camera?

[waggy]

Hi everyone, im sick of lugging my heavy camera around, but love the results it gives. its dslr and i love its capabilities and what it allows me to do but was wondering if the intranet thingy would be able to help me in my quest for the perfect camera. i was looking at the 3/4 jobs. anyone had experience with those?
suggest welcome.
cheers kids

[wayno]

mines got a slightly bigger sensor, 1.5 inch. canon g1 x.
i ditched a mid range slr for it,
same size as the micro 4 thirds.
images as good as low end slr's...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x/19

[Bubbalouie]

I have a friend who's pretty fussy with his image quality, he swears by his Panasonic GH2, on the few occasions I've used it I was very impressed.

That said, I personally use a Sony Rx100, it's a typical Sony product (great hardware, some aspects of the software leave you asking "why¿¡"). Overall I'm very happy with it, since it's so small and pocketable I've found it sees more use than my other half's DSLR. It has a respectable compliment of manual options (and you can get lensemate filter adapters) plus it has what I believe is the largest sensor of any "small" camera.

[Giddy_up]

I have a friend who's pretty fussy with his image quality, he swears by his Panasonic GH2, on the few occasions I've used it I was very impressed.

That said, I personally use a Sony Rx100, it's a typical Sony product (great hardware, some aspects of the software leave you asking "why¿¡"). Overall I'm very happy with it, since it's so small and pocketable I've found it sees more use than my other half's DSLR. It has a respectable compliment of manual options (and you can get lensemate filter adapters) plus it has what I believe is the largest sensor of any "small" camera.

+1 on the RX, new version out as well which is worth a look if you have the $$$$$$

[photohiker]

mines got a slightly bigger sensor, 1.5 inch. canon g1 x.
i ditched a mid range slr for it,
same size as the micro 4 thirds.
images as good as low end slr's...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x/19

Worth looking at the Fuji X-M1 if you are in that market, APS-C sensor in a compact body.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-m1

http://camerasize.com/compare/#257,466

[ULWalkingPhil]

I recently purchased a Olympus Tough TG-2 camera, love this camera. Has great movie camera, is shock proof easy to use, has lots of great features and waterproof.

[Travis22]

Sorry to say Waggy, but if your in the quest for the perfect camera you'll never ever ever find it in a compact point and shoot or compact 'manual' camera.

You simply cannot beat a good DSLR, perhaps give it (the camera body) & you a new birthday present, a nice new bit of glass then you'll be eager to carry it around in the bush again Win-win!

Travis.

[wayno]

mate of mine is a professional photographer, swears by his olympus omdem5

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5

[Bubbalouie]

Sorry to say Waggy, but if your in the quest for the perfect camera you'll never ever ever find it in a compact point and shoot or compact 'manual' camera.

You simply cannot beat a good DSLR, perhaps give it (the camera body) & you a new birthday present, a nice new bit of glass then you'll be eager to carry it around in the bush again Win-win!

Travis.

He's on the money, my RX100 doesn't take the same quality of image as a true SLR (though for a lot of easier shots it gets close enough, though I'm comparing to a Sony APSC camera which isn't technically even a true SLR). It is a compromise between weight/convenience, cost and quality. It follows the usual three variables pick two addage.

[wayno]

the rx100 is a fair bit smaller than a micro four thirds sensor. as good as it is it will struggle to compete with a good four thirds
i've got an rx100, it doesnt come close to my canon g1 x in low light

[Isis]

Really depends on what your doing with the image you make. Are you printing them or just looking and posting online. If the latter then any old DC will do. Even if your printing A4/8x10 I doubt anybody would tell the difference if using a modern digital camera.

[Mark F]

If you don't want the complexity and weight of carrying multiple lenses but want something better than a p&s consider the Panasonic LX7. Extremely fast lens (1.4 - 2.3), 24mm wide angle, takes a polarising filter which I consider vital for the landscape photography I enjoy.

[Bubbalouie]

the rx100 is a fair bit smaller than a micro four thirds sensor. as good as it is it will struggle to compete with a good four thirds
i've got an rx100, it doesnt come close to my canon g1 x in low light

I don't doubt it, my friends GH2 is a superior device. The RX100 is both cheaper and smaller though. 4/3 is just another step along the line, slightly bigger (or a lot if you want to put it in your trouser pocket), a bit more expensive and if used properly with suitable lenses able to take much much better pictures.

[photohiker]

The RX100 is a very capable camera for its size. I have one of the original micro 4/3 cameras (the GF1) and in many ways the RX100 is superior, especially in low light.

The JPG's from the RX100 are usable. I have turned off the JPG's on the GF1 and shoot raw only on that camera. This is not to say that newer micro4/3rds cameras are not better, just saying that the game has moved on.

If you want much much better pictures, it comes from the person pushing the button, not the camera.

[Doc]

Hi, I agree with photohiker, and believe a fuji camera (xe1, xm1, xa1) would be a good option. I have an xe1 and I think the image quality is as good if not better than most dslr's out there. Olympus omd is also a great option.

