Matus
Well-known
Hi all,
OK - here comes my little dilemma. I am just got a new job (but starting 1st of July) which will involve considerable amount of travel and will also probably let me with less free time than I had until now.
I am one of those who really like to have a camera along. Right now my only semi-small camera is Konica Auto S3 and while it is a nice little camera it - for the purpose of frequent travel and little space (hanging camera on my shoulder may not make a good impression on a business trip) it actually is a bit too "thick" to fit in a business case together with laptop, papers, etc ... So - I started to look for a compact camera - either film (I like film) or digital (more practical to get to see the results sooner than 2 weeks after these were taken).
What I want/need/:
-> While I like using manual focus, AF is often just more convenient (as long as it can be relied on). Not necessarily lighting fast, but reliable.
-> size - the camera should not be too "thick" (or deep). The Konica Auto S3 is about 6 cm deep and that is just too much. 4 cm would work much better. I do realize that this is a strong constrain. If the Hexar AF were a bit smaller it would be the main candidate. But it is just too large.
-> While I really like film both in color or BW, a digital camera would seem like a better solution for the task. Faster to adjust/share on the go.
-> Should I get a compact digital camera I would really try to get as good image performance as possible - I hate if a photo screams : "look at my missing tones and noise-suppression smudged detail !" It is not that bad, but you get the point
So - I am looking at cameras like:
Film: Contax T3, Ricoh GR1, Minolta TC-1, ...
Digital: Leica X1, Canon S95, Olympus XZ-1, Lumix LX5 or similar.
For the cameras above:
- fixed lens of 28 mm may be a bit too wide for my taste. 35 mm is my favorite single focal length. If I can get 24 mm here and then - it would be nice too.
- X1 would be nice, but is on the expensive side. I have long ignored the camera, but recently realized that it can produce stunning files if the photographer is up to task.
- the compact digital cameras got a lot better in the last few years and in particular the XZ-1 looks very interesting. But the small sensor and limited DR makes me unsure about such a choice. Zoom is indeed an advantage.
I have check out m4/3 and Nex-3/5 but while the bodies are OK - in particular the Sony is compact - the lenses are not. Even the new X100 seem on the big side (5.4 cm deep)
I am not in a hurry, but I am trying to get an overview of what is out there and, in particular - how are the users happy with these cameras.
I would love to hear your opinions and experience.
OK - here comes my little dilemma. I am just got a new job (but starting 1st of July) which will involve considerable amount of travel and will also probably let me with less free time than I had until now.
I am one of those who really like to have a camera along. Right now my only semi-small camera is Konica Auto S3 and while it is a nice little camera it - for the purpose of frequent travel and little space (hanging camera on my shoulder may not make a good impression on a business trip) it actually is a bit too "thick" to fit in a business case together with laptop, papers, etc ... So - I started to look for a compact camera - either film (I like film) or digital (more practical to get to see the results sooner than 2 weeks after these were taken).
What I want/need/:
-> While I like using manual focus, AF is often just more convenient (as long as it can be relied on). Not necessarily lighting fast, but reliable.
-> size - the camera should not be too "thick" (or deep). The Konica Auto S3 is about 6 cm deep and that is just too much. 4 cm would work much better. I do realize that this is a strong constrain. If the Hexar AF were a bit smaller it would be the main candidate. But it is just too large.
-> While I really like film both in color or BW, a digital camera would seem like a better solution for the task. Faster to adjust/share on the go.
-> Should I get a compact digital camera I would really try to get as good image performance as possible - I hate if a photo screams : "look at my missing tones and noise-suppression smudged detail !" It is not that bad, but you get the point
So - I am looking at cameras like:
Film: Contax T3, Ricoh GR1, Minolta TC-1, ...
Digital: Leica X1, Canon S95, Olympus XZ-1, Lumix LX5 or similar.
For the cameras above:
- fixed lens of 28 mm may be a bit too wide for my taste. 35 mm is my favorite single focal length. If I can get 24 mm here and then - it would be nice too.
- X1 would be nice, but is on the expensive side. I have long ignored the camera, but recently realized that it can produce stunning files if the photographer is up to task.
