Which P&S compact with RAW format?

[Garret]

<p>The reason I'm recently interested in a point-and-shoot compact with RAW is that I'm planning a trip to Alaska and would rather not pack the 5D and D40 systems.</p>

<p>So, I'm looking for someone who owns one of the p&s cameras mentioned at DPREVIEW (<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4333175133/buyers-guide-enthusiast-raw-shooting-compact-cameras">http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4333175133/buyers-guide-enthusiast-raw-shooting-compact-cameras</a> . They seem to all have some of the same attributes with handling and operation as one of the major considerations. It might come down to biggest bang for the least amount of money. I just need the convenience of a small, high quality camera that'll fit in my shirt pocket.</p>

<p>Which p&s compact with RAW format would you recommend? </p>

<p>I'm leaning toward an older Panasonic Lumix of some kind due to mostly favorable photo quality reviews (perhaps the LX3). I'm not afraid of the used camera market nor 'older' technology: most of my camera gear was purchased used.</p>

<p>Thanks for taking time to post.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I have the LX-5, considered it a pretty good all-round RAW-shooting compact solution with no real flaws given those constraints. The only models that are much smaller are the Canon S-series (e.g. S90/95/100) but these lack hotshoes, accessory electronic viewfinder capability, lose a few physical controls, and have slower lenses. If you want a 24mm-equiv wide end, the LX-5 (or LX-7, etc.) the LX-5's lens is pretty handy, 24-90/2-3.3. I believe the models with longer reach (>100mm) generally offer only a 28mm wide end.</p>

<p>Most (all?) of the models listed there have already been replaced with newer models but generally the newer models are only improved in subtle ways, so these models would be bargains but new enough that examples in good condition can probably be found fairly inexpensively.</p>

<p>Personally my LX-5 has been mostly idle for over a year because I've been using the Pentax Q system for compact/lightweight, but I recognize the Q isn't for everyone, and once you move away from its prime lens, the others (zooms, etc.) make it pretty much un-pocketable. I had used the LX-5 for at least a year or so before that and found it did what I expected. Not especially good at higher ISO, and I found that I had to work a little harder than I'm used to (with Pentax cameras) to get colors I was happy with -- but if you're shooting RAW then you've pretty much already elected to make that your responsibility.</p>

<p>These days when shopping this sort of camera you also need to ask yourself if a camera like Sony RX100 with 1" sensor or a small Micro 4/3 model is a better fit because the IQ improvements of larger sensors is real. The RX100 is still semi-pocketable, and (like Pentax Q) a small Micro 4/3 model can be as well when using compact prime lenses. These will not come as cheaply of course.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For its size, I'd go with the RX100. They're pretty small and the image quality is decent (with a sensor the size of the Nikon 1-series). The update is a bit better in low light; the original, if you can find it, is pretty good and cheaper. I'm not a huge fan of the ergonomics (try before you buy), but if you're after a compact, they're about as good as a pocketable camera gets (though the Canon S-series are smaller if that trumps image quality). The bigger sensor compacts - excluding bigger bodies like the G1x and Leica X-Vario - tend to have prime lenses, which may limit you for travel.<br />

<br />

If you want more flexibility with your portability, I second the micro 4/3 suggestion. I have a GF2 with a 14-24 powerzoom that fits into a small compact camera bag (and pocket); there are smaller current alternatives. It's a stretch for a shirt pocket, though.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

I am expecting that the bargain hunter may not find especially inexpensive RX100 but there should be some high-value

deals on older advanced compacts or used m4/3 but for the latter the lens will ultimately make a big difference in terms of

pocketability and price.

[Garret]

<p>Andrew and Andrew: Thanks so much for your contribution to this thread. Greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>If money were not an object I'd probly' go with the RX100 or an LX7. But, I'm trying to spend between $300-$400 on this camera. If I can get a respectable RAW-shooting p&s with decent video specs for less, I'd be happy. </p>

<p>The Panasonic LX series does look impressive. And, while 2.5X to 7.5X optical is a substantial step up from the LX3 to the LX7, I'd probably wait a bit to jump into an LX7. Further, a few reviews indicated that the LX3 actually took better pictures than either the 5 or 7.... which....is certainly in the eye of the beholder and can get too technical to make an educated decision without having the camera in your hands.</p>

<p>I looked also at the Canon S-series. At first glance, the bodies look similar to the ELPH xxx HS series. And, since I've already got a couple ELPH300HS's I keep in my vehicles, maybe I'll end up going that route. The S100 seems a likely candidate to look into. </p>