[Joomy]

Been eyeing off an X10 or X20 for a while now but so far have managed to resist...

[phan_TOM]

Hi everyone, im sick of lugging my heavy camera around, but love the results it gives. its dslr and i love its capabilities and what it allows me to do but was wondering if the intranet thingy would be able to help me in my quest for the perfect camera. i was looking at the 3/4 jobs. anyone had experience with those?
suggest welcome.
cheers kids

I haven't used a micro 4/3 camera but I recently got a Sony RX100 for the same reason waggy. I take my 40D on most trips but I was after something more convenient that still had decent image quality. I've had a few compacts and to be honest the IQ on each one was terrible and I didn't keep any of them very long. Even though the RX100's only been on a few trips I've been blown away by it's IQ so far, the files are really sharp and virtually noise free up to about ISO 1600 and I'm loving the convenience of it's tiny size. It does have it's quirks and It doesn't have the versatility of a DSLR but overall it's more than decent. Some of it's limitations include the fairly small zoom range (3.6x) and mediocre wide angle (28mm), occasional chromatic abberrations & purple fringing in high contrast scenes and the lens has some weird distortion at the wide end which is noticeable if you photograph straight objects like buildings or fences. It doesn't seem to have quite as much dynamic range as my Canon either but it's pretty close when shooting in raw.

The RX100 is a very capable camera for its size. I have one of the original micro 4/3 cameras (the GF1) and in many ways the RX100 is superior, especially in low light.

The JPG's from the RX100 are usable. I have turned off the JPG's on the GF1 and shoot raw only on that camera. This is not to say that newer micro4/3rds cameras are not better, just saying that the game has moved on.

If you want much much better pictures, it comes from the person pushing the button, not the camera.

Too true photohiker, wasn't it Ansel Adams who said the most important part of a camera is the twelve inches behind the viewfinder? It seems that many people think spending lots of money, and not developing one's skill, is the way to taking great photos. I guess there is also those who are predominantly gearheads, who like to accrue, talk about and play with their 'equipment' as opposed to photographers, who like to take photos and talk about 'photos', places, light and composition etc. These days nearly any camera will take great photos if you are up to taking those great shots.

the rx100 is a fair bit smaller than a micro four thirds sensor. as good as it is it will struggle to compete with a good four thirds
i've got an rx100, it doesnt come close to my canon g1 x in low light

I don't know wayno, I have an old Canon 40D and I've recently got an RX100 and the sony is quite frankly amazing in low light compared to the canon. There is virtually no noise up to ISO 800-1600 and what noise there is I find to be fairly unobtrusive, just a fine grain. Even looking in the shadows of the files from the RX100 at moderate ISO's I'm surprised at how clean they are, there is virtually no noise at all. No doubt a full frame camera will be better at those really high ISO as well as giving greater control over depth of field but I'm guessing most people here are landscape or nature shooters who won't be shooting wide open at ISO 25.600 very often.

I guess the question is how much is enough?

If you’ve ever had a really high quality, but small-ish file, then you’ll know that you can actually do quite a lot with it; I remember seeing some images from the 2005 Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition – prints, at 40×60″ or so – which were shot with a Nikon D1H: that’s right, all of 2.7MP. Did they sing? You bet. Did they look grainy, or pixellated? Not especially so, but I’m sure you’d see the difference if you shot the exact same scene with a D800E. The shot that won would no doubt still be a great capture even twenty years from now. A hundred years from now. Does the equipment matter? Insofar as it didn’t get in the way of the capture, no.

- Ming Thein

A few snaps with the the RX100

Black Rocks at dawn

Black-Scrub-creek.jpg (281.46 KiB) Viewed 2434 times

peeling-bark.jpg (177.5 KiB) Viewed 2434 times

[Miyata610]

I'm another happy X-E1 user.

I bought it for its ability to use old lenses. I have a bit of a collection that I mostly bought in the 80's, this camera works so well with them.

There's a good forum for fuji x users, I think I'm not the only one from here that posts on that forum too

[wayno]

might depend how much glass you put in front of the camera, but dxo mark puts the g1x at 644 clearly ahead of the rx100 at 390
and from the photos i've taken i agree, the eos 40 comes out higher at 700 but you have to put more glass in front of the sensor loosing some of hte light performance

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare- ... (appareil1)/812%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/769%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/180%7C0/(brand3)/Canon

[ULWalkingPhil]

So much emphasis placed on image quality today which I find amusing. I used to be so concerned with image quality myself, to the point of carrying 5kg of camera and lens on my bushwalks. Today, I say why?

Todays cameras are a far cry to what we used to use. Even on the cheaper point and shoot cameras the quality is more than acceptable, unless you plan to print poster prints.

[wayno]

if you end up shooting in low light, the difference between a cheap camera and and even mid priced one tells...
i frequently have to shoot in low light in poor weather or thick bush or morning or evening.
there is still a noticeable difference on computer screens in general shots between the cheapest cameras and the mid priced ones
i stick my photos on the tv as a slide show and notice the difference..

