Good "compact camera" for a D3x user (EP1, GF1, used M8 or will only an M9 do)

[Dan Wells]

I shoot landscape (ranging from broad vistas to intimate near-macros) with the D3x, and need something for longer hikes when a D3x, a few lenses and a 2-series Gitzo just aren't an option. I've owned about 5 small-sensor compacts over the years, including well-regarded ones (G7), and never gotten an image worth printing with any of them - the issue is mostly dynamic range - the compacts I've used have decent resolution, and the noise isn't that bad if they're used carefully, but they have a very harsh, digital look to their files, caused in large part by the lack of DR.
    There seems to be a new breed of large-sensor compacts out there, between the electronic viewfinder cameras and the Leicas... Some reviews I've read are disappointed in the DR of the EP1 and GF1, putting it below that of even a modest DSLR (let alone the extraordinarily high DR D3x). Will the files from one of these look harsh and digital like another compact? They are certainly appealingly priced, compared to the expensive M8 and the very expensive M9. Due to the success of a recent show of my work, I can afford an EP1 or a GF1 basically to test it, and a used M8 would not be horribly difficult (I'd really need to figure out how to afford an M9, if nothing else will be satisfactory). What have people heard about new entrants in the "small camera, big sensor" category - if Leica can build a small FULL-FRAME camera, someone else should be able to exceed 4/3? There are persistent rumors about Sony, Samsung, Fuji and even Nikon and Canon, but nothing seems to get released... Ricoh's new Gxr was almost interesting, but then they paired the zoom lens with a compact camera sensor - don't they realize that the major reason to buy an expensive small camera is to AVOID compact camera sensors?

                                                                                        -Dan

[terence_patrick]

Why not get a D90, D300s, or D700 and a lightweight zoom or prime?

[Rob C]

Why not get a D90, D300s, or D700 and a lightweight zoom or prime?

I have a feeling the OP isn't about to go for a D700 when he already has a D3X! Neither would I, though I do have a D700 because it's as high as I want to spend.

There is  nothing light-weight about the D700 and the only zoom I ever bought, a Nikkor 2.8/24-70mm was a pooch. From what I read the guy is looking for top quality and I would imagine, if weight is the main motivation, that the M9 will be the only answer once he manages to save the pennies. As with so much in life, it often makes sense to do nothing until you can buy what you really, really want.

Rob C

[BJL]

I ... need something for longer hikes ... I've owned about 5 small-sensor compacts over the years, including well-regarded ones (G7), and never gotten an image worth printing with any of them - the issue is mostly dynamic range ...
    There seems to be a new breed of large-sensor compacts out there, between the electronic viewfinder cameras and the Leicas... Some reviews I've read are disappointed in the DR of the EP1 and GF1, putting it below that of even a modest DSLR ... There are persistent rumors about Sony, Samsung, Fuji and even Nikon and Canon, but nothing seems to get released ...

Dan,

given your concern about DR, you clearly need to check out some samples; from online or your own test shots. But m4/3 should be well ahead of traditional compacts, given that the sensor is five times larger (area) than those of current high end compacts like the LX3, S90 and G11.

The Panasonic m4/3 cameras have a somewhat poor reputation for in-camera JPEG (Olympus seems to do far better), but maybe you plan to work with raw anyway. Thom Hogan compares the E-P1 and GF-1 with a rather careful critical eye, and "The Online Photographer" Mike Johnston's comparison is nice too.

About those rumors, here is my ranking, with comments:

- The Samsung NX is more than a rumor; it is announced, photos of bodies and lenses have been shown, and it is almost certainly coming by early 2010. The body looks far bigger than the E-P1 or GF-1 though; closer to a G-1, but a bit bigger still; the lenses also look distinctly larger, more DSLR sized. It seems aimed at the upper end of the digicam-DSLR gap, for the "great video in a still camera" market, like the GH-1.

- The rumor of Fuji joining m4/3 by about early 2010 looks very credible; for example, the well-connected Thom Hogan vouches for it.

- There is evidence for Nikon planning an EVIL system, but based on a smaller 17mm diagonal format (about so-called 1" format), so probably not the best for your DR demands. The evidence is a bunch of patents for lenses for such a system. The patents put it near the opposite end of the digicam-DSLR divide to the NX: a moderately up-sized compact with swappable lenses but retaining digicam features like a zoom-rocker on the body.

- The Sony rumor is a dud, based on a clearly fake PDF.

