Are Premium Compact Cameras Worth it?

[philip_tam]

<p>I recently decided to shop for a premium compact camera and settled into the classic comparison between the Canon S90/95 and the Panasonic LX3/LX5. I thought they would be a lot better than a compact, since the sensors were marginally larger, and I was hoping the lenses would be higher quality.</p>

<p>I picked up an LX-5 and played around with it... and was sorely disappointed at the noise at ISO400. Thom Hogan says it cleans up well in post processing, but I find that it's quite messy.</p>

<p>Is it worth the 2x-4x premium you pay over a normal compact? Or should we just save our money and put it into more DSLR stuff?</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Premium compacts are worth more than sub-premium compacts because they generally have better lenses and create better lenses.</p>

<p>That said, the size of the sensor in all compacts are slightly larger than the average fly's brain. Don't expect miracles. ISO 400 will be noisy. But it will clean up with a good noise reduction program.</p>

<p>I have an LX3. I really like it. That said, I anticipate it not being used much once the Fuji X100 comes out in the spring. The Fuji can't be considered a compact P&S. But it is smaller than a dSLR and has an APS-C size sensor. Of course, it will most like cost 2.5 times as much as the LX5, too. :)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I find the premium compacts to be worth the cost. I've shot with a lot of different PowerShots and while they were great for snapshots or 4x6 prints, I was never happy with the 8x10 prints I made with them. After using a G11 and now a G12, I'm very happy with the quality of the 8x10s I print. I also find the G12 to produce excellent image quality at ISO 800 and 1600 is very usable with a little NR. There are also a lot of other features built into it that make photography very enjoyable while using it, and the layout and user interface isn't terribly different from my EOS bodies. I'm glad that I paid the extra price for it over the "regular" PowerShots.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Having owned a G9 and a G10, I can tell you that the<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgredline/sets/72157624972355191/detail/"> LX-5 </a> is leaps ahead in noise control. I do not know how it compares to the G11 or G12 but i use my lx-5 at iso 800 very often and have got some really good results at ISO 1600. You can see many images here and take a look at the EXIF<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgredline/sets/72157624972355191/detail/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgredline/sets/72157624972355191/detail/</a></p>

[Greg M]

<p>The premium models are better, but the sensor size will always limit how much better they can really be. You will never be able to compare their image quality to cameras using the bigger-sized sensors, no matter how good the lenses and controls are.</p>

<p>I have purchased my last compact, premium or otherwise. I do not need something so small it'll fit in a pocket. A Pen with a couple of those tiny lenses and a very small bag will do, thank you.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>If you need small size (hardly a DSLR quality) and are not worried about limited lens focal lengths or zoom range, one of the significantly larger sensor compacts may be worthwhile (there are a few, but the Sigma DP1 or DP2 might be good to look at, like the Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic GF1) if it is high quality results you are after.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>It is silly in my opinion to compare and complaim about noise at 400ISO in small ompacts when after all one buys a camera for what it will do and not all cameras do everything. For me there are the other considerations about usefulness as a tool and cost of getting the capabilities. So I don't compare the compacts you choose but rather the long lensed flagships of each brand which are a better deal for the less affluent than a DSLR. To get a reasonable range of focal lengths with the DSLR costs big money and you loose the compactness of a long lens pro-sumer. I rarely shoot at anything other than 100ISO becuase I know I will not be happy with the results, prefering to get the 'emulsion' speed in editing on the rare occasions it is needed for what I do. That is the other consideration, what sort of photography you want the camera to do, probably I don't shoot what you do :-). In your case you are on the slippery slope of the DSLR owner wanting top IQ but not prepared to sacrifice it for compactness ... I carry my 0.5Mb cellphone for compactness but know it doesn't give me the IQ for larger sizes ... my son's phone results in much better IQ but isn't as compact as my phone. As suggested above perhaps you should look at 4/3 which will give you IQ but not the compactness of the P&S. A side issue which my cellphone taught me ... what comes out of the camera is rubbish until it is post processed when it is quite satisfactory. Probably applies to all small sensored cameras.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Javier those flikr pictures look kind of harsh and chalky, and I don't know if it is the LX-5, your 'style', or the post processing. I like my G10 very much but I don't use it over 400. There are a few pics from the G10 in my New York portfolio on Pnet. I have handled the G12 in the store and know it would be better at high ISO but so far haven't gone for the upgrade. I like a mechanical finder even if the one in the G series is only about 80%. I'm not fond of being stuck with just the LCD because it is a little too slow for me for street pictures. </p>

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>Javier those flikr pictures look kind of harsh and chalky, and I don't know if it is the LX-5, your 'style', or the post processing</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, your right and those are bad examples as I ''add'' film grain to them and prefer the dirty look of street images. Let me look some others in my photobucket.</p>

 

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I think they are worth it. However, if you are a noise freak, there are inbetweeners (smaller than dslrs but bigger than tiny compacts) such as the Sony Nex, Samsung NX100, GF1/2 etc...Here's a good article: http://www.bythom.com/compactmirrorless.htm</p>

<p>And some "compact" pics...<br /> <img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9555348_450538474e_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p>

<p><br /> <img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9551133_60bcceb174_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9546926_a371bd8f37_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p>

<p><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9533450_94dbf9260c_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>And if the photo is good enough, I don't mind ISO 800 from my LX3. With 4/3rds, Nex etc...I'm good up to ISO 3200. Again, it's all about the photographer and the photo themselves.</p>

<p> </p>

[bill_tuthill]

Philip, if you don't mind carrying around your honkin' D5000, go right ahead. Certainly DSLRs are better at ISO 400 and significantly better at ISO 3200, but photographers used ASA 25 film at one time.

