What pocket-sized camera should I buy?

S

ship69

Messages
7
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Please can anyone suggest what camera I should buy.

> Budget
Not sure, say: GBP 200 - 450 (at a pinch)

> Size
Must be EXTREMELY 'pocket-able'. I want it to be in my pocket without noticing. Ideally I am aiming at less that 250g, and less than c35mm thicknesss (depth). As much as humanly possible this means flat sides with nothing sticking out. No big fat lenses that wont retract.

> Usage
Social portraits, insects (e.g. butterflies), landscape/views.

> ZOOM
A fair degree of telephoto is the most important.
I am assuming that this means that really good image stabilisation will be important as a result.
I need a slightly wide angle (say 35mm) to at at least 220mm, maybe much more, so long as it does adversely affect image quality a normal focal lenghts (e.g. 100mm)

> Resolution
Not sure... pixel count is NOT super-important to me.
12PM would probably suffice, (maybe up to 14 or 16MP?)
Much more important is quality of the CCD, i,.e. the colour accuracy and the ability to not lose detail in bright highlights and dark shadows...
I would say RAW was important but not if it means a shot-to-shot lag of more than c.1.5 seconds.

> Image quality
On a scale of 1-10, I'd say 9!

> exposure modes
Not fussed.

> Print size
Large sometimes

> Llow light photos?
Yes, sometimes - although telephoto more important.

> Action photos?
Only occasionally

> Brands
I like Canon. Then Nikon. Maybe Fujifilm. Possibly Lumix, Sony. Dont very much like Richoh, Pentax, Olympus

> Macro
One think I want to emphasize is insect photography (esp butterflies). This requires a good macro lens but with *intermediate* focusing distances possible too - i.e. not just jumping straight to full macro.

> Swivel screen
Nobody seems to mentioned swivel screens (!) This could be v useful for photographing:
a) an insect at arm's length (in some bush etc)
b) photographing people (without everyone getting self-conscious)

> Raw
I cant decide about Raw. One review quoted 2 seconds between shots to save a JPEG but a full 6 seconds (of the camera being useless, btw) whilst storing Raw. To me delays between shots shouldnt be much more than 1 second.

> Lag
None of the reviews I can find seems to be talking about shutter lag. i.e. The time between pressing the shutter and actually taking the photo. This is probably the most irritating feature of modern digital cameras. I don't know what the norms are but surely we shouldnt need to wait for more than a small fraction of a second (0.2secs?) for the photo to be taken, particularly if lens focus has already been done.

> Pocket-able?
From what I can see 233g (e.g. Canon SX280 HS) is starting to get slightly heavy... and the thickness (depth) shouldnt be more than 30mm... although perhaps the most important is to have smooth sides with no lumps and bumps sticking out.
I agree that most of the models I was citing are definitely not pocket-able enough, having thought about it.

> Flash
Yes point taken about panda eyes. A *subtle* flash in bright sunlight can do wonders, it's just that I'm not sure how you make sure that it's only a very subtle effect, particularly when shooting indoors!

> Video
I don't (yet) know much about video, but reasonable video will be important too, as I will need to shoot some videos for a website promotion to go on youtube.
I am thinking full HD (1080p) would be a good place to start. But I am confused about frames per second. 24? 60?

> EVF (electronic view finder)
Very few of the pocket-able cameras have this and I cant decide how important that will be to me. (e.g. Lumix DMC-LF1). I can see this would be useful in bright sunlight, and without ready readers, my old eyes now only just focus at aprox. full arm's length...(!) on the down-side though, using an EVF makes it very obvious that you are talking a photo, and taking insect/butterfly photos you may/may not be able to get your head that close too.
All things considered, I'd much rather have a really good swivelling screen!

> Other review sites
I am getting extremely frustrated by dpreview.com not actually reviews many of the cameras I 'm interested in. Yes, the reviews on this site are amazingly comprehensive, but if the reviews are missing where else does good quality reviews (or are we banned from discussing this subject on this site??)