- The Canon rumor also seems baseless for now, which is not to deny that Canon (and Sony and Pentax) could well have something development; all three have made coy statements in recent interviews when asked about m4/3, which get interpreted according to the hopes of readers!

[DanielStone]

what about the new Leica X1? its got an aps-c sized sensor.

just a bit spendy for most people.

but since you have a d3x, it might be in your price range.

here's the pdf file on it from leica direct...

http://us.leica-camera.com/assets/image/re...aa4fa9fc0-1.png


personally, if I had the budget for a fine point and shoot, let alone a D3X, it would be this.

-Dan

[Dan Wells]

I'm sort of interested in the X1, but wish the lens was either interchangeable or else a zoom. I don't need huge range - I'd use this camera in the 24-28 to 70mm range (the D3x is for the edges of the range) but I do want either three primes or a zoom (or a Tri-Elmar, for that matter) to cover that range. I don't necessarily need D3x image quality on my compact (I don't think I'd ever REALLY get it - the D3x needs a tripod to get its maximum image quality, and if I have my Gitzo, I might as well also have my D3x), but I do want something as good or better than a really good APS-C DSLR, especially in terms of DR. I'm increasingly thinking possibly used M8 - they're going fairly reasonably (X1 kind of money) these days, and on my type of subjects, are said to produce image quality in the range of an original 5D, which is better than ANY APS-C camera. I can't afford two separate hugely expensive cameras (and will never give up the Nikon), but the M8 is possibly within what I'm willing to spend, and seems from the reviews I've read to have much better image quality than the 4/3 crew. I'll look at what is introduced over the next few weeks, but the M8 may be an answer...

                                       -Dan

[Vautour]

I'm sort of interested in the X1, but wish the lens was either interchangeable or else a zoom. I don't need huge range - I'd use this camera in the 24-28 to 70mm range (the D3x is for the edges of the range) but I do want either three primes or a zoom (or a Tri-Elmar, for that matter) to cover that range. I don't necessarily need D3x image quality on my compact (I don't think I'd ever REALLY get it - the D3x needs a tripod to get its maximum image quality, and if I have my Gitzo, I might as well also have my D3x), but I do want something as good or better than a really good APS-C DSLR, especially in terms of DR. I'm increasingly thinking possibly used M8 - they're going fairly reasonably (X1 kind of money) these days, and on my type of subjects, are said to produce image quality in the range of an original 5D, which is better than ANY APS-C camera. I can't afford two separate hugely expensive cameras (and will never give up the Nikon), but the M8 is possibly within what I'm willing to spend, and seems from the reviews I've read to have much better image quality than the 4/3 crew. I'll look at what is introduced over the next few weeks, but the M8 may be an answer...

                                       -Dan

What about Pentax? Either K7D or K-x? In combination with the DA Limited lenses (15mm, 21mm, 40mm, 70mm) one should have a very compact system. OK, the K7D seems to be not as good DR wise than comparable Canon or Nikon cameras, so that might be a draw back. Here are some K7D samples: Pentax Photo Gallery filtered for K7D
Certainly cheaper than even a used M8 with lens(es). If it's also better IQ wise I can't say. Never had an M8.

[stever]

Lloyd Chambers will be reviewing the M9 as a lightweight backpacking landscape camera on diglloyd.com starting within a few days

an intermediate lightweight (but not exceptionally compact) alternative comes to mind - a plastic dslr from Canon or Nikon with a couple good primes.  not familiar with Nikon, but the Canon 60mm crop frame macro lens is very good and combined with a high quality 28 or 35mm (even a Zeiss) would cover a reasonable range with reasonable weight.  wide angle is a problem, but it's a problem with an M8 or 4/3 camera as well

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

He already done that, and an initial review is posted on "DAP", which is a pay site. To me the 30 box DAP is costing is a solid investment before spending 10k on a camera.

http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html

He found quite a few issues, mostly related to rangefinder accuracy (cropping and focusing) and also artifacts when shooting into the sun.

My impression is that he likes the concept but not the implementation.

Best regards
Erik

Lloyd Chambers will be reviewing the M9 as a lightweight backpacking landscape camera on diglloyd.com starting within a few days

an intermediate lightweight (but not exceptionally compact) alternative comes to mind - a plastic dslr from Canon or Nikon with a couple good primes.  not familiar with Nikon, but the Canon 60mm crop frame macro lens is very good and combined with a high quality 28 or 35mm (even a Zeiss) would cover a reasonable range with reasonable weight.  wide angle is a problem, but it's a problem with an M8 or 4/3 camera as well

[Dan Wells]

My impression is that Lloyd didn't like a rangefinder design once he really shot with one. Most of his issues, apart from the 21mm Biogon problem, are inherent to rangefinders, and I would assume that rangefinder users learn to compensate for them... I don't know what I'd think of a rangefinder, and would need to try one out carefully. Michael loved the M9, but he had a lot of rangefinder experience, and admits to always having liked the way they work. The Ms work completely differently from any other camera marketed today, and I think I'd like using one (I have very good vision, which Lloyd says he does not), but I'd still have to try the whole concept out - as would anyone without significant prior Leica experience...

