Compact wide angle big sensor?

Panasonic LX100
See some details here :
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_LX100/
(just after the video clip, almost half a way down the long review)

The Sony RX 100 III has similar features (inc 24mm lens) and is smaller but I believe needs a separate remote control to do interval timing.

Ricoh GR
Sigma DP-1 Merrill
Canon G7 X

Curious what you mean by Fisheye distortion? If you mean the "foreground prominence" of wide angle shots, this is a physical consequence of wide angle lenses, if you want a more "natural" look with a wider field of view, you'll have to shoot multiple images at closer to 40mm equivalent and merge them in software (Microsoft ICE is free and works well)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

Dave

Edit: the Sigma don't have intervalometers for time-lapse and the Canon only has a 1" sensor.

Edit 2: found this –

http://www.lonelyspeck.com/list-of-large-sensor-cameras-with-built-in-intervalometers/

If you carry a smart-phone, a Sony QX 1 might work with a suitable app.

I had another look.
You can load a Time Lapse App into the Sony RX100 III for a small fee.
Can be fully custom so you choose the time and settings .
https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/usbdetail.php?eid=IS9104-NPIA09014_00-000003
click on specifications for more details

If you really must have > 4/3 then the RX100 is out at 1" but by all accounts I think it'd be unwise to rule it out.

For APS-C, how about the NEX-5 with 16mm lens (24mm equivalent)? That lens (and its 20mm predecessor) has a wide angle and fish eye add on you can get later if you want.

There's a used body-only on Amazon right now for $214.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00EPWC2WI/ref=sr_1_2_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1415765661&sr=8-2&keywords=nex+5&condition=used

and 16mm lens for $124

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00HSMDVJ0/ref=sr_1_2_olp?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1415765740&sr=1-2&keywords=sony+16mm&condition=used

As previously mentioned for the RX100, you can buy a time lapse ap for it from Sony Play Memories.

good suggestion Ian.
Had a quick look at the comparison in size between the RX100, LX 100 and NEX 5, the NEX is in the middle, so smaller than the LX 100 but of course with the 16mm lens only not with a zoom.
I thought first of a Pana GF but they don't have a compact 24mm kind wide lens.

Sony's kit zoom lens is about the same size as the 16mm when it's powered down. I found out in short order that I almost never want any kind of zoom when backpacking and the prime lens just did a much better job than the kit lens.

My wife likes having the option to use the zoom which is the only reason I don't sell it off.

"I thought first of a Pana GF but they don't have a compact 24mm kind wide lens."

Sure they do – the excellent Olympus 12mm f/2 lens, which is a 24mm-equivalent wide angle on full frame. Or, if you want spendy, the Panny 12-35mm f/2.8 zoom, which is also superb (I own one) but costs north of a grand.

If you're interested in m4/3, the Panasonic GX7 is the first camera I would suggest, for its size, weight, and features. That 12-35 zoom is a very nice companion to it. The main advantage of this kit is that you can add more lenses later, including a couple of good wide angle zooms like the Panny 7-14, and terrific fast primes like the Olympus 45 and 75.

If it has to be a compact camera, the Panny LX100 sure looks like a good choice — it's less expensive than the Panny 12-35/2.8 by itself, but comes with a faster lens and a camera body attached :)

I don't think you'll find anything that meets all your criteria so you'll have to pick priorities. If image quality is your main goal, I'd recommend the Ricoh GR. The lens will be tough to beat, it's tiny, has timelapse, and is a screaming deal for what you get. Not sure about video quality, however. Otherwise, I'd probably go micro 4/3 with one of the above lenses, which will be more expensive, bigger, heavier, and have lower image quality but will be more versatile and probably do better video.

Like every other question raised in these forums, the answer is: depends.

I recommend the Sony RX 100 III and the Canon G7X. These are the hot small cameras now, you will not get any smaller than these, and they are very impressive. Next smallest after that, the Lumix LX 100. Compare each and against others in the "studio test-scene" at dpreview.com and you will see that the larger sensor does not always win out. The jump to the larger APS sensors means a big jump in size and price, and you have to pay a lot for the separate decent lenses; the kit lenses just are not so great. I would much rather have a sharp lens on a 1" sensor than a mediocre one on an APS. Personally I shoot iPhone, 1", and FF (full-frame). Each has a different purpose. Spend a year with the small camera, learn what you need for that camera and where your photography is going, and then see if something larger or different is required.

I got a Ricoh GR recently and I'm in love with it . . . fantastic image quality, APS-C sensor and it's very compact (and light – 9 oz with battery and SD card). Also the user interface is a dream. When I've had a little more experience with it I'll write a review on here.

Here's a picture I took using the interval shooting mode (about 1.5 hours of 30 second exposures, RAWs processed in Darktable and then combined in StarStax to get the trails).

The only ways I could improve it would be a delayed start interval shooting mode (although really it's best to be awake and double-check the composure before starting a star trails shot anyway), a sealed body and a zoom – but for what it gives me I'll take it! I wouldn't want anything less wide for my star trails shots.

EDIT: I'll be posting a video on youtube soon that I took in the Grand Canyon of some folks running a rapid. It's a decent test of the video capabilities.

