br>

Godfrey

I don't know what exactly is wrong with the small-sensor quality. At least one thing I know for sure is that you can't get it in even slightly difficult light situations, which kills the deal right there.

 

It might be entirely possible that I'm subconsciously trying to distance myself from the happy-snap crowd by not liking the P&S images.

 

 

Actually, this is a great idea. I could just do a double-blind test and see if I can really tell the difference. Or take two cameras (DSLR and P&S) and try to shoot stuff in the same conditions.

 

Nah, that sounds too time-consuming. I'll just trust my feelings and go with what works for me.

Don't know what Dimitry wants but I've shot from solar exlipse to moonlight and have no desire for a DSLR and for a nice compact pocket camera the LX-1 seems to suit the bill. Folk seem to get their knickers in a twist over noise but I shoot at 80/100ISO almost all the time. If it gets a bit noisy when I push things, well I'm happy to get that result.

If it's pocket size you want, then the objective is simply to have fun -- not create wall-size landscapes, right?

 

I've been happy with a Pentax Optio S40, which is now superceded by several later iterations. 4MP isn't a lot, but I've enlarged to 11 x 14 with no problems. It is pocket-sized and can run on any permutation of AA-size batteries. (Runs forever on 1 CRV3 lithium.) The S40 is closer to a street-shooter digital than anything else I own.

 

Most of the same-class Canon Powershots have lovely lenses but are more pricey, have fewer controls, and run on proprietary batteries. I've been toying this week with a Kodak EasyShare V550; its 2,5-inch screen is great for composing images -- but both the little Kodaks and Canons have tiny buttons that annoy me.

 

I also carry an Olympus XA, because film is forever.

 

-CD

<< At least one thing I know for sure is that you can't get it in even slightly difficult light situations >>

 

Such generalizations made with very limited experience seems rather odd to me.

 

Earlier you said "Pixel peeping and all sorts of measurbation are not among my interests" but your responses made since then seem to indicate otherwise. How can you tell if a camera is giving you "DSLR quality" without doing both?

 

Photography has always been a series of compromises. This is no different. There are plenty of people getting wonderful images out of their point and shoot cameras. They learn to use the tool(s) they have. I don't doubt that you could do the same.

<p><i>Earlier you said "Pixel peeping and all sorts of measurbation are not among my interests" but your responses made since then seem to indicate otherwise. How can you tell if a camera is giving you "DSLR quality" without doing both? </i></p> <p>

 

This is truly amusing. How can you tell if you like stuff coming out one camera and don't like stuff coming from anouther? <b>By looking at the results</b>! In my experience, all digicams limit the range of conditions where you can get a quality shot so much that I hit the same problem as with a big DSLR: I'm not getting enough shots.

<p>

But, I have to say thank you to all the people here who questioned me on why exactly I hate small-sensor cameras. It was useful and I understood some things.

<p>

Then answer to this queston again lies in the "get good quality in broad range of conditions". I realized that going for B&W will probably expand the range of a typical digicam quite a bit, even though the noise pattern will probably be nowhere near as pleasant and film-like as on a D70. And also after taking another look at the current offerings I realized that there are some digicams that might actually have useful manual modes.

<p>

So, maybe you guys are on to something. There's yet another camera that looks pretty appealing - <a href="http://kenrockwell.com/casio/exz750.htm">Casio EX-Z750</a>. The big thing is that it has almost all manual controls that you might want, and it also looks like they're even convinient! All that and a 2.5" LCD and useable movie mode for $350, in the size of Altoids tin weighting 130g.