Cameras
Here are some cameras that I now considering, based on reading reviews:

- Sony HX20V (although a bit fat [34.6mm] and heavy [254g]

- Lumix TZ40 (thin 27.7mm, light 172mm, long telephoto 480mm, good stabilisation, but is the lens quality high enough? also 18MP is stupidly high!)

- Lumix DMC-LF1 (up to 200mm [just ok for me??], EVF, F2 [so good at low light], fast-ish shot-to-shot [0.8secs] but what's the lens quality like? and slightly expensive at c. £329)

- Canon SX280 HS (long telephoto up to 500mm, fast boot time 1.5secs, 'excellent' image stabiliser, 1080p video at upto 60fps... BUT rather short battery life 210shots, slow shot-to-shot time (1.5secs?, suspiciously cheap at c. £210)


Any suggestions?

J
 
Yes, the Sony HX50V is a fraction large (38mm thick) and a fraction heavy (272g) but 24-720mm zoom... 720mm blimey!

Aperture seems remarkably bright [F3.5(W) - 6.3(T)] for such a small camera going up to such a long focal length, so I guess low light might not be a total disaster, when not using long telephoto...

However this camera also has an insane 20.4MP whereas, I am told that having more than 12MP is a seriously BAD idea by this user "snapshot2":

> You say that number of pixels is not important - it is very important.
> You don't want over 12 megapixels in a small camera.
> Too many pixels will produce too much noise which means reduced image
> quality and poor low light performance.
http://forums.cnet.com/7723-7593_10...tag=StickyWin_1380322666445;createThreadPopup


I won't very often need more than 300mm, and only occasionally will I need 500mm... and only very rarely the full 720mm. I guess my concern is that if having a zoom necessarily degrades image quality, that having a huge focal range (x30) is bound to rather murder image quality(!)

Sure enough, this review site only give the camera "4" for image quality
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_cybershot_dsc_hx50v_review/conclusion/

Conclusion:
This camera's spec may be just too good for the state of today's technology.
i.e. By having too long a focal length and having too many pixels could mean that all my photos are a bit rubbish. And at this point I find my self reaching for a lower spec little Canon, no?
 
It sounds like you're looking for something that isn't put there - the perfect tiny camera for a relatively cheap price.

If you can't find anything (and I doubt many options will surface) perhaps think about what you want to compromise...?
 
More zoom seems to require lenses that stick out when closed.
On my S100 it's only 5X but there is a digital zoom and it is much better than you would think.
In practice I'd be more likely to crop later from the RAW.
It goes pretty wide too - feels like 24mm or so

Otherwise you won't get much smaller than S95 S100 S110.
 
Last edited:
I won a Fuji Finepix F900exr in a photographic competition a couple of weeks ago and I havent used it as I intended to sell it on, but looking at the spec its damned impressive.

20x Optical Zoom, shoots in RAW, 16 megapixel, 3" screen, wi fi, 12800iso

To be honest if I wasnt saving for another lens I'd keep it as it seems pretty awesome
 
Phil Young said:
It sounds like you're looking for something that isn't put there - the perfect tiny camera for a relatively cheap price.
Click to expand...

Phil, Phil you are completely missing my drift.

I do totally get that a small camera requires compromise. My entire thrust is about trying to balance their relative importances to me.

To summarise, I am looking for:

A) pocket-sized camera
This is a deal breaker. A larger/heavier camera simply won't come with me(!)

B) A "pretty good" quality lens
No, not perfect. Just able to take "pretty good" photos

C) Telephoto
Must be at least 200mm - any less is a deal breaker.
More than 250mm - nice to have
More than 500mm - not necessary.

D) Dim light
Deal-breaker: Must have "really good" optical image stabiliser.
Wide aperatures, sensitive CCS (etc): Nice to have.