[ULWalkingPhil]

In such conditions I always use some form of a tripod. Either sit camera on a sturdy branch, post or even a tripod and use the camera in manual mode and timed exposures. Some of the cheaper cameras don't have these options. But they do have high ISO settings, If your only going to view images on a computer screen I find the quality is more than adequite.

I do own a Canon DSLR with L series Lens, dedicated Macro Lens and Dedicated Canon Twin Macro Flash, it gets very little use now, I just don't fancy carrying all that weight around anymore for the sake of a picture.

My new Olympus Tough TG-2 takes great Macros, this one I captured handheld on a recent walk.

[ULWalkingPhil]

The Olympus Tough TG-2 is worth considering. It's a tough camera, shockproof and waterproof and a F2.0* Super Bright Zoom Lens, also takes great video footage in HD, the camera also has a built in GPS and Compass. Weighs apx 230grams. Image quality is not the greatest compared to a DSLR, but this is with all point and shoot cameras.

Specification Highlights

12.0 effective megapixel BSI-CMOS sensor
F2.0-4.9, 25-100mm lens (4X)
Sensor-shift image stabilization
Waterproof to 15m, shockproof from 2.1m, crushproof to 100 kg, freezeproof to -10C
3.0 inch OLED display with 610,000 dot resolution
Aperture priority mode
Built-in GPS with landmark tagging, compass, manometer, and logging
5 fps continuous shooting
1080/30p movie mode with stereo sound
'Tap Control' for (limited) camera control when wearing gloves
Support for fish-eye and telephoto conversion lenses

[wildernesswanderer]

Asking what camera is like asking what tent, what sleeping bag, what ....

Simply put a camera is a tool, like anything you can spend a heap or you can spend a little, you get what you paid for. Want a lightweight small camera, give up lowlight, image quality and speed. But will take your walking shots and print a decent 8x10, I did say a good 8x10 but a decent one. On the other hand carry the DSLR and you gain image quality, low light ability and and speed but you get weight. There is no perfect camera.

After shooting everything from Nikon F4's, to 6x7, x17 ,4x5 and now a D800E, and using a variety of P&S camera which have all ended up been given to my wife, there is no substitute for good gear if your after the best quality for print.

[GPSGuided]

Agree. Have tried so long to be compact and putting hopes on the latest small sensor digital technology, but never happy. Always just wished for that bit more, one that never arrived. Finally, dSLR gave it back to me. No comparison with the sensor, processing, lens and the pentaprism viewfinder. Of course, it all depends on one's expectation.

[wayno]

with a recent natgeo photo exhibition in town, a lot of the photos were taken on aps-c sensor cameras... you can get pretty compact aps-c sensor cameras now, also depends how good the lens is in front of it as to how good the quality will end up.

[GPSGuided]

True that APS-C sensor is the minimum required for decent quality photo. But as you said, the optics in front make a difference. Further to me, the optical viewfinder is very important for the experience. Looking at a LCD screen, fighting sun glare is not the same. Not conducive to mental focus, optical focus and composition.

[wayno]

depends on your standards, all my mother has to look at digital photos is a digital photo frame, 600 x 800 pixels. i cringe at the quality but she's very happy about the photos on it... especially after i upgraded her from a 640 x 480 quality frame...

[GPSGuided]

Exactly as I suggested earlier. Expectations are different.

[beachcruiser]

I bought a Sony NEX5R about a year ago as a 'lightweight' option for bushwalking and travel when I don't what to lug around the DSLR (Nikon D7000) and I've been really happy with it. I've found it a good compromise between weight and quality, it has an APS-C sized sensor, compact size and interchangeable lenses so I can get down to a minimum weight of 395gms with my 16-55mm lens or when weight is less of an issue like on a recent trip to Green Gully Track where well equipped huts mean't no tent, mat or stove in the pack I used my Tamron 18-200mm lens attached the electronic viewfinder and ARCA plate and this set-up weighs in at 840gms.

Here's a link to photos taken in the Budawangs with the Sony 16-55mm lens
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mandycreighton/sets/72157636731805745/

And here's the photos from Green Gully Track with the Tamron 18-200mm lens
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mandycreighton/sets/72157636597351604/

The only thing the Sony doesn't do as well as my Nikon is 'action' shots and it is probably partly that I haven't spent enough time learning the correct settings with the Sony, I haven't been able to nail sharp focus on moving objects like birds in flight yet with the Sony.

If I were buying now I'd be looking at the Sony NEX6 as it has the electronic viewfinder built in - since I bought the electronic viewfinder accessory for my NEX5R it hasn't been off the camera.
If you are after really high quality photos in a lightweight package check out the new Sony Alpha 7R, full frame sensor, 36MP and only 465gms (body only) and it competes with the likes of the Canon 5D and Nikon D800 for image quality!