need help with sensor size/new camera choice

[revolver]

<p>I may be hung up on sensor size and some issues that I have keeping my sensor clean, you fine folks will guide me in the direction I am looking to go I am sure.<br /><br />admittedly I have not been good at keeping my sensor clean on the K100D, it has been frustrating but my own fault. I just got a proper kit today and am going to check it out over the weekend.<br /><br />I would like a seal body camera for times when I got to events that restrict DSLR's and for general 18-100mm shots of my family,adventurs and what not.<br /><br />I feel that a larger 4/3rds or aps-c sensor is better than a 1/2.3 with the same MP crammed into it...am I right?<br /><br />I visited a local store today and the guy there says that if I am not printing bigger than 8X10 then the small sensor is all I need.<br /><br />I have toyed with the idea of the superzoom cameras with the 42-50 time zoom to 1000MM but I really dont shoot that far.<br />but what are those images going to look like on a small sensor.<br /><br />I checked out the canon GX1 and it really seems like a nice camera. fixed lens 28-140 MM<br /><br />it seemed more solid that all the others I played with or reviewed in the last week or so including the Nikon P502, Lumix FZ200 and a Sony NEX<br /><br />what I am looking for is a camera without a removable lens so that my crappy sensor cleaning issues dont F up my shots without compromising IQ that I get from my K100D...<br /><br />my other thought, even though its a ILC camera is going back to that ugly as hell K01 which produced some great shots in good light( I heard there was a software fix for the slow AF in low light)<br /><br />any help short of a straight jacket would be appreciated<br /><br /></p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Your question of the larger sensor being better, in general, I'd agree with you, larger is better. Same number of pixels but on a larger sensor means larger pixels, which in turn provide better light gathering capability, which provides a better final image. And with the 1/2.3" sensor size (pretty much the smallest digital camera sensor out there on the consumer market), you are not going to be able to achieve anything resembling shallow depth of field, not compared to the larger sensor cameras and their corresponding larger lenses. (The physically small lens of the superzoom cameras just can't provide shallow depth of field, it's the nature of the optics.) Even the larger sensor, but still very small compared to 4/3 and ASP-C, in the Panasonic LX7 with its 1/1.7" sensor size will out-perform the 1/2.3" sensor size cameras. This might be a camera for you to consider. I've got the original LX3 and it is still a great camera. Not much for shallow depth of field, but great image quality in print sizes up from 8x10. 11x14 and 11x17 are doable. It's got a 24-90mm equivalent zoom lens that opens to F/1.4 at the wide end. Pretty impressive for a compact camera.</p>

<p>The guy at the local store... I think he was talking down to you. Equating sensor size to print size in such simplistic terms... he's not giving you all the information. Sure, from the resolution standpoint he's right (tough to blow up a superzoom camera print much larger than that without a decrease in image quality), but what about my thoughts from above?</p>

<p>If you don't need that telescope-like zooming power, I'd skip it. Speaking for myself, I'm really lucky to be able to handhold a camera with much beyond about 135mm focal length without a tripod, and that's in good light. Handheld-induced camera shake becomes a very unwelcome guest into my photos beyond about that point. And that's with shake reduction turned on. I don't like jacking the ISO way up to compensate and create a faster shutter speed because then I introduce sensor noise into the image. Gimme my tripod and a low ISO setting just about every time.</p>

<p>The self-cleaning feature built into current generation Pentax DSLR cameras blows that of the old K100D out of the water. (Did the K100D even have it?) With my previous K20 (which replaced a K100D Super) and my current K-5, I have the automatic sensor cleaning set to activate at each start up. Dust on my sensor is a non-issue, really. I've got around 11,000 shots on my K-5, most images shot outdoors with periodic lens changes, and having to edit out dust specs is a rare event. A good "rocket" blower, and careful lens swaps (keep the lens mount hole aimed down so dust doesn't fall into it, avoid dusty/windy conditions if possible, block the camera from the wind with your body, etc) should make for a pretty clean sensor most of the time. And with the current Pentax bodies, if you mount a Pentax DA 18-135mm lens to it, you have a dust and moisture sealed kit that goes from wide angle to moderate telephoto. I own a mess of lenses, including all the DA Limited lenses, but my K-5/18-135mm combo can cover most general photography tasks for me.</p>