- the compact digital cameras got a lot better in the last few years and in particular the XZ-1 looks very interesting. But the small sensor and limited DR makes me unsure about such a choice. Zoom is indeed an advantage.
I have check out m4/3 and Nex-3/5 but while the bodies are OK - in particular the Sony is compact - the lenses are not. Even the new X100 seem on the big side (5.4 cm deep)
I am not in a hurry, but I am trying to get an overview of what is out there and, in particular - how are the users happy with these cameras.
I would love to hear your opinions and experience.
f16sunshine
Moderator
A friend in Colorado just returned from a 5 week holiday in NZ. The photos ge returned with all taken with the Lymix LX5 are really fantastic, it's a $500 camera that really delivers. Very impressive. His wife owns the S95. It is likely a promising performer but, in comparison shaped like a Bar of soap. I don't care for cameras that are too small and sleek. Go for the Lumix or take action camera like the T3 or Ricoh.
02Pilot
Malcontent
No experience with your list of candidates, but I have a Canon G12, which uses the same sensor and has basically the same capabilities as the S95. The latter has a faster lens at the wide end (2.0 vs. 2.8). The ability to shoot RAW is a huge plus for me, as it allows me to limit the effects of NR and sharpening to what I want.
I have nothing but good things to say about the G12; based on what I've read, the S95 should be almost identical in terms of performance.
I have nothing but good things to say about the G12; based on what I've read, the S95 should be almost identical in terms of performance.
Matus
Well-known
Thank you. I keep googling and had seen a lot of photos on flickr already.
Both S95 and LX5 are interesting cameras - S95 is smaller, the LX5 offers (for me) more interesting zoom range.
The RAW option is nice to have to same some complicated situations, but I would prefer camera that delivers good JPEGs at first place.
However - I have one X1 versus X100 technical puzzle. The X1 is claimed to be just 3.2 cm (1.3") thick while the X100 is 5.4 cm (2.1"). But looking at this comparison photo:
it would seem that the cameras are very similar thickness wise (as far as I know the widest par of the lens barrel of the X1 does not retract). So it makes me wondering whether the X1 quoted thickness is body only and excludes the lens.
Both S95 and LX5 are interesting cameras - S95 is smaller, the LX5 offers (for me) more interesting zoom range.
The RAW option is nice to have to same some complicated situations, but I would prefer camera that delivers good JPEGs at first place.
However - I have one X1 versus X100 technical puzzle. The X1 is claimed to be just 3.2 cm (1.3") thick while the X100 is 5.4 cm (2.1"). But looking at this comparison photo:
it would seem that the cameras are very similar thickness wise (as far as I know the widest par of the lens barrel of the X1 does not retract). So it makes me wondering whether the X1 quoted thickness is body only and excludes the lens.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
If size is a main concern the T3 cannot be beat. It is exceptionally tiny, and has a lens as good as any you'll find. I'd also suggest looking at the Ricoh GRD, tho it is a 28 equivalent it is also quite compact and of very high quality. Without upsizing I print images from both these cameras plenty big- 16" wide or so.
Why not the Panasonic GF1 or Olympus m4/3?
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
The T3 is an amazing camera. You might look at the TVSIII also. Both have superb optics.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
On the film side, I'm not sure you can get as thin as a Ricoh GR1. I've not used the T3, but I've lusted after that camera for a long time (it's just too damn expensive).
On the digital side, I'm a big fan of the Canon p&s cameras. I've owned the G11 and the G12. Both are very nice, but based on your requirements, I think you'll find the dimensions too big, particularly the camera thickness (although, if you're considering the X1...). My vote would go to either the Canon S95 or the LX5.
/
On the digital side, I'm a big fan of the Canon p&s cameras. I've owned the G11 and the G12. Both are very nice, but based on your requirements, I think you'll find the dimensions too big, particularly the camera thickness (although, if you're considering the X1...). My vote would go to either the Canon S95 or the LX5.
/
NLewis
Established
Contax T2 is not too big, and a lot cheaper than the T3. Some people prefer the ergonomics too.
