Which compact camera?

<p>I already have a Nikon D800 which I use for large printing with quality glass. I'm now interested in a smaller camera to take traveling or for more spontaneous street shooting. My criteria is that the camera not have much in the way of shutter lag time and that the kit zoom lens is worth going to micro 4/3 rather than just a compact point and shoot with no interchangeable lenses. I see their are some good deals on the Olympus Pen ELP2. Is there any point of getting a camera like this if your going to just use the kit lens? Or should I stick to a point and shoot that has RAW? Yes if I wasn't invested in a d800, I would probably buy a OMD or a Sony NEX6 but I'm looking for a bargain.</p>

 

<p>Most shutter lag in compacts are okay, it's their AF that's slooow. </p>

The shutter of the P&S/Bridge camera is probably faster than that of the M4/3 and DSLR if we measure split seconds. You should find the latest bridge and M4/3 cameras are fast enough for you ... being used to the IQ of the FF camera you could well find that M4/3 is as small as you want to go and really there is not much difference in size between them and the P&S. Another reason which I discovered when I added M4/3 to my bridge cameras is the freedom to use higher ISO like your Nikon with M4/3 whereas with P&S Bridge you probably would restrict yourself to 100 ISO ... not impossible but limiting :-)

<p>Yes I guess that is what I'm looking for. I have a Panasonic LX3 which is a very nice compact RAW shooter, but the AF is too slow and it has no telephoto. </p>

<p>I was just looking at the Panasonics and were pleasantly surprised. There is the LX7 and the FZ200. I don't know if they are faster on the AF, though. The FZ200 has a constant f2.8 24x zoom lens. IQ on both of them looks fine to me.</p>

<p>I don't know about Ann's comments, she's all over the place. She think the couple Panasonic IQ are fine to her here, but in another recent thread, anything but FF are of poor IQ...She wanted a photo project badly, yet abandon it after only one week. Now, 135 cameras/lenses is her flavor of the week...</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>I have a Panasonic LX3 which is a very nice compact RAW shooter, but the AF is too slow and it has no telephoto.</blockquote>

<p>The LX3, if prefocused, is very, very quick. The LX5 and 7 is substantially quicker in the AF dept if you are fine with their IQ. And they goto 90mm now.</p>

<p>Suddenly I lost all respect for Leslie...</p>

<p>Your respect, I rather not have:)</p>

<p>Leslie-you may not realize the seriousness of your situation but not to worry; EMS personnel and a grief councelor are standing by should you need them. :-)<br>

cb</p>

<p>If you like the Nikon "look" and want the absolute best bargain around in a compact and/or mirrorless digicam that doesn't need to be pocket sized, grab a Nikon V1 with 10-30mm kit zoom for $349 while that package is still available.</p>

<p>I'm comparing the V1 with my D2H dSLR and the V1 compares very well in terms of shutter response, AF and most critical performance standards.</p>

<p>However, the V1 is not a pocket sized digicam, doesn't have a built in flash, and I'm not completely convinced about Nikon's direction with the 1-inch sensor as an alternative to the Micro 4:3 mirrorless systems. But as an alternative to the usual fare of 1/1.7" tiny sensor digicams costing $300 or more, there isn't much competition. The V1 at this moment is the best value around, bar none. Once it's gone or the price goes up, it's no longer the best value.</p>

<p>If you need the best flash around for subtle fill flash, want a pocket sized camera and don't mind a tiny sensor digicam, the Ricoh GRD IV is a gem. It's real strengths are terrific responsiveness and flash quality in a pocket sized digicam. It also offers outstanding ergonomics, possibly the best in the pocket sized class regardless of format size.</p>

<p>But ask some Sony RX100 owners whether they've used the flash enough to estimate whether it's also good with subtle fill flash results. The RX100 offers even better IQ than the Nikon V1 in a package size comparable to the Ricoh GRD4. A little pricey for my budget, but very appealing overall. If money wasn't a factor I'd grab one myself.</p>

<p>Among the Olympus digicams, the XZ-1, new XZ-2 and OM-D all have my attention. The more recent Olympus E-series Micro 4:3 cameras are very comparable to the V1 in terms of shutter response and AF performance, so if I was considering a serious investment in lenses and adapters I'd consider those models.</p>

Leslie ...I think one should avoid questioning other peoples comments becuase often we make comments in respect to particular situations and obviously there are differences between FF cameras and sensors a fraction of their size but most cameras produced today, thanks to the state of the art, are excellent products. Just some are more equal than others. I wouldn't look at the LX7 becuase of its limited and fixed zoom range, and I gave away the FZ range when they started making lenses that trombone and lost aperture with the zoom. On the other hand I currently use M4/3 with both those later problems ... but overall I believe I have the best tool for my needs. I would like Lumix to make a x24 f/2.8 constant lens for my GH2 but as to if I could afford it is another question. It would be a boon for those who shoot video where resolution/IQ is less a requirement than stills and cannot use long exposures to compensate for aperture losses..

<p><a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00b7Df">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00b7Df</a> <br>

...incase you missed it JC. Her comments are all over the place. This is just one example...of many!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see their are some good deals on the Olympus Pen ELP2. Is there any point of getting a camera like this if your going to just use the kit lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the E-PL2 and it is a fine camera. The kit lens is pretty good too. I have samples from this combo <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/tags/olympusmzuiko14423556ii/">here</a>.</p>