E) Macro
Must have "good-ish" macro capability. (deal-breaker)

F) Must have "Good" Responsiveness
e.g.
- Boot-to-shoot time: 3 seconds max (deal-breaker)
- Click-to-capture shutter lag: 0.25 seconds max (deal-breaker)
- Click-to-capture shutter lag: less than 0.15 seconds (nice-to-have)
- Shot-to-shot time between photos: 1 second (deal-breaker).

G) Must be "okay" at taking video
This is a deal-breaker.

H) "Fairly Accurate" colour

I) Swivel screen
Some but sadly only a very few small cameras seem to have them.
Not a deal-breaker.

J) Flash
Nice to have. Not a deal-breaker.

K) Good Battery life
Nice to have. Not a deal-breaker.
I'll probably carry a spare battery and/or charger
Would be nice if use stancard micro USB interface so that I can share with my other devices (mob phone, bluetooth headset)

Does that make sense?

J
 
To get details like size, weight, and responsiveness, you really need to look at manufacturers specs because I doubt many on here would have those figures at their fingertips.
But folk here are very helpful in areas where they have experience, such as image quality.
Perhaps an idea may be to narrow down those cameras that meet your size, weight, and responsiveness criteria, and then see if anyone on here has those models, and can then answer your other concerns.
Hope that helps.
 
NeilMc said:
I won a Fuji Finepix F900exr in a photographic competition a couple of weeks ago and I havent used it as I intended to sell it on, but looking at the spec its damned impressive.

20x Optical Zoom, shoots in RAW, 16 megapixel, 3" screen, wi fi, 12800iso

To be honest if I wasnt saving for another lens I'd keep it as it seems pretty awesome
Click to expand...

Tech Radar are underwhelmed: only 3.5 stars
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/compact-cameras/fuji-finepix-f900-exr-1172487/reevoo

Yes some good features esp the RAW+JPEG
The main problem appears to be jumping straight into half resolution in any faintly difficult conditions, without the user's permission.
On another review we are told the image stabiliser is unreliable and also jumps unexpectedly and that the focus although v fast when working correctly, sometimes hunts worryingly when it shouldn't.

To be honest I doubt I'll go for it, but out of passing interest what would you want for it?
 
ship69 said:
Tech Radar are underwhelmed: only 3.5 stars
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/compact-cameras/fuji-finepix-f900-exr-1172487/reevoo

Yes some good features esp the RAW+JPEG
The main problem appears to be jumping straight into half resolution in any faintly difficult conditions, without the user's permission.
On another review we are told the image stabiliser is unreliable and also jumps unexpectedly and that the focus although v fast when working correctly, sometimes hunts worryingly when it shouldn't.

To be honest I doubt I'll go for it, but out of passing interest what would you want for it?
Click to expand...

They are in Argos at £282 I think and I had mine for sale on here at £200 inc delivery, it is brand new I havent even upwrapped it.

Like I say if I wasnt saving for a 24-120 F4 Nikon lens I'd be keeping it to use exactly as you are looking for, something in my pocket that can be with me at all times thats better than a phone.

The RAW and the 20x optical zoom impressed me in the spec

Oh and the other thing is mine is red.....which isnt to everyones taste, but like I say it was a competition prize.
 
UPDATE

Okay this is where my thinking has got to:

From reading the reviews, the only serious camera for me are as follows:
(There isn't really all that much choice after all!)