Olympus XA is another classic. Pretty good lens, and oh so teeny.
The Leica III with Elmar 50/3.5 is an uber-classic that is quite compact.
I have the S90, it is a fine camera but rather uninspiring ergonomics. Good image quality but when using it, it says "consumer gadget" not "photographic tool." The "Amnesty International" high-iso mode is an underrated feature. Quite a bit of fun, especially in BW conversions.
Olympus XA is another classic. Pretty good lens, and oh so teeny.
The Leica III with Elmar 50/3.5 is an uber-classic that is quite compact.
I have the S90, it is a fine camera but rather uninspiring ergonomics. Good image quality but when using it, it says "consumer gadget" not "photographic tool." The "Amnesty International" high-iso mode is an underrated feature. Quite a bit of fun, especially in BW conversions.
thegman
Veteran
Can't comment on digital, except that I own a DP-1 and I like it. the DP-2 with it's longer lens might suit you. I also have a Klasse S for film, which is a nicer camera to use in every respect, but they're not cheap.
Matus
Well-known
Thank you for all you replies so far. Here is where I stand:
- ALL m4/3 cameras seem too large (thick). They actually really offer nice performance, but are simply too large. Actually - not much larger than X1 or X100 - but none of those I managed to get in hand, so it may be that those will be later excluded too ...
- Contax T3 - indeed is the main film candidate. I am too a bit concerned by the price. It would be very helpful if I could try one for a day or two.
- Contax T2 - I would probably go for the T3.
- Fuji Klasse S - hard to find user opinions - those few ones are positive. The camera is a bit larger, but probably still acceptable. Question is - what does the S does better than the T3?
- Ricoh Gr1 indeed the thinnest camera and a possible candidate, just that fixed 28 mm lens feels a bit too wide.
- Olympus XA - I had one and sold it. Compact with usable RF, but I was not too happy with the lens somehow. And I would actually prefer AF ... (I feel ashamed for saying that loud )
- DP-2 is an interesting camera. The photos are "only" 4 Mpix, but super detailed and very natural. However as the SD1 should come out soon I would expect that also DP range will be updated. The lens could have been faster than f/2.8 give the size of the camera and the size of sensor.
- Leica III with 50/3.5 - now I did not think about that It would be super sweet, but probably quite heavy (my guess). Also the slowness of the camera and necessity for external meter (I do need one) would not make it an ideal business trip camera. But my heart did start to beat a bit faster. - Still - what would be the size and weight of the camera and folded 50/3.5 (the new heliar would be the best match)?
- Canon G11 or G12 - not really interested - the lens slower than on S95 and for the the additional size is not justified.
- Ricoh GR D III - looks like a nice camera, but fixed 28 mm lens seem a bit too wide. I will have to check more in detail this camera though.
- Fuji X100 - bit on the large side and not cheap either. The camera is VERY tempting - I am still waiting to see and hear more about it. The output I have seen so far looked good, but some shots were strange (low contrast).
- Leica X1 - as I mentioned before - camera I only now take seriously. The slow AF would not have to be show stopper. The size is reasonable. The price is high though (1500 € in Germany). No fancy viewfinder (not such a large minus, actually), but really nice image quality. The question is - how long will it take until X2 will emerge. I will try to get my hands on X1 to get the feeling. I have seen many great images taken with the X1. Tempting tempting ...
- The "holy" compact digital trinity: S95, LX5 and XZ-1:
all offer decent image quality. S95 is the smallest, LX5 has the widest lens, XZ-1 got a stellar review over at DPreview.com. As far as I am aware of no other zoom compacts really compare (or do they?)
******
Compact digital zoom would sound like a "choice of brain", but we all got a soul, don't we .. ? So I keep comparing and considering ...
- ALL m4/3 cameras seem too large (thick). They actually really offer nice performance, but are simply too large. Actually - not much larger than X1 or X100 - but none of those I managed to get in hand, so it may be that those will be later excluded too ...
- Contax T3 - indeed is the main film candidate. I am too a bit concerned by the price. It would be very helpful if I could try one for a day or two.
