spitz Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I posted this in the Camera Equipment Forum, but then realized it belongs in this Forum instead. The most recent forum thread I can find on this topic is about a year old, and the market changes rapidly. I'll be traveling to Haiti and expect to find that carrying my Canon 10D won't always be practical. Does anyone have personal experience and recommendations among the available slip-in-your-pocket cameras? I doubt the new Leica D-Lux 2 will be available before I leave, and I assume it will have the same problems with noise as its twin, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1. Any thoughts on the Casio Exilim Z750 or the Olympus mju 800? I've looked at the Canons as well, but the SD500 seems like less of a camera, and I'm not sure the S2-IS is as compact as I'm looking for. Picture quality is most important to me, but durability and battery life are also issues. I use Photoshop CS2, so I'm not so concerned about issues such as the camera company's software package or RAW converter. Thanks for any advice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_fouche Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Please don't double-post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthropy Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I am using a Canon S70 and I am very please. The only problem is the noise over 50 ISO or when it is dark. Otherwise, it's a very fin camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I second the Canon Powershot S70, though I believe it's been discontinued and replaced by the S80, which lacks RAW support. It has a truly wide lens (28mm equivalent) full manual controls and picture quality as good as you're going to get in a compact (and much better than most) The photos in my folder were taken with it. None of these cameras are going to be much good except at low ISO's, unfortunately. I use the S70 for a lot of things, but when it comes to compact cameras, film still has a big edge in high ISO performance. Also, you're pretty much stuck with near-infinite depth of field with these small-sensor cameras, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_chan5 Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I would wait and take a look at the Fuji F11 and E900. My friend has the F10, and it is a wonderful little camera, with a sharp, sharp lens and excellent high ISO performance, but lacking in control - which is changed in the F11. I have the E550 and it looks like the E900 is the upgrade to that one, with the newer sensor. The E550 is an excellent pocket camera, but seems to be slightly behind the F10 in resolution and also behind in high ISO noise (but the E550 is way ahead of any other pocket digicam for noise, imo). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claytontullos Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 The Canon Pro1. It uses an L lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_mccormack Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Another vote for the Fuji E900. It appears (by the specs.) to be a fine camera, but may not be available if you're leaving for Haiti very soon. Note that the F10 and F11 do not have optical viewfinders, which is important to some people. E900 does have an optical VF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I bought the Canon Pro 1 for a trip to Europe recently. At ISO 50 and 100 this little camera is quite impressive. It takes up very little space in a shoulder bag and also weighs very little. The images are beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spitz Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 Thank you for all the advice. I'll have my SLR with me, so I'm really looking for a pocketable 2nd camera, and I think that rules out the Canon Pro 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcuknz Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Interested to know what your problem with the Panasonic LX-1 is. Do not know it personally but it seems a great pocketable camera with image stabilisation which is a boon for the traveller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spitz Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 JC, I was going by the review at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/ Their reviews only reflect one person's experience, but they seem to take a systematic approach. They fault the LX-1 for unacceptable noise above ISO 100, and their comparison shots are pretty convincing. I often print on 13 x 19 paper and it looks like the noise from the LX-1 won't allow that unless I stick with the ISO 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Low sensitivity/noise will be an inevitable part of any camera with a small sensor, Fuji's F10 and its descendents notwithstanding. You will not get DSLR performance without a DSLR, but you can still get very good photographs. It's best to consider a compact as a low ISO camera and work within its capabilities in this regard. I've gotten excellent results with the Konica Minolta A2, Panasonic FZ10 (and others of similar spec) and am looking forward to the Ricoh Caplio GR digital for its more compact size when I don't want to carry a DSLR or other bulkier camera. Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Hi Bob, Sorry, I missed the "slip in the pocket" bit. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken a. Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 You may want to consider Sony's DSC-P200. It has great battery life and offers a reasonable amount of manual control for an ultra-compact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Slip-in-your-pocket size depends how big your pockets are, but if they're fairly big, the Oly C-5060 and C-7070 have 27mm wide equivalent and are certainly rugged. The battery is a big, long-lasting lithium-ion one, good, in my hands, for about a week's use between charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I'd opt for a used Contax T2 or T3 - small with a fantastic lens. Just have scans made during film development and have the best rescanned later if you want larger prints. I find the performance of pocketable digicams disappointing (I own a Canon S45 that only sees services when I need a snap to sell something). Noisy sensors, soft edges on the zoom, too much DOF. Maybe one day an APS sensor will show up in a dig p&s. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athinkle Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The Contax T3-to-scan idea isn't bad. That's about the only way you'll be able to comfortably use anything above ISO 100. Also, the Leica CM series are excellent pocketable cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davek57 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Hate to be the one to say this, but have you considered a pocket-size film camera? Batteries and film are available everywhere. Get a short-zoom, 28-70mm compact point-and-shoot. Olympus still sells them. I'm partial to the Konica Lexio 70, which pops up on auctions here and there. But it is not weather-resistant as the Olympus Stylus cameras. I used a Pentax Opto S40 on a similar trip to the Sea of Abaco. The camera did very well, all things considered, but the 4-second max. exposure made nighttime photos a challenge. I've made a 16x20-inch print from one file that is really astoundingly detailed. It uses 2 AA's or the forever-lasting CRV3 lithium cell. A good compromise and inexpensive now. It's been superceded by 5 and 6-MP models. I like it in circumstances where I need a tiny digital camera. But the smallish sensor can have its drawbacks. Travel safely and good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_nelson1 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 My wife and I just returned from a hiking trip out west. I took an FM2 with a couple of lenses, and a Canon G6, based on reviews of the G6 in DPReview.<P> I shot both cameras in manual exposure mode (that's all the FM2 has) often of similar subjects. The G6 is small and light, gets a zillion shots on a 1G card, and has the best battery life I've ever seen in a non-SLR digital. The FM2 is only a little heavier; it's built like a tank and never needs batteries, but DOES need frequent film changes.<P> The G6 takes fairly decent vacation photos at ISO 50, is a little noisier at ISO 100, and has uglier noise than a Yankees game at Fenway Park at higher ISO's. Its biggest problem is blue fringing shooting dark detail against a light background. I shot lots of pine needles against white skies and it happens at all locations in the image area, on both sides (so it's probably NOT classical C.A.) As bad as the blue fringing is, it's not as bad as other little digicams I've used, it's just bad compared to my or my 20D or D100. My FM2 has no such problems.<P> On the other hand, Haiti is such a dangerous, corrupt, anarchic place that it might be a good idea to choose a camera based on how well it could be used as a self-defense weapon, or choose a camera that, when it gets stolen, you won't miss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgpinc Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I have been using the Canon G3 for several years. I recently upgraded to the G6 which is fantastic for a digital point and shoot prosumer grade camera. You are welcome to look at some of my Photo.net protfolios. Most of the pictures are from the G3 but several of the latest pics are with the G6. It is a lot of camera for the price. I see that Magnum Photographer Alex Majoli has taken to using the small Olympus P&S cameras (C-5060 etc) in situations and areas like you describe. Have a look at some of his work and comments. http://www.photo.net/photo/3793970 http://www.digitalhub.com/pro/photo/majoli/ http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844 http://www.nppa.org/competitions/best_of_still_photojournalism/2004/winners/still/index.cfm?category=MFS&place=2nd http://photography.about.com/b/a/192431.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_nelson1 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 <I>I recently upgraded to the G6 which is fantastic for a digital point and shoot prosumer grade camera. </I><P> I think that as long as one's expectations are not high, the G6 is OK. It's a great vacation snapshot camera - here are some vacation snapshots I took a couple of weeks ago with it . . .<BR> <a href = "http://studio-nelson.com/nehhsd/nehhsd.htm"> Canon G6 Vacation Snapshots</A><P> The PJ examples you posted are probably ideal for these little P&S digi's because in PJ work who cares about blue-fringe or noise levels? The idea is just to get the shot; most people don't make huge prints of newspaper or webzine photos and things like blown highlights or flare are not as important as the expression or action being captured. <P> I did some PJ photography myself in the early 70's, mostly with pushed Tri-X - it was grainy and contrasty and sometimes motion-blurred, but for shooting riots and demonstrations and streetscenes, at night, grainy, contrasty, motion-blurred shots gave it an edgy 'authenticity' that, for some reason, people liked.<P> BTW, another problem with the G6 is that it has the softest, most easily scratched LCD display I have ever seen on a consumer product of any kind. If there is anyone within the range of its microphone who even has a scratchy voice, it will be damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcuknz Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Bob Spitz Maybe what I photograph is unusual but I have only needed to raise the ISO above 100 on a couple of occasions over around three years and have learnt to do the amplification is editing. In poor light I can usually [was going to say always :-) ]find something to support or hold the camera against ... such as undergound shots at LAX Metro while on holiday, or the moon on a number of occasions including enough of the area to make the shots interesting [ie. not telephoto shots]. I think the whole subject of noise is a rather silly exercise in self flagellation which foolishly occupies many bytes of webspace :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now