What to Look at to Find the Best Compact Camera for You

February 4, 2019 · Roger Cicala · in Equipment , Recommendations , Roger's Corner

Why Point and Shoot Cameras?

Well, duh, because I wanted to use one. I go to the beach once a month. I wanted something that took better pictures than my cell phone, doesn’t involve carrying a bunch of gear, and doesn’t include changing lenses in blowing sand.

Since I don’t use this type of camera often, I thought maybe I’d try out a couple and see which one I liked the best, so I dropped over to the Lensrentals website to see what we stocked. I found out we carry like 28 compact cameras and I didn’t have the slightest clue which one was what. I wouldn’t buy a camera without trying one or two out, but I’m sure not going to try out 28, so a little narrowing down was needed.

The names don’t help. A Canon G1X Mk III isn’t an upgrade from the Canon G1X MkII; it’s an entirely different camera. A Sony RX100 V is a slight upgrade from an RX100 IV, which is a major upgrade from the RX100 III. But the Sony RX100 VI, of course, is a different camera. The Fuji 100F is much newer than the Fuji 100T (I guess they rolled right through the end of the alphabet and started over).

The manufacturer’s blurbs don’t help much either. Everyone screams out whatever gimmick the marketing department pushes for that particular camera, most of which is, well, a marketing gimmick. Despite their claims, something that weighs 2 pounds and is 5 inches thick is not pocketable. A sensor smaller than the one in my cell phone is not a ‘large sensor,’ and no 24mm to 3,000mm lens is ‘high quality.’

So, me being me, I made a spreadsheet and started filling in the blanks, to narrow the field down to some logical choices. I thought I’d share this, so no one else ever has to do that again. Is it a complete list? Oh, hell no. It’s just the ones Lensrentals carries. There’s about 450 more out there I didn’t even look at. Are the conclusions fair? Again, no. It’s the ones I liked the best. But I will tell you what I considered important so you can see why I chose what is best for me and give you some tools so you can modify the list for your own tastes.

So What Do I Care About?

Sensor Size

Well, as I’ve already said, it has to have a better sensor than my cell phone. The manufacturers are quick to tell you it’s got 27 Megapixels, but not usually so quick to tell you if the sensor is smaller a mustard seed. If it’s tiny, they’ll often try to make it sound big by using archaic terms from when sensor size was measured by the vacuum tube it came in, like 1/2.5″. So let’s start with a quick table showing the approximate size in mm² of the various sensors.

Format	mm2
Full Frame	860
APS-C	370
micro 4/3	225
1.5"	250
1"	116
2/3"	58
1/2.5"	27
1/2.3"	24

A good cell phone camera has a sensor of between 25mm² and 40mm². So I put a premium on a compact camera at least having a 1″ sensor. If I’m going to use a cell-phone size sensor, I might as well put one of those horrid clamp-on lenses on my cell phone.

The Lens

Lenses are what I do, so I’m into high-quality lenses. Now I’m not going to test compact camera lenses for you, but there are two basic principles that apply: Prime lenses are better than zoom lenses and the longer the zoom range, the worse the lens. There are very, very few exceptions to those generalizations. I want ‘better than my cell phone’ capabilities, so I would like a little zoomability, and I’m going to prefer good 3X or so zooms. On the other hand, a high-quality sensor lets me do some aggressive cropping so I’d consider a prime lens if the sensor were stellar.

There’s another sort-of-marketing BS that applies to the aperture label on compact camera lenses – if the camera has a small sensor, the ‘real’ aperture is much smaller than what it claims to be. It’s geeky stuff, but if you’re interested, there’s an About Apertures appendix.

Anyway, I ended up making a table of cameras, lenses, megapixels, and sensor size for your amusement. You can click to show all 26 cameras and then sort by whatever column(s) you’re interested in. You’re welcome.

Lens	Lens (FF Equiv)	Mpix	Sensor
Canon G1X MII	24-120mm f/1.8-2.8	12.8	1.5"
Canon G1X MIII	24-72mm f/2.8-5.6	24.2	APS-C
Canon G3X	24-600 f/2.8-5.6	20.2	1"
Canon G5X	24-100mm f/1.8-2.8	20.2	1"
Canon G7X	24-100mm f/1.8-2.8	20.2	1"
Canon G7X MII	24-100mm f/1.8-2.8	20.2	1"
Canon G9X	28-84mm f/2-4.9	20.2	1"
Fuji X100F	35mm f/2	24.3	APS-C
Fuji X100T	35mm f/2	16	APS-C
Fuji X70	28mm F/2.8	16	APS-C
Fuji XF10	28mm F/2.8	24.2	APS-C
Fuji X30	28-112mm f/2-2.8	12	2/3"
Leica Q (Type 116)	28mm f1.7	24.2	FF
Leica D-Lux	24-75mm f/1.7-2.8	12	m4/3
Ricoh GRIII	28MM F/2.8	16.2	APS-C
Sigma DP1 Quattro	28mm f/2.8	20/39	APS-C
Sigma DP2 Quattro	45mm f/2.8	20/39	APS-C
Sony RX100 IV	24-70mm f/1.8-2.8	20.1 BSI	1"
Sony RX100 V	24-70mm f/1.8-2.8	20.1 BSI	1"
Sony RX100 VI	24-200mm f/2.8-4.5	20.1 BSI	1"
Sony RX10 III	24-600mm f/2.4-4	20.1 BSI	1"
Sony RX10 IV	24-600mm f/2.4-4	20.1 BSI	1"
Sony RX1R II	35mm f/2	42	FF
Nikon Coolpix P900	24-200mm f/2.8-6.5	16	1/2.3"
Nikon Coolpix P1000	24-3000mm f/2.8-8	16 BSI	1/2.3"

The Camera Size

Here’s where I have to group things a bit. I want a pocketable camera, not a hang-around-my-neck camera. Since I have absolutely no fashion consciousness at all, I’m willing to go with ‘fit in a cargo pants pocket’ (don’t judge). You may always carry a backpack or big purse (or if you judge me on cargo pants, probably a fanny pack).

By careful trial and error (I walked down some aisles in the warehouse stuffing various cameras in my pocket, which should make for interesting security camera footage), I found 4.5 x 3 x 2 inches fits in my pocket. A little bigger shoves in a pocket. When you get to 5 x 4 x 3 inches and weighing a pound or more, it just doesn’t pocket.

I’ll put a table of camera sizes at the bottom of the article for both of you who like facts. Size eliminated the ‘superzoom’ cameras (Nikon P1000, Sony RX10s, and Canon G3x) from my overall consideration, but I will give a separate ‘best of’ for the super telephoto compacts for you closet paparazzi out there.

A Viewfinder

This may not be critical for you, but I’m using this at the beach in bright sunlight most of the time. You may be able to compose a shot on the LCD, especially if it’s articulated, but I find it clumsy, so a built-in viewfinder is important to me. An add-on viewfinder would be acceptable, but not ideal.

The Paparazzi Winner (s)

*I think of superzoom point and shoots as gimmicks, but if I wanted one, it would be one of these two.*

I eliminated all of the super telephoto ‘compact’ cameras because they’re too big for me. (I guess for completeness sake I should add I have less than zero interest in them.) I would entirely (despite one of my colleague’s recommendations) also eliminate the Nikon Coolpix P1000 because of the small sensor (and yes, I think the lens is more gimmick than reality). That leaves the Canon G3x and Sony RX10s.

The Canon has a much lower price, but I’d have to add $300 for the EVF-DC1 add-on viewfinder which narrows the gap and makes the camera even uglier. The Sonys have better sensors, video capabilities, and wider lens apertures, but are larger. Despite being an older camera, I find the Canon’s wireless system to be a lot easier to use (well at least a lot less intrusive). The Sony looks a little more modern while the Canon (with viewfinder) is $150 cheaper. I don’t find the upgrades from the RX III to RX IV worth the $300 price for me.

