Point and shoot camera for SLR user

[edith_beerdsen]

Dear Photo.net users, I need your advice on a camera issue.

 

I'm leaving soon for a five-week trip, travelling as light-weight as

possible. I'm used to photographing with a film SLR, but first of all

it is big and heavy, and secondly, it is big and obtrusive to point at

people. I am considering leaving it at home and taking a smaller

camera instead. But which one?

 

I don't care so much if it is going to be digital or film. I'd prefer

digital, but not at any rate. I have used some digital point & shoot

cameras of friends, and couldn't cope with the enormous shutter lag.

Do all small digital cameras have this problem?

 

I know that photographing with an automatic camera is not the same as

with an SLR. I'm willing to give up (temporarily) on the control you

have with different lenses, controllable shutter speed and aperture

(though I have heard that some compact cameras do give you some

control), but the shutter response should be fast enough. In addition,

a good viewfinder is important.

 

Of course there is a lot of advice on camera shops' websites, but

information about shutter lags is typically lacking. Who can point me

in the right direction to a compact camera that is acceptable to SLR

users?

 

Thanks a lot!

[marbing]

There is the Contax T3 which can quite easily fit into a pocket; has an exceptional f2.8 lens; aperture priority; and easily handles slide film.

[jorgen_udvang]

If you can accept the size and he price, I would chose the Olympus 7070, but it won't fit in your pockets unless they are unusually large. I've achieved great results with the Canon A95 for a year now, but you will have to live with some shutter-lag. It has full manual control and a very reasonable price.

 

Olympus 5500 Sports Zoom is also a good camera. If you can wait for two months, the Fuji E900 looks promising. The Fuji E550 is good too.

[glen_johnson1]

"I'm used to photographing with a film SLR, but first of all it is big and heavy, and secondly, it is big and obtrusive to point at people."

 

No need to give up either an SLR or creative control. Not all film SLRs are big and heavy. The Contax S2 and Yashica FX-3 bodies, for example, are around 135mm long, and weigh only around 450-500 grams. Fitted with a wide-angle lens, they are still compact, give excellent images, are reliable, and have no shutter lag.

 

There are many other MF and AF SLR cameras out there, not to mention better quality rangefinder cameras that could also qualify. I'm not a fan of the point-and-shoot type cameras. My extended family carries 35mm P&S and digicams and all of them have multiple horror stories about lost opportunities when the zoom jammed or the camera went into total electronic shutdown. Get something that will hold up to some serious use.

[ravi_swamy]

I would suggest a film rangefinder like a Leica or a Cosina Voigtlander if you're on a budget.

[walter_degroot]

olympus stylus 120 or 170

small and shaped so you can stick it in a pocket or small bag.

[dougsmiley]

Another vote for the Contax T3. Very user friendly and capable for a point and shoot, plus the 35mm 2.8 lens gives better images than my Nikkor 35mm f2 AF-D lens. Sounds like the T3 is just what you're looking for.

[tom_s.]

>I'm leaving soon for a five-week trip

 

Ack! Leave some time to try out your new camera before you go! Never shoot something important without trying out your equipment on less important things first.

 

> I'm used to photographing with a film SLR, but first of all it is big and heavy, and secondly, it is big and obtrusive to point at people. I am considering leaving it at home and taking a smaller camera instead. But which one?

 

No small camera can compeletely replace an SLR, but my pocketable film camera of choice is the Olympus Stylus Epic. It has a fixed 35mm f/2.8 lens, no zoom (good enough for available light photography sometimes!). It has a combined spot meter/spot focus feature, and a few different flash modes (which don't stay set to the last mode when you poen/shut the camera, unfortunately).

 

In short, it gets good results, it's small, and it's cheap. And the metering system prefers wide apertures, so backgrounds blur gracefully.

 

Load it up with 400 speed film and you're ready for just about any situation (within reason!).

 

> I don't care so much if it is going to be digital or film. I'd prefer digital, but not at any rate. I have used some digital point & shoot cameras of friends, and couldn't cope with the enormous shutter lag. Do all small digital cameras have this problem?

 

The newer digital point and shoots have gotten better with shutter lag, but it's still an issue. Digital point and shoots all have tiny sensors so often you get too much depth of field, and the backgrounds become intrusive. And digital point and shoots are nearly always stuck with ISO 100. They'll do 400, but it's a "digital push" and the results aren't that great.

 

I haven't found a digital point and shoot that equals the $80 Olympus as of yet, at any price.

 

> I know that photographing with an automatic camera is not the same as with an SLR. I'm willing to give up (temporarily) on the control you have with different lenses, controllable shutter speed and aperture (though I have heard that some compact cameras do give you some control)

 

You'll have a bit of control with the Olympus, but of course it's limited. For typical "people" and small group situations it'll be fine. Also it'll be fine with buildings/scenery, street scenes, etc.

