Recommendation on a P&S with RAW

[leicaglow]

<p>Has anyone looked for or found a P&S type camera with these specs? I'm having a heck of a time finding the right camera. When I do, it seems it is discontinued.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Shoots RAW files (12 bits or more)</li>

<li>14 Mega pixels</li>

<li>Manual exposure</li>

<li>Manual white balance</li>

<li>Superb optics and resolution images</li>

<li>Negligible shutter lag</li>

</ul>

<p>Basically, it is a project where the camera could be vandalized or stolen and I don't want to use a DSLR. Thanks for any ideas or really good comparison sites.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I am still looking for such a camera myself, keeping an eye on the Sony Nex 5 to see what the actual buyers have to say about it, for the present my G11 works find, not quite 14mp nor very quick focus.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Sorry, mine isn't 14 megapixels.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>I've seen this, but it's 10 Mpxls.<br>

It really performed well when I 'played' with it.</p>

<p><a href="http://exilim.casio.com/products_exfh100.shtml">http://exilim.casio.com/products_exfh100.shtml</a></p>

<p>No Help Jim</p>

[oofoto]

<p>The G10 is the best fit.<br>

Loads available used.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Why 14MP? </p>

[lachaine]

<p>What you are finding discontinued is because the extra megapixels didn't make anything better. This is why some of the models which replaced the discontinued ones have 10 megapixel sensors. Do yourself a favour and forget about 14 PM. It means nothing except lower image quality.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>If you're not stuck on 14 megapixels then the G11 is a superb choice. The amount of control it gives you is amazing and the low-light performance is very good. The G10 will fit the 14MP bill but the low-light performance isn't as good, and the G11 is a good argument for fewer MPs instead of more. Also in the les-than-14MP camp of outstanding cameras is the S90. It gives you complete control of exposure, focus, and white balance, with the same custom WB exposure grid found in the EOS bodies. Lately my S90 has been getting more use than either my 7D or G11 just because it's so small and pocketable, but still delivers the shots, whether in RAW or JPEG. In fact Canon includes the G11 and the S90 in their EOS System pamphlet as part of that system because of the similarity of controls. Definitely worth taking a look at.</p>

[tdigi]

<p> </p>

[oofoto]

<p>In good light at base ISO the G10 delivers fantastic image quality. The OP never asked for low light suggestions or reasoning.</p>

[anov]

<blockquote>

<p>What you are finding discontinued is because the extra megapixels didn't make anything better</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anything is a lot of things, at base ISO the G10 outresolve the G11. Yes, the higher ISO is worse, yes, it doesn't have articulationg screen. For me it's like choosing ISO-25 vs ISO 64/200 Kodachrome.</p>

<p> </p>

[bill_tuthill]

Panasonic FZ35 comes just as close as the G10 to meeting these criteria. Instead of 14 Mp it has 12, but shutter response is better: only .31 - .35 second versus .57-.67 second for the G10. FZ35 images are cleaner, with less distortion and color fringing, but not as high resolution in the center.

[lilly_w]

<p>I agree with others that more MP does not equate to improved IQ. Shutter lag is often a function of focus aquisition. Some cameras handle this better than others, e.g. with 'snap focus'. I'll point you in the direction of the Ricoh GX200. I have the GX100 and have been very pleased with two exceptions: 1) mid/high ISO performance (though this plagues nearly all PnS cameras) and 2) write speed when shooting RAW (approx 5 seconds). On the plus side, the optic is fantastic, the lens is a 24-72mm (35mm equiv), superb macro capability and up to five settings can be accessed without having to dig deep into various menus. With the exception of your #2 bullet, the others, a 24mm lens and compact body were the deal-makers for me.</p>

<p>Ricoh's other option is their 'bridge camera', the GXR, which offers various detachable lenses in a PnS package.</p>

[oofoto]

<p>IMO GX100/200 have great ergonomics but a poor sensor. GX200 is better but not great. I used to have the GX100. If you are going to recommend such a camera then the LX3 is a better equivalent in most respects bar ergonomics.<br>