So I’m calling a tie here; I’m happy with either the Canon G3x or Sony RX10 Mk III. If I were into shooting 600mm video with a compact camera I’d give an edge to the Sony, but I’m not into that. (You shouldn’t be into that either. If you are, I’d recommend you keep quiet about it.)

The Useful Compact Cameras

So I Ruled These Out

I start this kind of process by eliminating non-contenders, so I’m going to start by removing the two best cameras remaining. The Leica Q (Typ 116) and Sony RX1R II are multi-thousand dollar flagship cameras with a fixed lens. They’re cool, they take fantastic images, but at this price, I’ll change my lenses when I please, thank you.

The Sigma Quattros are even cooler, and I’ve enjoyed playing with both to get a feel for Foveon sensors, but their length makes them not pocketable, and other issues make them not ‘all around camera’ to me.

We still carry the Fuji X70 and X100T, but both are surpassed by newer models. The Fuji X30 was a good little camera in its day, but the small, 12-megapixel sensor just doesn’t cut it against the other compact cameras. The Canon G1X Mk II is only 12.8 megapixels. The 1.5″ sensor is very large, though, and the lens is good, although I’d need the external viewfinder again. Still, I want more megapixels than that, so it drops off the list.

That still leaves me 12 models to seriously consider, and they fall into two broad categories: APS-C sensor cameras with prime lenses and 1″ sensor cameras with zoom lenses. Oh, and there are the two exceptions, the Leica D-lux, and Canon G1X III which have zoom lenses and larger sensors.

The Fixed Focal Length Cameras

All of the fixed focal length cameras are really good. The Fuji X100F has awesome image quality and a very cool hybrid viewfinder and is priced like it at $1300. The Fuji XF10 and Ricoh GRII are incredible values, and I might buy either just because they’re such bargains. But alas, neither has a viewfinder.

Good as they are, none of them are so good that I’d rather crop their images than have the convenience of a zoom, though. If my needs were more for ‘pictures indoors at the party or museum’ rather than ‘pictures wherever, whenever’ I’d probably grab the Fuji XF10, though, so I’ll name that my ‘indoor compact camera winner.’ With a 28mm (equivalent) f2.8 lens, a 24-megapixel APS-C size sensor, and a $450 price tag it’s the perfect pocket camera for a trip to the museum.

*Typical Roger: the Fuji XF10 doesn’t meet my needs, but it’s awesome and cheap, so I want it anyway.*

The Zoom Cameras

Of the 1″ zoom cameras the Canon G7x and Canon G9x have no viewfinder. I hesitated about the G9X because it’s genuinely tiny, very cheap, and has a nice ‘control via app’ function, but the lack of viewfinder kept both of those off the list.

The Canon G5X and all the Sony RX100s meet all my requirements. The Sonys look much smaller than the Canon, but actually are just a bit smaller; the Canon is designed with the aerodynamics of a shoebox. The Sony 1″ stacked CMOS sensor is a bit better than the Canon 1″ sensors, so the Sonys start with an advantage there.

The RX100 IV has been our most popular compact camera for a while. The Sony RX100 V is a minor upgrade, and the IV meets all my needs at a lower price. The Canon G5X has a bit more lens range and is significantly cheaper, which offsets the rather bad case of the ugly it has. The RX100 VI has that longer zoom range, which is attractive, but the lens has a smaller aperture and not quite as good image quality, so I’ll call that even: no advantage, no disadvantage. The RX100 VI has a big price disadvantage, though.

Of the two larger sensor zooms, the Leica D-lux is somewhat dated and rather low resolution. The Canon G1X III, though, has a large, high-resolution sensor, decent lens, built-in viewfinder, and meets my ‘pocketable’ criteria (although just barely). The f/5.6 aperture at 72mm isn’t all that attractive, but it’s not as different from the others as it sounds (again you can read the aperture thingie at the end of the post if you’re curious).

So what did I choose? The Sony RX100 IV on the basis of smallest size, excellent image quality, and reasonable price. The Sony RX100 VA is at least as good, but also more expensive. When the IV disappears, then the V would move up.

*The Sony RX100 IV is my choice at this moment, but it’s getting hard to find already and may disappear soon.*

The Canon G5X was just a hair behind; the Canon has the better lens range and is a little less expensive; the Sony a slightly better sensor, video, and is a bit smaller. While it’s as sleek as a shoebox, the ergonomics are pretty good, and if you use Canon SLRs, the layout will seem very familiar.

*The Canon G5X is homely but otherwise excellent. It’s close enough to the Sony that I’ll take it for a test drive.*

I wanted to put the Canon G1X Mk III right with those, and it may actually be the best camera of the bunch, but it’s significantly more expensive. It might be worth a test drive, though, the bigger sensor and zoom make it attractive.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

February, 2019

Camera Size Table

Camera	Price	Length "	Height "	Depth "	weight (gm)
Canon G1X MII	399	4.6	2.9	2.9	553
Canon G1X MIII	1099	4.5	3.1	2	399
Canon G3X	849	4.9	3	4.1	734
Canon G5X	699	4.4	3	1.7	377
Canon G7X	539	4	2.36	1.57	304
Canon G7X MII	649	4.2	2.4	1.7	320
Canon G9X	429	3.9	2.3	1.2	206
Fuji X100F	1299	5	2.9	2.1	469
Fuji X100T	650	5	2.9	2.1	469
Fuji XF10	499	4.4	2.5	1.6	280
Leica Q (Type 116)	4995	5.1	3.1	3.7	640
Leica D-Lux	1195	4.6	2.6	2.5	403
Ricoh GRIII	496	4.6	2.5	1.4	221
Sigma DP1 Quattro	899	6.4	2.6	3.4	425
Sigma DP2 Quattro	899	6.4	2.6	3.2	395
Sony RX100 IV	798	4	2.4	1.6	298
Sony RX100 V	898	4	2.3	1.61	299
Sony RX100 VI	1198	4	2.3	1.7	301
Sony RX10 III	1298	5.2	3.7	5	1095
Sony RX10 IV	1598	5.2	3.7	5.7	1095
Sony RX1R II	3298	45	2.6	2.8	507
Nikon Coolpix P900	570	5.5	4.1	5.4	899
Nikon Coolpix P1000	997	5.8	4.7	7.1	1415

About apertures:

The manufacturer tells you the ’35mm equivalent focal length’ of the lens but then claims its absolute aperture. Here’s an example. Let’s say the camera has a 1″ sensor, which is a 2.7X crop factor. If they claim it has a 24-70mm full-frame equivalent lens, it’s actually a 9-28mm f/2.8 lens. OK, fair enough.

But then they calculate the aperture at the actual focal length actual (not FF equivalent) focal length. So the lens is a 9-28 f/2.8 aperture is 28mm divided by 2.8 = 10mm. That’s the actual size of the aperture. But if you then list it as a 24-70mm, well, a 10mm aperture at 70mm = f/7 (same math, different direction). It’s not a huge problem, but it makes you think that the lens might act like a 24-70 f/2.8 lens on your SLR and it won’t.

To use an example from the actual cameras, the Sony RX100 (1″ sensor) lens goes to 70mm at f2.8, and Canon G1X (APS-C sensor) goes to 72mm at f/5.6. The actual (not FF equivalent) reach of the Sony lens is 26mm and the Canon 45mm. If you do the math, the Sony absolute aperture is 9mm; the Canon is 8mm. Not nearly as different as f/2.8 to f/5.6 would seem.

Most importantly, when you pick up a compact camera with a small sensor and a telephoto lens, even at widest aperture it’s like shooting on your SLR at f/22. It still makes a picture, don’t get me wrong, but it will not make a very sharp picture. Does it matter much? Probably not, but I hate me some marketing BS.

124 Comments

DD D · February 4, 2019
I largely agree with the discussion but not the conclusion. I have owned the Sony rx10iv (24-600) the rx100iv, now the rx100vi (24-200), and the Panasonic zs100. Searching for the perfect walk-around camera.

I prefer the Sony rx100vi (24-200), although it costs twice as much as the zs200 and 50% more than the zs300.

