Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Serious photographers buy which point 'n shoot?  (Read 24076 times)
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 657


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2007, 09:44:20 PM »
ReplyReply

The aforementioned Sigma could actually be pretty great, if it ever comes to market. It will surely have lower noise then almost any other P&S.
Logged
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2007, 03:55:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The aforementioned Sigma could actually be pretty great, if it ever comes to market. It will surely have lower noise then almost any other P&S.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158062\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would, but the prospect isn't very reassuring.

I'd rather have a more basic-featured bayer-sensor camera with a large sensor than foveon, just because it'd probably cost less... of course, that's where my $2 XA has me covered... I'm shy towards any compact that costs more than an slr, since I can barely afford one of those.
Logged
stebbo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2007, 12:51:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The G9 "noise problem" can be significantly reduced by shooting RAW and using the ACR settings discussed in this LL thread. .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah Gordon, I've just been reading your blog...

From your experiments, how would you say the G9 handles shooting indoors at night, under typical average lighting for screen viewing only.

My Powershot SD300 won't freeze humans posing well enough at ISO400 and even after Noise Ninja, it's still too noisy to really enjoy (without being picky).
Logged
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2007, 07:19:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you want RAW and SLR-type controls in a compact form, then the choices are not that many: Canon G9, Ricoh GRD/GRDII and GX100, Panasonic/Leica LX2/D-Lux3.

They all suffer from noise at higher ISO values, and they combat it with different strategies. I am currently using a G9, which I have already tried at ISO 800 in street markets and inside a cave, with excellent results (good A4 prints) after a touch of noise reduction. Canon chooses not to smear away noise and detail, which is good.

The little Fujis of a generation ago are good (F/30/31/40) at high ISO, but they either lack aperture/shutter priority, a live histogram, or both. And of course, no RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll second that. I personally know a pro photographer (fashion) who owns the LX2 and loves it. Tho, yes, it's NOT an SLR, so, you have problems in high iso and all, but it's a great camera to have in your pocket at all times. Pretty close to the best you could have outside SLR realm in a very compact body ( having even manual focus ).
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2007, 07:45:20 AM »
ReplyReply

That Sigma compact camera looks cool, but right now, I don't think it matters what compact camera you use.  Choose your poison.  Find one that fits your hand and that you like it appearance.  There is only a gnats @ss of difference between image quality of a $175 and a $500 digicam these days.  

I got a cheap A670.  It was cheap. I like it because it was cheap.  Its cheapness makes me willing to take it with me when I do things like mud wrestling, ultimate fighting championships, or ham fests.  ...and, because it was cheap, I don't mind when I get mud on it.  

Really, when you have a DSLR, you will want that for high quality work.  Otherwise, the drop-off is sooo great that any nice, cute little camera is likely to suffice.  What features are important to you? Size? Zoom range? Raw? Image Stabilization? Whatever? The sensors are all very similar in quality.  Even the Fujis don't compare to an average DSLR.  Pixel peeping on digicams is dead.  Cameras from the major manufacturers are all pretty decent.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 07:46:11 AM by fike » Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2007, 03:28:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah Gordon, I've just been reading your blog...

From your experiments, how would you say the G9 handles shooting indoors at night, under typical average lighting for screen viewing only.

My Powershot SD300 won't freeze humans posing well enough at ISO400 and even after Noise Ninja, it's still too noisy to really enjoy (without being picky).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Iím tempted to say that the G9 will be fine at ISO 400  in existing room light for producing screen size images but I actually havenít taken any shots that way myself Ė yet.  Iíve had my G9 for two months but most of my indoor shots have been with external bounce flash and ISO 80.  Iíll be at a little party tonight so will fire off a few shots at ISO 400 and see what happens.

I always think of existing room light exposure as ISO 400, f2.8 and 1/30 second because thatís what I could do years ago with Tri-X and my old Konica SLR.  It seems that many industrial offices are a stop or or two brighter.   Screen view, to me anyway, is still 1024x768 even though my own monitors are a bit bigger.

I upgraded to the G9 from a G3.  Like your SD300, the G3 is a 4 MP camera.  I think the G3 sensor is bigger but older than the sensor in your SD300.  In upgrading, I said that if the G9 was OK at ISO 400 for an 8x10 print then Iíd be happy and I am.   My guess is that, compared to the SD300, youíd be pleased with the improvements in resolution and image quality but the real reason for upgrading to the G9 is likely to be the versatility, especially raw and external flash.

