Slick Pocket-Camera

[dinora_de_rivera]

<p>Could any of you recommend a slick compact camera, light and thin, that produces very good or excellent images? I'm looking for a nicely designed one that is handy to carry around all the time, but which also takes great pictures. The manufacturer is not important.</p>

[willis]

<p>I use a Canon PowerShot A1100IS.<br>

It is an older one but it is 12 megapixels and still has a view finder if you need it.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"slick compact camera, light and thin"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think anything will beat a high end smartphone in that regard. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>In tiny sensor digicams (around 1/1.7" or smaller) it's hard to beat some of the newer smart phone cams, especially from Samsung. This also gives the user access to editing tools far beyond those available in most P&S digicams.</p>

<p>Beyond that, the only advantage to some teensy sensor digicams are some specialized superzoom models that may appeal to birders and folks who need long reach in a moderate sized camera for a do-it-all vacation/travel camera.</p>

<p>The best values in high IQ P&S digicams now are those with the "one inch" (Sony) or "CX" (Nikon) sensors. The Sony RX100 was a game changer in the pocket sized P&S digicam. Nikon, unfortunately, still hasn't made a true P&S digicam with the CX sensor so I can't recommend it, although the interchangeable lens J1 and J2 can be bought cheaply as new/old stock with good kit zooms. But they aren't pocketable, unless we're talking jacket pocket. Even with the 10/2.8 pancake prime the J-series isn't as compact as the Sony RX100.</p>

[phule]

<p>Sony RX100, RX100 Mark II or RX100 Mark III depending on your budget. </p>

[Brad_]

I have been really happy with my 1st gen RX100. Fits in my jeans pocket and it can render excellent

photographs.<P>

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Public%20Art.jpg"><BR>

<i>

San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014

</i>

<P>

.<P>

</center>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I've grown to appreciate my smartphone (Lumia 920) a lot; it doesn't zoom, flash output is low, but I don't really miss that. It's got optical stablizer, large aperture lens and fairly good performance at higher ISOs. And I carry it anyway.<br /> The Sony RX100 is one of the most interesting options, I think (though personally, I'd prefer a Fuji X100s, but again I do not care much for a zoomlens). A lot depends though on what you're willing to spend, how small "light and thin" really is, what to you makes a nice design, and how you intend to use the photos. Nice as the smartphone performs, it's not sufficient for very large prints, but for web and small prints, it's really fine.<br /> So, it is rather hard to answer your question; if you'd want a more specific advice as what might make a great choice for you, you'll need to give a bit more details on what matters to you (in specs), how much money to spend etc.</p><div></div>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Another vote for the Sony RX-100, either a Mk. II or a Mk. III, depending on how much you value a viewfinder and whether you'd prefer a lens (sort-of) equivalent to 28-100mm f/1.8-4.9 or 24-70mm f/1.8-2.8. The original (a/k/a Mk. I) is often available used for under $400 now, and is still a great camera.</p>

<p>That said, I still like my old Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS (a 2010 model), which you could probably buy used for $50. In decent light, the image quality is fine for up to 8x10-inch / A4 prints, and it is passable even in low light. It's appreciably smaller than the RX100 (I've carried both on trips), and combines a backside-illuminated CMOS sensor (albeit 1/2.3-inch, and 10 MP) with a lens (sort of) equivalent to 28-105mm f/2.0-5.3.</p>