Once you step down to a 1-inch sensor with a zoom lens you might as well get the longer zoom unless you never need it. You’ve already acknowledged quality is secondary to convenience and versatility and for me that extra zoom is worth it–especially for action and nature subjects.
DD D · February 4, 2019
I largely agree with the discussion but not the conclusion, especially if you photograph nature or action (surfers on your beach walk). I have owned the Sony rx10iv (24-600) the rx100iv, now the rx100vi (24-200), and the Panasonic zs100. Searching for the perfect walk-around camera.
I prefer the Sony rx100vi (24-200), although it costs twice as much as the zs100 and 50% more than the zs200.
Once you step down to a 1-inch sensor with a zoom lens you might as well get the longer zoom unless you never need it. You've already acknowledged quality is secondary to convenience and versatility and for me that extra zoom is worth it--especially for action and nature subjects.
Deanaaargh · February 4, 2019
Thank you for the write up.
Especially for the inclusion of sensor sizes it would be fantastic if you used sensor area more frequently than other indicators. Especially in a case such as this where APSC does not always mean the same thing between different cameras. Furthermore it strikes me as odd that manufactures don’t use the area in their marketing material, surface area as a number goes up much faster than diagonal distance, and we know how much they like to advertise big numbers.

It was understanding that Fujifilm appended the letters S(econd) T(hird) F(fourth) to the X100 indicating model revisions. If that was done to avoid the Chinese bias against the number 4 or just an effort to alienate the non English speaking world I have no opinion. However what they will do with the next iteration the F(ifth) I can only guess. Maybe they will follow sony and append an A ala RX100 mk VA
1. Roger Cicala · February 4, 2019
  Thank you! The Fuji letter sequence is an awesome factoid I’d never heard.
Deanaaargh · February 4, 2019
Thank you for the write up.
Especially for the inclusion of sensor sizes it would be fantastic if you used sensor area more frequently than other indicators. Especially in a case such as this where APSC does not always mean the same thing between different cameras. Furthermore it strikes me as odd that manufactures don't use the area in their marketing material, surface area as a number goes up much faster than diagonal distance, and we know how much they like to advertise big numbers.
It was my understanding that Fujifilm appended the letters S(econd) T(hird) F(fourth) to the X100 indicating model revisions. If that was done to avoid the Chinese bias against the number 4 or just an effort to alienate the non English speaking world I have no opinion. However, what they will do with the next iteration the F(ifth) I can only guess. Maybe they will follow sony and append an A ala RX100 mk VA
1. Roger Cicala · February 4, 2019
  Thank you! The Fuji letter sequence is an awesome factoid I'd never heard.
Sam Cudney · February 4, 2019
I notice the Panasonic LX100, twin to the D-Lux, isn’t in the mix. In fact, none of the Panasonics are present. What’s up with that?
1. Roger Cicala · February 4, 2019
  We didn’t have any in stock at the time I wrote this. Like I said, we had 28 cameras in stock, that’s what I looked at. Although I’ve been told we’re getting some.
2. Roger Cicala · February 4, 2019
  We stock the D-lux, we don’t stock the LX100 or any other Panasonics at the moment. Like I said, I wrote about what was in stock because that’s obviously what I can try out.
Sam Cudney · February 4, 2019
I notice the Panasonic LX100, twin to the D-Lux, isn't in the mix. In fact, none of the Panasonics are present. What's up with that?
1. Roger Cicala · February 4, 2019
  We stock the D-lux, we don't stock the LX100 or any other Panasonics at the moment. Like I said, I wrote about what was in stock because that's obviously what I can try out.
Sam Cudney · February 4, 2019
The discussion of focal length is something I hadn’t thought about. It goes some way towards explaining why Looonnnnggg superzooms are crappy in compact cameras (aside, that is, from the optical issues).
Consider Panasonic’s ZS100, reviled for its marginal performance at full zoom of 91 mm, 250 mm “equivalent” (ha). I hadn’t thought about it before, but I make the actual aperture to be 91/5.9, or 15.4 mm diameter. 15.4/250, the “equivalent” length, is f/16, well into diffraction territory for a 1″ sensor. So, setting aside the optical issues of making a 10:1 zoom that folds up, it’s already crippled by diffraction even if the optics were perfect.
Or did I misunderstand something?
1. Roger Cicala · February 4, 2019
  I don’t think you missed anything, Sam. Although I’m sure there will be lots of people around shortly to tell us we’re both wrong. There are a couple of ways of looking at it; but I think it’s important to look at it, not pretend it’s not there which is what I think the manufacturers do.
  1. GulliNL · February 5, 2019
    You are both wrong! Now that that’s out of the way, I’m going to search for facts that rule in my favor to back my claim.
2. Brandon Dube · February 7, 2019
  Diffraction doesn’t know anything about “equivalence,” the diffraction the lens experiences is that of F/5.9. Long zoom lenses are alignment nightmares – the performance at the long end probably sucks because the alignment sucks.
  1. Ilya Zakharevich · February 8, 2019
    Brandon, diffraction knows nothing about the focal length either. So your statement is not fully clarifying. But I agree that it looks like Sam used “rescaling” argument twice where one step was enough. ;-(
    
    So: what is correct in Sam’s argument is that diffraction knows only about the size of the pupil. So the ANGULAR diffraction of a lens with 15.4mm entry pupil is going to be the same no matter what is the sensor size: about 1/30,000 radian. With a subject 30m away it is going to be about 1mm ON THE SUBJECT. With the angle of view of 1/7.5 radian (“250mm equivalent” lens), the subject width is about 4m?—?so one gets about 4k pixels linear resolution (about 10Mpx).
    