Reading other forums, some people are expecting to put this yearís digicam in full auto mode and get great improvements over the camera they bought last year.   Those people are disappointed; in fact, some are angry.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2007, 08:04:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Olympus XA

I hope I'm not attacked for my recommendation, but the realm of compact cameras is one area where film can still outperform digital in almost every way. You'll never have one of those moments where you think "why won't the camera just do what I want?" as you wait for it to write files or focus in low light. It just gives you what you need to take the picture and gets out of your way.

It fits the criteria you give almost exactly.

Oh, and you can beat on it and change the batteries only once a year.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A digital XA is what I want. I've got three of them. One died and I found 2 replacements when they were very hard to come buy, so I stocked up. Brilliant cameras with an excellent lens - it was deemed pro quality when it appeared. They used to cost as much second as new here in the UK after Olympus stopped making them.

It frustrates me how big and heavy digital SLR cameras are compared to film and even then they have smaller viewfinders in spite of their bulk.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 08:05:00 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2007, 08:10:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Really? The reviews I read never had much bad to say about IQ in the S70. Is the S70 much noiser than the S60 or something? Specifically, what problems did you have from the higher res sensor?

I'm really interested because my S50 is now so worn that I can't read the icons on the dial. I'd hoped to replace it with an S70 (mostly due to the much better lens). But if an S70 actually produces worse images, I won't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No drastic problems as such, but the S70 just doesn't seem as good at 200ISO - a bit noisier. Both are cack at 400ISO.
My S60 literally fell apart, it was eventually held together by camera tape [Film camera tape that is]. It got hammered and was bounced off various hard surfaces way too many times.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 657


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2007, 10:06:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No drastic problems as such, but the S70 just doesn't seem as good at 200ISO - a bit noisier. Both are cack at 400ISO.
My S60 literally fell apart, it was eventually held together by camera tape [Film camera tape that is]. It got hammered and was bounced off various hard surfaces way too many times.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This says something about the wisdom of Canon's marketing department. People like you and I are using old generation cameras way beyond their expected lifetimes because Canon refuses to replace those models with cameras that work as well. Somehow, they've convinced themselves that we really want face recognition and many tiny, noisy pixels, rather than clean RAW files.

I suppose a lot of ordinary folks must actually agree with that. Maybe there aren't enough advanced photographers out there to justify building a small camera they would like. Seems unlikely to me, but I'm not in the camera business either.

My uberDSLR is a great tool, but a lot of times I really need something else that can be pocket-carried. The old S50 fit the bill nicely. Is a decent small camera with RAW too much to ask?
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8207



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2007, 01:41:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm now taking extra good care of my S60, since nothing current seems to beat it for what it does.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2007, 04:45:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Iím tempted to say that the G9 will be fine at ISO 400  in existing room light for producing screen size images but I actually havenít taken any shots that way myself Ė yet.  Iíve had my G9 for two months but most of my indoor shots have been with external bounce flash and ISO 80.  Iíll be at a little party tonight so will fire off a few shots at ISO 400 and see what happens.  ....

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At the party last night I set the G9 on Program mode, ISO 400 and turned the flash off.  I also set auto focus to ďface recognitionĒ.  Capture was set to raw plus jpg files with auto white balance.   I took some pictures myself and also passed the camera around for others to take a few.  All in all, most of the pictures turned out OK.  As I thought, but didnít know, image quality using existing room light is acceptable to me on a 1200x1600 screen.

The party was actually our photo club exhibit at the local library.  The gallery room was somewhat brighter than normal household lighting.  The party room was slightly darker than the gallery room.  At ISO 400 and in Program Mode without flash, most exposures were about 1/30 to 1/60 second in the general range of f2.8 to f4 aperture.

Comparing the raw images to the in-camera jpg and pixel peeping at 100%, there is certainly visible noise in the raw file but this was expected.  The Canon noise reduction routine has acceptably (to me) squelched that noise in the jpg version.  The ACR noise reduction settings previously mentioned do a slightly better job on the ISO 400 raw file than the Canon noise reduction in my opinion.  (ACR noise reduction is significantly better on ISO 800 noise.)

