what compact?

stumac

stumac

Messages
3,369
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
need a bit of help, I am after a good compact camera.
it will be a backup to a backup camera and also for general family shooting as Im getting of sick of lugging the 5d etc around with me when out on walks.
As im used to full frame quality im scared of buying something im going to be really disappointed with, now I understand I will have to expect a drop in image quality.
I was thinking the Fuji x20 or canon g15 as both are at the max of my budget but ive no idea when it comes to compacts.
can anyone help?
 
Well, if you are used to FF and you're very critical of image noise, then most of the compacts will disappoint. I have the X20 and I'm very fond of it. But I consider it "noisy" @800 and just usable @1600.
 
I think 99% of the time it's going to be used in good light so I don't think ISO performance is too important for me.

If its usable at 800 I think that would be good enough
 
Well, I'm a D4/D800 user. I've owned the Canon G10, G12, Sony Nex7, and I think the X20 is the best compact I've ever owned. Of course it has it's compromises, but everything does.

For normal walk-around stuff in descent light there's not much it can't do well. FWIW, I find it's never as sharp as a top level lens at best aperture/ISO on a DSLR but it's plenty "sharp enough." ...that shouldn't be too surprising I guess.
 
Hi, The X20 is an extreemly good camera with a cracking lens and superb image quality for it's sensor size.

Sure it won't match FF but you'd be surprised at the images that these little cameras can produce. I have made A3+ size prints from mine at 800 iso with no problem. At 1600 iso noise can be seen of coarse but it's hardly obtrusive and the images are perfectly usable.

Hope this helps.
 
thanks for the replys
it sounds from reviews of the x20 that for the money there is not much better
 
How is the video quality of the lx7 if you don't mind me asking phil? I would like a compact with good video ability and am torn between the RX100, LX7 and S110. Cheers
 
hobodan said:
How is the video quality of the lx7 if you don't mind me asking phil? I would like a compact with good video ability and am torn between the RX100, LX7 and S110. Cheers
Click to expand...

Very good - DR obviously challenged when the conditions demand but overall it's sharp, good smooth frames and the 100fps is a pleasure to use (I use this often to check my technique in kickboxibg).
 
sk66 said:
Well, if you are used to FF and you're very critical of image noise, then most of the compacts will disappoint. I have the X20 and I'm very fond of it. But I consider it "noisy" @800 and just usable @1600.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree...
I've been using an X10 since it came out, and if you are 'only' aiming to produce prints to A3 then there's nothing to worry about.
Two of the 15 images in my ARPS panel were taken on the X10; looking at the submitted prints I love asking people to guess which they are.

And the X20 is better than the X10 in just about all respects.
The only reason I haven't upgraded is that the X10 still produces remarkably good images - admittedly the AF is a little frustrating sometimes, but....

Here's a set that may prove relevant to the OP.
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2013-03-16-Snowdonia/28474205_q43fnS
I'm not as fit as I used to be and was leading the group, so there is no way I could justify carrying the weight and bulk of the big camera.
There's a few images I'm proud of in that set, and any of them could be printed to A3 and framed. Nobody would know (or care) that they only came from an obsolete pocket camera.
 
I'm about to buy the x20, has anyone else anything to add before I part with my money?
 
stumac said:
I'm about to buy the x20, has anyone else anything to add before I part with my money?
Click to expand...

No one has mentioned the Sony RX100 which really does get heaps of praise but it is not cheap - but I don't suppose an X20 is :thinking: I had an X10 but now own a Nikon P7700 only because it has a full articulating LCD but my needs are different from many as I can only take pics from my wheelchair & I'm not able to bend over.

But I'm not in love with my P7700 because it has no VF which this sunny weather is - well - not good - so thinking about going back to the CSC as I have owned a Panasonic G2 & G3 but not sure if I want the heavier weight for my 'snaps'. If it wasn't for the VF I feel the IQ of the RX100 is at the top from the reviews I've read (about 10,000,000 of them :clap: )
 
Any of the baby Xs will do the job. I still have the XF-1 but sold the X-10 since there's no IQ difference and the pocketability of the XF was more of an advantage than the OVF of the X-10. I've played with an X-20 and while it's nice to have some in VF shooting info, it's rather hard to see when it's superimposed on the scene and also, there's no level in the VF. Maybe the X-30 will address those issues (and if it's FF, I'll take 2!!!)
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Not sure I agree...
I've been using an X10 since it came out, and if you are 'only' aiming to produce prints to A3 then there's nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

I think that output size and viewing is something that many people forget.

Once you start thinking about how the image is going to be viewed and if it's going to be printed (or not) and at what size the chances are that if you're willing to accept it... most cameras will be probably up to the job at all but the highet ISO settings and all but the most massive print sizes that few of us will ever produce anyway.
 
woof woof said:
I think that output size and viewing is something that many people forget.