<p>The 4/3's idea would be ok but not preferable: I'd be carrying hardware then and fiddling with storage. I'm trying to avoid that. And, I know it'll be limiting the scope of subject & composition but I want to enjoy the trip without obsessing too much about hardware.</p>

<p>I'm gonna' look a little closer at some of the Fuji products too. Their menu's are a bit different but maybe there's something there with a bigger zoom without sacrificing the image quality.</p>

<p>Thanks again</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Not sure where 7.5x optical zoom ratio came from:</p>

<ul>

<li>LX3: 24-60/2.0-2.8 (2.5x)</li>

<li>LX5: 24-90/2.0-3.3 (3.75x)</li>

<li>LX7: 24-90/1.8-2.3 (3.75x)</li>

</ul>

<p>I also have some doubts about the superiority of the LX3 over LX5 or LX7 but will concede that imaging-wise they're not as different as one might think based on how old the LX3 is now (2008). The lens is probably the biggest differentiator between the three, and I expect that movie mode and JPEG engine has probably also generally improved each iteration. There are also probably some minor ergonomic improvements (LX7 has an aperture ring), and the LX7 also (finally) got a better 920K rear LCD. I believe the LX3 and LX5 both had the slightly over-sized sensor that made a few more pixels available for 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratios, I think the LX7 may have lost this.</p>

<p>I expect you might find an LX3 pretty for under $100. And LX5 from around $150. And used LX7 for $225. All still pretty good value.</p>

<p>Since you mention 'bigger zoom', that's one reason I like my Pentax Q (though I recognize that lens-swapping isn't for everyone), it has a ~80-250/2.8 zoom lens available (f/2.8 even at the long end). It's not pocketable but none of the fixed lens compacts offer anything like this, and it's <em>much</em> smaller than the slower m4/3 telephoto zooms would be. Value-wise though, one might be better off with a super-zoom bridge camera though if reach is a priority.</p>

[Garret]

<p>oops! I thought the Lumix LX7K was 7.5X zoom. </p>

<p>Your used LX series price assessment is right on if the 'sold listings' on ebay are true-to-life. </p>

<p>I've been looking pretty hard at the reviews on Amazon.... Very convenient place, that. Interesting bunch of opinions there. And, most folks speak very highly of most all of the cameras I'm considering. Not sure if the sheer numbers of Amazon reviews mean anything but it's curious to note the percentages of <strong><em>3-star and better</em></strong> approval ratings on the following cameras:</p>

<p>Fuji X10 = 82% of 154 ratings<br>

Nikon 7100 = 86% of 90 ratings<br>

Canon S90 = 91% of 324 ratings<br>

Canon S95 = 81% of 589 ratings<br>

Canon S100 = 88% of 622 ratings<br>

Sony RX100 = 95% of 404 ratings<br>

LX3 = 99% of 196 ratings<br>

LX5 = 95% of 455 ratings<br>

LX7 = 97% of 310 ratings</p>

<p>A LOT of variables would enter into this assessment of course, not the least of which would be time in circulation for each camera and critical attitudes of reviewers toward an older camera without the bells and whistles of newer models. (Kinda' like critiquing a flip phone on a smartphone virtual keyboard). Regardless though, those numbers sure do speak well of the Panasonic LX series and that Sony RX100, eh? </p>

<p>I haven't been looking at these cameras for very long so it's hard to know what I'll do but given the information I've got so far, I'm still leaning toward a Panasonic of some kind.</p>

<p>I'm gonna' take a look at that Pentax Q...</p>

 

<h1 id="title" > </h1>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Regarding Amazon reviews, I take 'em with a dose of salts. Some Amazon customer reviews run hot or cold, black or white, infatuation or revulsion. Some folks mention several flaws with a product, and give it 5 stars anyway. Others mention a single minor flaw and give it 1 star. Plan on devoting hours to reading many Amazon customer reviews to get any balanced sense about a product.</p>

<p>A few other factors to consider:<br>

What size do you prefer? A P&S type with a lens that fully retracts into the body; or interchangeable lens compact? The latter may be available with a pancake type prime, but most of the zooms extend quite a bit even when retracted.</p>

<p>Do you tend to shoot with the camera on all day, or turn it on only for specific situations? If you need extra batteries, be sure the camera includes a separate charger, or a charger is optionally available. Some compact and P&S cameras come with in-body charging only.</p>

<p>Do you anticipate shooting in wet or very cold weather? Some models are rated better than others for rough weather. Some Olympus Micro 4:3 models are rated pretty highly for this.</p>

