Any new compact cameras worth a look ?

[Chip]

Seeing the Christmas ads. Anything compact jumping out at you ?

 

[roadtripper]

this one has my attention! it's tough, 16MP, handles cold well, and waterproof...

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/allweather/aw100/

 

[Papa Bear]

If I hadn't bought the Canon S95 (which is the best P&S I've owned) a year ago, I buy the follow-on S100 hands down.

Specs
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/digital_cameras/powershot_g_series/powershot_s100

Reviews
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canons100/
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/canon-powershot-s100-silver/4505-6501_7-35018162.html
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_powershot_s100_review/
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/story/2011-12-17/canon-powershot-s100-camera/52009092/1

 

[hardyb]

If it doesn't have a View Finder, it's not a real camera!

 

[Chip]

If it doesn't have a View Finder, it's not a real camera!

I understand, unfortunately that's a trade off these days. i'm more concerned with image quality if that's the decision i need to make. most pics are cropped a bit afterwards regardless.

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

If it doesn't have a View Finder, it's not a real camera!

Emphatically ... in bright sunlight the LCD is basically useless.

 

[DougPaul]

If it doesn't have a View Finder, it's not a real camera!

Agreed--lack of a viewfinder is a definite minus...

I understand, unfortunately that's a trade off these days. i'm more concerned with image quality if that's the decision i need to make. most pics are cropped a bit afterwards regardless.

Viewfinders are getting harder and harder to find on P&Ses....

The Canon G12 (with viewfinder), S95 (no viewfinder, but F2 lens), and S100 (no viewfinder, but F2 lens) are all highly regarded. There have been some pretty good sale prices on the S95 recently.

Doug

 

[David Metsky]

There's only 4-5 compact models with viewfinders today, plus a few larger ultrazooms with electronic viewfinders.

For hiking, I don't think waterproof cameras are worth it. You sacrifice image quality and usability for protection that isn't necessary on the trail, IMO. If you are a kayaker, then they make more sense, but not for hiking and skiing. 16 MP is overkill, and results in poorer image quality. Look for cameras with physically larger sensors and fewer MP. Anything over 12 MP on these small cameras decreases image quality, IMO.

The cameras I like today are the Canon S100, the Olympus XZ-1, the Panasonic LX-5, the Canon G12, abd the Fuji X10. None of them are cheap, but they're all very high quality. I also like the Canon ELPH 310 and ELPH 510 even though they don't have view finders.

 

[DougPaul]

16 MP is overkill, and results in poorer image quality. Look for cameras with physically larger sensors and fewer MP. Anything over 12 MP on these small cameras decreases image quality, IMO.

Agreed: 8--10 MP is generally the sweet spot for compact cameras. The resolution of the lenses on these compact cameras is diffraction limited (so more doesn't improve the overall resolution) and smaller pixels result in more noise and less dynamic range.

Doug

 

[Billy]

If it doesn't have a View Finder, it's not a real camera!

 

[Chip]

Thanks. Good info. Article ranking the s100 against the s95.

I don't know enough o anything really) about the sensor differences: Apparently the s95's sensor is slightly larger but the s100's is CMOS vs CCD. Would that be about equal ?

 

[DougPaul]

Thanks. Good info. Article ranking the s100 against the s95.

I don't know enough o anything really) about the sensor differences: Apparently the s95's sensor is slightly larger but the s100's is CMOS vs CCD. Would that be about equal ?

I see some things that I consider misleading in that review... eg 12MP is significantly better then 10MP. (The change in linear (sensor) resolution is the square root of the ratio of MP, so the change is 9.5%, not 20%.)

The sensors are essentially all the same size. (Look at the ratio between the actual FL and the equivalent 35mm FL to estimate the sensor size.)

The S95 and G12 use the same sensor.