- Contax T2 - I would probably go for the T3.
- Fuji Klasse S - hard to find user opinions - those few ones are positive. The camera is a bit larger, but probably still acceptable. Question is - what does the S does better than the T3?
- Ricoh Gr1 indeed the thinnest camera and a possible candidate, just that fixed 28 mm lens feels a bit too wide.
- Olympus XA - I had one and sold it. Compact with usable RF, but I was not too happy with the lens somehow. And I would actually prefer AF ... (I feel ashamed for saying that loud
)- DP-2 is an interesting camera. The photos are "only" 4 Mpix, but super detailed and very natural. However as the SD1 should come out soon I would expect that also DP range will be updated. The lens could have been faster than f/2.8 give the size of the camera and the size of sensor.
- Leica III with 50/3.5 - now I did not think about that
It would be super sweet, but probably quite heavy (my guess). Also the slowness of the camera and necessity for external meter (I do need one) would not make it an ideal business trip camera. But my heart did start to beat a bit faster. - Still - what would be the size and weight of the camera and folded 50/3.5 (the new heliar would be the best match)?- Canon G11 or G12 - not really interested - the lens slower than on S95 and for the the additional size is not justified.
- Ricoh GR D III - looks like a nice camera, but fixed 28 mm lens seem a bit too wide. I will have to check more in detail this camera though.
- Fuji X100 - bit on the large side and not cheap either. The camera is VERY tempting - I am still waiting to see and hear more about it. The output I have seen so far looked good, but some shots were strange (low contrast).
- Leica X1 - as I mentioned before - camera I only now take seriously. The slow AF would not have to be show stopper. The size is reasonable. The price is high though (1500 € in Germany). No fancy viewfinder (not such a large minus, actually), but really nice image quality. The question is - how long will it take until X2 will emerge. I will try to get my hands on X1 to get the feeling. I have seen many great images taken with the X1. Tempting tempting ...
- The "holy" compact digital trinity: S95, LX5 and XZ-1:
all offer decent image quality. S95 is the smallest, LX5 has the widest lens, XZ-1 got a stellar review over at DPreview.com. As far as I am aware of no other zoom compacts really compare (or do they?)
******
Compact digital zoom would sound like a "choice of brain", but we all got a soul, don't we .. ?
So I keep comparing and considering ...
pacco
Established
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The Contax T3 would be pretty darn close in size to that tiny Canon at far left. Had forgotten about the Sigma, the DP2S might be a contender, a bit tighter FOV tho. The X1 is one of my favorite cameras, but certainly bigger than a T3. High ISO performance is excellent.
Last edited:
chrispoole
Newbie
i first owned a 35ti but then sold it for the t3 and freaking LOVE it so much
muf
Well-known
Had a T3 and GR1v. Sold the T3. The GR1v is much more pocketable. Feels tougher and looks better. T3 is a bit girlie for my liking. I find the options easy to access on the GR1v but the T3 has many regular settings tucked away in the menu system.
I don't miss the T3. In fact I much prefer my original T. For me, the Ricoh GR1v is perfect. I've had a tc-1, minilux, 35ti and T2 and still the Ricoh is my fave.
I don't miss the T3. In fact I much prefer my original T. For me, the Ricoh GR1v is perfect. I've had a tc-1, minilux, 35ti and T2 and still the Ricoh is my fave.
nonot
Well-known
From the sounds of your new job I'd get a great digital camera so that you don't have to worry about spending your free time developing/scanning photos, or going to the lab to do the same thing.
I'll throw a vote in the ring for the GRD series, they are great little cameras. I don't know what constitutes a point and shoot to you, but the x100 seems too big, and the X1 was surprisingly large when I held one as well.
Everyone I know with the s90/95 absolutely love them if that's worth anything. A couple are pro photographers.
Film-wise, I'd still go with the GR1 series if you shoot black and white mostly and probably a contax T2 or T3 for colour.
I'll throw a vote in the ring for the GRD series, they are great little cameras. I don't know what constitutes a point and shoot to you, but the x100 seems too big, and the X1 was surprisingly large when I held one as well.