    But you are right that since this calculation is IN TERMS OF THE DISTANCES ON THE SUBJECT, it has nothing to do with the sensor size. (In other words: “‘equivalence’ holds for diffraction”?—?as it does for most important characteristics of the image creation?—?except the price.) So Sam saying “well into diffraction territory for a 1″ sensor” does not make any sense…
    1. Brandon Dube · February 8, 2019
      In the image plane, diffraction is a function only of F/#. In angular object space, it’s a function of pupil diameter only. The two are related by the focal length.
Sam Cudney · February 4, 2019
The discussion of focal length is something I hadn't thought about. It goes some way towards explaining why Looonnnnggg superzooms are crappy in compact cameras (aside, that is, from the optical issues).
Consider Panasonic's ZS100, reviled for its marginal performance at full zoom of 91 mm, 250 mm "equivalent" (ha). I hadn't thought about it before, but I make the actual aperture to be 91/5.9, or 15.4 mm diameter. 15.4/250, the "equivalent" length, is f/16, well into diffraction territory for a 1" sensor. So, setting aside the optical issues of making a 10:1 zoom that folds up, it's already crippled by diffraction even if the optics were perfect.
Or did I misunderstand something?
1. Roger Cicala · February 4, 2019
  I don't think you missed anything, Sam. Although I'm sure there will be lots of people around shortly to tell us we're both wrong. There are a couple of ways of looking at it; but I think it's important to look at it, not pretend it's not there which is what I think the manufacturers do.
  1. GulliNL · February 5, 2019
    You are both wrong! Now that that's out of the way, I'm going to search for facts that rule in my favor to back my claim.
2. Brandon Dube · February 7, 2019
  Diffraction doesn't know anything about "equivalence," the diffraction the lens experiences is that of F/5.9. Long zoom lenses are alignment nightmares - the performance at the long end probably sucks because the alignment sucks.
  1. Ilya Zakharevich · February 8, 2019
    Brandon, diffraction knows nothing about the focal length either. So your statement is not fully clarifying. But I agree that it looks like Sam used “rescaling” argument twice where one step was enough. ;-(
    So: what is correct in Sam’s argument is that diffraction knows only about the size of the pupil. So the ANGULAR diffraction of a lens with 15.4mm entry pupil is going to be the same no matter what is the sensor size: about 1/30,000 radian. With a subject 30m away it is going to be about 1mm ON THE SUBJECT. With the angle of view of 1/7.5 radian (“250mm equivalent” lens), the subject width is about 4m — so one gets about 4k pixels linear resolution (about 10Mpx).
    But you are right that since this calculation is IN TERMS OF THE DISTANCES ON THE SUBJECT, it has nothing to do with the sensor size. (In other words: “‘equivalence’ holds for diffraction” — as it does for most important characteristics of the image creation — except the price.) So Sam saying “well into diffraction territory for a 1" sensor” does not make any sense…
    1. Brandon Dube · February 8, 2019
      In the image plane, diffraction is a function only of F/#. In angular object space, it's a function of pupil diameter only. The two are related by the focal length.
Khürt L. Williams · February 4, 2019
100S S for second
100T T for third.
100F F for fourth.
1. Roger Cicala · February 4, 2019
  Yep. I’m getting educated all over the place today. But what’s fifth gonna be? FF?
  1. Sam Cudney · February 5, 2019
    V, for fiVe. siXth will be X, unless they get creative and do it in Italian or something; E, for sEi. 🙂
    1. Brenda · March 25, 2019
      Current poll shows that on average 75% individuals are occupied into online world tasks. The internet world has grown into bigger and more beneficial and delivering a great number of opportunities. Home based on-line jobs are becoming poplar and transforming people’s day-to-day lives. Why exactly it really is in demand? Mainly because it lets you do the job from anywhere and anytime. You receive more time to allocate with your family and friends and can plan out trips for getaways. Men and women are making pleasant revenue of $25000 each and every week by utilizing the effective and smart ways. Carrying out right work in a right path will always lead us in the direction of becoming successful. You will start to get paid from the 1st day after you explore our web-site. >>>>> PLU.SH/njexd
Khürt L. Williams · February 4, 2019
100S S for second
100T T for third.
100F F for fourth.
1. Roger Cicala · February 4, 2019
  Yep. I'm getting educated all over the place today. But what's fifth gonna be? FF?
  1. Sam Cudney · February 5, 2019
    V, for fiVe. siXth will be X, unless they get creative and do it in Italian or something; E, for sEi. :)
ajcarr · February 5, 2019
Panasonic ZS100/TZ100 (which I own) or the Panasonic ZS200/TZ200 (which I don’t own, but would like to), and if you want to get the latter with a Leica red dot on the front, it’ll cost you a few hundred bucks more as the C-Lux. 1″ sensors, “Leica” lenses (my TZ100 lens is noticeably inferior to the “Zeiss” lens on my Sony RX10iii; however, the lens on the Sony is HUGE in comparison: there’s a lot of sophisticated glass in there).

So my pecking order for cameras is as follows (which is also in order of increasing image quality:

Everyday carry around camera:
Panasonic TZ100

Travel camera:
Sony RX10iii

Serious camera for best image quality:
Pentax K-5 with three Limited primes (14/5, 2.8/35, 2.4/70), a couple of manual-focus Pentax-A primes (2.8/135 and 4/200), and for portraits, a Soviet Helios-44K-4 2/58. Yes, the Pentax is ancient in digital camera years, but it handles beautifully, the lenses are exquisite, and the 16 MP Sony APS-C sensor has decent-sized photosites to ensure that the image quality is plenty good enough for A3+ prints.
1. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmid · February 5, 2019
  In that case, why not just go for a top of the line M43 rig, like a Panny G9?
  
  Better sensor than the Pentax, better selection of absolutely world-class lenses, handles like a dream, easily prints large, etc….
  1. Athanasius Kirchner · February 5, 2019
    Oh no, the G9 is absolutely *not* better sensor-wise than the K-5. That 16 MP chip is still a super champ, with tremendous DR and very good low light performance.
    As good as the G9’s handling is, it just falls flat in other aspects. And if I’m carrying a camera of that size and weight, I’d rather have it be APS-C or 35mm.
    1. ajcarr · February 8, 2019
      Thanks. Glad to see that someone agrees with me about the K-5. The recovery of shadow detail when exposing to the right in very wide dynamic range scenes is quite remarkable (though not as good as a 645z). And I’d hate to lose the use of my lovely Limited lenses at their current effective focal lengths. And the Helios-4K-4 makes a perfect portrait lens on APS-C. Also, as the (very) old advertising slogan (from the days of the Asahi Optical Company) goes: “Just hold a Pentax.” The engineers put a huge amount of effort into getting the contouring of the front grip as optimal as possible, for example.
2. Athanasius Kirchner · February 5, 2019
  Your approach is similar to mine. I shoot an RX10M4 for travel and birding, and an A7S for low light, portraits and landscapes. Both do amazing video, which is also important to me. I’ve found that the 1″+35mm sensor combination is close to ideal.
  1. Naomi · February 11, 2019
    Start getting more cash every week… It’s an awesome part time job for anybody… Best part about it is that you can do this job from comfort of your house and make from 100 to 2000 dollars each week … Start now and receive your first payment by the end of this week…> http://goodlove41.pw/rqEaqV
3. Sam Cudney · February 6, 2019
  You’re thinking of the lx100, the c-lux clone. Very different from the zs200.
  1. ajcarr · February 8, 2019
    No, the C-Lux is the ZS/TZ200 clone. The D-Lux is the LX100 clone.
    