For clarity I also refer to the Canon G10 not the Panasonic G10.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Great recommendations so far. Thanks! 14mp because the images will be printed fairly large, and I'll be using de-noise software on the raw file to make images less pixelated. I was looking at the Casio, but I didn't see a small one with raw. The FH100 looks like a good choice.</p>

[m_adams1]

<p>I'm looking for such a camera - I actually would prefer one that ONLY shoots RAW and does not waste space and money on JPEG image engines etc.</p>

<p>I want top image quality, no lag fast focus and good build - and a viewfinder!</p>

<p>So far:<br>

Leica X1<br>

Sigma DP2s (if I can find one!)<br>

Ricoh GXR<br>

Maybe Canon G11 also.</p>

<p>Any others? I want an alternative to my D3's for a trip to India. (I'm taking the Nikons too but don't want to carry them on every walk I take - but would like to retain good image quality.)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I actually would prefer one that ONLY shoots RAW and does not waste space and money on JPEG image engines etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you want a camera with no image review?</p>

[m_adams1]

<p>Never had it when I used film......!</p>

<p>I don't specifically WANT one without it - it just wouldn't bother me much if it was missing. The D3 for example has all kinds of fancy JPEG Expeed stuff - which is not really needed for tiny review images - and I never shoot JPEG for actual use.<br>

A very simple JPEG to show composition and highlights etc would be fine, but no need for expensively developed systems to do it.</p>

[jsigua]

<p>A Canon A650 is 12.1 MP and if you install the Canon Hack Development Kit(CHDK) which is free, then you can get most of the features you are looking for plus many more. The CHDK by the way does not overwrite the camera's firmware so you can always not load it when you turn it on and the camera will still be original. I use it on my A640 and the Live Histogram and battery check make it worth the download alone. Check it out:<br /> CHDK FAQ <a href="http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ">http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ</a></p>

[lachaine]

<p>Me, I'm not an anal retentive, indecisive, eternally-obessessed modern person. All I want is what will never be offered, so I ndon't bother asking any advice about it on photo.net: a camera built like my Nikon FE but with digital guts like my Canon S90 :-)</p>

[dave_b15]

<blockquote>

<p>Panasonic FZ35 comes just as close as the G10 to meeting these criteria.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I second this.<br>

I have tried a bunch of P&S and the Panasonic Lumix brand impresses me the most in that class of cameras. Speed, color, resolution, noise, Lumix comes out as good as or better than everyone else.<br>

Also, Consumer Reports listed the FZ35 as one of the best new P&S - along with the Canon S90.</p>

<p>I've been shopping, trying and buying because I'm over the whole D/SLR thing. Today's P&S's match most of the DSLR performance from a couple of years ago (OK, except lens IQ), costs mush less and you don't have to lug around this big bulky package. I want to have fun too when I'm walking around. And with a memory card, I'm carrying the equivalent of a few dozen rolls of film.</p>

[doug_nelson3]

<p>The 14MP is unrealistic in this class. If cost is a consideration, look for a Panasonic DMC FZ28, the earlier version of the FZ35. You get 10 MP, but very clean image quality at ISO 100-200, and acceptable at 400. You can get the FZ28 for less than $300.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Well, note how OP Michael Axel seems to have picked the Casio FH100, a 10 Mp camera, with the same Sony CMOS sensor as many recent models. Judging by the samples on dcresource.com, it has higher image quality than earlier Casios.

 

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/casio/exilim_fh100-review/gallery

[oofoto]

<p>The FH100 only has a 1/2.3" (6.16 x 4.62 mm, 0.28 cm²) CMOS sensor giving it a pixel density of 35 MP/cm². This is also how it achieves the mega zoom status in such a compact form.<br>

Looks like Casio has done a better job with the CMOS than the others to date.</p>

 

[lachaine]

<p>I've used CHDK on lesser Canon compacts than the S90. An important thing to know is that it's not quite the same. The raw files with CHDK are 10-bit ones, not the 12 bit per channel raw files like from cameras with native raw capability. It's maybe interesting to get raw files this way, but don't expect to get a lot more from them than you would with the JPEG the camera gives you.</p>