Best take it everywhere camera

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Tom Tomato
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:09 am

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by Tom Tomato » Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:43 am

If you are looking for a camera under 100 then you should look into this guide. You need to buy a camera that matches your photography level.
https://gurucamera.com/best-cameras-under-100/

It's a brief review about the best compact digital cameras there is. I think it's gonna be useful.

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 4686
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by TheTimeLord » Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:58 am

Tom Tomato wrote:If you are looking for a camera under 100 then you should look into this guide. You need to buy a camera that matches your photography level.
https://gurucamera.com/best-cameras-under-100/

It's a brief review about the best compact digital cameras there is. I think it's gonna be useful.


This is not a but issue. What I am looking for is a camera that I would carried around most of the time especially to places I would want to drag a DSLR and lenses.
Run, You Clever Boy!

wcshaff
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:18 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wcshaff » Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:28 pm

+1 for Canon G15, with the caveat already mentioned that it is geared as a slimline version of a DSLR.

ClaycordJCA
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:19 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by ClaycordJCA » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:28 pm

I'm looking at cameras with 1" sensors for an upcoming Alaska cruise. Don't want to hassle with DLSR and a bunch of lenses. Thinking about the SonyRx10iii, which is weather sealed and has a 24-600mm equivalent zoom. Awfully expensive, though ($1498). The Panasonic FZ1000 is my fall back option but it is not weather sealed and only has a zoom to 400mm. But, it's half the price. Anyone know whether a camera with a smaller sensor will result in very good print quality up to about 8 x10 or even 11x17? My concern is that they won't.

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: HawaiišŸ˜€ Northern AZ.šŸ˜³

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by Sandtrap » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:49 pm

ClaycordJCA wrote:I'm looking at cameras with 1" sensors for an upcoming Alaska cruise. Don't want to hassle with DLSR and a bunch of lenses. Thinking about the SonyRx10iii, which is weather sealed and has a 24-600mm equivalent zoom. Awfully expensive, though ($1498). The Panasonic FZ1000 is my fall back option but it is not weather sealed and only has a zoom to 400mm. But, it's half the price. Anyone know whether a camera with a smaller sensor will result in very good print quality up to about 8 x10 or even 11x17? My concern is that they won't.
Canon PowerShot G5 sensor is 1-1/8".
Most modern small sensor cameras will easily print to 11x17 and have a higher resolution than the average home photo printer. The upper scale consumer Canon photo printers are great. What mattes is the shoot, the digital processing, the printer, and definitely the paper. High end photo paper is expensive per sheet but worth it. Also the inks. You can also send the TIFF out to a good photo lab online and get back wonderful images. Again, you select what paper you want to put it on for best effect. If Raw is not available then processed to TIFF and output final to High quality JPEG, then at least shoot the highest quality JPEG but realize that each step of processing will lose resolution as JPEG is not lossless as is raw or tiff.
There are small compacts that will shoot Raw. Not all. But they are out there and do wonderfully. They will easily print high quality up to 11x17 if not bigger depending on the image and, again, the post processing.

tibbitts
Posts: 6945
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by tibbitts » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:59 pm

ClaycordJCA wrote:I'm looking at cameras with 1" sensors for an upcoming Alaska cruise. Don't want to hassle with DLSR and a bunch of lenses. Thinking about the SonyRx10iii, which is weather sealed and has a 24-600mm equivalent zoom. Awfully expensive, though ($1498). The Panasonic FZ1000 is my fall back option but it is not weather sealed and only has a zoom to 400mm. But, it's half the price. Anyone know whether a camera with a smaller sensor will result in very good print quality up to about 8 x10 or even 11x17? My concern is that they won't.

Weather sealing may come in handy in Alaska. You can use a plastic bag but it's not that convenient. And you do still want to keep the camera mostly dry - my weather-resistant camera took a direct hit from an ocean wave and behaved very oddly for a while. Frankly I thought it was a goner, especially with salt water, but it's been okay for several months since initially recovering. I don't think the 400-600 is that big of an issue. Some of the wildlife you couldn't get a decent picture of with 2000mm (if you could hold that still, even with stabilization), you just have to appreciate seeing it. Don't settle for less than 24mm on the wide end - wider is better, although I'll say I haven't used wider than 24mm frequently on Alaska cruises so far - maybe 5% or less.

TN_Boy
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by TN_Boy » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:16 pm

tibbitts wrote:
ClaycordJCA wrote:I'm looking at cameras with 1" sensors for an upcoming Alaska cruise. Don't want to hassle with DLSR and a bunch of lenses. Thinking about the SonyRx10iii, which is weather sealed and has a 24-600mm equivalent zoom. Awfully expensive, though ($1498). The Panasonic FZ1000 is my fall back option but it is not weather sealed and only has a zoom to 400mm. But, it's half the price. Anyone know whether a camera with a smaller sensor will result in very good print quality up to about 8 x10 or even 11x17? My concern is that they won't.

Weather sealing may come in handy in Alaska. You can use a plastic bag but it's not that convenient. And you do still want to keep the camera mostly dry - my weather-resistant camera took a direct hit from an ocean wave and behaved very oddly for a while. Frankly I thought it was a goner, especially with salt water, but it's been okay for several months since initially recovering. I don't think the 400-600 is that big of an issue. Some of the wildlife you couldn't get a decent picture of with 2000mm (if you could hold that still, even with stabilization), you just have to appreciate seeing it. Don't settle for less than 24mm on the wide end - wider is better, although I'll say I haven't used wider than 24mm frequently on Alaska cruises so far - maybe 5% or less.


I have an fz1000, and think it is a fantastic travel camera. But I haven't used the SonyRx10iii, perhaps it is even better. I wouldn't let the zoom difference influence me too much. There will always be situations where you want more zoom (whether you have 400 or 600) but the more the zoom the bigger/heavier the lens, the more worries about stabilizing the image handheld etc. The Sony is about a 1/2 lb heavier, which might or might not make a difference. There are many detailed reviews of both cameras on the web, read through them and you might have a better feel for which camera is right for you. A couple of other things about the fz1000 - it powers up and focuses very fast. Since I usually carry the camera in a bag (I hate carrying a camera around my neck) my mode of operation is frequently pull camera out, put hand through wrist strap, power on and shoot, and the fz1000 is very fast at that (focus and power-up). I also use the fully articulated screen quite a bit, when on a tripod, when getting shots low to the ground, etc. I'd really miss that.

Unless the weather sealing is a key feature, I think you'd be happy with either. I also think image quality will be about the same, especially if you shoot in RAW mode. Both cameras with their 1" sensors can produce excellent images bigger than 11x17 (pictures from the fz1000 look great on my hi-res 27 inch monitor for example).

iamlucky13
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by iamlucky13 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:39 pm

ClaycordJCA wrote:I'm looking at cameras with 1" sensors for an upcoming Alaska cruise. Don't want to hassle with DLSR and a bunch of lenses. Thinking about the SonyRx10iii, which is weather sealed and has a 24-600mm equivalent zoom. Awfully expensive, though ($1498). The Panasonic FZ1000 is my fall back option but it is not weather sealed and only has a zoom to 400mm. But, it's half the price. Anyone know whether a camera with a smaller sensor will result in very good print quality up to about 8 x10 or even 11x17? My concern is that they won't.