    C-Lux vs ZS200 comparison
    
    D-Lux vs LX100 comparison
    1. Sam Cudney · February 10, 2019
      Oops, you’re right! My bad.
      1. Lillian · February 10, 2019
        Make residual cash each week… This can be an amazing part-time work for everyone… The best part about it ,work from comfort of your house and make from 100 to 2000 dollars each week … Start now and get your first paycheck by the end of this week…> https://lxcesse.tumblr.com
      2. Ester · February 12, 2019
        I actually generate close to $6,000-$8,000 monthly via internet. It is actually a sufficient amount to easily replace my old jobs income, specially considering I only work about 20 hours per week from home.I lost my job after doing work for the same company for years, I wanted reliable source of income, I was not interested in the “get rich quick” home programs as you can see online. Those are usually pyramid schemes or stuff in which you need to sell to your friends and family. I just needed a reliable method to earn a living for me and my family members. The greatest benefit of working on the internet is that I am always home with the little kids, I save a good amount of money. Honestly,it is simpler than you would believe, all you have to do is submit a very simple form to get front line access to the Home Profit System . I got the instructions kit and within 4 weeks I started earning over $4,000 a month. The instructions are really easy, you don’t have to be a computer whiz, but you should know how to use the net. If you can fill up forms and surf web-sites, you can do it quite easily, You don’t even have to sell anything and no-one has to buy anything . It’s as simple as being on Youtube.Here’s the right way to start out->-> http://ff.goodlove32.pw/KoPBnn
      3. Alice · February 13, 2019
        I actually gain about $6,000-$8,000 every month using the internet. It is really adequate to comfortably replace my previous jobs earnings, specially considering I only work about twenty hr in a single week at home.I lost my job after working for the same organization for several years, I needed trusted source of income, I was not interested in the “get rich quick” home programs you see all over the internet. Those are typical pyramid schemes or stuff in which you need to sell to your friends and family members. I just wanted a trustworthy method to earn a living for me and my family. The most interesting part of working over the internet is that I am always home with the kids, I save lots of money. Honestly,it is easier than you would believe, all you have to do is submit a very simple form to get front line access to the Home Profit System . I got the instructions kit and within 4 weeks I started earning over $4,000 per month. The instructions are really easy, you don’t need to be a computer whiz, but you should be aware how to use the internet. If you can fill up forms and browse web-sites, you can do it easily, You don’t need to sell anything and no-one has to buy anything . It’s as simple as being on Facebook.Here’s how you can start out>> http://shortaz.com/qR7H6
      4. Emiko · February 17, 2019
        I basically make around $6,000-$8,000 a month through the internet. It is actually adequate to comfortably replace my old jobs earnings, specially considering I just work about twenty hours a week from home.I lost my job after working for the same company for a long time, I required reliable earnings, I was not interested in the “get rich quick” home packages you can find all over the net. Those are typical pyramid schemes or stuff in which you have to sell to your friends and family. I actually needed a trustworthy way to earn a living for me and my family. The most important part of working on the net is that I am always home with the little kids, I save a good amount of money. Honestly,it is easier than you would think, all you need to do is submit a very simple form to receive front line access to the Home Profit System . You don’t need to be a computer whiz, but you should be aware how to use the internet. If you can fill up forms and browse web-sites, you can do it easily, You don’t even have to sell anything at all and no-one needs to purchase anything. It’s as easy as being on Facebook or twitter.Here’s how to begin—-> PLEASE SEE
  2. ajcarr · February 8, 2019
    No, the C-Lux is the ZS/TZ200 clone. The D-Lux is the LX100 clone.
    C-Lux vs ZS200 comparison
    D-Lux vs LX100 comparison
    1. Sam Cudney · February 10, 2019
      Oops, you're right! My bad.
ajcarr · February 5, 2019
Panasonic ZS100/TZ100 (which I own) or the Panasonic ZS200/TZ200 (which I don't own, but would like to), and if you want to get the latter with a Leica red dot on the front, it'll cost you a few hundred bucks more as the C-Lux. 1" sensors, "Leica" lenses (my TZ100 lens is noticeably inferior to the "Zeiss" lens on my Sony RX10iii; however, the lens on the Sony is HUGE in comparison: there's a lot of sophisticated glass in there).
So my pecking order for cameras is as follows (which is also in order of increasing image quality:
Everyday carry around camera:
Panasonic TZ100
Travel camera:
Sony RX10iii
Serious camera for best image quality:
Pentax K-5 with three Limited primes (14/5, 2.8/35, 2.4/70), a couple of manual-focus Pentax-A primes (2.8/135 and 4/200), and for portraits, a Soviet Helios-44K-4 2/58. Yes, the Pentax is ancient in digital camera years, but it handles beautifully, the lenses are exquisite, and the 16 MP Sony APS-C sensor has decent-sized photosites to ensure that the image quality is plenty good enough for A3+ prints.
1. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmid · February 5, 2019
  In that case, why not just go for a top of the line M43 rig, like a Panny G9?
  Better sensor than the Pentax, better selection of absolutely world-class lenses, handles like a dream, easily prints large, etc....
  1. Athanasius Kirchner · February 5, 2019
    Oh no, the G9 is absolutely *not* better sensor-wise than the K-5. That 16 MP chip is still a super champ, with tremendous DR and very good low light performance.
    As good as the G9's handling is, it just falls flat in other aspects. And if I'm carrying a camera of that size and weight, I'd rather have it be APS-C or 35mm.
    1. ajcarr · February 8, 2019
      Thanks. Glad to see that someone agrees with me about the K-5. The recovery of shadow detail when exposing to the right in very wide dynamic range scenes is quite remarkable (though not as good as a 645z). And I'd hate to lose the use of my lovely Limited lenses at their current effective focal lengths. And the Helios-4K-4 makes a perfect portrait lens on APS-C. Also, as the (very) old advertising slogan (from the days of the Asahi Optical Company) goes: "Just hold a Pentax." The engineers put a huge amount of effort into getting the contouring of the front grip as optimal as possible, for example.
2. Athanasius Kirchner · February 5, 2019
  Your approach is similar to mine. I shoot an RX10M4 for travel and birding, and an A7S for low light, portraits and landscapes. Both do amazing video, which is also important to me. I've found that the 1"+35mm sensor combination is close to ideal.
DrJon · February 5, 2019
I’d have got the RX100V over the IV (and actually have, BTW) as while all the other RX100s are still available the V has been replaced by the Va, which I assume will have a nice effect on the prices of the remaining Vs out there (and the PDAF is good, extra slow-mo time, etc.).
Also the 1″ sensors in the Canons are, I understand, all made by Sony (and presumably the same BSI sensor that’s used in most of the RX100s, sometimes with PDAF masking, sometimes stacked). What they don’t get is the stacked sensors.
DrJon · February 5, 2019
I wrote a couple of long comments (the second being the first with less links), but seem to have both got nuked, maybe due to the links? (There was a lot of tips on RX100 use.) They started like this:

I’d have got the RX100V over the IV (and actually have, BTW) as while all the other RX100s are still available the V has been replaced by the Va, which I assume will have a nice effect on the prices of the remaining Vs out there (and the PDAF is good, extra slow-mo time, etc.).

Also the 1″ sensors in the Canons are, I understand, all made by Sony (and presumably the same BSI sensor that’s used in most of the RX10s/RX100s, sometimes with PDAF masking, sometimes stacked). What they don’t get is the stacked sensors.

Oh and while I’m at it I should say Sony don’t do an Advanced Manual for the RX10/RX100 cameras, you just get the Basic one. To work out how non-simple stuff works, or what obscurely-named menu items do, you’re supposed to use the online help system, so presumably not get out of cell signal range when you have an issue. (It’s also useful to understand that Sony calls the cameras RX100M4, RX100M5, etc., not IV and V, when looking for stuff.)
DrJon · February 5, 2019
(Okay, ignore this. See below.)
tugwilson · February 5, 2019
The Ricoh GR II has a choice of two viewfinders which fit on the hotshoe http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/gr-2/accessories/index.html I have the GV-1 and it is excellent.
tugwilson · February 5, 2019
The Ricoh GR II has a choice of two viewfinders which fit on the hotshoe http://www.ricoh-imaging.co... I have the GV-1 and it is excellent.
Roger Cicala · February 5, 2019
DrJon, although you’re a frequent poster, I think there’s been so much spam hitting the blog lately that they’ve tightened a bunch of stuff about links. I reactivated the one thread I could find, but I am not skilled in the ways of Discus, so my apologies if something else got nuked.

Roger
1. DrJon · February 5, 2019
  Not a problem and I hope there is something in all that which is of some use.
  (Oh and thanks, I spent a while on it.)
  This bit went missing in case of use…
  RX100 IV vs V HFR (wrong in Friedman book and Sony website):
  http://www.hispeedcams.com/sony-rx100-v-manual-shows-higher-hfr-resolution/
  Filter adaptor (note I haven’t used this):
  https://lensmateonline.com/collections/sony-rx100-iii-rx100-ii-rx100-accessories/products/lensmate-rx100-iii-rx100-ii-rx100-quick-change-adapter-kit-52mm?variant=998641683
2. DrJon · February 8, 2019
  Now says “This comment was marked as spam”.
  Most of it was aimed at you so maybe you’ve read it by now…
Roger Cicala · February 5, 2019
DrJon, although you're a frequent poster, I think there's been so much spam hitting the blog lately that they've tightened a bunch of stuff about links. I reactivated the one thread I could find, but I am not skilled in the ways of Discus, so my apologies if something else got nuked.
Roger
1. DrJon · February 5, 2019
  Not a problem and I hope there is something in all that which is of some use.
  (Oh and thanks, I spent a while on it.)
  This bit went missing in case of use...
  RX100 IV vs V HFR (wrong in Friedman book and Sony website):
  http://www.hispeedcams.com/...
  Filter adaptor (note I haven't used this):
  https://lensmateonline.com/...
2. DrJon · February 8, 2019
  Now says "This comment was marked as spam".
  Most of it was aimed at you so maybe you've read it by now...
Bill Slattery Jr · February 5, 2019
Been going through this decision for some time and finally bite the bullet, sold the X100F and bought a used Sony RX1R II. Need the extra low light ability and the resolution difference between the D850 and the Fuji has me spoiled. Ya the Fuji fits in the pocket of my cargo pants. But it was so uncomfortable there that I got a Spider Holster and the difference between carrying a RX1R II and the X100F in a holster is zilch. Figure if I need more than the RX1R II’s 35mm 42MP FF photo it’s time to bring in the real boys not a compact.
Bill Slattery Jr · February 5, 2019
Been going through this decision for some time and finally bite the bullet, sold the X100F and bought a used Sony RX1R II. Need the extra low light ability and the resolution difference between the D850 and the Fuji has me spoiled. Ya the Fuji fits in the pocket of my cargo pants. But it was so uncomfortable there that I got a Spider Holster and the difference between carrying a RX1R II and the X100F in a holster is zilch. Figure if I need more than the RX1R II's 35mm 42MP FF photo it's time to bring in the real boys not a compact.
Not THAT Ross Cameron · February 5, 2019
I went through something similar, tossing up 1” vs m4/3. Ended up settling on used Nikon 1 bodies – V2 & AW1. AW1 is good for beach etc, but even a little big for cargo pants. V2 smaller, but I need to find a decent used 10-100mm for walk-around, and a 6-13mm to go with my 30-110. The 18.5mm lens is really good, the 30-110 starts to fall down indoors, so thanks for the aperture discussion. I can use MF F-mount glass with adaptor, as well as C-mount, which is interesting, but difficult. Nikon killed it by charging too much.
Not THAT Ross Cameron · February 5, 2019
I went through something similar, tossing up 1” vs m4/3. Ended up settling on used Nikon 1 bodies - V2 & AW1. AW1 is good for beach etc, but even a little big for cargo pants. V2 smaller, but I need to find a decent used 10-100mm for walk-around, and a 6-13mm to go with my 30-110. The 18.5mm lens is really good, the 30-110 starts to fall down indoors, so thanks for the aperture discussion. I can use MF F-mount glass with adaptor, as well as C-mount, which is interesting, but difficult. Nikon killed it by charging too much.
Civilitas · February 5, 2019
Great post, and very informative!