<p>Is price a factor? If so, and you're not sure you'll use this camera much after this trip, you might consider some bargains in recently discontinued models such as the Nikon J1 with 10-30 kit zoom at around $200. There's also the current bargain on the Canon EOS M with kit zoom or 22/2 pancake - at around $300, an excellent value for an APS sensor compact. But be sure to consider the quirks of those models, including the lack of decent flash or any flash with either: the J1 has an anemic pop-up flash that syncs at 1/60th, tops; the EOS M has no built in flash but reportedly will work with any standard hotshoe non-TTL auto flash.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I would be extremely frustrated if I went on a trip such as you are with just a short zoom so I would forget about the pocket, never have really thought of that anyway, and look for a bum bag and get something in MFT such as a G3 and the 14-140 lens... one can always stitch for wider than 28mm.<br />A G2 here <a href="http://www.keh.com/camera/Panasonic-Micro-4scfs3-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-MP024018834190?r=FE">http://www.keh.com/camera/Panasonic-Micro-4scfs3-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-MP024018834190?r=FE</a> is $150<br />and<br /><a href="http://www.keh.com/camera/Panasonic-Micro-4scfs3-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-MP074018845700?r=FE">http://www.keh.com/camera/Panasonic-Micro-4scfs3-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-MP074018845700?r=FE</a> is $450 for the 14-140<br />The G2 shoots RAW.<br />I had the G3 before getting the GH but even the GH is not that large with the 14-140 ... perhaps I'm used to it and it feels simiilar to my FZ50s ... not a heavy clunky DSLR :-)<br />Amazon have G3s from $300<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005058BTW/ref=sr_1_1_olp?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1386060994&sr=1-1&keywords=Panasonic+G3&condition=used">http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005058BTW/ref=sr_1_1_olp?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1386060994&sr=1-1&keywords=Panasonic+G3&condition=used</a><br />Enjoy your trip :-)<br />Practice hard with your new gear before you go.<br>

An when you come home you will likely find you rarely use your DSLRs any more and they will be the ones to go :-)</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I would suggest the day of the P&S is long gone for the serious photographer and MFT is the solution... if you take a pocket camera you will be kicking yourself for ever and a day that you did.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>Have to agree with JC.</p>

[Garret]

<p><strong>Thank you all for taking time to respond.</strong></p>

<p><strong>Lex:</strong><br>

<br /><br />You're right, of course. There are too many variables to take Amazon reviews too seriously. It's just interesting to consider the numbers.</p>

<p>*Size: It'd be nice to get a reasonably-priced p&s with RAW format in an ELPH 300 configuration . . . Fully retractable when off would be great.</p>

<p>*Usage: like most folks, the camera is out and on during an event. Otherwise, it's in a case or pocket. But, I never considered that a p&s camera WOULDN'T have a charger. Good thought.</p>

<p>*Weather: not too concerned about this. </p>

<p>*Price point and bargains: I rarely buy anything new so, you're suggestions are well-taken. Most often, older technology is more affordable and that's typically where I live. </p>

<p>*Flash & hot shoe: I suck at flash photography and, for what I shoot, it's not a deal breaker.<br>

______________________<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>JC & Greg:</strong></p>

<p>Thanks for your links, suggestions & opinions.</p>

<p>I'm not a pro by any stretch of the imagination. The equipment I already have, (all paid-for and functional), far exceeds my photographic ability. The 4/3's route is enticing but I just can't see it. I've already got a 5D, 40D and a couple of Mamiya medium format film cameras. I'm of the opinion that, if I look too long at the 4/3's cameras it'll lead to harder stuff and a more severe acquisition addiction than the several I'm already trying to recover from. :-)</p>

<p>(!) I haven't even shot RAW format...yet. But, I've seen results from the hands and minds of capable photographers. And, THAT has been the motivation in looking for a small RAW format camera: something I can practice with (before this trip) that is convenient to carry and relatively simple without the weight & hassle of a DSLR. My thought was to take the RAW p&s camera to Alaska if it proves itself <em>and</em> if I can get the hang of RAW post-processing. I just don't think it'd be worth buying an entirely different system (used 4/3's) for this. That could change with more assessment and research. The trip is a year off, so I've got some time.</p>

<p>And, ya. . . I know. With my current gear, it's sinful not to have been shooting and post-processing RAW format: I am right now where I should've been five years ago. So, there's a lot to learn before jumping into another camera system. If I find myself getting too close to a 4/3's system I'll just have to make a point to remember the features I HAVEN'T used in the DSLR's that are already paid for. </p>

