EDC camera

[Ian]

As the title suggests, I'm looking for an every day carry camera that will also go backpacking with me on trips where bringing my mirrorless isn't practical. I Love my A6000 but it is too large to carry in a pocket, and as a result, I don't carry it every day.

If I was rich, I'd buy the RX100iii. I'm not rich. The i and ii are missing too many features compared to the iii so I'm not really interested in either of those options.

Right now I can get a S110 for $203 new off of Amazon or nearly half that used.

It checks a lot of boxes for me as I can shoot RAW, in manual mode, control ring similar to the RX100, good reputation for video quality, fast lens at wide angle at f2, and pocket-able.

I like that I have the ability to shoot 15 seconds. Longer would be better but that'll work for stream shots. Not sure that'll work for astrophotography but I have no experience with it so I'd like to hear your input here.

For $100-$200, I'm willing to forgo an EVF and compromise with the 1/1.7" sensor vs the RX100's 1" sensor.

I like the comparable Lumix ZS-25 – current but they are priced higher, the lens is slower, and I believe shutter speed won't go any slower than four seconds or so. Correct me if I'm wrong here. They have better telephoto capabilities than the S110 but that's not a priority for me.

So a few questions:

Is this an accurate assessment of the camera's capabilities and limitations?

At f2 at 24mm equivalent, I should be able to get some decent bokeh with this camera. Does it deliver?

Is there another camera out there I should consider at this price point?

[Michael L]

LOL. Never satisfied? Get a purse…or bigger pockets!

Sorry, Ian, no helpful advice. I make do with my existing line up. If I don't have my D7100 or my A6000, then I just use the phone. (Unless I have my Olympus waterproof PS for watery adventures.)

[Ian]

It's a sickness. For example, with the release of the D7200, I instantly started wondering how long it would take to pick up the D7100 for <$700 and then a savings plan for a F2.8 70-200 to pimp up my hockey camera.

I've been an iPhone user long enough to know that I'll never be satisfied with it as a camera. I considered the Nokia 1020 with Zeiss lens but not interested in leaving the Mac ecosystem at this time.

[Michael L]

I was wondering if the D7200 was worth selling my brand new D7100 for! But while I like the ability to use the phone to control and sync pictures with, it isn't worth it yet. Maybe the D7300. But the 70-200 is a sweet lens. I got one about 4-5 years ago.

[Ian]

Well I might as well keep the self inflicted thread drift alive until someone else shows up:)

It's an interesting time to get into photography. Sony's mirrorless cameras are on the rise but they're (imo) not a perfect replacement for DSLRs yet, including the A7 series. For me, the 70-200 range is proof of this.

The FE f4 70-200 looks like a good enough lens in its class but it's not appreciably lighter or smaller than its Canon or Nikkor competition in the f4 class. I've yet to hear any raving reviews about pairing the Sony f2.8 to A6000 or A7 with their $350 adapter. The consensus (anecdotally) seems to be "don't bother" as these cameras seem to do better with the f4 lens and its native mount.

Hockey has a unique set of challenges. Faster than Basketball and a sheet of dirty glass separating you from the action that is probably a stop or two penalty of light. I've got the manual settings on the A6000 dialed in to a point where I think I'm getting the most out of my 55-210mm sony lens, but it's a tightrope walk with the ISO and shutter speed as I can't open up the aperture more than f4.5 at its widest.

The only upside to this is that I'm finding myself keeping that lens at its 55mm setting to maximize the aperture. As a result, I'm positioning myself at the rink where I can make the most out of the 82.5mm equivalent which is typically me standing in the corners shooting the action in the defensive zone, which is where the action is anyways.

So why is being restricted to 55mm (82.5mm equivalent) and upside? Since I've become comfortable working at that range, it opens up the possibility of using a fast 50mm f1.8 prime for sports photography. Regardless if I go with the $300 sony or the $1000 Zeiss, I still come out ahead with a great lens for less than what any of my f4 or f2.8 70-200 options are. Not a pro option for sure but do-able and I now have a capable portrait lens, and macro if I went with the Zeiss.

Of course I could go with an OMD paired with Panasonic's f2.8 35-100mm…. NO IAN! BAD IAN! STOP THINKING EVIL THOUGHTS!

Anywho. Winning the lottery tomorrow would likely result in a D810 and f2.8 70-200 being delivered to my door the following day as my go-to hockey camera but until then, I'm stuck war gaming all this stuff out in my head trying to figure out where I can get the best bang for the buck.

[Richard May]

At f2 at 24mm equivalent, I should be able to get some decent bokeh with this camera. Does it deliver?

At 24mm even full frame doesn't have a lot of bokeh unless you're close to the subject. So with the smaller sensor size, which affects depth of field, I doubt you'll have much bokeh at all.

You will have it for really near subjects but don't get your hopes up for anything over a couple yards away.

[Bob Gross]

Some readers will be at a loss to understand Bokeh.