Looking it up, the Panasonic FZ1000 has the same size sensor as the RX10III, so I assume that's not the smaller sensor you were referring to? The Canon G3X is another similar model.

Unless you're looking at images very closely, then usually yes, small sensor cameras produce respectable prints at those sizes for photos taken in decent light.

Smaller sensors do have the disadvantage in lower light and scenes with more contrast between light and dark. Practically speaking, the resolution disadvantage is not large, although with pocket-size superzoom cameras, compromises in the lens design to fit it all in a tiny form factor and keep the price low are likely to affect resolution more than the sensor. A lot of what you're paying for, and the extra bulk and weight you're carrying around with a 1" sensor camera compared to a 1/2.3" camera with a similar zoom range is a much better lens.

Something I did for myself at one point, when I had a 6 MP SLR and an image I had to crop but still wanted to print large, was downsize a couple photos to 400 x 600 pixels, and have them printed out at 4x6, as a cheap test to see what 100 DPI actually looked like before spending $20+ on the full size print. The recommendation is 300 dpi or better, which is a level where it's nearly impossible to see differences in resolution without a loupe.

But I found 100 DPI acceptable for hanging on the wall. I wouldn't submit it to a contest, and I'll always take advantage of the maximum resolution I have when printing, but you had to pay attention to see the subtle smearing of finer details - maybe within 18", but that's about as close as you would comfortably view an 8x10, and closer than you'd normally view anything larger.

Also, don't spend so much time taking photos of the scenery and wildlife on your cruise that you forget to just watch and enjoy it.

ClaycordJCA
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:19 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by ClaycordJCA » Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:35 pm

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

Luke Duke
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:44 am
Location: Texas

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by Luke Duke » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:49 am

The best camera in the world is the one that you have in your hand.

I have a DSLR which takes great pictures, but it isn't something that I ever carry just because. I carry it to specific events where I am reasonably certain that I will use it. I bought a smaller point and shoot that I could carry it around when I didn't want to carry around the DSLR. I never carry it. Seriously, the thing is probably 5 years old and I'm not sure if I've taken 50 pictures with it. Basically if I decide to carry a dedicated camera, I carry the DSLR. I carry my iPhone all day long everyday. So it gets used frequently.

So on most days my iPhone is the best camera in the world.

WhyNotUs
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:38 am

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by WhyNotUs » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:52 am

I like my Nikon Coolpix. It takes good photos and a good beating and will go underwater.
I own the next hot stock- VTSAX

Dvorak212
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by Dvorak212 » Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:09 am

I have a Canon S120 that I use for special occasions when I feel the iPhone 7+ won't do. It's very pocketable(smaller than the Sony RX100) and takes great pictures. The large aperture (F1.8) helps with low light shots. I've had it for a few years now and still very happy with it. I had others that were slightly larger but I ended up not using them as often because they just didn't always fit in my pocket.

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:55 pm

I am willing to go as high as $500 for a pocket able camera that can take great pictures and videos with decent zoom range. It needs to have smart auto mode. It has been extremely frustrating to explain to the better half as to why our photos taken against great scenery end up with dark faces :-( This is not 1970 where I am expected to do the "dodge" in the darkroom. The camera *knows* where the faces are. It knows that faces will be underexposed if it meters for the average scene. Given that it controls every single individual pixel, why can't it do "in-camera photoshop on the fly" to enhance the facial details while keeping the exposure same for the rest of the photo? The iPhone comes close by taking two pictures in HDR situation but still no cigar. What I am looking for is the automatic merging of the two images to come up with a photo which is equivalent of "Do_what_I_mean".

Does Canon EOS M10 mirrorless satisfy that requirement? I would love to hear from BHs who know what I am talking about. I do not want dumb exposure compensation for the whole image but only to selective portion of the image. Essentially, I want the camera to read my mind. Is that so difficult for the camera to do?

Please do not tell me to do post processing. That is NOT an option here.

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:02 pm

Please, I know about following, but as I said it is NOT an option, especially when the photographer herself is the better half. Do not bother with the following. All I am asking is that the camera to "simulate" the fill-in flash at pixel level. I am an engineer, so technically I see no reason why this is not possible.
===============================
You must read up on fill flash, it's actually pretty complicated - here's the rough outline:

For automatic mode (usually works, not always).

1.) using an advance mode (say, aperture mode) activate the flash

2.) Set the aperture to a large enough number so that everything is in focus (F8 and higher)

3.) If the resulting shutter speed is too LOW, increase the ISO (at least say, 1/50th)

4.) Set the flash compensation downward by maybe 1-2 stops so the flash fill in looks more natural, adjust to taste trying several photos.
5.) adjust the angle and set up to minimize flash reflections of the glass.

If this doesn't work, go to the full manual mode on the mode dial. Set the shutter speed to say, 1/200th, adjust the aperture and ISO for the right background exposure, then adjust the flash compensation for the right foreground illumination.
==================================

User avatar
climber2020
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by climber2020 » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:03 pm

wrongfunds wrote:It has been extremely frustrating to explain to the better half as to why our photos taken against great scenery end up with dark faces :-(
Turn the flash on.

radiowave
Posts: 1263
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by radiowave » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:12 pm

I've had the Cannon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS for several years now. Takes excellent pictures, has held up under a lot of abuse, it's all black and fits nicely in my pocket. I like the extra wide angle (35mm equivalent 24mm) and long battery life. I have a small clip I attach to my belt from the wrist strap and it's the perfect travel camera. Tens of thousands of pictures and no problem except user error :) It fits in the palm of my hand and is very discreet.

[urlhttps://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/powershot-elph-350-hs-black] [/url]
Bogleheads Wiki: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Main_Page

tibbitts
Posts: 6945
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by tibbitts » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:19 pm

wrongfunds wrote:I am willing to go as high as $500 for a pocket able camera that can take great pictures and videos with decent zoom range. It needs to have smart auto mode. It has been extremely frustrating to explain to the better half as to why our photos taken against great scenery end up with dark faces :-( This is not 1970 where I am expected to do the "dodge" in the darkroom. The camera *knows* where the faces are. It knows that faces will be underexposed if it meters for the average scene. Given that it controls every single individual pixel, why can't it do "in-camera photoshop on the fly" to enhance the facial details while keeping the exposure same for the rest of the photo? The iPhone comes close by taking two pictures in HDR situation but still no cigar. What I am looking for is the automatic merging of the two images to come up with a photo which is equivalent of "Do_what_I_mean".