<p>A Pentax K30 and DA 18-135mm combination sounds wonderful and keeps the costs down. One great body and one very good lens- no need to change lenses. And absolutely no compromises from your K100D (actually a big step up from the K100D). And it's weather-tight. Or step it up if your budget allows and go for one of the K-5 variations, at least one of the new K-5II models. (Ohhh, that K-5IIs...!) Note about the 18-135, in my opinion it's a great performing lens up to around 100mm or so, but beyond that the image can soften just a bit as has been reported from other magazines and websites. I try to limit my zooming to around 100-110 or so. I'd rather get a somewhat wider view that's in very good focus and then crop it a bit on the computer vs. catching a slightly softer but more telephoto image. But that's my experience and thought about it- that's the nature of the beast for wide zoom range lenses. Otherwise it is fast focusing, dead quiet, and accurate with great color reproduction.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Maybe for those times when you can't carry your big camera you should just use a cellphone if it's late enough. My

iPhone 4S isn't my preference AS A CAMERA but when it's the only one I have it takes pretty great shots, especially for

snapshots.

 

 

There are some little fixed lens APS-C cameras like the new Sony but they tend to be expensive. Something like the

NEX-6 with a small lens is awfully cool, you might decide you don't need your bigger SLR.

[revolver]

<p>Steve,<br /><br />thanks<br /><br />I have seen a few 1/1.7 camera's and they look ok, I'll have to look a little more into it. right now the 2 cameras that are really standing out for me are the Canon GX1. I had it in my hands today and reading every page of the DPreview on it and it seems like what I am looking for.<br /><br />I agree the guy in the store seemed a bit condescending. I had told him I have been shooting Pentax since I was 10 and when he handed me the Canon he said now you know what a real camera feels like. dont worry, I took the opportunity to tell him I actually touched a Nikon the other day and I felt as if I needed to take a shower....he was wearing a Nikon polo...lol<br /><br />as for a Superzoom...even though it has the 1/2.3 sensor the Lumix FZ200 is real appealing.When I mentioned that one of the selling points of that camera was that the camera has " a lens with an F2.8 maximum aperture across its entire zoom range." he basically said bullshit..<br /><br />No, My K100D doesnt have a dust removal system. before not being allowed into a place with my "professional" camera ( the K100D) last week while I was on vacation, I was pretty much going to get the K30. the K5II is a little much for my needs and the K30 is a major step up from the 100D. My all around lens for my K100D is the 18-250mm Pentax. so that could go right on the K30 but your right, the 18-135mm would probably be better. <br /><br />I would rather get the K30 or even the K01 again but other than sensor size, getting into places with a camera that is not deemed "Professional" or ILC is my other goal without sacrificing IQ.<br /><br />Thanks a lot for your input<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[revolver]

<p>David,<br />That NEX is pretty cool and I think its full frame but I am looking more for a fixed lens.<br /><br />and really! a cell phone as your camera...how dare you...lol<br /><br />although, maybe you are on to something<br /><br /><img src="http://images.freshnessmag.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/07/photojojo-apple-iphone-slr-lens-mount-01.jpg" alt="" width="570" height="450" /></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Christopher, none of these bodies are dust-sealed. There are parts about the dust stories that are just myths, or (in my view) wrong beliefs. Some time ago, I had quite a few ruined photos from my compact camera (a cheap and very simple Panasonic) - dust particle which seemed enormous. Due to the small sensor, the dust covers a lot more area, and fixing the damage in software isn't half as easy as the dust spots I occassionally have with my DSLR. It wasn't dust on the lens, so it really was somewhere inside....<br>

Another thing is that changing lenses would be the large dust-collector for a DSLR. In my experience, this is really not the first and foremost cause. I shoot mainly with primes, and on my (yeah, Nikon, time for another shower ;-) D700 nearly exclusively primes. In 9 months of use, close to 10k shots, dust hasn't been a problem at all yet. I change lenses anywhere, and just consider to keep the lensmount pointing down, and the camera out of the wind while changing lenses. Otherwise, I could be regarded fairly careless. On my D300, I used a 16-85VR regularly (in many ways similar to the Pentax 18-135), and on days with the zoom, I found dust more often than on the 'prime-only' days. Friends of me with superzooms etc. suffer more dustproblems than I do, and I changes lenses all the time. Fact is, the zoomlenses aren't dust sealed and pull in air as you zoom (and something like a 18-250 pushes a <em>lot</em> of air around). Also the zoomlenses on compacts do this, so it's not a sure solution either.</p>