 

> but the shutter response should be fast enough.

 

Shutter response is fine, better than any digicam I've used. Sometimes you have to wait a bit for the flash to charge, though. Only rarely have I been hit by that problem, and missed the optimal shot.

 

On the other hand, it's pocketable and easy to pull out, open, and get the shot with one hand within a second or two. I've astonished people by how quickly I can go from chatting with folks, to seeing a suddenly interesting/funny situation, and getting the shot off.

 

> In addition, a good viewfinder is important.

 

The viewfinder is fine. No worse than the (typically awful) viewfinders on 1.5x and 1.6x crop DSLR's, and probably better. It isn't going to be as good for you as as film SLR's viewfinder you are familiar with, though. Your brain is already programmed to lift your SLR into the right position for your eye to see the viewfinder. It will take time to gain the same proficiency with the Olympus, or any other point and shoot for that matter.

 

> Of course there is a lot of advice on camera shops' websites, but information about shutter lags is typically lacking.

 

For digital cameras, try dpreview.com or imaging-resource.com.

 

> Who can point me in the right direction to a compact camera that is acceptable to SLR users?

 

For film SLR users seeking a compact film camera, the Olympus Stylus Epic has been quite popular for years now. For digital SLR users seeking a compact digital camera, though, there is nothing good out there. Keep in mind that the "sensor" in the film SLR can be the exact same one as the point and shoot film camera. That has *never* been true with digital point and shoots -- no manufacturer to date has used a DSLR-like sensor in a point and shoot. I wish they would, I'd pay $1000 for such a camera.

 

[edward_rehnquist]

I use a Contax G1 to for hiking and travel. It's cheap from eBay or KEH and lens quality is awesome. I usually just shoot with the 28mm or 35mm lens, and it's small enough to carry in a jacket pocket. If you want zoom though it's not a good option.

 

As far as SLR-like, I have nearly as much exposure control with the G1 as with my Maxxum 7 including bracketing, speed, and aperture (via lens ring).

 

For a digital I hear the Ricoh GX8 has a very low shutter lag for a digital handheld as well as good control options.

[charles_stobbs3]

My wife asked me for a camera some time back. After using a Cannon Power Shot S30 for some time my impression of digital cameras was like yours and I was annoyed by the long menus of choices before taking pictures, and the seemingly constant need to recharge the battery and the small capacity of memory cards. I finally chose a simple Kodak C300 for her and even with no background in film photography she was free to take pictures instead of coping with technology. If you frequently change lenses or use a zoom this camera may not be for you. Also while choosing you might consider battery life (do you want to carry a charger and will you be going to places where the voltage is different, and picture storage (how many pictures will you take and will you be able to download them and mail them home or will you keep them all on memory cards). Similar cameras (for more money and with more megapixels) are the Canon Powershot SD20 and the Olympus Verve. Best wishes.

[iwong]

Another vote for Contax T3.

 

The problem with most digital cameras is battery power. Small pocketable cameras have small batteries, and they typically don't last a whole day (depends on how much you use the built-in flash and the LCD monitor) even if you religiously re-charge them to full every night. Then you'd have to bring a charger and carry an extra battery just to be safe.

 

Then there is the question of downloading some of your images from the memory card to free up space. Unless of course you buy enough memory cards for the entire 5-week trip. If you don't have a laptop or battery-powered portable harddrive then there's an added cost.

 

The Contax T3 gives you aperture priority, manual focus and programmable slow shutter speed, which you don't give up much compared to an SLR. The lithium battery lasts forever (a spare wouldn't hurt), and you just have to carry enough film.

 

And then there's the Carl Zeiss 35mm/f2,8 T* Sonnar lens. This fabulous lens handily beats many SLR lenses at the same focal length, including Carl Zeiss/Contax's own SLR lens offerings.

[bjmarkowitz]

Try the Olympus C750, 755, 760 or 765.

 

I have the C 765 and love it. Got it at Costco (now available only online and had a $100 rebate last i checked)

 

the reason I love it is because (1) it has a 10X optical zoom. (2) has shutter priority, apature priority and full manual modes as well as full auto mode, (3) very user friendly (4) can take motion pictures (5) only slightly bigger than most other point and shoots (because of the lens) although certainly not as large as the Minolta A1 or Z2.

 

Drawbacks: (1) xd card (only recently they came out with a 1gb card) (2) small view screen, (3) no ability for external flash and a small internal flash (the C755 has a hot shoe connection for external flash).

 

Good luck and have a good trip

[mark_man]

Tom's hit it on the head. Why has no-one spotted the need for a (or several) digital P&S with at LEAST an APS-C sized sensor???? These would not be that much more expensive to produce or sell compared to the current pathetic crop of digital P&Ss. The profit margin per camera would be higher as well, although not quite as high as with DSLRs. As for the market, there are a lot of people out there like Edith who would sacrifice a bit of control for a much smaller package which can at least take passable digital images, especially at higher ISOs.