<p>A little disjointed thinking today....long night last night trying to fix a snow plow in a snow storm.<br>

<br>

Thanks again all.</p>

[J.W. Wall]

<p>Canon Powershot S100 or its successor(s) does RAW very well.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>It does depend on your attitude to photography but if you have yet to shoot raw I suggest you get a camera which shoots 'raw plus jpg fine.' That way you are not putting all your eggs in one basket on a once in a lifetime trip. After several years of shooting jpg and not really feeling I need raw* I have been influenced to shoot both but apart from opening the odd raw file I am using the jpg .... I gather I am not the only one doing this from what I have read on blogs.<br>

So I do not feel in the least bit sinful ... just a tash virtuous these days for shooting it even if I don't use it.<br>

*Way back it did seem to be a can of worms though things have improved.</p>

[horse bodotes]

<p>Since you are already invested in the Canon EOS system, why not consider an EOS M? Yes, equipped with the 18-55 zoom it is slightly larger than the compact cameras mentioned in the review. But it takes stunning pix, is very well built and if you get the adapter you can utilize your existing lenses for longer views.</p>

<p>Also, it is a very rugged little camera - I accidentally dropped it onto a blacktop road last week when in Vermont (it was 12 degrees and my fingers were stiff) with nary a scratch, ding or dent.</p>

<p>It has reported that the focusing is on the slow side, but so far I have not found this to be a problem for travel photography. And for just a hair north of $300 (w/ the 18-55) it's a steal, IMO.</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>I have an LX3 and am amazed at how few adjustments the raw pictures need (my opinion). It seems to be well made and the battery lasts for a reasonable time. Mine has the leather camera case and neckstrap which make it nicely portable. The short zoom is a bummer although with its image quality cropping can be used. I would not classify it as a pocket camera. I have read on other posts that the Canon S100 does a very good job. Post some pictures made with your final choice.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>That article is a couple years old. I had the Fuji X10 and now have the X20 and both are fantastic. The only other sort of recent camera in the high end compact class that I have is a Canon S90 and the Fujis are much better in interface and images.</p>

<p>My uncle has the RX100 and that's also excellent.</p>

[Garret]

<p>Andy:</p>

<p><br />Thanks for the response. Which article were you referring to?</p>

<p>I used to have a Fuji F10, F20 and S5000 (XD cards, all). I had a bunch of older Canon A-series cameras at the time too (CF cards). Sold 'em all along with my Olymps C-2100-UZ (SM card) and upgraded</p>

<p>I've looked at the X10/20... Nice cameras. Don't know why FujiFilm cameras aren't in the reviews at dpreview more often next to Nikon and Canon: they're at LEAST as good as Olympus products. Thing is, I've decided that if I'm gonna' spend $3-400 on an X10, (that isn't a pocket camera), I'd 'probly opt for the LX5 Panasonic. Canon seems to have the edge on 'small' RAW cameras even if they' had their issues.</p>

<p>Randy: </p>

<p>I've made a list of cameras and specs. The Canon S-series, the Panasonic LX-series, the Sony RX100 and the Fuji X-series are all there. I've almost made up my mind to go with the S100 simply for its size, reputed picture quality and price. The serial numbers on those will make a difference in the decision but there's lots of the 100's out there which have had the fix already. The way I figure it, the Canon S100 is a cheap way to wade into this. I'll likely wait until after the hollow days because they've jumped in price since August.</p>

<p>Horse!</p>

<p>Thanks for pointing to the 'M. Nice outfit... But, I think if I was inclined to go that route, I'd likely go with the 4/3's instead just because of the size of the system. My lenses are really nice and produce some fine jpegs but I'm really obsessing about 'small' and 'inconspicuous' if I'm gonna' do this.</p>

<p>JC:</p>

<p>I hear you. I've been impressed with the ELPH 300 HS p&s. Good lens, excellent video...there's a reason they sell for quite a bit more than the ELPH 100 and I'm pretty sure it's the 24mm lens and more responsiveness. (I've had both and the 300 shoots best). So, ya....I'm trying to find a small camera that can do it all (modestly). If I can duplicate the ELPH 300 quality and shoot RAW at the same time without fiddling with the CHDK thing, that'd be great.</p>

<p>But, your right. I'll be shooting jpegs mostly as well and there's no shame in that.</p>