One thing though: if I am going to the beach (sand, water, suntan lotion….) I think I might want a camera that can go with me into the water! (At least for some visits to the beach, if not always) What was missing was a category for “all-weather” cameras. Maybe you don’t stock those for rental purposes, but it just seems like a category that might be useful to cover (I have a TG-4 myself, especially and exclusively for these kinds of situations, since otherwise the sensor is just too small).
1. Roger Cicala · February 6, 2019
  WE always carry one of those, and I agree with you.
  1. yaley · February 7, 2019
    Does anyone really honor the RX0 as an all-weather camera with 1-inch sensor? It really is great to take anywhere and offers quite compelling image quality.
Civilitas · February 5, 2019
Great post, and very informative!
One thing though: if I am going to the beach (sand, water, suntan lotion....) I think I might want a camera that can go with me into the water! (At least for some visits to the beach, if not always) What was missing was a category for "all-weather" cameras. Maybe you don't stock those for rental purposes, but it just seems like a category that might be useful to cover (I have a TG-4 myself, especially and exclusively for these kinds of situations, since otherwise the sensor is just too small).
Raimo Korhonen · February 6, 2019
Nice to see Canon G5X (which I have had for 3 years) featured – it is often overlooked. I like it.
Raimo Korhonen · February 6, 2019
Nice to see Canon G5X (which I have had for 3 years) featured - it is often overlooked. I like it.
Vladimir Gorbunov · February 6, 2019
Dear Roger, could you please fix the date under article? It says 2017.

The mobile phones are narrowing the gap with 1″ P&S, quite soon only 4/3 and up will make sense in normal zoom range. I personally replaced my Panasonic LX100 to Sony A6300. A very slight size and weight penalty (with kit lens), but there’s a lot more potential abilities, like mounting the 60-600 mm lens and external mic and video light.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8883bf1fc8cc934021bbfb86c295b73a5089ac2c4b7e87a7dac661a661902c2a.png
Vladimir Gorbunov · February 6, 2019
Dear Roger, could you please fix the date under article? It says 2017.
The mobile phones are narrowing the gap with 1" P&S, quite soon only 4/3 and up will make sense in normal zoom range. I personally replaced my Panasonic LX100 to Sony A6300. A very slight size and weight penalty (with kit lens), but there's a lot more potential abilities, like mounting the 60-600 mm lens and external mic and video light.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Friedhelm · February 6, 2019
Thank god, this is only your opinion.
Too biased, but this is only my feeling.
Friedhelm · February 6, 2019
Thank god, this is only your opinion.
Too biased, but this is only my feeling.
Yves Simon · February 6, 2019
Why did you leave out Panasonic cameras? The LX10, LX100-II, FZ300, FZ1000, FZ2500, TZ100 and TZ200 are interesting.
The LX100-II (Leica D-Lux 7) is my preferred camera among all non-interchangeable lens cameras, nothing less.
And yes, the FZ300 has a small sensor, but it is the only one in his category with a constant relative aperture of f/2.8.
Another thing, I am astonished that you prefer the RX10-III to the RX-II. The later has a larger relative aperture, and is more portable (the mkIII is really heavy).
What I am using / plan to use (I don’t have the Sony yet):
– Casual, low light, and high quality photography: Leica D-Lux 7 / Panasonic LX100-II
– Sports, urban travels: Sony RX10-II
– Wildlife: Panasonic FZ300
The two Panasonic carried together cover already 95% of my needs.
1. Roger Cicala · February 7, 2019
  Like the article said; because we don’t carry them.
  1. Dane Thomas · February 19, 2019
    Don’t carry them, or didn’t have them available at the time? https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/panasonic-lumix-dc-lx100-ii
Yves Simon · February 6, 2019
Why did you leave out Panasonic cameras? The LX10, LX100-II, FZ300, FZ1000, FZ2500, TZ100 and TZ200 are interesting.
The LX100-II (Leica D-Lux 7) is my preferred camera among all non-interchangeable lens cameras, nothing less.
And yes, the FZ300 has a small sensor, but it is the only one in his category with a constant relative aperture of f/2.8.
Another thing, I am astonished that you prefer the RX10-III to the RX-II. The later has a larger relative aperture, and is more portable (the mkIII is really heavy).
What I am using / plan to use (I don't have the Sony yet):
- Casual, low light, and high quality photography: Leica D-Lux 7 / Panasonic LX100-II
- Sports, urban travels: Sony RX10-II
- Wildlife: Panasonic FZ300
The two Panasonic carried together cover already 95% of my needs.
1. Roger Cicala · February 7, 2019
  Like the article said; because we don't carry them.
  1. Dane Thomas · February 19, 2019
    Don't carry them, or didn't have them available at the time? https://www.lensrentals.com...
Max Manzan · February 7, 2019
The actual f-number of the zoom on the Canon G1X M II is f/2.0-3.9
Chris Jankowski · February 7, 2019
I agree with Roger’s assessment that RX100M4 is currently the best value camera for requirements that Roger specified – pocketable, good image, zoom. M5a is very nice (24-200mm equivalent zoom is a big draw), but the price difference is rather steep compared to M4.

I used all RX100 models up to and including M4 over the years. They all produced great photos, but there are a number of niggly problems with them from my experience:
– The controls are so tiny that they are difficult and fiddly to operate in real life outdoors.
– The EVF is fiddly to set up and also produces image that is too small to use comfortably in harsh light. Apparently set up has improved in M5 and M5a.