<p>You already have a really nice camera. Rather than getting something that isn't better, I'd say to get better grips with how to keep the camera clean, how to fix dust-spots in post-processing (they're not that much of a problem most of the time), and also learn to accept that dust can happen, and is easily fixed in PP. Keep on enjoying that Pentax instead, it's a lot nicer than any compact. And the K30 looks one hell of a deal - budget allowing, I'd get that any day over any fixed-lens compact, if I were you.</p>

[revolver]

<p>Dammit Wouter! stop making sense <br /><br />lol<br /><br />I'll tell you what......I got a proper sensor cleaning kit yesterday. I will clean my Sensor and lenses and get back to This thread. <br /><br />I do appreciate the points you made about the superzooms pushing air. <br /><br />what are your thoughts on the high mp 1/2.3 sensors vs the bigger sensor in the Canon GX1 as a compact in general?</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>I just punched up that G1X at DPReview. Smaller sensor than APS-C, but slightly larger than 4/3. But still able to draw in dust around the tubes of the telescopic lens. (Same for any lens of this style, incl. the LX7 I mentioned earlier, and interchangeable zooms.) Looks like a good model in theory, but it has a long list of cons against it (for a $600 compact camera) that I bet (hope) would be dealt with by its next generation. If you buy before the July 5 $100 rebate expiration, you could pick up a weather sealed K30 body for about $550 from B&H.</p>

<p>(Sidebar- on my K-5/18-135mm combo, with everything being weather sealed, that zoom lens has to move air in and out somewhere. When one racks the zoom lens quickly you can hear a faint air rush whistle at the back of the camera body. I just keyed in on it- it moves air around the rear rotating aperture dial. Funky. I wonder how that wheel is weather sealed otherwise? Anyway...)</p>

<p>Without any research between the sensors you mention in your last message, I'd give the nod to the G1X sensor in general as a better performer over the 1/2.3" sensors due to larger area and larger pixels. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a graphic comparison on sensor sizes from Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg</p>

<p>But hopefully the cleaning kit takes care of everything for you, then your problem is solved for $20. Well, except for that "professional cameras prohibited" problem...</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Here's a heck of a M4/3 camera deal at Adorama! And no, "they" won't accuse you of any professionalism here. http://www.adorama.com/IPCDMCGF3PKA.html?emailprice=t&j=Email070413FOJ1Day&utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email070413FOJ1Day&utm_source=RSYS Gotta like pink, though. Pick up one of those mini zooms along with it and you're in business!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>what are your thoughts on the high mp 1/2.3 sensors vs the bigger sensor in the Canon GX1 as a compact in general?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When image quality is the only parameter, the answer is easy: as large a sensor as possible with a lens as fast as possible, please. Shortlist, as far as I care: the Sony RX100 if you want zoom, the Fuji X100s if you can live without zoom.</p>

<p>But it isn't the only parameter.... larger sensor, larger lens, larger camera.... and suddenly they're not all that pocketable anymore, and a entry-level DSLR or NEX/m43rd is not much bigger (but with much larger sensor, and choice of lens).... hmmmmm.... Or they are pocketable, but then the lens is slow aperture to reduce the size, you have to push the ISO and the advantage of the larger sensors is wasted on that. Or they are pocketable, and the sensor is smaller. And that's disregarding the price too. They're not cheap.<br>

So, there is no single right answer; how much one is willing to spend on a compact camera is a personal choice, and where to put the balance between portability/price/image quality can also not be answered straight.</p>

<p>My personal conclusion.... I continue to dream about that Fuji X100s that I will never buy in the end. Consider an entry-level Olympus Pen with pancake prime, but never bite that bullet either. And given this is still the Pentax forum.... darn, the MX-1 looks nice... lovely. Won't buy it. In the end, my smartphone works really quite fine for quick snaps, and else I am serious about the photo, so I'm OK to take a DSLR with me. In terms of handling (viewfinder, a sizeable handgrip, direct controls, a zoomring and focusring I can turn directly), it still works best for me.</p>

 

[revolver]

<p>Steve,<br /><br />The big con for me with e GX1 is the constant mention of slow autofocus. <br /><br />now the other downside of air through the lens while moving in and out on the Canon or anything else with a fix lens would be the inability to get to the sensor as compared to a ILc.<br /><br />that link for Adorama is denied...what model camera is it?<br /><br />I am starting to lean back towards the K30 and at that price get the K01 also and just keep a 18-55 mm on it. that certainly doesn look like a "professional" camera...lol<br /><br />Thanks for ALL your time and thoughts</p>

[revolver]

