Travel Camera choices....

[szrimaging]

<p>So first, lets start with the basic background: I have a degree in photography, and shoot semi-pro for a resort. I have a Nikon DSLR setup for that, so this has nothing to do with those needs. It does make a point that I do like a camera with some good image quality though.</p>

<p>The needs: A compact travel camera with decent image quality, great portability, and is fun to use. I want to be able to make 12" x 18" prints when I get back, so anything 12MP or greater should have the resolution. I'm more worried about lens quality and overall image quality. Raw images are a must, and manual settings are a huge plus, but they don't need to be on dials. Also AEB that can move in +-2 EV steps (3 to 5 images) is a very good feature. Also, a zoom is a must, so no fixed lens like the Sigmas.</p>

<p>What it'll shoot: Architecture, people, landscapes, just general type of things. On the portraits, being able to control depth of field to get some subject isolation is a must. So fast lenses and low ISO is probably high up there on criteria.</p>

<p>The budget: Would prefer less than $500, more if a case can be made for a G1X or RX100.</p>

<p>Brands: I prefer to stay with Nikon, Canon, Fuji, or Panasonic. I am hesitant on Sony just from past cameras.</p>

<p>Size: The smaller the better. If it can fit in a pocket, great! If it needs a small hip pouch, I can figure it out.</p>

<p>What I have: Olympus E-PM1</p>

<p>Why I am thinking of switching: Well, lets start off by saying, the image quality on the E-PM1 is great. It's just the size that is the problem. The lens (standard 14-42mm) is just too big and awkward from the body. I don't own another lens, and really, I think the DSLRs are the only system I should buy lenses for.</p>

<p>I had an LX-3, but the image quality (mostly from dynamic range) left much to be desired. I also was not a fan of the "shutter lag", which was more a problem of focus time than true shutter lag.</p>

<p>Currently leading the chioces are the X10 and S100, but not quite sure...</p>

[bill_tuthill]

If AF/shutter lag is an issue, forget about the S100 (.571-.572 second) and G1x (.697-.681 second). Additionally the G1x is incapable of macro. Also forget about the Olympus ZX1 (.53-.54 second). Panasonic sped up the LX5 (.351-.367 second). Imaging-resource.com has not yet tested the replacement LX7, which looks promising. The X10 (.334-.305 second) is not very compact and RAW mode is poorly supported by third party software. The Samsung EX2f (same sensor as Nikon P7700) might prove amazing, but you seem prejudiced against off brands. Sony RX100 (.153-.266 second) has fast AF but its lens is very slow at telephoto, and it is overpriced as you noted. So maybe you get a good deal on the LX5, or splurge on the LX7.

[dave_l.]

<p>I have been snooping around in the same price range for a similar camera. I've tried a bunch, but my two favorites are definitely the Olympus XZ-1 (which is getting a rumored replacement) and the Fuji X10. I refuse to consider Sony products because they, as a company and across divisions, have treated me so poorly as a customer that I can't support them. So I admittedly haven't tried them.<br /> The big reason I like the X10 is the manual zoom and general handling. The mechanical zoom on other compact cameras drives me CRAZY. It's certainly a unique feature amongst competitors and is at least worth trying yourself.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Though I own and use a G1x (similar to you, I am semi-pro and don't care to haul 12 pounds of Nikon gear around all the time) for the very reason you're looking, great image quality, I don't think I'd suggest it for you. One, it's not that portable, two, the lens is not very fast, three, the sensor is big, yes, but DOF is only semi controllable.</p>

<p>Having said that, though, my requirements were mainly a (sorta) portable, integrated zoom lens, high image quality camera. The images from the G1X are tremendous; I'll use it all the way up to ISO800, and for me it works great. I'm headed to Europe in a couple months, and though I have several other cameras (an EPL1 among them), the G1x is the one that's coming with me. That, and a tripod.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>I have limited access to camera shops. The closest (which carries Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Panasonic and Oly, possibly Fuji, but I doubt it) is 1.5 hours away. I'll be stopping in Monday.</p>