Here are some (IMO) better reviews:
S95:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/s95.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PS95/PS95A.HTM

S100:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/s100.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PS100/PS100A.HTM

G12:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/compacts/g12.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G12/G12A.HTM
G11 (predecessor of the G12):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/g11.shtml

Doug

 

[sardog1]

That is sooooo Gen 1.0 -- time to update your hardware: https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3382

 

[DSettahr]

For hiking, I don't think waterproof cameras are worth it. You sacrifice image quality and usability for protection that isn't necessary on the trail, IMO. If you are a kayaker, then they make more sense, but not for hiking and skiing. 16 MP is overkill, and results in poorer image quality. Look for cameras with physically larger sensors and fewer MP. Anything over 12 MP on these small cameras decreases image quality, IMO.

I received a waterproof camera as a gift earlier this year. As soon as I saw the photos on my computer, I immediately packaged it up and returned it. The quality was horrendous, and there was no way it justified the $300 price tag.

Instead I got a Nikon P7000, and I've been very satisfied with it. Similar to the Canon G12, not nearly as high image quality but close, but also not as expensive as the G12.

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

That is sooooo Gen 1.0 -- time to update your hardware: https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3382

At that price Billy might want to stick with his slightly older hardware

 

[DougPaul]

That is sooooo Gen 1.0 -- time to update your hardware: https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3382

At that price Billy might want to stick with his slightly older hardware

FWIW, Ansel Adams used an 8x10 inch format (film size) camera for much of his work. However, not for the ultralighters... He often used a mule to carry his 40+ lbs of camera gear. But they can take amazingly sharp pictures.

Doug

 

[sardog1]

FWIW, Ansel Adams used an 8x10 inch format (film size) camera for much of his work. However, not for the ultralighters... He often used a mule to carry his 40+ lbs of camera gear. But they can take amazingly sharp pictures.

Doug

There's a poster reproduction of "Mount McKinley and Wonder Lake" hanging fifteen feet from me.

 

[Billy]

Full disclosure: That's not my camera. It belongs to a guy I ran into in Acadia about 5 years ago. I posted the picture in response to the claim that a camera must have a view finder to be a "real" camera. This camera produced the most beautiful, crisp, vivid photographs I have ever seen. Ever. This camera does NOT have a viewfinder.

I have a different opinion than others here concerning the desire to have a view finder on a P&S camera. There have been times (for example, strong direct sunlight at an inconvenient angle) when the LCD screen has been less than optimal. But there have been just as many times (for example, holding the camera at arms length over my head or over the edge of a cliff) when the LCD screen being the "view finder" has been an enormous help. So the lack of a view finder on a P&S for hiking is overall a meaningless issue to me.

 

[DougPaul]

I posted the picture in response to the claim that a camera must have a view finder to be a "real" camera. This camera produced the most beautiful, crisp, vivid photographs I have ever seen. Ever. This camera does NOT have a viewfinder.

It does not have a separate viewfinder--the camera itself is the viewfinder. You put a ground glass screen in where the film would be, put a black cloth over the camera body and your head and compose and focus on the ground glass. Once all is set properly, you remove the ground glass, load film in its place, and shoot.

Cameras like this can also tilt and shift (the lens with respect to the film) which gives them extra versatility for focus and perspective control. (P&Ses cannot do this. DSLRs require special tilt-shift lenses to do it.) See, for instance, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/movements.shtml and http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/focusing-ts.shtml
Doug

 

[DougPaul]

have a different opinion than others here concerning the desire to have a view finder on a P&S camera. There have been times (for example, strong direct sunlight at an inconvenient angle) when the LCD screen has been less than optimal. But there have been just as many times (for example, holding the camera at arms length over my head or over the edge of a cliff) when the LCD screen being the "view finder" has been an enormous help. So the lack of a view finder on a P&S for hiking is overall a meaningless issue to me.

P&Ses with a viewfinder generally also have a live-view on the LCD. Since I prefer a viewfinder, I use it whenever possible. When I cannot use the viewfinder, of course I use the live-view. In other words, I prefer to have the choice. A number of recent DSLRs have added live-view without removing the viewfinder and some even have an articulating LCD.

One advantage of using a viewfinder is that holding a camera against your face is steadier than holding it with unsupported arms.

Some recent cameras (eg Sony NEX-7) have substituted an electronic viewfinder (EVF, a live view presented in a viewfinder-like eyepiece) for an optical viewfinder. The NEX-7 can also present a live view on a back LCD screen.

Doug