Camera comparison help

Every camera that I've had recently that cannot shoot Raw, I've been very unhappy with. All cameras that I've had that do shoot Raw, I keep them in that mode and don't look back.

"Minimum shutter speed 60 sec" That doesn't sound good at all.

"No microphone" That seems inconvenient for video.

–B.G.–

It's an extremely competitive world. You Get What You Pay For.

Cheers

"You Get What You Pay For."

You could write an article on that.

Then other people feel that they are paying for something and not receiving it fully.

–B.G.–

Hi Michael,

They're two very different items and a nearly impossible comparison, like choosing between a kitten and a cantaloupe.

The S100 is Canon's third-time-is-a-charm effort in the series, correcting the prior problems, except the horrid battery capacity. The Lumix is a decent, cheap beginner's camera that will take likewise decent pics and you won't be too upset if you leave it sitting on a boulder somewhere.

If you're considering plunking down S100 bucks, you need to consider its direct competition, which include the Oly XZ1, Panny LX5, Fuji X10 and various other advanced compacts containing the letter X.

Maybe look at photos you aspire to take and determine whether the camera(s) you're considering can produce similar images. If it's snapshots you're after, nearly anything will do so buy low. If you want to extend your reach, then you'll want better tools.

Happy shopping,

Rick

I appreciate the advice. I appreciate your experience, which FAR outweighs mine.

I'm number obsessed, and the lack of being able to compare megapixels AND sensor size vs other cameras with different numbers in some meaningful way is killing me.

It pains me that the s100 gets a 3.5/5 on amazon, when uber cheap cams get 4.5/5. I get why, absolutely and without question, but it makes for a mental hurdle. Different reviewers, different wants, different expectations. I get it.

I'll work on it. Thanks for the thoughts gents

Some cameras are good for photographers, and other cameras are good for people who just take pictures.

For most people, a higher number of megapixels just allows them to print high quality at a larger size, and they very rarely print anything at a large size, so it really doesn't matter once you have 10-15 megapixels.

Sensor size is tricky. The smaller the sensor is, the closer the pixels are packed together, and that closeness tends to contribute to color noise. The smaller the sensor is, the cheaper it is to manufacture. The smaller the sensor is, the easier it is for a given lens to give longer telephoto magnification.

–B.G.–

Well, the good news is you can't really go wrong. As I think was noted in your first thread, reviews by the unwashed masses should generally be taken with large grains of salt. (Large, like the ones put out for cattle to lick.) Your own creativity and skill level will have a far greater impact on the quality of your pictures than any feature difference in cameras currently on the market.

David Pogue wrote a few articles on his nytimes blog arguing against the megapixel myth, which included making 16×24 inch test prints and challenging people to tell the difference (they're generally indistinguishable unless you are doing massive cropping). So, for me anything beyond 6 MP is plenty.

A few years back I purchased the SD780 based on it being pretty much the smallest camera in the Canon lineup. When I want more features, I go to my Nikon SLRs, but as the saying goes, the best camera is the one that's with you. If this is your only camera, you may want more features.

Now, none of the above may have been particularly helpful in making your decision, so here's something that might:

Given that camera and lens quality is "more than good enough", I would consider the most useful feature on a compact to be the exposure compensation adjustment. The second most useful feature, one that many compacts don't have, is a flash compensation adjustment. Leaving everything else on auto, and just adjusting those, should give you the best control over your shots.

RAW can be a deal breaker for some but I honestly don't think that even 1% of digital camera owners use it …
I used to work in a busy centrally located camera shop 9in Melbourne) that had a very good reputation for good prints at a reasonable cost.
So we did a lot of prints for keen amateurs and semi pro users.
Every few weeks someone would walk in with RAW files… (no , like most labs we did not do RAW for customers…)
The point here is that like every 13 year old thinks every other one is having sex, many amateur think that unless they have RAW the end will come but it isn't at all like that…
Having said that I just pointed a regular member towards a video camera that shoots video RAW files…
Franco

"Having said that I just pointed a regular member towards a video camera that shoots video RAW files…"

You did, but I'm not going to hold that against you.

I've been shooting Raw files for ten years now.

–B.G.–

I wound up with a s100, thanks for the help and the education, and curse you for my thinning wallet =)

Hi,
Curious what you like and don't like about your S100 now that you have had it awhile.
Thanks
Steve

I'm in the same dilemma as well. I have a Nikon D5000 with a bunch of lenses to go with. But carrying it on a hiking trip is a pain and I am looking buying something lightweight and can take awesome pictures.

I do read a lot about S100 but I don't need the ability to take raw pictures, what I should I go with. I want a true point and shoot with absolute best quality picture. I'm not loyal to any brands. If that helps. On top my mind I have Canon Elph HS300 but I want to listen to other options I might have here.

"I do read a lot about S100 but I don't need the ability to take raw pictures, what I should I go with. I want a true point and shoot with absolute best quality picture."

For absolute best quality you want to shoot RAW photos.

–B.G.–

For now the Sony RX100 gets the "best advanced compact" digicam prize. If you can do without an evf or articulated display, that's my suggestion today. Photokina will probably see new models rolled out, and so it goes.

Cheers,

Rick

Holymolly RX100 is seriously expensive (I mean really expensive like most light weight backpacking stuff). But I see it lacks in wide angle department with only 28mm not 24mm like canon offerings.

> Photokina will probably see new models rolled out, and so it goes.

I'm wondering what that will bring — some models are old enough to be due for an update. If I were in the market right now, I'd try to wait until after Photokina just to see what it brings — it's only a bit over a month away now.

Here's an early review from a photographer-blogger I've followed for a good while. FWIW he shoots an M9, so appreciates high quality, relatively compact cameras. He compares it against the $2k Leica X2, among others.

"I will keep this simple. The Sony RX100 is the best compact camera to ever be released in the digital world. Ever. Period. End of story. Will to be the best for long? Who knows but I do know it is not a camera that will hold you back from taking any kind of photos you want. If you have the passion, the creativity and drive you can make amazing photos with the RX100. I highly recommend it. I bought it."

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/07/26/the-sony-rx100-digital-camera-review/

Cheers,

Rick

WOndering if it will be worth sinking so much money, don't know if the price will drop anytime soon.

Also Sony has a offer going on where you get 2 yr accidental damage replacement for free which is normally worth $89. Decisions—Decisions.