– The camera is rather fragile – if you drop it, it is nearly certain to become a dead piece of metal.
1. fpink3 · February 15, 2019
  I can attest that the RX100 MII is more rugged than I thought. I’ve used it since early 2014 and dropped it MANY times. It still works perfectly. I do not trust the mechanical complication introduced by the electronic view finder. This was already a VERY dense camera before Sony decided to cram in an electronic display/lens in an elevator.
Chris Jankowski · February 7, 2019
I agree with Roger's assessment that RX100M4 is currently the best value camera for requirements that Roger specified - pocketable, good image, zoom. M5a is very nice (24-200mm equivalent zoom is a big draw), but the price difference is rather steep compared to M4.
I used all RX100 models up to and including M4 over the years. They all produced great photos, but there are a number of niggly problems with them from my experience:
- The controls are so tiny that they are difficult and fiddly to operate in real life outdoors.
- The EVF is fiddly to set up and also produces image that is too small to use comfortably in harsh light. Apparently set up has improved in M5 and M5a.
- The camera is rather fragile - if you drop it, it is nearly certain to become a dead piece of metal.
1. fpink3 · February 15, 2019
  I can attest that the RX100 MII is more rugged than I thought. I've used it since early 2014 and dropped it MANY times. It still works perfectly. I do not trust the mechanical complication introduced by the electronic view finder. This was already a VERY dense camera before Sony decided to cram in an electronic display/lens in an elevator.
Baconator · February 7, 2019
I wish the Canon G1X Mk III had a 2.8-4 lens, it would be such a nice camera…
Baconator · February 7, 2019
I wish the Canon G1X Mk III had a 2.8-4 lens, it would be such a nice camera...
Marcello Mura · February 7, 2019
When i need “small” my choice is a Samsung NX1100 with the pancake powerzoom or the 30mm prime. Maybe not as small as someone want but the compromise in quality is very little. I also still own a sony HX5 because i like the video from this little toy.
Marcello Mura · February 7, 2019
When i need "small" my choice is a Samsung NX1100 with the pancake powerzoom or the 30mm prime. Maybe not as small as someone want but the compromise in quality is very little. I also still own a sony HX5 because i like the video from this little toy.
Alek Komarnitsky · February 8, 2019
Great summary comment Roger that pretty much says it all! 😉

Most importantly, when you pick up a compact camera with a small sensor and a telephoto lens, even at widest aperture it’s like shooting on your SLR at f/22. It still makes a picture, don’t get me wrong, but it will not make a very sharp picture.

Encapsulates both the math/optics theory … and what the images look like in real-life.
Alek Komarnitsky · February 8, 2019
Great summary comment Roger that pretty much says it all! ;-)
Most importantly, when you pick up a compact camera with a small sensor and a telephoto lens, even at widest aperture it’s like shooting on your SLR at f/22. It still makes a picture, don’t get me wrong, but it will not make a very sharp picture.
Encapsulates both the math/optics theory ... and what the images look like in real-life.
Khürt L. Williams · February 10, 2019
Hi Roger, would you update the chart to include medium formats?
Nofearmfd · February 11, 2019
I would suspect that a few customers, out of curiosity, might want to rent the 24-3000 FF equivalent, 16MP RAW, Nikon P1000. I own one and love it but I’ll guess there are some skeptics out there that might want to just try it without spending a $1000. It’s great for bird watchers too.
Nofearmfd · February 11, 2019
I would suspect that a few customers, out of curiosity, might want to rent the 24-3000 FF equivalent, 16MP RAW, Nikon P1000. I own one and love it but I'll guess there are some skeptics out there that might want to just try it without spending a $1000. It's great for bird watchers too.
fpink3 · February 11, 2019
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3af1e15a69643ff8e35c8047ad31d84c8cbcb7a7f8b18d03da0a8f2284fbea39.png This seems like the right discussion to raise my concern with compact camera lens vane failure.
A compact fixed lens camera should have lens vanes that work.
fpink3 · February 11, 2019
https://uploads.disquscdn.c... This seems like the right discussion to raise my concern with compact camera lens vane failure.
A compact fixed lens camera should have lens vanes that work.
Greg Edwards · February 13, 2019
I bought and use a Nikon P1000 for photographing Green Flashes (at sunset) and the Moon. It isn’t a general purpose camera. It is >>weird<< (examples, you can't do an HDR sequence in Manual mode, smallest f-stop is f-8, etc.). But for the purposes I want it for it is very useful. Did I mention it is LARGE? Far larger than I expected. But it does the jobs I bought it for.

I use a Sony RX10iv most of the time. Love that camera.
1. fpink3 · February 15, 2019
  The P1000 has a 1/2.3″ sensor. At f5.6, diffraction introduces blur that is already more than three sensor pixels. Essentially, the real sensor resolution is much less than its rating due to diffraction. Smaller apertures introduce even more diffraction. Decreasing the aperture beyond f8 (to f11 or smaller) introduces unacceptable levels of diffraction-induced blur and Nikon knows this. Diffraction is always the limiting factor for using small apertures on any sensors. For full frame cameras, the limit is around f16, for APS-C, it’s around f11, for M43, it’s around f8, etc.
  1. Ilya Zakharevich · February 17, 2019
    > For full frame cameras, the limit is around f16, for APS-C, it’s around f11, for M43, it’s around f8, etc.
    
    This makes no sense. For example, a 2MPix FF camera would not suffer even from f/32. What you mean is probably “for a typical resolution of these cameras as of today, …”
    1. fpink3 · February 17, 2019
      Where did “2MPix” come from? No full frame camera has had that “low rez” a senor for years.
      Perhaps I made a typo somewhere.
      Admittedly, if there were a full frame sensor with that low a resolution, it would not be “diffraction limited” until a much smaller aperture than a modern 16 to 24 mpix sensor.
      But any person using a full frame, 24mpix camera should understand that an aperture smaller than f16 increasingly degrades the resolution of the image.
      If you want to make better sense of this than my explanation (which are admittedly “off the cuff”), I suggest you look at this page:
      
      https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm#calculator
      
      These people do a better job than I explaining diffraction’s effects.
      70% down the webpage is their diffraction limit calculator. It shows that for a 1/2.3″ sensor (what’s in the P1000), the “sharpness” is limited by diffraction for apertures larger than f5.6.
      1. Ilya Zakharevich · February 18, 2019
        Sorry, I do not read anything which mentions “Airy disk” as a measure of diffraction in 21st century. It was a very reasonable approach in 19th century?—?but not now.
        
        With DSP, the only viable approach is to work in Fourier space, and have a discussion in terms of S/N ratio. As in: “When Nyquist limit is at 0.6 of the spacial cut-off frequency, the S/N ratio is decreased up to 4x due to diffration”; etc.
2. Jim Arnold · February 21, 2019
  The Nikon P1000 (and P900) is huge in the nutzoid Flat Earth community because those cameras can prove the earth is flat. I kid you not..
Greg Edwards · February 13, 2019
I bought and use a Nikon P1000 for photographing Green Flashes (at sunset) and the Moon. It isn't a general purpose camera. It is >>weird<< (examples, you can't do an HDR sequence in Manual mode, smallest f-stop is f-8, etc.). But for the purposes I want it for it is very useful. Did I mention it is LARGE? Far larger than I expected. But it does the jobs I bought it for.
I use a Sony RX10iv most of the time. Love that camera.
1. fpink3 · February 15, 2019
  The P1000 has a 1/2.3" sensor. At f5.6, diffraction introduces blur that is already more than three sensor pixels. Essentially, the real sensor resolution is much less than its rating due to diffraction. Smaller apertures introduce even more diffraction. Decreasing the aperture beyond f8 (to f11 or smaller) introduces unacceptable levels of diffraction-induced blur and Nikon knows this. Diffraction is always the limiting factor for using small apertures on any sensors. For full frame cameras, the limit is around f16, for APS-C, it's around f11, for M43, it's around f8, etc.
  1. Ilya Zakharevich · February 17, 2019
    > For full frame cameras, the limit is around f16, for APS-C, it's around f11, for M43, it's around f8, etc.
    This makes no sense. For example, a 2MPix FF camera would not suffer even from f/32. What you mean is probably “for a typical resolution of these cameras as of today, …”
    1. fpink3 · February 17, 2019
      Where did "2MPix" come from? No full frame camera has had that "low rez" a senor for years.
      Perhaps I made a typo somewhere.
      Admittedly, if there were a full frame sensor with that low a resolution, it would not be "diffraction limited" until a much smaller aperture than a modern 16 to 24 mpix sensor.
      But any person using a full frame, 24mpix camera should understand that an aperture smaller than f16 increasingly degrades the resolution of the image.
      If you want to make better sense of this than my explanation (which are admittedly "off the cuff"), I suggest you look at this page:
      https://www.cambridgeincolo...
      These people do a better job than I explaining diffraction's effects.
      70% down the webpage is their diffraction limit calculator. It shows that for a 1/2.3" sensor (what's in the P1000), the "sharpness" is limited by diffraction for smaller apertures than f5.6 (f8, f11, etc).
      1. Ilya Zakharevich · February 18, 2019
        Sorry, I do not read anything which mentions “Airy disk” as a measure of diffraction in 21st century. It was a very reasonable approach in 19th century — but not now.
        With DSP, the only viable approach is to work in Fourier space, and have a discussion in terms of S/N ratio. As in: “When Nyquist limit is at 0.6 of the spacial cut-off frequency, the S/N ratio is decreased up to 4x due to diffration”; etc.
2. arbus · February 21, 2019
  The Nikon P1000 (and P900) is huge in the nutzoid Flat Earth community because those cameras can prove the earth is flat. I kid you not..
Carleton Foxx · February 16, 2019
So if you’re not recommending that we shoot 600mm video with a compact camera, does that mean the next time we need to shoot video of something very far away you’ll give us a special only-for-blog-readers discount on the rental of a Canon 600mm f/4L IS III?
1. Ilya Zakharevich · February 17, 2019
  Right!
  