Does Canon EOS M10 mirrorless satisfy that requirement? I would love to hear from BHs who know what I am talking about. I do not want dumb exposure compensation for the whole image but only to selective portion of the image. Essentially, I want the camera to read my mind. Is that so difficult for the camera to do?

Please do not tell me to do post processing. That is NOT an option here.
HDR is the "automatic merging of two (or more) images" so I'm not sure what you mean.

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:42 pm

As far as I can make out by looking at iPhone7 and iPhone7+ images, I could not see the "intelligent" merge. I see two images; in one the background have been mostly washed out but the faces have more light; the second one has the detail in the background but the faces are now dark.

Are there other cameras where HDR does do the intelligent merge?

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:43 pm

Turn the flash on.
On iPhone7+? Does not make much difference!

tibbitts
Posts: 6945
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by tibbitts » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:45 pm

wrongfunds wrote:As far as I can make out by looking at iPhone7 and iPhone7+ images, I could not see the "intelligent" merge. I see two images; in one the background have been mostly washed out but the faces have more light; the second one has the detail in the background but the faces are now dark.

Are there other cameras where HDR does do the intelligent merge?
Sorry I can't comment on the iphone, but in general HDR modes do work by automatically merging multiple images. The results aren't always realistic-looking but do show more shadow and highlight detail vs. non-HDR images.

finite_difference
Posts: 714
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by finite_difference » Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:32 pm

wrongfunds wrote:As far as I can make out by looking at iPhone7 and iPhone7+ images, I could not see the "intelligent" merge. I see two images; in one the background have been mostly washed out but the faces have more light; the second one has the detail in the background but the faces are now dark.

Are there other cameras where HDR does do the intelligent merge?
The iPhone should take 3 photos and merge them together intelligently. You can set it to save the HDR photo only, or also the normal photo. You can set HDR to auto, on, or off.

I would recommend the iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus (better camera than iPhone 7) as a companion camera to a DSLR.

There might be better cameras on some Android phones.

The only thing I don't like about the iPhone 6s/7 cameras are the following weaknesses: low light is still not great, and motion shots are not great. (The iPhone 7 Plus might be better at those, not sure.) But I love how convenient it is to take photos and upload them to the cloud. And it doubles as a phone too. Obviously can't compete with a DSLR.

Edit: another really cool feature is "Memories" which takes your photos and videos of the past and automagically creates a movie set to music. You can then edit it and tune it. Really awesome. :)
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:20 am

I have decided that I will be willing to pay big money (from my perspective) to pick up either Sony RX100 or Canon EOS M10 kit. Both are around $450. Sony would be more pocketable but Canon has replaceable lenses. Both should handle low light situation and would provide good movies.

I would love to hear from the respective owners and people who had compared them before making their decision.

jjface
Posts: 2462
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by jjface » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:18 am

wrongfunds wrote:I have decided that I will be willing to pay big money (from my perspective) to pick up either Sony RX100 or Canon EOS M10 kit. Both are around $450. Sony would be more pocketable but Canon has replaceable lenses. Both should handle low light situation and would provide good movies.

I would love to hear from the respective owners and people who had compared them before making their decision.
I've used both though not the kit lens for the M10.

I currently have the M10 with the 22mm prime which is a superior lens than the kit and my wife has one with the 18-150mm. The IQ photo quality and color are excellent with both. I don't think you will be disappointed with the photo quality of the kit lens either. The autofocus is medicore though and unless you take more landscapes and other fixed objects I would probably avoid the M10. I plan on selling mine but my wife is keeping hers. She manages to get some fantastic photos from it.

The RX100 is decent but the photos came out a bit cold on auto mode for me. Mine also broke after a year so I am not confident on the build quality. It is much more pocketable. An excellent camera but I think it is showing its age personally.

I also have a canon G9X mark II and prefer it to both and it is far more compact than the M10. Photo quality is excellent and very close but it has better autofocus. You need to use the touchscreen more so that may put you off or not and I don't like some of the button placements but will get used to it. It costs $479 right now. I too was not willing to pay more than around $450 ish.

The M10 doesn't let you take photos during a movie without pausing the movie for a couple of seconds which bothered me (shows the pause during playback). I haven't figured how to even take both at the same time with the g9x mark II. Maybe it is a canon issue.

I have an iphone 6s and you will be far happier with the results of any of these proper cameras over the iphone.

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:24 am

One of the biggest reason I have been staying away from Sony is that from my personal experience their reliability is NOT high. The customer service is also not easy to deal with. I had a TX5 which broke. Almost all Sony of that era suffered from the stabilization servo going bonkers and turning the camera in to a female sexual pleasure device :-) After arguing with them few times, it got fixed but broke again in few months. I had issue with my older Canon S410 which Canon fixed without any grumbling and I was impressed with their customer service.

But on the further thought I realized that I have to learn to treat the digicams as having limited life unlike the older film cameras. After few years of service, if they break I should be too upset and take as great opportunity for forced update.

I did not know Canon G9X ii competes with Sony RX100 in terms of size and picture quality. Thanks for your input. I will look in to.

TN_Boy
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by TN_Boy » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:47 pm

jjface wrote:
wrongfunds wrote:
Most of quote deleted ....

The RX100 is decent but the photos came out a bit cold on auto mode for me. Mine also broke after a year so I am not confident on the build quality. It is much more pocketable. An excellent camera but I think it is showing its age personally.
I haven't handled the RX100, but I'm surprised it doesn't have options to adjust the jpeg processing -- a lot of cameras do (vivid versus natural, etc). Or it did and none of them suited your taste?

TN_Boy
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by TN_Boy » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:23 pm

wrongfunds wrote:Please, I know about following, but as I said it is NOT an option, especially when the photographer herself is the better half. Do not bother with the following. All I am asking is that the camera to "simulate" the fill-in flash at pixel level. I am an engineer, so technically I see no reason why this is not possible.

stuff deleted
To make sure I'm understanding your question -- you want the camera to "brighten" parts of the image as it outputs the jpeg?

The question would then be -- if everything was automatic -- do you want the camera to pull up ALL the shadows, or just the faces. Or, maybe not just the faces but also the rest of the people, but not the surrounding shadows with no people. I mean, EXACTLY what part of the picture do you want brightened? A true fill-flash emulation would brighten sort of everything -- the camera doesn't know which parts of the scene are "close" to illuminate. You want a "brighten the dark areas I care about just enough" mode.

Another technical problem (aside from knowing exactly what to brighten) is that if the shutter is not open long enough to capture enough detail in the dark areas, the brightened part of the image will look terrible. This is a function of the sensor in the camera and the lens. There is enough detail in the dark areas .... or not. So an HDR like thing (multiple exposures) is probably the best a small sensor camera could do -- shots for the dark areas, shots for the light areas. Personally I usually don't like the way HDR images look, but I could be convinced processing could make a decent one. A better camera could expose for the bright areas and still pull details out of the shadows without resorting to HDR.