<p>Wouter,<br /><br />that MX-1 is kind of nice. I already have the I10 and its a great little pocket camera. no where near the level of the MX but it takes great snaps and the macro is awesome.</p>

[rparmar]

<p>It see you have two main issues: sensor size and sensor cleaning.</p>

<p>When I shot Pentax regularly I sometimes needed to clean the sensor, but this wasn't rocket science. I lived with it. A newer body than the K100 will make this an infrequent event. So, update your body, get a sensor brush, and you have your solution! There is no point limiting yourself to a fixed-lens camera out of fear of sensor dust.</p>

<p>As for sensor size, I judge the tiny point'n'shoot chips to be in one class, which is simply not good enough for me. Sometimes I do make posters. Sometimes I do want to crop in a lot. Given how good camera phones are, I no longer see the point to these smaller cameras. Both the Canon unit and the Pentax MX are really below par on features and usability, IMO. (The MX is surprisingly boxy and ugly in the hand.) Besides, a small sensor means you can't shoot wide and can't shoot shallow, which eliminates two fun aspects of photography right there.</p>

<p>The second class of sensors includes Micro-Four-Thirds (MFT) and APS-C, which are more or less indistinguishable and "good enough" for 99% of tasks. The third class is 135 ("full frame") and larger, which very few people actually need. The larger the sensor the better, if you can afford the financial cost and the physical burden.</p>

<p>If you want a smaller system than Pentax you could choose MFT. Put a pancake 20mm on one of the Olympus PEN bodies and forget you even have an interchangeable lens system. On the other hand, I change lenses pretty well continuously and have NEVER had to clean the sensor in >10,000 shots. The anti-dust system seems far more robust than Pentax.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I have a Fuji P/S pocket model I like, and have had pretty good results, but only when there's plenty of light. Noise is a problem if going to any higher ISO with these smaller sensors, in addition to the other disadvantages already mentioned. With that camera, ISO 400 is really pushing its limit of quality.</p>

<p>I don't use the P/S camera much since getting my compact Pentax K-r. By using a Limited pancake lens, I can either carry it in a belt pouch (not a holster), or if wearing a jacket with larger pockets, the camera IS pocketable! I have the DA 21mm pancake Limited, as well as the FA 43mm pancake and 77mm Ltds, which are faster for low light use. For extra compact carrying, I do not have the lens hood on the 43mm Ltd, but use a standard 49mm lens cap. When thus carried in a pocket or small belt pouch, this compact setup does not attract attention as "professional" equipment, despite having superior optical quality. I just go nonchalantly about my tour, and as others employ their P/S cameras, I just pull out my little K-r with a little Limited pancake, and no one questions me at all. An alternative Limited is harbored in another pocket, to which I can change by moving to a descrete area if need be.</p>

<p>An amazingly small, but very good zoom lens I have used, and which mates well with my DA 21mm in a compact kit, is the old Pentax "F" 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 which can be found used for cheap. It is so small it does not appear to be a zoom- about the size of a 50mm prime! It can also squeeze into my belt pouch or large pocket on camera! The K-r is somewhat smaller than a K30, or K50, but only by very little. I am also considering getting a DA 40mm, since the FA 43mm apparently presents issues for the AA filter system in my K-5. The DA 40mm Limited is really, really small and has very fine optical performance. </p>

 

[revolver]

<p>I had the 40mm on the K01 and it is so flat it almost looks like you have no lens...lol<br /><br />that K-r doesnt seem too much smaller than the K100d<br /><br />here is a new wrench in the works....I just saw the 50 and 500 on the Pentax website but that damn K30 is so appealing.<br /><br />I need to take a few days break from all this and play my bass....part if what I would like is just to be free of large camera's and camera bags but I hate the idea of sacrificing IQ with a P&S sized camera except the ones you have all mentioned of course<br /><br /><br /></p>

[rparmar]

<p>Check out the size of an Olympus PEN with the Panasonic 14mm or 20mm lenses. Significantly smaller than a Pentax DSLR, though bigger than most integrated units. This gives you the benefit of standard 28mm and 40mm (normal) fields of view.</p>

<p>In smaller lenses, Pentax offers the 15mm and 40mm, but these translate to 22 and 60mm equivalent... for me neither feel "natural" -- though YMMV. (I am very fond of the Pentax 43mm, but this amounts to a nice portrait 85mm when mounted on MFT.)</p>

[revolver]

<p>Robin,<br /><br />Thats an interesting little camera for 260 bucks!</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Steve T.<br>