<p>J.W.</p>

<p>The S100's successor I'm not really impressed with. The S110's got a touch screen and all the wifi, cell phone connectivity stuff.... Don't need it. I'd buy a predecessor S95 before I'd buy the S110 I think. Another reason I lean toward the S100 is because of the HD video: everybody else seems to have the 1280X720 thing. Canon S100's got 1920 X 1080 HD.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I imagine Andy is referring to the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4333175133/buyers-guide-enthusiast-raw-shooting-compact-cameras">DPREVIEW article</a> you mention in your original post.</p>

<p>Another camera you might want to at least look into is Panasonic Lumix LF1. It shares the 1/1.7" sensor from Lumix LX-7, and is <a href="http://camerasize.com/compare/#456,140">very close in size</a> to the Canon Powershot S9x-S1xx series but</p>

<ol>

<li>offers a longer 28-200 zoom range</li>

<li>Includes a built-in EVF</li>

</ol>

<p>Because this is a current model it may not fit your budget but as far as I know it's unique in terms of pocketable + RAW + EVF. I don't own it so can't comment much about the execution.</p>

[Garret]

<p>Ah! Of course. Sorry Andy. A little slow here.</p>

<p>That LF1 looks inviting alright. They seem to hover right around the $350-450. Another one to look into.</p>

[Garret]

<p>(I meant FujiFilm J10 and J20, not F10 and F20 in an earlier post)<br>

________________</p>

<p>Here's an interesting review and comparison of the Canon S-series that was worth revisiting: <br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/s100.htm#spex">http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/s100.htm#spex</a> . </p>

<p>For myself, I intuitively assume, (at least initially), that more money equates to all-around better performance, i.e. the p&s cameras that shoot RAW are more expensive, therefore their performance is better than other p&s cameras. I might've been more awake recently while reading the Ken Rockwell review. This possibility should have occurred to me before and might be of assistance to others looking on this thread:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>". . . .Don't kid yourself; differences between the S100 and other point and shoots will be invisible except under direct comparison under controlled conditions. Otherwise, 99% of us will get exactly the same pictures with an S100 as we will with any other Canon point-and-shoot."<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't see this being completely true across the board about Canon p&s units but it's an interesting statement from someone who apparently knows cameras. </p>

[andrewg_ny]

There's some truth to that but at least the sensor is a smidge bigger so probably has slightly above-average dynamic

range and a little better performance at higher ISO. RAW capability itself doesn't do much, it's more about potential to

tweak the captured image to taste after the fact with all the original sensor data. In practice the cameramakers' built-in

JPEG processing is already well-tuned for the sensor and it's not a given that you'll actually like your RAW-processed

image more. The advanced models tend to have more comprehensive control over photographic parameters too.

[Garret]

<blockquote>

<p>RAW capability itself doesn't do much, it's more about potential to tweak the captured image to taste after the fact with all the original sensor data.<br /><br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeup. I got that part figured out. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

In practice the cameramakers' built-in JPEG processing is already well-tuned for the sensor and it's not a given that you'll actually like your RAW-processed image more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I guess I'm starting to get a better picture of the inconsistencies of RAW format manipulation. Apparently, I've only been looking at the best ones and dreaming that I'd like to be able to match their quality.....at least in landscapes and maybe wildlife close-ups. In the back of my mind is Ansel Adams and his body of b&w large format work. Doesn't seem like manipulation of RAW format digital could ever match it. But, I'd like to think that, with all the original sensor data (through quality glass from a p&s or a dslr), I could end up with a couple really good, frame-worthy, large prints of 'something' that might influence the viewer as his work continues to do. No comparison I'm sure between working from a large format negative vs a 1/1.7 sensor and mediocre glass.<br>

<br>

It doesn't hurt to dream big like "The Tetons and the Snake River" (1942) does it? :-)<br>

<br>

Thanks for your contribution to this thread, Andrew. Very helpful.</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Image quality is determined by several factors one of which is photo site size and separation to lower noise. Also shooting in raw removes the editorial bias of the camera designers. Lastly one of the responders mentioned "mediocre glass". The major vendors usually have good lenses. I have used several P&S cameras of different manufacturers (haven't used the S100) and the output of the LX3 in raw mode is far better than jpegs from Nikon, Canons, Sony and other Panasonic point and shoot cameras. If you cannot actually try your choices Dpreview has a comparison capability that will show results for cameras they have tested. Good luck.<br>

 <br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons100/12</p>

[Garret]

<p>Randy:<br /><br />That's probably the most helpful link in the entire thread. Having never shot in RAW format, it's a luxury to measure image quality from various cameras at various settings with a click of a mouse. Thanks lots for that. </p>