There are probably more knowledgeable posters than I on this thread, but honestly what I have found as I've learned more about photography is that a lot of cameras can take good shots in well lit situations, but when things get more challenging (motion, interesting lighting, etc) you need a decent camera and knowledge of photography to get good pictures. The situation you describe is a common one, and it can be hard to solve. When the light is bad enough, the picture just may not be there.

If the people in your photos are just severely backlit, the usual solution is to take the picture from another angle. There are basic books (and ebooks) on photography that might solve more of your picture issues than a better camera.

iamlucky13
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by iamlucky13 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:30 pm

wrongfunds wrote:I have decided that I will be willing to pay big money (from my perspective) to pick up either Sony RX100 or Canon EOS M10 kit. Both are around $450. Sony would be more pocketable but Canon has replaceable lenses. Both should handle low light situation and would provide good movies.

I would love to hear from the respective owners and people who had compared them before making their decision.
The M10 does have a larger sensor that will be a decent advantage in low light, but it gives most of that advantage up due to its smaller aperture values of its lens. The big thing the M10 has going for it is interchangeable lenses, so if you're planning on saving up later for more lenses like primes or a telephoto, then the other two cameras aren't even in the running.

However, if $450 is your budget and you don't plan to later expand your system, I'd lean towards the RX100 or the Canon G9X, depending whether your have a preference on the user interface strategies of Sony or Canon. You will get very close overall performance to the M10 with kit lens, but the entire camera (since the lens is built in) is smaller than the body alone for the M10, so it will be easier to bring along with you in more situations.

The RX100 is older than the G9X, but looking up image samples taken under identical conditions (DPreview.com is a great resource), the advantages of the slightly newer sensor (which I think comes from Sony anyways) look to be too small to be a significant factor in your decision.

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:20 pm

I appreciate this discussion very much and I am in learning process.

For "do it what I mean", I am thinking that since camera has already determine where the faces are in the picture, it could selectively brighten them up. As a matter of fact, the reason camera went through the HDR trouble is that it realized that to expose the face correctly, rest of the detail could get washed out, so after doing the processing, it brings back those details. But as far as I can see it does not seem to lighten up the face which should just be the converse of restoring the highlight details.

From the superficial knowledge of the digicam evolution, I really did not know that RX100 had any real competition from others except may be Fuji or Ricoh (on in US). I was under impression that GX series is quite "chunky" compared to RX, so I had never looked at those offerings from Canon.

In the RX series, significant improvement seems to have come after Mk 4 (better f-stop at tele and lower noise overall) but now we are at $900 price point (24mm but then no 100mm; so I consider that to be wash). $450 seems to be sweet spot for me as far as value vs cost is concerned.

iamlucky13
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by iamlucky13 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:06 pm

wrongfunds wrote:I appreciate this discussion very much and I am in learning process.

For "do it what I mean", I am thinking that since camera has already determine where the faces are in the picture, it could selectively brighten them up. As a matter of fact, the reason camera went through the HDR trouble is that it realized that to expose the face correctly, rest of the detail could get washed out, so after doing the processing, it brings back those details. But as far as I can see it does not seem to lighten up the face which should just be the converse of restoring the highlight details.
Some metering modes do take advantage of the facial recognition feature to change the camera settings. I assume the last several generations of Canon's evaluative metering algorithm do so. This changes the exposure level for the entire picture.

For an HDR merge, it the processor generally just takes the lighter parts of the lower exposure photo and the darker parts of the higher exposure photo, and blends them.

Either of these are much simpler than selectively editing only very specific parts of the picture, which as somebody who does this manually on my computer, I can tell you is very easy to do badly. I don't think Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc really have the resources to work this out reliably. Adobe marginally does, but Adobe makes post-processing software, not in-camera firmware. This kind of advanced in-camera processing is mostly being advanced these days by the smartphone makers, mainly with the on-they-fly HDR merging, and will likely later trickle up to the dedicated camera manufacturers. The dedicated camera makers are under intense financial pressure due to their market contracting and not really able to invest heavily in development, so they prioritize on improving hardware. Apple, in contrast, has more than enough cash to spend on anything that they think will improve their sales down the road, both hardware and software.
From the superficial knowledge of the digicam evolution, I really did not know that RX100 had any real competition from others except may be Fuji or Ricoh (on in US). I was under impression that GX series is quite "chunky" compared to RX, so I had never looked at those offerings from Canon.

In the RX series, significant improvement seems to have come after Mk 4 (better f-stop at tele and lower noise overall) but now we are at $900 price point (24mm but then no 100mm; so I consider that to be wash). $450 seems to be sweet spot for me as far as value vs cost is concerned.
DPreview has a roundup of pretty much all the cameras in this class here:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2016-r ... om-cameras

They liked the Panasonic the most, mainly for its large aperture lens and fast autofocus, but they had a lot positive to say about the Sony and Canon models, too.

I think the RX100 and G9X both look quite good for the price. I'd miss having 24mm on the wide end, but it's a reasonable compromise that you can't really get around in that price range.

TN_Boy
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by TN_Boy » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:32 pm

wrongfunds wrote:I appreciate this discussion very much and I am in learning process.

For "do it what I mean", I am thinking that since camera has already determine where the faces are in the picture, it could selectively brighten them up. As a matter of fact, the reason camera went through the HDR trouble is that it realized that to expose the face correctly, rest of the detail could get washed out, so after doing the processing, it brings back those details. But as far as I can see it does not seem to lighten up the face which should just be the converse of restoring the highlight details.

stuff deleted
Even if you had a camera which could do exactly what you want, I don't think the results would make you happy. This is the point I was trying to make before, but I'll try again.

Suppose you have people standing in front of some wonderful thing. The picture includes at least the upper torso of the people, in addition to the faces. They are backlit, or in shadow, or whatever. The magic camera detects the faces and brightens them, just the right amount (the right amount might be tough to decide, but whatever). Iamlucky13's post talks about the difficulty of this operation. But I doubt you'll love the result. You'll have these dark, detail-less torsos underneath the brighter faces, sort of a Halloween effect with faces staring out of the darkness. This could work if you had a tight shot, with only faces, but isn't going to work otherwise.

If you had a good camera, what you would do is brighten up the shadows, either all the shadows (often that is good enough), or select just the area you want brightened (and how much), in post-processing. Working with RAW images makes this more successful most of the time. This is how those great photos you see in magazines and online of scenes with a large dynamic range came to be (also HDR, but I think that is less common). And from dealing with scenes like this, I am telling you that only brightening the faces probably won't work.