<p>For the price, another option popped up, replacing the kit lens with the Panasonic X 14-42mm. Definitely an option to think about. It does mean maintaining two systems, although neither system would need more than a handful of lenses (maybe the X lens, a fast prime (or two), and a long zoom, then a viewfinder).</p>

<p>But it sounds like the Canons are out. I'll see if I can get my hands on an X10 (maybe Best Buy has one?) and try it, then an LX7 when they hit the market.</p>

<p>Didn't even think of Samsung. And I have been curious of Ricoh, but have no way to try it before I buy it.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Zach, did you read Amazon reviews of the Panny 14-42 PZ and note slrgear.com's remark about sharpness issues at 1/160 and 1/200 shutter speed? (with GX1 body)

 

If it's down to X10 vs LX7, I advise reading DCresource.com reviews of both. Hopefully the LX7 night-time AF issue can be resolved by firmware update. X10 orbs are possibly fixed by updated sensor.

[szrimaging]

<p>I heard the newer copies of the Panny lens were fixed for the sharpness issue. I'm not finding too many new owners who are having issue.</p>

<p>Forgot about the orbs....</p>

<p>Not too worried about night time, I'm not a huge night owl anyways. However, it could affect the focusing indoors. I'll have to read up more on it. Thanks for the catch.</p>

[Brad_]

I've been playing with my RX100 for a couple weeks now. It fits in my jeans pocket, which was a

requirement. Decent quality all things considered. Really good iso 1600 and 3200 for a point-n-shoot. Looking forward

to Lightroom 4 RAW support which should be coming soon - just been processing jpegs till that happens. Menu system and controls are the best I've seen for a compact.

It's a keeper for me...<P>

 

<a href= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/RX100%20gallery/">Here are a few snaps</a> from my

cam.

[jcuknz]

<p>Now that we have M4/3 well established I cannot understand anybody wanting to buy a bridge camera unless they want the long reach or a P&S. M4/3 with the right lens is the answer for compactness and IQ. You are not stuck with just the 14-42 .. check dpreview's lists of Pany and Oly lenses and Sigma recently. My preference is for the 014140 as a general purpose walk-around camera. This makes it about as heavy as a small DSLR or my FZ50 but it is a weight I am happy with :-)</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I'm primarily working with a Nikon D5000 and a bagful of lenses and have settled a question much like yours with an X10. It's a gorgeous instrument, also good in the hands. Its jpegs are very good, easily up to the 12" X 18" requirements to ISO 400, IMO. But the raw is Fuji's proprietary, with not-so-good Silky-Pix supplied on CD. The in-camera raw conversion is better but not up to PS, LR etc.</p>

[tombest]

<p>I bought my wife a Nikon P7100 a few months back and was so impressed by it that I upgraded from the D200 I was using to a D7000. The advances in technology were very apparent and in many situations, the P7100 produced better results than my D200 did. <br>

You may have noticed that Nikon just announced the P7700. Better High ISO, faster lens, improvements in focus speed and tracking, a CMOS 12mp sensor instead of the 10mp CCD and the ability to use the CLS wireless flash system. The controls are easily familiar if you are a Nikon user and are logical and useful; what isn't controllable from the external dials is easy to navigate through in the menu. All-in-all, I find my wife's camera a joy to use. At a suggested list of $499 (right at your price range)the P7700 is worth a look. More of a good thing. Below is a shot taken with her P7100 and my SB800. No adjustments other than resizing for this site.</p>

<p>Tom</p><div></div>

[szrimaging]

<p>Everyone, thanks for your input.</p>

<p>Brad, nice photos. I especially like the first few (good studies of form and shadows). RAW support is an interesting thing I didn't think about. I'm on CS5, and won't be upgrading to CS6 anytime soon. Probably going to wait until CS7, so that could be a reason to hold off on newer models. That, and the Sony is just too expensive at the moment.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

> The [X10] in-camera raw conversion is better but not up to PS, LR, etc.

 

Howard, how could this be? I thought the in-camera RAW conversion produced the same results as the JPEG engine, which DPreview says is better than Adobe Lightroom can produce. The EXR sensor is weird.

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, nice photos. ... RAW support is an interesting thing I didn't think about.