[Goodlistener]

None of the small/compact cameras will most likely satisfy your concern for image quality and dynamic range. i recently reviewed about 100 miscelaneous photos taken by proud owners with Canon G9 thru G-11 cameras.  To be honest with you, every one of the images seemed a bit week to me.  Composition and "feeling" could be present in some, but none of them compared very well for image quality. I have had proud owners of the Leica D-Lux 4 swear they have minimal noise.  Not to my eye they don't.  

That said, there is the best of the lot for compact cameras with better lenses and that shoot RAW. The breed in general is called RAWsumer.  Clever, No?  Canon G-11, Canon S9, Panasonic LX-3  and Olympus Pen are the leading examples.  They are current state of the art and can do a lot of good in the right hands, or better yet, out of the right hands sitting on a tripod.

My best guess is that the smaller, lighter weight DSLR bodies and relatively light  weight zoom or prime lenses will come the closest to satisfying your concerns. I personally have had good experience with a Canon rebel camera (mine is Rebel XT or EOS 400 at 10 mp) and with the Canon 35mm f/2 prime or the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.  The Canon line up of Rebels has advanced some since I bought mine 3 years ago and of course you should consider a more up to date model. Nikon (God bless them) has up to date "Prosumer" models with engineering plastic (not metal frames with  nice compact size and lighter weight.

I guess a up to date Prosumer and a decent 35 f/2 or thereabout prime perhaps the wonderful Tamron 28-75  (67 mm filer diameter on that one) and you will be as good as it can get with light weight compact equipment. Don' forget the plastic table-top tripod such as the Joby Gorilla Pod.

This landscape was shot with a prosumer Canon and a Tamron 28-75.  Is image quality along these lines good enough for your purposes?

http://www.pbase.com/goodlistener/image/119598300

[BJL]

None of the small/compact cameras will most likely satisfy your concern for image quality and dynamic range ... Canon G9 thru G-11 cameras.  ... Leica D-Lux 4 ...

That said, there is the best of the lot for compact cameras with better lenses and that shoot RAW ... Canon G-11, Canon S9, Panasonic LX-3  and Olympus Pen ...

This is all fine until you mention the Olympus Pen (E-P1). But that is a completely different breed of camera than any of the others mentioned, due to having a sensor and photosites of about for or five times the area. So in particular dynamic range should be far better. At least with proper exposure and conversion form raw, and measured properly: ignore the misnamed "DR" tests based on in-camera JPEG's produced at default settings for contrast and such, which mostly measure only how much "high contrast pop" the default JPEGs are tuned to give, and how much highlight headroom the light metering is designed to give, but almost nothing about the sensor itself. One obvious warning is the significant variation in the "DR" scores given to different cameras from the same maker using the same sensor.

P. S. Even "standardized" conversions done with a common raw converter and common settings are suspect. Different sensors can give best results with different raw conversion settings, and raw converters need to be adapted for each sensor and often vary in how well they handle a particular camera, so assuming that a given raw convertor is equally competent with files from all cameras makes no sense to me. I would propose instead using each camera's maker's own recommended raw conversion procedures. a sa starting point.

[250swb]

I'm a big fan of m4/3 cameras, and have a Panasonic G1 and an Olympus E-P1.

The G1 in particular has two really very good 'kit' lenses, the 14-45mm and 45-200mm that weigh nothing compared to equivalent Nikon and Canon lenses. The IQ is superb using RAW, and its a fully featured camera with as many bells and whistles that you need on a back packing day out, and its good for 'serious' work.

The E-P1 (same sensor as G1) I take with me along with my M9 as with an adapter it will take all my Leica lenses, and if needed can double the effective length of a 90mm or 135mm to make a proper telephoto combo. I also use it when I need a few more 'bells and whistles' than the M9 can offer, like AF etc. The IQ is again top notch, and I'd only be pixel peeping to notice any big difference in the majority of cases up to a 12x16 print. The E-P1 prints will go much bigger though and its only comparing it to the M9 that I would know where the differences are. For a viewer who isn't told I don't think they'd know or care.