Really and truly, if you want better pictures, the person taking the picture must have some notion of what they are doing. They don't have to be a pro. But they have to understand a few things about light and exposure, even with a super-awesome auto everything camera. Otherwise you'll get nice pictures when the light is strong and even (well, at least they will be correctly exposed; they might or might be well composed, have the right shutter speed, depth of field etc) and a lot of disappointing ones when the light is not good. There are mistakes no camera and no post-processing can fix and you are not going to do post-processing, which greatly improves many pictures.

pochax
Posts: 1263
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:40 am

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by pochax » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:57 pm

i have this camera Panasonic DMC-LX100:
http://powersellerdigital.com/details/1 ... AhBx8P8HAQ
here is a nice review on dpreview:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panaso ... -dmc-lx100

i got it for ~$580 but it looks like it's on sale even more 2 years later. it takes nice photos but i wouldn't say the zoom is all that great. i think it is on the same level as the sony RX-series.

arsenalfan
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:26 am

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by arsenalfan » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:06 pm

Just sold Sony DSC-RX 100 V after 3 months with it. Wanted a phone better than my iPhone 6sPlus but as portable, and in particular for indoor shots (think indoor parties). I also have a Nikon D700 with fast primes and a 70-200 f2.8, but that's too bulky.

I sold the Sony because of terrible battery life - I take about 30 pics on an outing, with a resultant ~100 pics (since I shoot in burst mode). And was having to change the battery during shoots. When is the last time you've had to change camera batteries on a casual family trip walk-about? Also, the burst mode was always "buffering" as it was writing to the card, so the camera wasn't ready to shoot.

Finally, the user interface wasn't as intuitive. For $1k, it was a terrible camera for my needs - granted I didn't use the 4k video. I did use the slow-mo to capture some cool events (kid's sports starts, karate, etc). But overall the indoor performance wasn't that great either. Just need a bigger sensor.

A friend just got the Fuji XT2 based on the Wirecutter review. I may borrow that and see how it goes.
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-m ... ss-camera/

I also will definitely upgrade to the iPhone 8 when it shows up.

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:11 am

Really and truly, if you want better pictures, the person taking the picture must have some notion of what they are doing. They don't have to be a pro. But they have to understand a few things about light and exposure, even with a super-awesome auto everything camera. Otherwise you'll get nice pictures when the light is strong and even (well, at least they will be correctly exposed; they might or might be well composed, have the right shutter speed, depth of field etc) and a lot of disappointing ones when the light is not good. There are mistakes no camera and no post-processing can fix and you are not going to do post-processing, which greatly improves many pictures.
A more realistic solution would be to take the face pictures against the so called green curtain (aka as done in studio) and then just super impose it on the scenery! Too many "incidents" on our vacations where what my better half sees by her own eyes just does not get reflected when either she takes the picture or or when she is herself in the picture. Obviously it is always my fault because I am not good enough to teach her how to avoid those dark faces pictures.

May be this is not a photographic problem but a relationship one??

User avatar
midareff
Posts: 5042
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by midareff » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:42 am

wrongfunds wrote:As far as I can make out by looking at iPhone7 and iPhone7+ images, I could not see the "intelligent" merge. I see two images; in one the background have been mostly washed out but the faces have more light; the second one has the detail in the background but the faces are now dark.

Are there other cameras where HDR does do the intelligent merge?

Actually it's not a merge, it's a change to the captured tonal curve. The Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge has an amazingly good camera. Does HDR and Panoramas easily and Samsung sells a lens kit for it that gives you 16mm, 26mm (native) and 52 mm focal lengths. It is surprisingly good in dark places like cabaret shows and theater, without flash. You can put the whole kit including a Bluetooth remote shutter in one pocket. Images easily can be printed full letter size and larger. It also is able to shoot raw (DNG) and does a great job with jpegs and my wife shoots tons of videos with hers. I rarely carry my Fuji mirrorless gear these days.

Over the last 20 years I have shot Canon full frame pro gear (5DmkII), DSLR's such as the T2i and since weight and bulk is important in traveling have tried various Canon portables such as the G9, G10, G12, G15 and Sony RX100 m3 & 4, Panasonic DMC ZS1000, Fuji X-Pro 1, Xt-1 and others. I love the Fuji gear since I get 5DMKII IQ and more in a much smaller package for travel but the real truth is unless I'm doing wall posters larger than 11X17 the cell does an amazing job, and, I can zip off a panorama of the fort at Havana's Harbor that will knock your eyes out with the detail and color coherency.

Samples http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... /i-99HzLbs
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -ZRdbhvb/A
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -ppdx8Q3/A this is get your yellow viper pic on the end of a selfie stick. Shot not possible with a hand held camera.
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -P2X6jvr/A
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -DwFNxkS/A
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -fSVTqb7/A inside a Cabaret with bad light
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -Pb85PXm/A

Enjoy.....

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:25 pm

Wow, those are really pictures! Are they all from the Fuji?

TN_Boy
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by TN_Boy » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:04 pm

midareff wrote:
wrongfunds wrote:As far as I can make out by looking at iPhone7 and iPhone7+ images, I could not see the "intelligent" merge. I see two images; in one the background have been mostly washed out but the faces have more light; the second one has the detail in the background but the faces are now dark.

Are there other cameras where HDR does do the intelligent merge?

Actually it's not a merge, it's a change to the captured tonal curve. The Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge has an amazingly good camera. Does HDR and Panoramas easily and Samsung sells a lens kit for it that gives you 16mm, 26mm (native) and 52 mm focal lengths. It is surprisingly good in dark places like cabaret shows and theater, without flash. You can put the whole kit including a Bluetooth remote shutter in one pocket. Images easily can be printed full letter size and larger. It also is able to shoot raw (DNG) and does a great job with jpegs and my wife shoots tons of videos with hers. I rarely carry my Fuji mirrorless gear these days.

Over the last 20 years I have shot Canon full frame pro gear (5DmkII), DSLR's such as the T2i and since weight and bulk is important in traveling have tried various Canon portables such as the G9, G10, G12, G15 and Sony RX100 m3 & 4, Panasonic DMC ZS1000, Fuji X-Pro 1, Xt-1 and others. I love the Fuji gear since I get 5DMKII IQ and more in a much smaller package for travel but the real truth is unless I'm doing wall posters larger than 11X17 the cell does an amazing job, and, I can zip off a panorama of the fort at Havana's Harbor that will knock your eyes out with the detail and color coherency.

Samples http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... /i-99HzLbs
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -ZRdbhvb/A
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -ppdx8Q3/A this is get your yellow viper pic on the end of a selfie stick. Shot not possible with a hand held camera.
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -P2X6jvr/A
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -DwFNxkS/A
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -fSVTqb7/A inside a Cabaret with bad light
http://www.martindareff.com/Internation ... -Pb85PXm/A

Enjoy.....
Cool visit to Cuba! Assume these are from the Samsung? I like those pictures, great colors and well composed (I especially like what I assume is a panorama of the Morro Castle) , but they don't sway my opinion that a better camera gets you better pictures. But, the cell phone is easy to carry.

Whether a "better" camera is worth the trouble just depends.

To the OP -- I don't think this camera would solve your "faces are dark" problem. The person taking the photos avoided those backlit type scenes I think.

Incidentally, here is a relevant review -- it's one part of a review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100, a well-rated compact camera with a 1 inch sensor:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/power- ... 0-review/6

This is the image quality part of the review. If you scroll down to the "RAW performance" heading on the page, there is a very nice demo of how post-processing can pull up details in shadows in a RAW image.

User avatar
midareff
Posts: 5042
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by midareff » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:49 pm

Quote Tn_Boy "Cool visit to Cuba! Assume these are from the Samsung? I like those pictures, great colors and well composed (I especially like what I assume is a panorama of the Morro Castle) , but they don't sway my opinion that a better camera gets you better pictures. But, the cell phone is easy to carry.

Whether a "better" camera is worth the trouble just depends.

To the OP -- I don't think this camera would solve your "faces are dark" problem. The person taking the photos avoided those backlit type scenes I think."

If you look at the full trip photos Santiago de Cuba and Cienfuegos are shot almost exclusively with the Galaxy using Samsung's 16mm add on lens. All posted links were that cell and lens set. If you go to the album I shot Havana mostly with the Fuji Xt-1, a very well regarded APS-C sensor mirrorless system. I'm surprised how little difference the travel type photos show.

For dark faces Google makes a free software product called NIK. It works as an adjunct or external editor to Lightroom or Photoshop. I think it works with Aperture (Mac) as well. With it you can brighten up faces while leaving everything else unchanged. Back lit stuff isn't an issue with it.

As far as your links to a relevant review of a travel camera..... -- it's one part of a review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100, a well-rated compact camera with a 1 inch sensor:

While the review is good I happen to have this camera too and used it for telephoto purposes in Costa Rica and Panama. I don't think nearly as much of it as they do. The lens is on the slow side and anything over ISO 1000 is very difficult to clean up.

TN_Boy
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by TN_Boy » Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:20 pm

midareff wrote:Quote Tn_Boy "Cool visit to Cuba! Assume these are from the Samsung? I like those pictures, great colors and well composed (I especially like what I assume is a panorama of the Morro Castle) , but they don't sway my opinion that a better camera gets you better pictures. But, the cell phone is easy to carry.

Whether a "better" camera is worth the trouble just depends.

To the OP -- I don't think this camera would solve your "faces are dark" problem. The person taking the photos avoided those backlit type scenes I think."

If you look at the full trip photos Santiago de Cuba and Cienfuegos are shot almost exclusively with the Galaxy using Samsung's 16mm add on lens. All posted links were that cell and lens set. If you go to the album I shot Havana mostly with the Fuji Xt-1, a very well regarded APS-C sensor mirrorless system. I'm surprised how little difference the travel type photos show.

For dark faces Google makes a free software product called NIK. It works as an adjunct or external editor to Lightroom or Photoshop. I think it works with Aperture (Mac) as well. With it you can brighten up faces while leaving everything else unchanged. Back lit stuff isn't an issue with it.

As far as your links to a relevant review of a travel camera..... -- it's one part of a review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100, a well-rated compact camera with a 1 inch sensor:

While the review is good I happen to have this camera too and used it for telephoto purposes in Costa Rica and Panama. I don't think nearly as much of it as they do. The lens is on the slow side and anything over ISO 1000 is very difficult to clean up.
I wasn't especially pushing the camera -- though it has good reviews -- I just thought it had a nice example of using post-processing with RAW images to dramatically improve scenes with a large dynamic range. For people who haven't played with post-processing, it might be educational.

By Nik you mean the various plugins? Some of those have a good reputation, but I rarely find them useful (I haven't messed with the black and white converter, which is often spoke of kindly). I find I can get what I want with Lightroom pretty fast. For selective brightening, I would use a radial filter or the brush in Lightroom, but the Nik stuff may have some nice presets. But I don't agree that backlit stuff isn't an issue. It's not an issue if there is enough detail in the dark areas. If the detail is gone (like if you take a picture with a small sensor camera and then output a jpeg), then you are toast. And it's post-processing either way, which the OP isn't interested in (and I get that, it's an investment in learning and software that most people don't want to make).

As far as "anything over ISO 1000 is very difficult to clean up" that may just be life with today's 1" sensors. I have the fz1000, which I think has the same sensor. I don't really like going over 800, but I'm picky -- I edit on a big hi-res monitor. Though the fz1000's bigger lens probably gives it more firepower in low-light situations than the ZS100, so I don't need to go higher ISO as often.

One advantage the cell phones have, of course, is they need a fairly powerful CPU to do all their phone/computer things. So there is a lot of power available for in-camera magic and the cell phone makers are definitely using that power.

The fz1000 does have this "hand-held night mode" which I've used a few times. It's the only fully automatic mode I use. It shoots a burst, then I *think* it stacks the images to reduce the noise. The images are shot at high ISO -- 1600 or 3200 -- but the final result is usually a surprisingly clean jpeg in a situation where the lack of a tripod would otherwise be a killer.

I find that when I'm traveling, there are plenty of situations where a cell phone camera is not going to satisfy me. Sometimes I need more zoom, very often I want to play with depth of field (I want *everything* sharp or I want just the interesting part of the photo sharp) or maybe the scene has motion and I want to make the tradeoff on ISO versus shutter speed. I also found that a lot of pictures got 2x or 3x better after five minutes in Lightroom (photo shot in RAW mode); I was, in fact, really surprised at how much better. Not to mention the creative aspects of playing with tones and such.

iamlucky13
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by iamlucky13 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:33 pm

TN_Boy wrote:As far as "anything over ISO 1000 is very difficult to clean up" that may just be life with today's 1" sensors. I have the fz1000, which I think has the same sensor. I don't really like going over 800, but I'm picky -- I edit on a big hi-res monitor. Though the fz1000's bigger lens probably gives it more firepower in low-light situations than the ZS100, so I don't need to go higher ISO as often.
I have this problem, too. It's usually more a matter of how close I'm looking at the image than how visible the noise is.

It helps to resize the window to about the size I expect to use the image at (printed or shared online), assuming it's smaller than the monitor, and then sit back at arm's length to see how it looks.

User avatar
midareff
Posts: 5042
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by midareff » Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:19 am

TN_Boy wrote:
midareff wrote:Quote Tn_Boy "Cool visit to Cuba! Assume these are from the Samsung? I like those pictures, great colors and well composed (I especially like what I assume is a panorama of the Morro Castle) , but they don't sway my opinion that a better camera gets you better pictures. But, the cell phone is easy to carry.

Whether a "better" camera is worth the trouble just depends.

To the OP -- I don't think this camera would solve your "faces are dark" problem. The person taking the photos avoided those backlit type scenes I think."

If you look at the full trip photos Santiago de Cuba and Cienfuegos are shot almost exclusively with the Galaxy using Samsung's 16mm add on lens. All posted links were that cell and lens set. If you go to the album I shot Havana mostly with the Fuji Xt-1, a very well regarded APS-C sensor mirrorless system. I'm surprised how little difference the travel type photos show.

For dark faces Google makes a free software product called NIK. It works as an adjunct or external editor to Lightroom or Photoshop. I think it works with Aperture (Mac) as well. With it you can brighten up faces while leaving everything else unchanged. Back lit stuff isn't an issue with it.

As far as your links to a relevant review of a travel camera..... -- it's one part of a review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100, a well-rated compact camera with a 1 inch sensor:

While the review is good I happen to have this camera too and used it for telephoto purposes in Costa Rica and Panama. I don't think nearly as much of it as they do. The lens is on the slow side and anything over ISO 1000 is very difficult to clean up.
I wasn't especially pushing the camera -- though it has good reviews -- I just thought it had a nice example of using post-processing with RAW images to dramatically improve scenes with a large dynamic range. For people who haven't played with post-processing, it might be educational.
Frankly, when I started using the cell for travel photography I picked it up for the longer end, and it was somewhat handy for eco stuff. In lower light longer mm shots it's sensor is just too noisy for use (generally) at ISO 1600 (shooting raw and developing in LR) with the Fuji having a 4 stop advantage at minimum. FWIW, I started shooting raw in 2008 with LR 2.0 and never looked back. Can't imagine not using LR at this point.

By Nik you mean the various plugins? Some of those have a good reputation, but I rarely find them useful (I haven't messed with the black and white converter, which is often spoke of kindly). I find I can get what I want with Lightroom pretty fast. For selective brightening, I would use a radial filter or the brush in Lightroom, but the Nik stuff may have some nice presets. But I don't agree that backlit stuff isn't an issue. It's not an issue if there is enough detail in the dark areas. If the detail is gone (like if you take a picture with a small sensor camera and then output a jpeg), then you are toast. And it's post-processing either way, which the OP isn't interested in (and I get that, it's an investment in learning and software that most people don't want to make).
Yes, NIK as a LR plug in. Vivenza can fix any dark face or group of dark faces in a second .. real easy to use. The whole NIK package is AOK although I rarely use anything of the other plugs in the package other than Vivenza. Plug-ins have a place IMHO, Portrait Pro is very useful when doing modeling stuff, DxO's Filmpaks are good stuff as well while their Viewpoint 3 doesn't do anything I can't do in LR for perspective and barrel distortion correction.

As far as "anything over ISO 1000 is very difficult to clean up" that may just be life with today's 1" sensors. I have the fz1000, which I think has the same sensor. I don't really like going over 800, but I'm picky -- I edit on a big hi-res monitor. Though the fz1000's bigger lens probably gives it more firepower in low-light situations than the ZS100, so I don't need to go higher ISO as often.
Not sure about that having had the Sony RX100 m3 and m4 in house. I could get results at 3200 and occasionally 6400 with the m4. Actually have the m4 on eBay presently since I get better focal range coverage with the S7E cell and it's better in low light as well.

One advantage the cell phones have, of course, is they need a fairly powerful CPU to do all their phone/computer things. So there is a lot of power available for in-camera magic and the cell phone makers are definitely using that power.
Agreed..... I didn't really start playing with panoramas until half way through my Cuba trip and I'm amazed at how well they can come out with the proper LR settings, especially using the 16mm lens from the set and then panning.

The fz1000 does have this "hand-held night mode" which I've used a few times. It's the only fully automatic mode I use. It shoots a burst, then I *think* it stacks the images to reduce the noise. The images are shot at high ISO -- 1600 or 3200 -- but the final result is usually a surprisingly clean jpeg in a situation where the lack of a tripod would otherwise be a killer.
Thanks for the tip, I'll have to try that but I think I'm going to have to go back to the Xt-1 for distance as IQ is just too different.

I find that when I'm traveling, there are plenty of situations where a cell phone camera is not going to satisfy me. Sometimes I need more zoom, very often I want to play with depth of field (I want *everything* sharp or I want just the interesting part of the photo sharp) or maybe the scene has motion and I want to make the tradeoff on ISO versus shutter speed. I also found that a lot of pictures got 2x or 3x better after five minutes in Lightroom (photo shot in RAW mode); I was, in fact, really surprised at how much better. Not to mention the creative aspects of playing with tones and such.
Since cells are generally in the 26mm or 27mm native range I would have to agree with the exception of Samsung's lens set for the 7 Edge which provides a 16mm = wide angle and a 52mm = little tele. I carried (Havana) the cell with the 16mm mounted and the Fuji with their 14mm prime (21mm FF=). For the type of shooting I do those focal lengths work just right for me.

Happy shooting, it's all good.

jjface
Posts: 2462
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by jjface » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:00 am

TN_Boy wrote:
jjface wrote:
wrongfunds wrote:
Most of quote deleted ....

The RX100 is decent but the photos came out a bit cold on auto mode for me. Mine also broke after a year so I am not confident on the build quality. It is much more pocketable. An excellent camera but I think it is showing its age personally.
I haven't handled the RX100, but I'm surprised it doesn't have options to adjust the jpeg processing -- a lot of cameras do (vivid versus natural, etc). Or it did and none of them suited your taste?
I prefer as real to life as possible usually and those modes are always abnormal. There are probably ways to tweak the settings to get the perfect colours or to do so post processing but that is not something I have time or inclination to have to do personally. Canon colors are just better in my opinion out of the box.

I wasn't that impressed by the samsung s7 myself! All the different choices are great and you just have to try some out to find one that more or less matches what you want that has the limitations you can live with. Online camera shops like bh photo and adorama allow easy returns

Buster65
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by Buster65 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:48 am

SONY RX 100 IV gets rave reviews! But its $1,000. Thinking about picking one up myself

TN_Boy
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by TN_Boy » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:01 am

jjface wrote:
TN_Boy wrote:
jjface wrote:
wrongfunds wrote:
Most of quote deleted ....

The RX100 is decent but the photos came out a bit cold on auto mode for me. Mine also broke after a year so I am not confident on the build quality. It is much more pocketable. An excellent camera but I think it is showing its age personally.
I haven't handled the RX100, but I'm surprised it doesn't have options to adjust the jpeg processing -- a lot of cameras do (vivid versus natural, etc). Or it did and none of them suited your taste?
I prefer as real to life as possible usually and those modes are always abnormal. There are probably ways to tweak the settings to get the perfect colours or to do so post processing but that is not something I have time or inclination to have to do personally. Canon colors are just better in my opinion out of the box.