I was amused to note that face recognition did not always lock in on faces -- often favoring other parts of the anatomy -- but generally worked well and quickly.

Automatic white balance was not particularly good.  The lighting was entirely fluorescent and I could have set the G9 accordingly but didnít.  Of course, the raw file white balance can be changed after the fact and, as a result, the raw images have the correct, and more consistent, color balance.  

It has been very interesting to see the pictures that other people took with the G9.  All the pictures I took came out OK.  My operating procedure is to always push the shutter button halfway (thinking ďfocusĒ), see the confirmation, recompose if necessary and then finish pushing the shutter button.  Obviously, most people using the G9 last night simply pushed the button.  About half of those pictures are blurred from camera movement; strangely, many of those also seem a bit underexposed.   The G9, like many (all?) of Canonís digicams, definitely exhibits shutter lag but, not being particularly quick myself, Iíve learned to work with it.
Logged

fpoole
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2007, 05:50:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Olympus XA

Absolute responsiveness, slide the cover open and you can grab the shot in a fraction of a second. Fully manual rangefinder focusing is often faster than contrast-detect AF, with a little practice. Full manual control of aperture, camera sets the shutter speed, which you can compensate with the film speed dial. The flash can be detached when not needed, and when it is needed, it's pretty good and can be used on auto or adjusted manually.

Of course, it lacks most of the bells and whistles of modern digital compacts, which means that there's nothing to get between you and your image and get in your way.

It also runs circles around tiny-sensor digital for image quality, in some ways. The lens is tack sharp, though that's not unique, but the sensor is the really great part. Load it with Velvia 100 and you'll get high-resolution files with juicy colors, load it with good black and white film and you're looking at definition you just can't get on a bayer sensor, it'll beat your 5d. You can push some modern black and white to 800 and get a crisp, clear image far better than you'll get from any digital compact (shooting a compact at higher than 800 is not practical)... or for color, Fuji's got a brand new 1600 color emulsion that has fine grain and great colors, though it's only useful with the XA3 and XA4 due to the ASA dial. I use Kodak UC400 with mine, and the files I get after cheap developing and scanning done are about the same filesize as an 8 MP camera with much better detail-per-pixel, and I suspect the film has even more detail that the cheap scanner isn't able to record. Not to mention that the dynamic range is about the same as full-frame digital, the grain doesn't seem to exist, and the colors are rich.

It'll only set you back about $100 (at the most). I got mine for $2.

I hope I'm not attacked for my recommendation, but the realm of compact cameras is one area where film can still outperform digital in almost every way. You'll never have one of those moments where you think "why won't the camera just do what I want?" as you wait for it to write files or focus in low light. It just gives you what you need to take the picture and gets out of your way.

It fits the criteria you give almost exactly.

Oh, and you can beat on it and change the batteries only once a year.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you Er1kksen.  I agree with everything you say. But i'm sure you will get your share of attackers screaming nonsense.
 The XA is a great camera-a classic that is still useful now.  
 Point and Shoots have always been my favorite cameras.  I've had Olympus XA, Ricoh GR1 and am currently on my second Fujifilm Zoomdate that has a 24-50mm 2.8 lens which I found on Ebay UK for $50.00. I don't think they are still being made but were only available in England and Japan. My first one was stolen recently and I was more excited about finding one for $40 on Ebay UK than getting a new Nikon D3.  It has reasonable shutter lag, ability to turn off flash completely or set it for fill (which is actually very accurate) 2 shutter release buttons, left and right, and a tiny convex mirror on the front for taking pictures of yourself.  The lens is excellent and I only use 800 or 1600 color negative film in it. Sometime B&W. Its so ironic that color neg. film has evolved to such a level of quality in some people's minds no longer useful.   For the type of shooting I do with a P&S, film is perfect and cheaper once computer time is factored in.  
I have a Sinar 54H, nikon D2x ,a new D3 and more computer "stuff" than I care to own and maintain,  and I still prefer a film P&S.  Better value and better quality and no equivalent in digital.  Just another OPINION.
Best,
Frank Poole
Logged

BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2007, 10:46:16 PM »
ReplyReply

How is the G9 at limiting DOF?
Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2007, 08:37:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How is the G9 at limiting DOF?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


As with all small sensor cams, its difficult.  You have to carefully set it up, open (f2.8 at 35mm, f/4.8 at 210mm) as wide as possible, use tele if possible, have subject a distance from the background.   Its one of the compromises you make using a small cam.