So I'd say think seriously about m4/3, its an inherently good system with a lot of flexibility built in, there is a camera for everybody, and the lenses can be interchanged between Panasonic and Olympus for full advantage.

Steve

[paratom]

I shoot landscape (ranging from broad vistas to intimate near-macros) with the D3x, and need something for longer hikes when a D3x, a few lenses and a 2-series Gitzo just aren't an option. I've owned about 5 small-sensor compacts over the years, including well-regarded ones (G7), and never gotten an image worth printing with any of them - the issue is mostly dynamic range - the compacts I've used have decent resolution, and the noise isn't that bad if they're used carefully, but they have a very harsh, digital look to their files, caused in large part by the lack of DR.
    There seems to be a new breed of large-sensor compacts out there, between the electronic viewfinder cameras and the Leicas... Some reviews I've read are disappointed in the DR of the EP1 and GF1, putting it below that of even a modest DSLR (let alone the extraordinarily high DR D3x). Will the files from one of these look harsh and digital like another compact? They are certainly appealingly priced, compared to the expensive M8 and the very expensive M9. Due to the success of a recent show of my work, I can afford an EP1 or a GF1 basically to test it, and a used M8 would not be horribly difficult (I'd really need to figure out how to afford an M9, if nothing else will be satisfactory). What have people heard about new entrants in the "small camera, big sensor" category - if Leica can build a small FULL-FRAME camera, someone else should be able to exceed 4/3? There are persistent rumors about Sony, Samsung, Fuji and even Nikon and Canon, but nothing seems to get released... Ricoh's new Gxr was almost interesting, but then they paired the zoom lens with a compact camera sensor - don't they realize that the major reason to buy an expensive small camera is to AVOID compact camera sensors?

                                                                                        -Dan

Dan, 2 more questions:
1)what focal length or range do you need?
2) how many pixels do you need?

The DP1 and DP2 have excellent dynamic range and sharpness-however not so many pixels, maybe they are an option

[paratom]

I'm sort of interested in the X1, but wish the lens was either interchangeable or else a zoom. I don't need huge range - I'd use this camera in the 24-28 to 70mm range (the D3x is for the edges of the range) but I do want either three primes or a zoom (or a Tri-Elmar, for that matter) to cover that range. I don't necessarily need D3x image quality on my compact (I don't think I'd ever REALLY get it - the D3x needs a tripod to get its maximum image quality, and if I have my Gitzo, I might as well also have my D3x), but I do want something as good or better than a really good APS-C DSLR, especially in terms of DR. I'm increasingly thinking possibly used M8 - they're going fairly reasonably (X1 kind of money) these days, and on my type of subjects, are said to produce image quality in the range of an original 5D, which is better than ANY APS-C camera. I can't afford two separate hugely expensive cameras (and will never give up the Nikon), but the M8 is possibly within what I'm willing to spend, and seems from the reviews I've read to have much better image quality than the 4/3 crew. I'll look at what is introduced over the next few weeks, but the M8 may be an answer...

                                       -Dan

I think a M8 would be a very good plan. IMO it beats the 4/3 in IQ, very good dynamic range, and very fine detail.
I have used it since the M8 was introduced and have ever been very impressed by the M8 IQ (I also have a D3X but use the M8/now M9 more often).

[happyman]

i have had a M8 with some of the best lenses, sold it for the D3 and never looked back. Now with a D3x i like the compact Sigma DP-1 a lot. i will soon add the DP-2. The quality is amazing well worth a closer look - and it is cheap. But slow.

[Dan Wells]

I need to play with one of the m 4/3 cameras for a while - the reviews indicate that that the DR, while better than a compact, is still not the equivalent of a good DSLR (forget the D3x and its amazing DR, these guys don't seem to have D300 DR)... The two Sigmas and the X1 don't really interest me due to their noninterchangeable prime lenses - I'd consider a noninterchangeable lens if it were a top-quality zoom with a decent range, but not really otherwise. I'm perfectly willing to go with prime lenses, if they're interchangeable...

                        -Dan

[John Camp]

I shoot a D3, a D300, an M8, and the G1 and G1F; the latter two are now my favorites, although I don't do the same kind of shooting that you do.

I don't think anything short of the M9 will make you happy if you want DR in the range of the D3x, with a good pixel count (18mp) in a lightweight camera. However, in my experience, very few people who are happy with their DSLR will also be happy with an M9 -- although it doesn't work the same way the other way around; that is, most people who consider themselves to be primarily M8/M9 shooters usually also have a DSLR, for the flexibility which is so lacking the the rangefinders.