It is difficult to define, but a photographer knows it when he sees it. It is sort of like a smooth background that soothes the senses.

–B.G.–

[Ian]

"You will have it for really near subjects but don't get your hopes up for anything over a couple yards away."

That's what I'm looking for Richard. I had a chance to play with the RX100 and saw that it did have some nice bokeh when taking pictures of flowers and whatnot up close with a nice creamy background. The S100's lens isn't as fast as the RX100's but on paper, f2 should get it done.

But I do realize that since the f2 isn't constant through to the telephoto end of the lens, that I won't be able to take portrait shots with creamy bokeh.

It'd be nice if someone would release a fast P&S that has a constant f2 throughout but I suspect it'd be very difficult to impossible to do this without making the camera unwieldy, at least unwieldy as a pocket-able P&S.

Bob,

True. I figured those who were familiar with this camera and the term would have an answer. At the very least, they could give some sort of idea of how the aperture blades affect light blobs and whatnot.

[Richard May]

Ian, let's separate Out of Focus from Bokeh:

You will have Out of Focus areas in the image—even in telephoto. The OOF will be more pronounced the closer the camera is to the subject (it has to do with how close you are to infinity on the lens, but I think you get this).

Bokeh is the quality of that OOF area. So, whether or not the camera produces "creamy" or "chunky" bokeh will depend on the ammount and shape of the blades. The glass itself is a smaller factor but I do not understand it very well.

In short, to produce the most blurr beyond the point of focus get as close as you can to the subject. How pretty the OOF areas are (bokeh) will depend on the lens construction.

Regarding how well the camera does… I'd have to see some pictures. :)

[Ian]

And thanks

[[ Drew ]]

Ian,

Have you looked into getting a Metabones speedbooster for your a6K? It'll let you use just about any Canon EF series lens, many with autofocus. And you get a full stop more of light. For example, a Canon F2.8 70-200mm on full frame becomes approx. an F2.0 70-200mm on APS-C. Of course that 70-200 is really a 105-300mm equiv. It's pricey (IMO) at $400 or so, but it's a really neat piece of tech and opens up many of the Canon pro lenses, and again, it basically 'condenses' the lens so you pick up that full stop of light and retain the full-frame look/FoV.

As was mentioned, F2 @ 24mm equv. is going to be tough to generate shallow DoF and 'nice bokeh'. Really, that F2 should be listed as an F9.2 equivalent (manufactures state the focal length, ie, 24mm, in equivalency, but neglect to do so with F number). So when you consider an ~F9 24mm lens on full frame (if such a lens existed), you can imagine that you're not going to get a lot of shallow DoF. If your subject is close and the background is quite far you might get decent results though.

[John S.]

According to my snooping around, you won't beat the deal on the Canon Powershot S110. Others might be

Nikon Coolpix P340
Leica C
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1

[Ian]

Drew,

I'm aware of that adapter but it's been months since I've researched it. For hockey, I'm a little timid to try anything non-native as I don't want to dumb down the A6000s crazy fast auto focus. I don't have access to any of these adapters but that's one of the larger reasons why I'm not pursuing Sony's f2.8 70-200. Plus, it's my understanding from reading end user reviews that the sony A-E adapter actually loses light and doesn't perform as well as their FE f4 70-200 on the A6000 or A7.

But the Metabones adapter is a speed booster which alleviates one of my concerns. I'll need to do some reading over the weekend to see if that's a workable long term solution for me and to see what the perceived impact is on the A6000 autofocus capabilities. If this works out, I like the idea of using Canon glass for not only sports photography, but for wildlife photography too as there are some more affordable options in their lineup vs Nikons. At least that was the conclusion I arrived at after heavily researching this a couple months ago.

As far as converting the aperture goes, well, I'm not so sure those numbers line up with what I experienced with the RX100i. I know it's slightly faster than the S100/110 and has a 1" sensor, but it was delivering a razor thin DOF at its widest/wide open. I'll find out soon enough as…

(Transitioning to John S)

Yeah I can't find a better P&S spec for me at that price range, although Lumix/Leica comes close, especially that LF1/Leica C.

But then I look at that $498 price tag and remind myself for the same amount of money, I could get the S110 for my EDC camera and a Lensbaby Composer Pro for my A6000…

Or I could wait for the RX100iv release which should be soon considering how fast ii and iii were released which will drop the iii to $598 soon after and the ii to $498 and the i to $398…

Then maybe I should reconsider the RX100i at that price point and then get…

I already admitted it's a sickness! I know I'm weak.

Joking (barely) aside, the S100/110 looks like the best option. Thanks to all for your enabling.

[Ian]

Drew,

I read more on DP Review, which was just a repeat of what you already said, and I think I'm following you now. Format is goofed up when I copy/past it here so here's the link to a cleaner table: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-powershot-s110

I still feel the RX100 was delivering the goods wide open similar to what my fast primes do but I'm following you now.