 

Thanks Zach. That was one of several major factors in choosing the RX100. I suspect the next version of

Lightroom will have it covered. Though I haven't been unhappy with the jpegs it produces, especially in

low light.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Hey, Brad, how's the shutter and AF response on that RX100? Quick enough to do the trick for quick snaps? I'm sorta waffling between that one and a Nikon 1 Series, J or V model, for the very quick AF.</p>

[Brad_]

Lex, AF and shutter response are extremely fast. Boom, it happens. Surprised the heck out of me.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Good to know, that's narrowing down my choices.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I am using the GF1 for walk around and travel stuff when I don't need the best files. A friend just picked one up for $350 with the kit lens, but I suggest trying to find one with the 20/1.7 <br /> Best bang for the camera buck I've seen (IMO). Some more samples <a href="http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398240270237967.94681.171846589544004&type=3">here</a> and <a href="http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.182591415136188.47370.171846589544004&type=3">here</a>.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6133/5918123589_1bfb13708d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6202/6081093215_4b159a9d7b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[leslie_cheung]

The rx100 has universal great reviews

afaik but I'd try your epm1 first. It's

pretty damn small already. I like my

epl3 lots. Mostly agree with Bill's

assessment tho. And Sony rocks!

[bill_tuthill]

DCresource's review of the RX100 was published yesterday. One of its problems, clipped highlights, will almost surely be fixable by RAW workflow. Too bad its dynamic range optimization (DRO) doesn't improve highlights, only shadows. Samsung and Canon implement better DRO.

 

Bottom line with the RX100: at web sizes you won't see a difference at low ISO, but high ISO results will be distinguishably better. And you can print larger. Downside is larger files, consuming more storage.

[Brad_]

>>> DCresource's review of the RX100 was published yesterday. One of its problems, clipped highlights,

will almost surely be fixable by RAW workflow.

 

And they are still easily fixable as jpegs in LR, though perhaps not as optimally. Still looking forward to an

updated RAW processor in LR. I've yet to own a camera that didn't clip highlights in some circumstance,

with exposure compensation set to zero. When shooting on the street under a wide variety of situations, the

RX100 to me feels no worse or no better in that regard. I do have my in-camera jpeg processing settings backed down a bit, though.

[szrimaging]

So I threw a 20mm Panny lens on the E-PM1 on at a store today. Size wise, that wasn't bad at all. Think I need a 20mm,

45mm and possibly 12mm and 75mm. Also tried a VF-2, think I need to add one of those also. Now I just need to figure

out how to pay for it....

[bill_tuthill]

> [Clipped highlights] are still easily fixable as jpegs in LR...

 

No, once JPEG highlights are clipped, they are gone.

[james_turner6]

<p>Late to the debate, but ... another vote for the RX100.</p>

<p>Like yours, my "primary" camera is a reasonably serious one (Canon 1Ds III with several L lenses). My wife 'encouraged' me to leave it at home when we went to Rome for a week with the children. I took my LX3 with me (reluctantly: although generally pleased with it, I always have the feeling - for the same reason that you give - that I am missing out on THAT shot by leaving the DSLR at home). At the airport, I "compromised" by buying an RX100. The result? I did not miss my Canon at all. The reviews are right: the RX100 is great to use; the results look very good; it fits in a shirt pocket; and as of yesterday it is supported in Lightroom and Camera Raw. I didn't think twice about leaving the DSLR behind when I went away again for a few days last week. <strong>Definitely</strong> my travel camera of choice; although of course it can't do everything and of course it isn't perfect, I no longer have that nagging feeling that a decent shot is going to be let down by the camera - and best of all it is actually smaller than the LX3 and fits much more easily into a pocket than that camera ever did.</p>

<p>Note: DP Review published <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/">its review of the RX100</a> yesterday. I disagree with it about the lack of "click" on the front dial: the lack of "click" is offset by the visual aid on the screen and it's an non-issue for me, but YMMV I guess.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>James, thanks for the review!</p>

<p>Although I am sticking with the E-PM1 for now, I am definitely going to keep an eye out for the RX100 successor in a few years. If I somehow get a spare $700, I may even pick one up sooner...</p>