[mawz]

Mark, An APS-C sensor P&S would be larger and far more costly than one of the current cro of P&S's. Much of the cost of a Digital Camera is in the sensor, and the cost on sensor size goes up exponentially. This is why DSLR's cost 3-4x what the equivalent film body costs. Not to mention the fact that larger lenses would be needed for the larger sensor, which would make for a larger camera.

 

So would you buy an oversized P&S for Digital Rebel money, with a slow zoom lens (As a fast fixed lens wouldn't market well)?

[bill_fouche]

I asked a similar question a couple of weeks ago and got at least two recommendations for the FujiFilm Finepix f10, which is a relatively inexpensive compact digital zoom with a good lens and an unusually good low-light-capable sensor (i.e., low noise). That thread is here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CiKk&unified_p=1

 

It also links to at least one good review of the F10. I noticed today that the camera was recently recognized by a consortium of digital-camera websites as a "DIWA Golden award" winner, whatever that may mean. That press release is here:

 

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/fujifilm_finepix_f10_receives_diwa_gold_award/

[mike_elek]

One of the best is the Rollei 35 series. You would need to get a Wein cell -- good for about six months. You'll also need to guess on subject-to-camera distance. But they quality of the photos from either the Tessar or Sonnar lens is very nice indeed.

 

Drawbacks: Backward ergonomics. No rangefinder. All manual.

 

Attributes: Very pocketable. Excellent lens. Very simple to learn. Dependable. All manual.

 

Other possibilities for the tiny series include the Minox GT -- an aperture-priority camera.

[athinkle]

Take a look at the Leica CM series of compact cameras. Small, excellent build quality, and your choice of a zoom or fast fixed lens. The problem: I believe the CM zoom is priced around $1200 US

[klix]

Digital - Canon A95

 

Film - Olympus Stylus Epic or if you can find one, get a used (now discontinued) Yashica T4 Super (35mm/3.5)

[rob_murray]

Film: Olympus Stylus Epic, Digital: Fuji F10(has 1600 speed!) or canon A95 or canon S2IS.

[mark_man]

OK, getting a bit off topic now (sorry Edith), but in response to Adam: it's time for the P&S digicam market to move on. The small sensor market is pretty well saturated with me-too cameras which frankly are only good for daylight snaps. The untapped market is the one Edith is referring to, which would be well served with larger sensor P&Ss which do not need to be any more bulky than the excellent film P&Ss which others in this thread have mentioned. Fast lenses do not need to be large. Call me cynical, but I don't buy the "decent size sensor costs the earth" argument either. If you make enough, they come down substantially in price - look what's happened to APS-C DSLR prices in the last year even. I'll bet they'll come down a LOT more too...

[lee hamiel]

I second Rob - Stylus Epic - rugged - pretty much waterproof & great pics

 

Helmut Newton swore by them at the end of his career due to the speed & ease of use. Roughly 89. USD

 

I would also second the Rollei 35 opinion posted earlier as well.

 

Lastly - the Contax is a great camera as are the Leica Minilux's if cost is no problem.

 

Good luck & have fun.

 

Ps: can always buy a dozen disposables w/ film of choice!

[Matthew Currie]

I like my Rollei 35, but there is no automation and the odd ergonomics make it a little slow to use. Add to that that it has no built in flash, and to use a flash one must hold the camera upside down, and it falls pretty far short of "point and shoot." If you're looking at out-of-production 35 mm. pocket cameras, I think an Olympus XA, perhaps an XA2, probably would fit the requirements better, if you can find a good one. I used an XA2 for years (it broke - I'm still waiting for another to fall into my lap), and it was very quick, no shutter lag, sharp lens, accurate metering, quiet, and well suited to casual or surreptitious "hip shots." The batteries lasted for years and years, too.

[h._p.]

As everyone seems to be playing, I'll recommend the Sony Cybershot DSC-40 which is small, light, has negligable shutter lag and produces very sharp and detailed images.

 

It's not very expensive either.

 

:-)))

[cosmo_genovese]

For film cameras I would rank your choices from best to better, thus:

 

<B>Contax T3, Olympus <I>Epic</I>, Yashica T4, Olympus XA (or XA2), Rollei 35SE, Minox ML</B> (the last 2 are range focus). The beauty of the Contax T3 is that it takes filters (you have to buy a filter adapter) as do the Rollei 35SE and the Minox ML (limited to ND and UV, though, on the ML).

[john falkenstine]

Just purchased an Olympus Stylus Epic for a song...no, just a hummed melody...now that fits in almost any pocket...