There are focusing problems inherent with rangefinders which you may find troubling (for example, the bodies must be calibrated to the lenses, and sometimes, it's hard to get all the lenses working at the same time.) There are also framing problems, since rangefinders are inherently less accurate in framing than are DSLRs. Leica has a large number of fanboys (of which I am often one), but if you read most neutral reviewers, you'll find that most would suggest that the Leicas are not among the best for ISO range. The longest M lens is a 135, and most people don't use it because it's extremely hard to focus at anything less than infinity. 90mm is more like the practical limit -- some would say 75mm. And, of course, there is no autofocus or live view. The longer of the two tri-elmars would fit your focal-length needs on an M8 (1.3x), but not on an M9 (FF). One other thing - the Leicas are not extremely light. Prime for prime, the lenses are heavier than the Nikons, though the bodies are somewhat lighter, though again, not exactly light. The Panasonics (and the Olympus) are simply not at the same level as either the Nikons or the Leicas, so if you're hoping for something that would resemble a D3x shot from them, you won't get it from them, though they are excellent cameras for what they are. And they *are* light.

One possibility -- most people think that Nikon will soon come out with a D700x (or something similar -- a smaller, lighter, cheaper cameras with the D3x chip inside), so you could wait for that. The other possibility is simply to buck up and carry the D3x, and dump some other equipment.

JC

[paratom]

I shoot a D3, a D300, an M8, and the G1 and G1F; the latter two are now my favorites, although I don't do the same kind of shooting that you do.

I don't think anything short of the M9 will make you happy if you want DR in the range of the D3x, with a good pixel count (18mp) in a lightweight camera. However, in my experience, very few people who are happy with their DSLR will also be happy with an M9 -- although it doesn't work the same way the other way around; that is, most people who consider themselves to be primarily M8/M9 shooters usually also have a DSLR, for the flexibility which is so lacking the the rangefinders.

There are focusing problems inherent with rangefinders which you may find troubling (for example, the bodies must be calibrated to the lenses, and sometimes, it's hard to get all the lenses working at the same time.) There are also framing problems, since rangefinders are inherently less accurate in framing than are DSLRs. Leica has a large number of fanboys (of which I am often one), but if you read most neutral reviewers, you'll find that most would suggest that the Leicas are not among the best for ISO range. The longest M lens is a 135, and most people don't use it because it's extremely hard to focus at anything less than infinity. 90mm is more like the practical limit -- some would say 75mm. And, of course, there is no autofocus or live view. The longer of the two tri-elmars would fit your focal-length needs on an M8 (1.3x), but not on an M9 (FF). One other thing - the Leicas are not extremely light. Prime for prime, the lenses are heavier than the Nikons, though the bodies are somewhat lighter, though again, not exactly light. The Panasonics (and the Olympus) are simply not at the same level as either the Nikons or the Leicas, so if you're hoping for something that would resemble a D3x shot from them, you won't get it from them, though they are excellent cameras for what they are. And they *are* light.

One possibility -- most people think that Nikon will soon come out with a D700x (or something similar -- a smaller, lighter, cheaper cameras with the D3x chip inside), so you could wait for that. The other possibility is simply to buck up and carry the D3x, and dump some other equipment.

JC

The viewfinder also has the advantage that you dont have a mirror slap.
The M8 is better than a dp1/dp2 in all regards besides size and price (and it has a buildt in flash).
Even if you dont frame 100% correct and need to crop a little bit the Leica image will still be better.
I also doubt that the Leica lenses are heavier than there Nikon counterparts (if there are counterparts).
If you use a M8 and want the range you describe it could be 18mm prime + a Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 if this is fast enough for you.
Or you could go Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 and add 28 and 50mm (which I would prefer).

In the end the M8+lenses will still be between a DSLR and a compact camera in size and weight.

[KevinA]

I like the Leica idea best. I thought it would be good to have a point and shoot for when the 1DsmkIII was to much to take around. That turned out to be wrong, a bit like sucking a dummy it offers a bit of comfort but nothing like the real thing.
I bought a Richo , to be honest the picture quality is OK but has point and shoot stamped all the way through and it's just to small and messy, so small and slow I find it clumsy. I now don't mind slinging the Canon around my neck with just the 35mm f1.4, it covers far more and does it better than any P&S. A Leica M8 or LX1 could tempt me, no more the small sensor P&S for me.

Kevin.