The Ricoh is an exceptional camera for someone who knows exactly what they want, but I would still steer a novice towards the Canon or Sony for these reasons: (1) zoom capabilities. A fixed lens is very limiting (2) wider 24 mm lens vs Ricoh 28 mm. I consider 24 a minimum "wide" (3) significantly faster f 1.8 lenses of Canon and Sony mitigate much of the Ricoh larger sensor advantage, from both depth of field and low-light noisy-sensor considerations (4) the new 20 megapixel Sony sensor rocks. I have been shooting with the Sony for two months and am impressed with what I can pull out of it.

I feel that collectively we did not try hard enough on this one.
I did spend some time comparing sizes and figures but somehow I know that I have failed and for that I am very sorry.
Good thing that I am not actually paid to do this or I would feel even worse.

I have been looking at upgrading my Panasonic LX7. I set the standard as 24mm as the base wide angle setting with some zoom – don't want a fixed length lens – but I don't really need anything beyond 70-80mm, 1" or larger sensor, fit into a small shoulder strap pocket. Once you start being more specific you start to get into feature wars with one person's personal preferences competing with another's. I have rounded weights etc so one concentrates on real differences not 5 grams. It really seems to break down into three groups depending on whether size etc. I am sure there are others that could be added to the list (Nikon 1?)

My short list is:
LX7 – 300g, 24-90, small sensor, retain if nothing clearly better

1" sensor, fixed lens, easily pocketable
Sony RX100 III – 300g, 24-70
Canon G7X – 300g, 24-100

Larger sensor, fixed lens
Pana LX100 – 400g, 24-90, 4/3 sensor, biggish, heavier, need large pocket

Larger sensors, swappable lenses
Sony A5100, 280g + lens – unsure how pocketable with a small zoom
Pana M5 210g + lens 70g for 24-64 zoom – the lightest option?

For my specific needs I am tending toward the RXIII or G7X because of weight and pocketability.

Since the OP was concerned with video quality, here’s that Hermit Rapid Video I mentioned.

Click the settings wheel and you should be able to watch it in 1080 HD.

Boy, I was close to buying a Sony RX100III for backpacking (still might), but the one thing I can't wrap my head around is the focal length. 24mm (for brevity, I'll be referring to 35mm equivalent for the rest of the post) is just nowhere near wide enough for me for landscape. I thought it would be and I was wrong. I tried stitching some 50mm photos together and while you can cover some impressive scenery with stitching, the perspective is just off by not using a wide lens.

So on my last trip I rented a Zeiss 21mm Distagon with an adapter to use on my A7r. Not only was it incredibly heavy for backpacking, I found that even 21mm was not wide enough for my taste. So long story short, I went and looked at all my favorite high Sierra landscape photos and noticed that about 95% of them were shot at 16mm. You just can't find a compact camera that goes that wide on a focal length it seems.

My plan (always subject to change) for my next trip is to use my A7r (full frame mirrorless) with a Zeiss 12mm Touit lens. The Touit 12mm is designed for a crop sensor, so it will be about a 15.5mm equivalent on a full frame body. Usable megapixels after cropping will be about 22mp. The Touit 12mm will work with all my camera's functions, such as AF, and is in a nice, light 9 oz package. Sony did just come out with a native 16-35mm zoom, but it weighs more than double what the 12mm Touit does, and costs nearly double. The only thing I'd gain would be zoom, and ability to use all 36 megapixels. But honestly, 22mp is plenty for what I do.

When you use the touit in crop mode, it'll still be 12mm.

I would recommend a A7II (better autofocus, plus IBIS, and great quality) with their 16-35 F4 FE lens. Much better overall and if you're shooting wider than 16mm, you're going to get a fisheye issue.

I personally shoot a Ricoh GR, and i have the wide angle adapter for shooting 21mm. Thats wide enough 99.9% of the time for me.

I would forgo the A7II for backpacking and use just the A7 and 16-35mm FE.

The A7 is lighter and the FE 16-35mm F4 lens has OSS.

Most of my shots are on a tripod though and you should be turning off your IBIS or OSS anyway when on a tripod.

My personal set up. A7 and the 35mm FE. 35 is good enough for me. and its a pretty light set up for being FF. If I wanted something more compact I'd go for the RX1(R) which is pretty much the same set up.

The FE28mm f2 is coming. I don't think it'll be as good as the 35mm. It'll be heavier for sure. There are adaptors as well, 21mm and 16mm fish eye I believe.

"When you use the touit in crop mode, it'll still be 12mm."

Looks like I need to do more reading on this. My understanding is that using a standard e mount lens (vs FE) on the A7 would cause the camera to shoot with a 1.5 crop factor similar to what happens if you were to put a Nikon DX lens on an FX body.

This is not so?

Ian,
the Touit 12mm lens has a diagonal angle of view of 99 degree (on an NEX or X body)
To get the same angle of view on a 35mm sized sensor ("full frame") you would use an 18mm lens.
A 12mm lens designed for 35mm will give you a diagonal angle of view of 122 degree.
So yes you had it the right way around , 18mm FF to APS C crop 1.5 = 12mm (in angle of view…)

Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on the Samsung nx3000? My first choice would probably be an RX100iii but it's out of my price range. I've looked over the features and specs of the camera and they are fine with me. An evf would be great but not a deal breaker. I've seen them used for less than $300 with the 16-50mm, hot shoe flash and memory card. Another big plus for me is that I can charge it directly from my PowerGen battery (same with the Sony rx100iii). It's also pretty light. I'm guessing because a lot of the body is made up of plastic. I guess I'm wondering about overall image quality. Any red flags with this camera? Keep in mind that I've usually just used my iPhone or my daughter's old canon elph.