Once you start thinking about how the image is going to be viewed and if it's going to be printed (or not) and at what size the chances are that if you're willing to accept it... most cameras will be probably up to the job at all but the highet ISO settings and all but the most massive print sizes that few of us will ever produce anyway.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
woof woof said:
I think that output size and viewing is something that many people forget.

Once you start thinking about how the image is going to be viewed and if it's going to be printed (or not) and at what size the chances are that if you're willing to accept it... most cameras will be probably up to the job at all but the highet ISO settings and all but the most massive print sizes that few of us will ever produce anyway.
Click to expand...

I sell photos to commercial clients via digital file as often as printing them myself. The sad truth is many clients have no understanding of viewing size/distance/print resolution and think that 300dpi is "required" for everything. That's meant I've had to up-res images to 60MP for a 28" print. They also tend to look at digital files at 100% and up-res hurts there...

I've found it's very hard to educate clients about this, especially when there is so much "contradictory" information out there. So the best bet is to have the largest/cleanest image possible SOOC.

Other clients have lower needs/expectations and, for them, an x20 image at ISO1600 (in low light) might be acceptable. And it "can be" for my personal use/print sales as well. But, for me, the x20 is my "fun camera" but it's not the optimum tool for anything "critical."
 
DayDreamer said:
One for me for my birthday?
Click to expand...

No - but I might let you borrow one to see if it meets your rather demanding (and ever changing!!!) requirements!
 
jonbeeza said:
Hey Phil, in what way is it rubbish for video? Just that I am keeping my eye out for one, when they are at silly low prices in the second hand shops ;)
Click to expand...

I guess rubbish is a bit harsh as quality was ok.

No manual control - big nono for me.

Flickering indoors in certain conditions.

No higher frame rate for HD than 30fps.

So depends on the purpose as to whether it's "rubbish" or not but I need my videos to look at good as possible. This was not really possible for me with the X10.

If you just want it for videos of the kids or point and shoot looking videos then it's fine.

Had a little play with the Fuji X20 yesterday. Fair to say I loved it.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
I guess rubbish is a bit harsh as quality was ok.

No manual control - big nono for me.

Flickering indoors in certain conditions.

No higher frame rate for HD than 30fps.

So depends on the purpose as to whether it's "rubbish" or not but I need my videos to look at good as possible. This was not really possible for me with the X10.

Had a little play with the Fuji X20 yesterday. Fair to say I loved it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all that Phil :thumbs:

PS

Would love the Fuji X20, just cash flow dictates otherwise :(
 
Last edited:
If its not too late why not a Canon 100D unless your only after a pocket size camera. I too looked at the Fuji X20 but was put off by a review where image quality wasn't really all that good but I often find it depends on what magazine you read or website:/
 
Hotshots said:
If its not too late why not a Canon 100D unless your only after a pocket size camera. I too looked at the Fuji X20 but was put off by a review where image quality wasn't really all that good but I often find it depends on what magazine you read or website:/
Click to expand...

Got a link?
I've only read positive reviews - even dpreview was complimentary!
 
Hotshots said:
If its not too late why not a Canon 100D unless your only after a pocket size camera. I too looked at the Fuji X20 but was put off by a review where image quality wasn't really all that good but I often find it depends on what magazine you read or website:/
Click to expand...

It really depends on how you use the camera. To me it's like using a slow all purpose super-zoom w/ an average DSLR. Not particularly great at anything and not very good for anything "specialty" (i.e. low light). But it's plenty good enough for most things and that's what you (I) buy them for.

It's not a "replacement" for the other gear, it's "an alternative" for when conditions are suitable or the other gear is problematic.
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Got a link?
I've only read positive reviews - even dpreview was complimentary!
Click to expand...

I read this review in Practical Photography,

James's verdict " The X20 doesn't quite live upto the high bar set by other Fujifilm cameras. Its certainly a great looking camera, with superb handling in the majority of areas. Considering the same sensor size. Image quality is very good but noise levels mean you wouldn't really push it much higher than ISO 800. Beyond this, Overall sharpness drops of quickly, as noise begins to creep into images. At £479 the X20 is expensive for a compact camera, but one of the redeeming features is the optical viewfinder. Unfortunatley, this provides only 85% coverage, making composing successfully when using it near impossible. Overall it's an attractive camera with great image quality for a compact, but its price means it will face some very stiff competition from the CSC market"

Handling 3/5
Features/4/5
Image Quality 3/5
Value 3/5
Overall 3/5
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with much of that review and that is if it was written about the X10 rather than the improved X20. I compose fine with the viewfinder and can compose much better than using an LCD screen which I can hardly see when it is sunny.

Of course it doesn't live up to the other Fuji cameras as they cost pretty much twice the price for the cheapest ones.

I think they left off a final score;
Review 1/5
 
I don't really understand the fuss about 100% viewfinders. I always compose a little loosely so that I can fine tune/level in post. With the Fuji "the buffer" is built in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top