1. CANON SX280 HS
PROS
- Good long telephoto: 25–500mm (f/3.5 – f/6.8)
- Excellent image quality with excellent image stabiliser
- Fairly pocketable (Fairly light weight (233g) Fairly compact (32.6mm deep))
OK 12MP sensor (but opinion divides as to whether more is any better due to noise created).
CONS
- No RAW
- Slightly unresponsive:
OK Boot-to-photo time (1.5secs)
Terrible Shot-to-shot time (1.5 secs?)
Terrible Click-to-capture time (0.2-0.4secs)
- Poor battery life (210 shots CIPA)


2. FUJIFILM F900EXR
PROS
- Good long telephoto: 25–500mm (f/3.5 – f/5.3)
- Poor Image stabiliser (jumpy)
- Fairly light weight (232g)
- Higly responsive
OK Boot-to-photo time (1.1secs)
Good Shot-to-shot time (0.5 secs?)
Excellent Click-to-capture time (0.05secs?)
- Great to have RAW
- OK 16MP sensor (too high?)

CONS
- No RAW
- Not very compact (36mm deep)
- Autofocus although lightning fast, sometimes hunts unnecessarily
- No touch screen


3. PANASONIC TZ40 (ZS30)
PROS
- Gool long telephoto: 24-240mm (F3.3 - 6.4)
- Excellent image stabiliser
- Very pocketable (light weight (172g) and very thing compact (27.7mm))
- Good Macro range 3cm to infinity
- 1920 x 1080 pixels, 50p

CONS
- No RAW
- Some users cant see screen in bright sunlight (deal-breaker?)!
- 18MP is probably too high.
- Slow zoom extension (4secs)
- Revoltingly ugly, fat rubber hand grip

OTHER MAKES
- Nikon get terrible reviews for their compact cameras.
- Olympus - no quality compacts with a 250+ mm telephoto zoom
- Leica - just re-skinned Panasonics at a higher price(?)


DISCUSSION
I have a nagging suspicion about 500mm lenses being overkill. Also I dont really need wider then 35mm, so 35-250 would have done fine so x7.1 zoom would have dont me fine.
Everything seems to be pointing towards the Panasonic Lumix TZ40 although the lens may not be quite a good as the Canon.


OTHER ISSUES

SWIVEL HINGES
Very sadly, none of the good quality compact cameras have swivel/hinged screens, although some of the lower quality ones (e.g. Samsung) certainly do!
However the Panasonic appears to let me control it via my phone which might be a sneaky (if cumbersome) alternative.

HDR - how useful is this?
Apparently the Panasonic does have HDR, but I cant decide how useful it is. Perhaps only useful if no RAW option?
Fwiw, my understanding of RAW is that this involves shooting multiple image in rapid succession, (at different ISO ratings?) and then recombining them in some clever way. This aims to get details out of highlights and shadows. But does this also help with resolution (in the same way that a video still always seems more blurred to the eye than the moving picture)?

HANDS ON
Yes, I know I need to hit the shops, but I have been sickly... :^[

OK, so what am I missing?
 
ship69 said:
UPDATE

3. PANASONIC TZ40 (ZS30)
PROS
- Gool long telephoto: 24-240mm (F3.3 - 6.4)
- Excellent image stabiliser
- Very pocketable (light weight (172g) and very thing compact (27.7mm))
- Good Macro range 3cm to infinity
- 1920 x 1080 pixels, 50p

CONS
- No RAW
- Some users cant see screen in bright sunlight (deal-breaker?)!
- 18MP is probably too high.
- Slow zoom extension (4secs)
- Revoltingly ugly, fat rubber hand grip
Click to expand...

OK I had to make a decision and fwiw, this was the camera that won - the TZ40 (ZS30).

The slight bummer is that it only does full macro at 24mm, but given the lack of an articulated screen, one thing that will intriguing to try out will be remotely controlling the camera via Wi-Fi, via my mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy Note 2).

But one problem I've already noticed is that when the phone is being controlled by my phone the screen goes blank and this means that if there are two people co-operating to take the photo, that the person holding the camera can't make sensible adjustments without being told verbally precisely what to do.

It's a mighty pain about having such a small sensor and not have RAW but I ran out of time and every other camera seemed to have worse problems. In a couple of years no doubt the technology will have improved and I might buy again. And/or maybe buy a half-decent DSLR, now that I know what all the issues are!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top