Everyone I know with the s90/95 absolutely love them if that's worth anything. A couple are pro photographers.
Film-wise, I'd still go with the GR1 series if you shoot black and white mostly and probably a contax T2 or T3 for colour.
crist
Crist
gf1 and 20 1.7!!!!! Is really good
wolfpeterson
Established
I agree with nonot, I never regret putting a roll of tmax 400 through my GR1s. I sometimes feel like the 28 is a bit wide for my style, but it can also focus down to 1.1ft...!
EDIT: guess that didn't really contribute anything...but the GR1s is the only super-pocketable super-good camera I've used.
the 35Ti, which I've been using almost exclusively as of late, is super-good, but only jacket-pocketable.
EDIT: guess that didn't really contribute anything...but the GR1s is the only super-pocketable super-good camera I've used.
the 35Ti, which I've been using almost exclusively as of late, is super-good, but only jacket-pocketable.
Last edited:
Matus
Well-known
I am impressed with all you replies. They really provide food for thought. Thank you.
The comparison shows that it is actually the same size as the X100. Hmmm ...
****
Question concerning the Sony NEX cameras. From the comparison posted by Pacco one can clearly see how compact is the body. But I do not really understand why are the lenses so large - they completely "ruin" the size advantage. OK - the camera is APS-C, not m4/3. But still. Is there any chance that we would see compact (fixed focal length) lenses for the future? Even manual focus would be OK (I guess).
For the X1 - how slow the AF actually really is? What are to users opinion the main strong and weak points - (apart from the price) ?
I was actually thinking even about GR21 (I know what I said about wide angle lenses - but this one is SUPER wide). Just that it is so expensive. Must be cool for interior and city shots.
I will try to get my hands on as many of the candidates as possible ion the next days. Will let you know what comes out! In the mean time I am open to all your ideas, opinions and teasing
thanks a lot - that is PERFECT ! It proves many of my size prejudices wrong.
I agree on the GR1v. It is really thin. I just have problems to settle on such a wide fixed lens. I have to re-think. I will probably take my wife's SLR with 28mm lens out to the city to test.
You are, most probably, right. S95 really is a little nice camera. I just would - if space would allow - get a camera with larger sensor. I have to get X1 in my hands this weekend - to see whether there is a chance or not ...
You guys are not helpful at all
The comparison shows that it is actually the same size as the X100. Hmmm ... No - you ARE helpful. Should I decide on a film camera I would probably carry some Delta 400 and Provia 400X. BW film really has something to go for.
****
Question concerning the Sony NEX cameras. From the comparison posted by Pacco one can clearly see how compact is the body. But I do not really understand why are the lenses so large - they completely "ruin" the size advantage. OK - the camera is APS-C, not m4/3. But still. Is there any chance that we would see compact (fixed focal length) lenses for the future? Even manual focus would be OK (I guess).
For the X1 - how slow the AF actually really is? What are to users opinion the main strong and weak points - (apart from the price) ?
I was actually thinking even about GR21 (I know what I said about wide angle lenses - but this one is SUPER wide
). Just that it is so expensive. Must be cool for interior and city shots.I will try to get my hands on as many of the candidates as possible ion the next days. Will let you know what comes out! In the mean time I am open to all your ideas, opinions and teasing
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'm not one to shoot much in the way of moving objects- but find the X1 quite capable even in low light of nailing the focus. After shooting with it for a long time I realized I'd inadvertently set it to single area AF at one point, but even then focus seemed quite quick nearly all the time. Not as fast as the T3, but no G1. Subject matter does make a good AF speed more necessary for many than for me. If you can get one in hand it sounds like you'll know right away if it will work for you or not- good luck this weekend.
I much prefer the camera with the screen off and the aux VF on it- that does make it much less pocketable tho. Same for the GRD2. The X1 FOV is remarkably accurate through the aux VF.
I much prefer the camera with the screen off and the aux VF on it- that does make it much less pocketable tho. Same for the GRD2. The X1 FOV is remarkably accurate through the aux VF.