John,

Just looked at the Coolpix P340 again and see that it does have a faster lens, which I wouldn't necessarily pay another $100 for, but it also has a 60 second shutter option vs the S110's 15 seconds, and the extra dial so I can use the lens dial for aperture and the thumb dial for shutter leaving the rear dial for ISO is tempting.

I think my brain has hit vapor lock with these options. It's time for me to go to bed, sleep on it, and process all this information in the morning and compare prices with fresh eyes.

[Richard May]

>> I think my brain has hit vapor lock with these options.

What are your essential features? I went through that a couple years ago.

Mine were:

1. Bulk & Weight
2. Easy access to manual controls.
3. Sharp optics.

Fast AF isn't on my list as sports aren't something I dabble in. People are my favorite subject so I wanted something unobtrusive. Fuji XPro won.

But the debate with the Nikon d800 was strong.

Anyhow, look for the camera that solves your core needs. Let the rest of the features be gravy.

[Bob Gross]

"Fast AF isn't on my list as sports aren't something I dabble in."

Richard, no wildlife?

–B.G.–

[Ian]

Richard,

I've muddied the waters with my thread drift and goofing off in general.

My A6000 is 90% of what I want. I think the market is ready for an upgraded A7000 that has two sd card slots, higher res evf, and I think the manual controls could use some refinement.

I think the A7 is well on its way to becoming the camera is want, but it's not there yet. I'm going to give them a few more years before I move to that platform,

At the present moment, I'm looking for a P&S that can shoot raw, has decently fast glass, and easy to use manual controls. The gold standard for me is the RX100iii except that it's not in the budget. The S110 is as I'd like the purchase to be near $200.

It meets all my requirements and is something I can carry every day. But the Nikon John suggested looks like it has better controls in manual, so I'm going to have to sort out the pros and cons and do some digging to see if there are any deals out there.

[Richard May]

"Richard, no wildlife?"

Not really. But then I haven't had the opportunity.

I spent 14 years making a living with my camera. Backpacking is an opportunity to put the heavy gear down and just have fun. I hike with a 21mm equivalent; it's hard to get wildlife with that.

I may rent some gear and try my hand at bird photography. There are some wonderful opportunities for that around here. I am curious.

[Richard May]

>>My A6000 is 90% of what I want.

It's fun to read a photography thread that isn't vapor locked into Nikon vs. Canon.

Sony has been intriguing me for some time.

[Nathan Wernette]

pony up for the RXIII, save, steal, borrow, sell some gear outa that gear closet we all have. Its worth it. Any of the RX100's are a great camera.

The RX100 can be had for 250-300. The RX100III for around 650.

I can't afford supporting multiple systems. My d700 goes with me almost everywhere in a bag. Yea i get funny looks when I take it out. But I also get great shots. So w/e
Just carry your A6000 around! invest the money from a new camera in glass.

[Ian]

"pony up for the RXIII, save"

Likely the correct answer as that's the camera I measure all P&S against. The Ricoh GR is tied for first. Delayed gratification… dang I hate having to make adult decisions.

"Just carry your A6000 around!"

I'd like to make that work but with my job, it's impractical. It's possible I'd enjoy my iPhone 5s more if I bought some lenses for it. Right now, the pictures are mostly garbage imo in anything other than perfect lighting.

[Doug Johnson]

Ian,

I have had my GR for over a year now, and it goes with my on every dedicated fastpacking adventure. I haven't felt like I needed more camera yet. When the main objective is photography, I'll take my Pentax K-3 and heavy glass, but that little Ricoh packs a lot of punch for it's weight. The lens is razor sharp as well.

[Ian]

If I had $800 burning a hole in my pocket right now, it'd be difficult for me to choose between the RX100iii and the Ricoh GR. There are a couple things the RX100iii can do and the Ricoh (reportedly) can't like in camera panoramas and time lapse but the consensus seems to be the Ricoh has better IQ.

[Ken Bennett]

Hey, Ian,

I shoot professionally, so I have some idea about what I want in a camera. For hiking, what I want is small and light, but with reasonably good image quality. I've made do with some crappy p&s cameras over the years, but last summer got a Canon S100 for about $150 as a refurb. We took this camera on our Long Trail thru, and it did make some very nice photos. I appreciate being able to shoot raw files, and the lens and image stabilizer are both pretty good. No, the images are not nearly as good as my Fuji or Canon files, but they are not that bad for a p&s. (How's that for a rousing endorsement :)

I I had unlimited funds, I'd get the RX100iii or the new Panny LX100, mostly for the eye level viewfinder. But I can't yet justify that kind of money for a camera that gets used a couple of times a year. Maybe for another thru hike.

So I'll vote for the Canon.

Good luck and happy shooting.

Ken

Edit: my every day carry camera at home/work is a Fuji X Pro1 with the 35/1.4 lens, but I would not take that hiking.

[Ian]

Thanks Ken.

[Author]

Posts