  And when we want to jump 100m, Roger should give up a specially discounted gravitational constant!
  
  I really hate it when to resolve 8mm features at 100m I need a 60mm entry pupil!
Carleton Foxx · February 16, 2019
So if you're not recommending that we shoot 600mm video with a compact camera, does that mean the next time we need to shoot video of something very far away you'll give us a special only-for-blog-readers discount on the rental of a Canon 600mm f/4L IS III?
1. Ilya Zakharevich · February 17, 2019
  Right!
  And when we want to jump 100m, Roger should give up a specially discounted gravitational constant!
  I really hate it when to resolve 8mm features at 100m I need a 60mm entry pupil!
decentrist · February 19, 2019
Nikon Coolpix A …..300 bucks of goodness
decentrist · February 19, 2019
Nikon Coolpix A .....300 bucks of goodness
Pete O. · February 20, 2019
Roger – as always, great, detailed review. I went through the same crisis when planning a trip to Disney World with the kids. I was looking for pocketable (or close to it), preferable with one-handed operation, willing to comprimise on size a bit for better IQ. I typically shoot with a D850 or Fuji XPro-2 — one is way too big, one is way too heavy, both are way too expensive to take on rides, etc. I’ve also owned an X100S before — great camera, just a bit too big, and limited focal range.

I tried many of the same ones you did. I *really* wanted to like the G5x — it has the viewfinder, articulating screen, nice zoom range, but I thought the images were quite poor. I couldn’t get happy with the colors (probably partly Nikon/Fuji color bias on my part), and the images had a “softness” to them that I didn’t like. You can blur the background with this camera, in quite a pleasing way, but my images with the camera just didn’t “pop” they way I like them to, due to the color and softness. I also tried the G7x — same results, worse form factor (small, but harder to use). I admit that maybe I just had a bad unit, perhaps poor lens alignment.

So what did I end up with? A Nikon D3500 with the extremely compact and light AF-P 18-55 lens. No, not pocketable, but also not much bigger than the G5x (which is not all that pocketable if you’re not wearing a jacket). Also shockingly light. I brought it along with my 20mm f1.8 Nikkor for night shots, and my 24-120 (~36-180 equivalent) for extra reach, although they rarely left the hotel room. The best part? It cost around $400 refurb’d at the time (now on sale new for that price), and the APS-C image quality and colors are better than all of the compacts at that price.

My favorite compact of all time: the amazing Nikon Coolpix A, 16mp APS-C sensor in a form factor about the size of the sony RX100’s. It has no anti-aliasing filter, and a fantastic lens, so the images beat (imho) the 16mp Fuji x100’s. It was a bit pricey when new, but I paid about $300 on eBay. Very pocketable, and just fun to shoot with. Amazingly crisp and sharp images, hard to tell difference from my D850 shots at reasonable image sizes. I carry it as digital backup when shooting film, and bring it with me when traveling light with the kids. Sadly they don’t make it anymore — if I had to replace it and couldn’t find another used one, I would probably check out the Ricoh as a likely replacement.
Pete O. · February 20, 2019
Roger - as always, great, detailed review. I went through the same crisis when planning a trip to Disney World with the kids. I was looking for pocketable (or close to it), preferable with one-handed operation, willing to comprimise on size a bit for better IQ. I typically shoot with a D850 or Fuji XPro-2 -- one is way too big, one is way too heavy, both are way too expensive to take on rides, etc. I've also owned an X100S before -- great camera, just a bit too big, and limited focal range.
I tried many of the same ones you did. I *really* wanted to like the G5x -- it has the viewfinder, articulating screen, nice zoom range, but I thought the images were quite poor. I couldn't get happy with the colors (probably partly Nikon/Fuji color bias on my part), and the images had a "softness" to them that I didn't like. You can blur the background with this camera, in quite a pleasing way, but my images with the camera just didn't "pop" they way I like them to, due to the color and softness. I also tried the G7x -- same results, worse form factor (small, but harder to use). I admit that maybe I just had a bad unit, perhaps poor lens alignment.
So what did I end up with? A Nikon D3500 with the extremely compact and light AF-P 18-55 lens. No, not pocketable, but also not much bigger than the G5x (which is not all that pocketable if you're not wearing a jacket). Also shockingly light. I brought it along with my 20mm f1.8 Nikkor for night shots, and my 24-120 (~36-180 equivalent) for extra reach, although they rarely left the hotel room. The best part? It cost around $400 refurb'd at the time (now on sale new for that price), and the APS-C image quality and colors are better than all of the compacts at that price.
My favorite compact of all time: the amazing Nikon Coolpix A, 16mp APS-C sensor in a form factor about the size of the sony RX100's. It has no anti-aliasing filter, and a fantastic lens, so the images beat (imho) the 16mp Fuji x100's. It was a bit pricey when new, but I paid about $300 on eBay. Very pocketable, and just fun to shoot with. Amazingly crisp and sharp images, hard to tell difference from my D850 shots at reasonable image sizes. I carry it as digital backup when shooting film, and bring it with me when traveling light with the kids. Sadly they don't make it anymore -- if I had to replace it and couldn't find another used one, I would probably check out the Ricoh as a likely replacement.
Jim Arnold · February 21, 2019
A Fuji X-E3 with the 27 pancake seems like a possible solution. I’ve owned the orginal X100 and the X100T. Really wanted to like them, but the AF in OVF let me down too often. Not sure if I will find the EVF of the X-E3 disappointing.
arbus · February 21, 2019
A Fuji X-E3 with the 27 pancake seems like a possible solution. I've owned the orginal X100 and the X100T. Really wanted to like them, but the AF in OVF let me down too often. Not sure if I will find the EVF of the X-E3 disappointing.
T N Args · March 10, 2019
I must say this feels like a choose-your-camera-by-ticking-the-most-boxes kind of approach.

Sony are the masters of showroom appeal by checking the most wishlist features. They will tend to win when you go about it that way.

But check the DPR reviews of the RX100 series and especially the conclusions pages, and you will find a lot of frustration and dissatisfaction with the actual experience of using it.

So the question becomes fundamental: does one only care about the final image, or does one actually want to enjoy and look forward to going out and using it?
T N Args · March 10, 2019
I must say this feels like a choose-your-camera-by-ticking-the-most-boxes kind of approach.
Sony are the masters of showroom appeal by checking the most wishlist features. They will tend to win when you go about it that way.
But check the DPR reviews of the RX100 series and especially the conclusions pages, and you will find a lot of frustration and dissatisfaction with the actual experience of using it.
So the question becomes fundamental: does one only care about the final image, or does one actually want to enjoy and look forward to going out and using it?
Jan Steinman · April 17, 2019
“CMD-f O L Y M P U S”

“Not found”

Why?
Ke Liu · May 3, 2019
From the architect you were talking about GRII, but from the comparison table you listed GRIII. Typo ? 🙂
Ke Liu · May 3, 2019
From the architect you were talking about GRII, but from the comparison table you listed GRIII. Typo ? :)