<p>

As to whether premium P&S models are worth the premium, I would say so. Panasonic is known for having a below average (read: worst in industry) JPEG engine, so comparing Canon with Canon instead, here is what I see at ISO 800, SD1300 vs S95. The SD1300 is far above average for a non-premium P&S. Additionally, SD/Ixus series lenses often have bad softness and color fringing in the corners, not visible here.

<p>

<img src=http://www.dcresource.com/specials/BudgetCams2010/powershot_sd1300/IMG_0008-crop.jpg>

<p>

<img src=http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s95-assets/IMG_0006-crop.jpg>

<p>

The S95 is ultra small and the Nikon P7000 has an 18-200 lens in a small package, but it is a mystery to me why people would buy a G12 or LX5 instead of an Olympus E-PL1.

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'd agree with leslie, pics look good up until around 800, though you can get a nice grain at 1600 that looks like film if you convert to b&w. definitely an improvement over low-end compacts but the big advantage, i think, isn't so much in the bigger sensor, but the more advanced features.</p>

<p>the best standout feature for compacts is a fast lens, this is even better than high-ISO capabilities b/c small sensors are sharper at wide apertures due to increased DoF. so the s90/95's f/2.0, the samsung tL500's 1.8, and the lx5's f/2 are going to be great for low-light candids, whereas the slower g11/12 and p7000 will be challenged in those situations.</p>

<p>interestingly, i found that my $350 TL500 can do something few DSLR/Lens combos can do: shoot at 24mm and f/1.8. even my pro DSLR/24-70/2.8 zoom combo can't do that. that makes a difference in situations where high-ISO doesn't help much, i.e. strong backlighting in otherwise low-light--where high-ISO will completely blow out background highlights. the TL500 also renders skin tones very nicely, though there's obviously less dynamic range than APS-C or FF.</p><div></div>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Not that this will work for everyone, but I just found my solution to the "compact carry me around all the time" dilemma. I'd used a Canon G11, great camera, but I make prints for exhibition, so the large prints just weren't good enough. I have pretty much abandoned small sensor cameras for good now, because I use an Olympus EPL1 with a Panasonic 20 1.7 on it. Size wise, it does stretch the definition of "compact" a bit, but it sure solves my problem and the files from this combination look just fine at larger sizes.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

White balance? I see you used manual WB, Eric.<div></div>

[philip_tam]

<p>Thanks for the replies.</p>

<p>Leslie, nice pictures. I would say the last one is rather noisy however.</p>

<p>When I ordered the LX-5, I think I was expecting to get ISO 400, and 800-1600 in a pinch. However, once I sat down and started working on the raw files, I thought that ISO 400 is already pushing it. The chroma noise is splotchy, and it requires heavy luma noise reduction to the point where I'm destroying detail (i suppose part of this is because of the somewhat lower resolution). I haven't printed on 5x7 though, and it probably will work there.</p>

<p>Still, after mucking around the raw files, I did consider a u4/3's camera, even though I had previously dismissed it. The reason I dismissed it was that, pricing out what I'd want, it would have been significantly more expensive and more of a kit than just a single LX-5.</p>

<p>For example, if I bought an GF-1 (or 2), I'd want the 20mm pancake lens, and the 14-45 lens, which in total would probably push the budget to around $1000. Roughly speaking the LX-5 covers the same zoom/aperture territory for $400. The GF-1 is significantly bigger also, and at that point, I mind as well carry around a DSLR.</p>

<p>But looking at the LX-5 raw files, I seriously got to thinking that maybe I should have kept my cheapo compact superzoom, and bought a GF-1 or a EPL-1 with just a 20mm pancake lens for indoors. It just seems like the LX-5 is a more elegant solution.</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>I've been using an S90 for about two months. The more I use it, the more impressed I am with it. With raw files, it's capable of image quality indistinguishable from a "consumer" DSLR, <em>under appropriate conditions</em>. Those "appropriate conditions" boil down to <em>enough light for ISO 80<em>. </em></em>Once I start cranking up the ISO, the results I see on my screen in Adobe Camera Raw remind very clearly that the little gem in my shirt pocket is neither a DSLR nor a viable substitute for one. The "big" small sensor is still not APS-C or even Four Thirds. And the Immutable Laws of Physics decree that amplifying those little photo sites to ISO 400 or more will produce gritty blotches. ACR's sliders or NeatImage can ameliorate the noise but not eliminate it, at the cost of noticeably reduced image quality. <em><em> </em></em><br>

What a "premium" compact camera provides is <em>some</em> of the features that make a DSLR useful. You get full control over exposure with a choice of metering modes, raw files, and a decent lens that can <em>often</em> produce DSLR-quality images, all in a convenient compact package. But once you venture outside its built-in limitations, you'll end up disappointed. But then, a "non-premium" compact camera under similar conditions would probably disappoint even more.<br>

Is the "premium" worth it? I think it is (and the S90 wasn't that expensive). But you always have to keep the limitations in mind.</p>

 

[mike_hitchen]

<p>A perfect summary of my thoughts about the S90, Ted.</p>