Have some cameras picked, help me choose one

Great picture, Eric. I'm shooting raw with the NEX 5 and exposing to the right and processing in Lightroom.

I considered the NEX 3 but the NEX 5 felt more secure in my hands and I didn't like the position of the shutter button on the 3.

You can see some pictures taken with the NEX 5 on my blog – http://www.christownsendoutdoors.com – in the entries for October 29, November 7 and November 15.

Okay great stuff here, Thanks for the tips Rick of whats important to look at for the mediocre photographer like my self. Now I have been able to look what those things mean and do a little more thorough researching.

I have looked at a few of the ones mentioned here like the NEX 3/5 and LX5. I thought both of those were too heavy/ large.
Im looking at the S90/95, they might be on the borderline of being to large but I wont really know until I go and actually handle them. I dont really think I will be doing any videoing. If you guys can help me out recommending a few that are in the same bracket as those so I can compare them to eachother that would be very helpful.
Also what do I want to look for in the numbers for the lense as far as tel and wide angle?

"Also what do I want to look for in the numbers for the lense as far as tel and wide angle?"

Normally a lens can be categorized by its aperture number, so you see numbers like f/2 or f/4 or f/5.6. The lower the number, the wider the lens opening is relative to its focal length (like telephoto or wide). The lower the number, the better the lens can gather dim light. Also, the lower the number, the narrower the depth of field, and that is related to how you can isolate a subject from its background and make the subject look tack sharp and make the background look creamy. So, serious photographers tend to drool over so-called "fast glass" lenses that have very low aperture numbers like f/2 or thereabouts.

Normally, a lens has a focal length, and that refers to how "far out" it can grab the subject versus how wide it can go in a panorama. Just for comparison, many lenses are related to 50mm since it was the so-called normal lens back in the days of 35mm film. So, anything lower than 50mm equivalent is considered wide angle, and anything higher than 50mm equivalent is considered a telephoto. So, a super-wide would be 10mm or 15mm, and a super-long would be 500mm or 600mm. Those extremes won't be of much interest to you unless you are shooting unusual subjects. Many users of a compact camera want a major degree of zoom factor, meaning that it can adjust from wide to tele. That just makes it versatile.

Some of us specialize in wildlife photography, so we tend to deal with long lenses in the 400-600-800mm ranges, but that is hard to do with a compact camera, and that remains the realm of the bigger camera with the bigger lens.

–B.G.–

del

"When looking at cameras in a store you will usually see a focal length range and aperture range engraved on the lens,e.g., 5mm-20mm, f2.8-8. To convert the focal length to 35mm film equivalent you can generally multiply the focal lengths shown by 6 to give you a ballpark number."

Wow. That is a sweeping generalization for a focal length multiplier. Surely that is not what you really meant.

–B.G.–

del

"For almost all compact digital cameras with a fixed lens, 6 as a multiplier will get you close."

Five is a more accurate number for some that we've been discussing here.

–B.G.–

del

I own both the S90 and TS2. The S90 is very similar to the S95. The best predictors for image quality is the quality of the sens and the size of the sensor. With S95 you will get a lightweight "real" camera with SLR functions, good lens and a bigger sensor. I highly recommend it, especially with a gorillapod. It's basically a ultralight SLR kit. I bring my TS2 in tougher conditions. 50% of the time? It takes good pictures and videos but you don't have as much creative freedom as a photographer. It a very good packrafting camera. I think Ryan as used TS1 quite a lot. For example in this video.http://backpackinglight.typepad.com/weblog/2009/09/24-hours-hyalite-cirque-near-bozeman-montana.html

"…or will you just view the final output on a PC or TV monitor. If the latter, the camera/sensor/lens is almost irrelevant. An simple 8mp camera phone is good enough now."

The cold brutal truth. Thanks.

Give me 24mm, aperture control, easily accessible exposure control, under 8 ounces, and I'll call it good.

I'll join the f64 club later.

"…or will you just view the final output on a PC or TV monitor. If the latter, the camera/sensor/lens is almost irrelevant. An simple 8mp camera phone is good enough now."

In fact a simple 4 or 5mp camera phone is good enough. Or 2 or 3mp if you can find one. I took photos on the Pacific Northwest Trail last summer with a 5mp phone camera and the results look fine on the web and when printed up to 3×2" (some appeared in TGO magazine). Of course these were pictures taken in good light. Most small compacts can take even better images in good light at low ISOs. It's in low light that more camera control and larger sensors have advantages. Sunset shots? Nightime shots? Storm shots? Camera phones aren't so good for these.

I am selling most of my camera gear.

I am keeping:

1. My Nikon FM3a because with Fuji Velvia and the excellent 28mm AIS lens, it provides my favorite color for landscape photography that is nearly impossible to reproduce with a digital camera this light. I've tried everything for quality landscapes and the only carryable cameras really suitable for it are the high end Nikons and Canons and they are h-e-a-v-y if you want Velvia-like color quality of say, the 5D or D700. And you just can't reproduce in in post processing (yet).

2. An old Leica M6 because it's my favorite camera for people and it's fun to use.

3. A Panasonic TS1 because it's still the best pocketable waterproof backpacking camera I've used. The S90/S95 takes photos that are a bit higher quality, especially in low light, but requires care in snow and rain. In addition, the TS1 has a … look … to the images that give it quite a bit of character. I like shooting video with this camera a lot, too. Most of the footage on my "24" episodes were shot with it.

4. A Sigma DP2 because it renders digital images with character that separate it from the sterile "digital look" you find with seemingly every other camera.

After affairs with a 5D, M9, NEX5, GF1, X1, and EP1, and realizing the empty promises that they make, I've come to the conclusion that I really do hate digital cameras, and I'm going back to studying photography and paying attention to my surroundings.

I like this photo (below) because it connects me to a moment in time that I will always cherish. Ultimately, that's the only thing I really want out of my photography and the camera needs to stay the heck out of the way so I can do that.

Taken with the 1.3MP Olympus D460 in August of 2001 while Backpacking with my then three-year old son near McCall, Idaho. This camera was one of the most fantastic digital cameras ever manufactured, and was way, way ahead of its time. To be honest, while we've increased resolution, I just don't think we've made much more than incremental progress in small sensor cameras for daylight photography in the past 10 years.

I must say I've taken the opposite view to Ryan! I shot film for 25 years and had thousands of images published. I started using digital compacts in 2000 and a digital DSLR in 2004. By 2006 I'd stopped shooting film. A few years ago I sold all my film cameras bar a Ricoh GR1, which I haven't used since then. I much prefer digital and it has revitalised my photography.

I have a book of landscape photography on the Cairngorms coming out next year. All the images were taken on Canon 300, 350 and 450 D series DSLRs plus the Sigma DP1. My most recent book (Scotland World Mountain Ranges, Cicerone Press) has hundreds of photos, most digital, some film. I can't tell which is which.

Of course it's all a matter of personal choice. As long as your camera gear takes the images you want that's all that matters. But it's interested to hear different points of view.

I have used many different film cameras before I switched to digital. If I where to shoot film these days it would be with a Fuji 670 format. I like the results I get with my Nikon D700, often with a Nikkor 28mm f2 AIS and the ability to have my darkroom in the computer means I will stay with digital. With out a darkroom film just can not deliver what I want. Either way I carry a lot of weight when doing photography.