I wasn't that impressed by the samsung s7 myself! All the different choices are great and you just have to try some out to find one that more or less matches what you want that has the limitations you can live with. Online camera shops like bh photo and adorama allow easy returns
That's very true -- all the different choices are great. My current favorite camera would strike many as "jack of all trades, master of none." It's (small) dSLR sized (though lighter) hence more of a burden to transport than a point and shoot or cell phone and it's low light performance can't match that of a good recent dSLR (with the right lens). But it works ... for me. Takes better pictures and more versatile than the little cameras, and in good light can about match the serious cameras. And I detest carrying and switching lens, so it's fairly decent zoom range is nice.

Some jpeg engines are better than others. Once I went to raw mode and post-processing, it didn't matter anymore, which if nothing else expands my choice of cameras since I don't care about that feature of the camera.

I believe "real life" colors are hard to pin down. I have pictures of a large historical structure from a trip I took last year that shows the point. From different angles, shot at different times during the day, the color of the structure's walls seem more gray or more brown (these are the "natural mode" jpeg images straight out of the camera ... I hadn't seen the wisdom of raw mode yet). It's really quite a difference. It can't be both colors ... can it :-) If you look at a scene in the morning, mid-day, afternoon and twilight, the apparent colors will change. Do that across different days, some cloudy, some cloudless, etc and you really get changes. It's all about the light. Some photographers like to point out that while we can now adjust color preferences via post-processing, in the film days people did the same thing BEFORE the shot by selecting films with different color tendencies. You just had to live more with your choice back then.

I wish there were more "real" camera shops around. Where I live (and I don't live in a rural area) it's almost impossible to physically handle any camera that isn't sold by say Best Buy. I do like B&H photo quite a bit for online stuff.

jjface
Posts: 2462
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by jjface » Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:54 pm

I have a kid and usually end up carrying everything for the family so I need something very easy to carry. I find that the canon g9x mark II fits that and gives much better quality photos than my phone. It is a slight pain to have to carry two devices. One day someone will fit a larger sensor into a mainstream phone (other than the lacklustre panasonic cm1 attempt). I'd rather they do that than all this dual camera stuff and trying to say as thin as possible.

iamlucky13
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by iamlucky13 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:47 pm

jjface wrote:It is a slight pain to have to carry two devices.
That's part of why I like to leave the phone at home, where it belongs.

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:00 pm

iamlucky13 wrote: That's part of why I like to leave the phone at home, where it belongs.
Yes, phone should be nailed down to the wall :-)

wrongfunds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by wrongfunds » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:35 pm

I am now deciding between Canon G9X Mkii or Sony A6000.

Yes, they are like apples and oranges :-) I was almost set on G9X for its pocket-ability but then realized that I already have a pocket camera aka iPhone7. So I decided that I can afford to go little bigger if the feature set warrants it.

The mirror less Sony has rave reviews and has bigger sensor than the Canon. The kit lens is not that bright but with the bigger sensor I suspect I will be able to get somewhat similar low light performance. I have also updated my budget to reflect go broke or go home attitude

Before I plunk down close $1000 for the camera and the extra telephoto lens, the extra battery and SD card etc, any "don't do it" warnings?

iamlucky13
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by iamlucky13 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:07 pm

No warnings from me, as long as you've through through how you intend to use the camera and are comfortably with the size.

I've done the math on the aperture F-number vs. sensor size before, but I don't remember the results and don't feel like repeating the exercise right now. I think you'll have a slight advantage in low light with the Sony.

User avatar
FrugalInvestor
Posts: 4484
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:20 am

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by FrugalInvestor » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:18 pm

I have an older Nikon COOLPIX S9100 12.1mp with 18x zoom. I don't use it a lot, but if I want (much) more flexibility than a phone and really nice photos it's my go to camera. I like it because it's fast and responsive (unlike a Panasonic I had previously) and it's easy to carry around no matter where I am or what I'm doing so a great 'take it anywhere camera.' I got rid of my old digital SLR because it was just too unwieldy.
IGNORE the noise! | Our life is frittered away by detail... simplify, simplify. - Henry David Thoreau

tm3
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:16 pm

Re: Best take it everywhere camera

Post by tm3 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:42 am

wrongfunds wrote:I am now deciding between Canon G9X Mkii or Sony A6000.

Yes, they are like apples and oranges :-) I was almost set on G9X for its pocket-ability but then realized that I already have a pocket camera aka iPhone7. So I decided that I can afford to go little bigger if the feature set warrants it.

The mirror less Sony has rave reviews and has bigger sensor than the Canon. The kit lens is not that bright but with the bigger sensor I suspect I will be able to get somewhat similar low light performance. I have also updated my budget to reflect go broke or go home attitude

Before I plunk down close $1000 for the camera and the extra telephoto lens, the extra battery and SD card etc, any "don't do it" warnings?

My thoughts:

Camera equipment choice is full of tradeoffs, just like investing.

Acceptable images for viewing on a phone, tablet, or computer screen are much easier to take than acceptable images for printing and hanging on the wall ie equipment differences will be more important if trying to make quality prints. How good is "good enough" is very subjective -- some might say that you can only go up to 8x12 while others may say 16x24 is the limit. I have some 20x30 prints on my wall taken with a 5mp DSLR in 2006 that I think are very nice, but others may think that they suck.

You can't change the laws of physics. Photography is capturing light. The more light you can let in (ie the smaller the f number of the lens), the faster your shutter speed can be. The faster your shutter speed is, the more likely you are to get a sharp photo. If movement of the subject, or of the photographer, causes image blur then the type of camera in your hands becomes irrelevant. Cameras with IS (image stabilization) have a big advantage here, as do cameras with large sensors as they allow use of higher ISO settings without loss of image quality.

Once you get to the size of camera that will require carry in a case, size and weight differences start to matter much less. For carry in a pocket or clipped on a belt, a few ounces or inches might matter more.

No camera feature can substitute for knowing what you are doing.

Digital camera bodies become obsolete quickly and lose value but good lenses tend to hold their value.

The 6000 series Sonys get a lot of favorable reviews. The question I would have is whether the kit lens is going to be fast enough (let in enough light). You could buy a second, faster, fixed focal length lens to use in lower light and/or you could carry a small tripod to stabilize in low light. One of the biggest disadvantages of all Sony cameras is the relative lack of lenses.

If I were in your situation, my first decision would be size. Smallest ==> Sony RX100 variant (one of the viewfinder models). Larger ==> Olympus OMD EM5, either the original or the Mark II. These can be found heavily discounted as they are replaced by newer models. The sensor is a little bit smaller than the one in the 6000, but the IS compensates for it and the lenses are MUCH smaller and lighter. A 6000 series would not be a bad option and I would pick it over the Canon, but I think a better choice (and insignificant size difference for case carry) would be a Nikon 5xxx series (like the 5200) using the kit 18-55 lens supplemented by the Nikon 35mm 1.8.

You might want to go to DPReview to read detailed reviews, look at sample images, and play with their "compararometer" to get an idea of how the image quality changes with increase in ISO, sensor size, etc.

Post Reply