"A Pentax K30 and DA 18-135mm combination sounds wonderful and keeps the costs down. One great body and one very good lens"<br>

<br>

The 18-135mm is one very good lens? That certainly is a minority opinion. Photozone.de said it was mediocre at best.<br>

"Unfortunately the testing reality revealed a mediocre optical performance at best.....Just to mention again - we couldn't believe the rather poor performance so we asked the local Pentax service in Hamburg/Germany for an assessment of the situation. Result: the lens is within factory specifications."</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>I was pleasantly surprised with my 18-135. Much better IQ than that Photozone review indicated. I wonder if they got a bad one but for some odd reason Pentax chose not to address it or something. Weird.</p>

[revolver]

<p>Robin,<br /><br />YMMV?<br /><br />thanks for suggesting that Olympus PEN E PL3. I checked it out and it seems like a nice little camera.<br />The 14-42mm seems ideal. I just checked all my pictures from my trip and I would say 75% are between 18-55MM.<br />for times when I zoomed most are 78-125MM ( the lens I have on the K100D is 18-250MM) and when I did that a few steps closer to the subject would have been just as good if I didnt have the longer lens but some were pretty far off but whatever....<br /><br />right now, I think the Olympus is a front runner.<br /><br />I also saw a 14-150 MM lens for that camera for like $150 bucks...not bad for the times when I need a little zoom.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Hi Wayne- A friend and I each have the same K-5 and DA WR 18-135mm and we are both getting very good results, at least with mine within the parameters I wrote about in my first reply. I also took the time to dial in the autofocusing with the manual fine focus adjustment in the camera menu. The lens doesn't quite compare with my DA Limited primes, and it can't run with the $1000+ crowd of zooms from the likes of Canon and Nikon, but if I hadn't been getting good results from day 1, I would have shipped it back. So far, so good for me.</p>

[rparmar]

<p>YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary<br>

This indicates that I acknowledge that different people will have different needs and responses to those needs. So what I write is only a suggestion, even if it stems from considerable personal experience.</p>

<p>It is pretty hard to beat the prices of the older PEN bodies. They have released far too many models, but this is a great situation for those of us who buy second-hand. Of the older bodies I really like the E-PL2, since it has a built-in flash for those times you might need some fill. But the E-PL3 has that nice tilt screen and an AF lamp missing on my model. Sounds like a good deal!</p>

<p>I will point out is that, if you are like me, you will prefer to use a viewfinder. The not inconsiderable price of a VF-2 or the new VF-4 should be factored into any price comparison.</p>

<p>Personally I don't use zooms, but if you do, MFT have a good number of models to cover any need. I generally shoot with two primes: 14mm and 45mm, though I also have the 20mm. I would add the superb 75mm if I could afford it. I prefer to switch lenses or even have two bodies ready with two different focal lengths.</p>

[revolver]

<p>"YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary"<br /><br />lol and get the concept. I am just slow on the uptake with internet/texting lingo. I just found out what FSFW meant.<br /><br />I checked a bunch of shots from my trip and 75% are within 18-55/75mm. I think the 14-42mm that the E-pl3 comes with will be fine to start with.<br /><br />as for the view finder, yeah, on the K100D obviously its a must but getting older and now using reading glasses regularly I am screwing up sometimes. besides I dont have an issue with using the lcd to line up shots...doesnt seem to e a deal killer for me. in fact I use my I10 daily for documenting stuff at work.<br /><br />I was looking at the E-P3 and other than the flash, grip and being slightly longer I see no need to spend the extra hundred bucks<br /><br />thanks for the input. I think I found my back up camera. <br /><br /></p>

[revolver]

<p>I got the E-PL3 and it seems like a nicely built camera.<br /><br />I am having a hell of a time with the menu settings :(<br /><br />seems like the K100D. K01, and i10 all are very simple compared to this Olympus. I cant even find a way to change the MP, ISO, speed or aperture yet</p>

[rparmar]

<p>Hey, Chris, it's not that hard, even though it may be different from what you are used to. If you don't have a paper manual, then download a PDF version and step through the menu functions, taking the time to learn the most important. Olympus cameras are highly configurable.</p>

<p>Depending on your mode, the circular dial on the back controls your main function. If you are shooting in "A", it changes the aperture. There is no button set to ISO by default, on that model, but it's easy to configure one of them to do just that.</p>

<p>In the meantime, the OK button should bring up one of two different quick menus, which gives rapid access to all your settings. </p>