Diane
Logged
Calvin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2008, 08:35:56 AM »
ReplyReply

The DP1 is a disappointment. It could have been such a great camera and taken a huge part of the market. I'm sure that there are lots of people who want a large sensor in a compact body, I know I am.

Having settled on a EOS 5 and 1DII, I have been looking for a good compact for what seems ages. I'm currently using the G7, but I still have the feeling that it isn't all I could want, especially when I see the results. Would a G9 be better, I'm not sure. What I want is a bigger sensor. The spec of the DP1 looks great, but after reading the review, I think I'll pass. Maybe the DP2 will fix the handling and other issues. Better still would be for Canon to come up with a compact camera with a large sensor. Sticking it in an IXUS body would be great, but probably asking too much. I'd settle for it in a G body. I'd  think they'd sell like hotcakes.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2008, 07:30:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd honestly go with a used 35mm viewfinder camera.  Inexpensive and the prints will cost you the same as digital, or close to it.  I still have a small Konica that I take with me on trips, though it's close to dying, being almost 40 years old.

You could also get a nice 35mm SLR - something like an old Minolta X700 or Canon AE1.  their bodies are actually fairly compact and there's essentially nothing to break on them.  despite their age, they still can take fantastic professional quality pictures.

From there, it jumps straight to digital SLRs, IMO.  Anything digital that's point and shoot is going to be a total disappointment to anyone other than a tourist.
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1072


« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2008, 08:22:02 AM »
ReplyReply

also taking good care of my s60 - enough pixels, i'd just like less noise at ISO 400 and faster RAW

somebody needs to break out of the "high megapixel low IQ" spiral
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2008, 11:44:49 AM »
ReplyReply

My personal favorite P&S for the past year is the Panasonic FX-50. I travels well, slips into a shirt or sport coat pocket and has a Leica lens which is 28mm 35mm equivalent on the wide end. It has a big LCD and image stabilization.

It has a weak flash, except for up close, and no RAW mode. It does a great job with outdoor pictures.

The pictures that I have taken with it enlarge nicely and they are a lot better than the pictures that I never took because my DSLR was a home on a shelf. P&S cameras have an important role. My mother doesn't know (or care) that the pictures of her beloved grandchildren are not shot with $8,000+ of camera gear.

Cheers.

Bud
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2008, 05:07:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi
We have the G9 & like it.
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2008, 12:43:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually, not at all.† † I appreciate the Olympus XA suggestion (thanks Er1kksen) and although I still haven't sold the film scanner, it's just too much effort these days.

I had a look at some of the options many of you have suggested. Thanks.

The G9 looks a beautiful setup, read a few reviews on it but too much to pay without solving the low-noise problem.

The dpreview of the G9 mentioned that nearly all P&S's use the same sensors, so I could be facing an uphill battle. Might have to hold off buying for a while.† Wife just wanted a cheap P&S for xmas so I though I'd give her the (mid-range) SD300 and upgrade myself (is that selfish?).



I am a bit confused. Why do you believe the G9 (priced at a mere $450) is "too expensive" for the level of camera it is? Realistically, what would you honestly expect to pay for a pro-level point-n-shoot camera? The title of your thread and original post is Serious photographers buy which point 'n shoot?, and you stated your bottom line desire at the end of your original thread as being Essentially a shrunken down prosumer DSLR. Does it exist?

The G9 is that camera, but yet you ultimately want to quibble about its very small price of $450? I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense to me. It seems the question you need to ask yourself is are you really looking for a pro-level P&S or are you just looking for a bargain camera?

The G9 has more features and user-control capabilities than virtually any other P&S on the market, it has also had more professional use (and professional articles written about it) than any other P&S on the market, and it also has RAW capability.

The G9 surpasses many of the lower-end prosumer cameras in some of its abilities, and it pretty much is a prosumer camera in a P&S body. And at $450 I don't believe is is exactly "expensive" for what you get.

Just my $0.02 ...

Jack
« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 12:44:59 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad