Quality Compact

[arashm]

Don't take this wrong. This is to no one in particular. Every time I pick up one of these tiny little cameras, they seem cool in the beginning, but then you go to actually use them, and the controls are very hard to master, (way too many), and the viewfinder experience is beyond horrible. In short, has anyone on the planet ever shot a memorable photograph with one of these cameras? Or are they relegated to simply grip and grin snapshots, or drunk party shots? The shutter delay on this little location-scouting camera that I have is horrid; i think it's called a Fuji f100 or something. Great quality files, but the experience of actually making a photograph is so bad.

Can anyone speak to this? I'd love a great small pocket camera, but the ones people rave about, I just never seem to ever connect with. Thoughts?

gwhitf:
I can only speak for my own experiences, but I do love the little compacts.
yes I have shot images that I love and use with these cameras. I have prints out of a G10 that hold up very well, (raw in C-1)
all the little ones do have some a little to unbearable shutter lag, But the GF-1 is very fast, I think you may like it.

as far as actually using them, I used a GF-1 to shoot some street photography of fans and crowds on the street when I was in Vancouver for the Olympics, This was a paid Assignment for a Magazine (4 different assignments in total). There is a big benefit to using this camera as no one thinks twice about what your up to, while one would never get the same reaction when you stick a D3x with a 24-70 and a SB900 in their face. (even though that kit was sitting in my think tank back at the hotel).

I pretty much always have my GF set so Raw, Aperture priority and the only thing I change around on the fly is ISO. so not much menu diving or worrying about different set ups and such.

good luck and hopefully you'll find one that you can enjoy.
am

[arashm]

BC and all

While I would love the thought of a Leica m8/9 with a lens or two, part of the appeal of the compacts is that they are cheap.
I for one would have a hard time leaving a M# in a bag under my towel to go for dip while at the beach for example, while do this regularly with a S90.
losing a G10 or S90 or GF-1 is never pleasant but a lot more forgiving on the wallet.
Part of the equation of compacts is that they are no good if you can't take it with you in case it get's lost/stolen/broken/wet/ too big and heavy and....
and for everything else there is canon nikon phase hasselblad and assistant and production people.

am

[Steve Hendrix]

I think it's great that the micro 4/3 as developed a new (and needed) category between P&S and DSLR. From what I have seen, I am impressed with the image quality for such a small little camera (GF1, EP-2, etc). These are $600 - $1,200 category products, while the quality P&S category is more of a $300 - $500 level.

I've considered an S90, but every time I look at some files at pixel level, I am unimpressed. And I mean at ISO 50, not 400. I don't know that file quality for a camera that small will ever be close enough to a DSLR to rise above consumer P&S for any subject matter that is at all demanding.

I could easily handle the file quality from a GF1. And P&S to me doesn't mean it has to fit in my pocket necessarily. I think if it does, there will always necessarily be an image compromise I may not be comfortable with. But as long as it is small, like a GF1, so I could wear it around my neck or even have it stashed in a little pouch around my waist or something. Just so it is smaller, lighter than a DSLR. maybe a different category than a P&S then.

But I wonder about the price points of these products also and if that $300 - $500 price point will eventually include micro 4/3, which seem to be necessary to get any "real" quality out.

I think this will be a more and more crowded category (I'm looking forward to that).

Samsung is doing some interesting things at micro 4/3 and true P&S levels. Especially like the idea of a 1.8 - 2.4 lens. Just wish that was stuck on a 4/3 micro instead of the 1-1/7:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022005samsungex1.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SamsungNX10/

And Sony will also be joining -
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022103sony2010.asp


By later this year, there will be a wealth of fun choices.

Right now, with price not an obstacle, the GF1 and EP-2 seem the best bets unless you want an actual "pocket camera".


Steve Hendrix

[Neil Folberg]

Hello,
I vote for the EP2 with the Panasonic 20mm pancake lens-  quite unbelievably good. I've made NICE prints up to A3+ and they look like they were done with 6x6 cm film and a Rollei TLR or something like that; with the electronic viewfinder, the experience of composing is precise, studied and accurate. They are stunning when you consider what they were done with. I also have the "Leica" 45mm macro and it is excellent, but the 20mm is in a class all it's own. The kit lens zoom that comes with the EP2 is good, but it doesn't have that edge of a truly fine lens in my opinion. How about this picture shot at night in times square out the window of a taxi with the 20mm at f1.7 and ISO 1000? The results produced with a more studied approach are that much better ...

I do carry the camera, nearly all the time, and if I were doing a documentary style book project would use it very seriously. Lot's of fun!

Neil

[arashm]

BTW

here is a bit of GF1 love by Mr. Bruce Dale

http://vimeo.com/m/#/8842694

[fredjeang]

...anti-GF1 considerations, to balance this topic.

Someone pointed the DP1 and I think it's a nice (with some downsides) alternative to introduce also a Foveon in the gear.

But today I'll go for the Ricoh GRX with the A12 module.

Both cameras are fixed lens but they give outstanding IQ. Specially the GRX, file quality is above the MFT without reservations.
Low-light is as good as what you'd get with a Leica. There are extended proof on line about these facts.
I'm really impressed by the body design, buttons implementation etc...
And the interface is just what you want a camera to be, for my taste.

I find the GF1 very good but looks boring (or maybe the pink colored). The Olympus EP1 or 2 is design the way only italians knows how to do these things, but I hate the controls, paying for silly art filters and it shines under certain outdoor conditions when sun is low in the sky. Very accurate for the Riviera cost or Monaco avenue.

These MFT don't have discrete shutter either, and that's something that really anoys me, specially they're EVILS.

I'd rather choose a Leica X1, a GRX and even a DP1 or 2 and a M8-9.

[Dick Roadnight]

Thank you all for taking the time...

I value your opinion, as quality means something different to MF users.

I had a Rollie 35, which was a great little, camera - pocketable, and the same quality as the Nikon I used on my world trip in the mid seventies.

There will never be a pocket camera that will match an H4D-60, and I would ideally like the pocketability of something with a fully-retractable-lens camera, and I had thought that the GF-1 would be too bulky, but it seems as if it will be the best compromise.

[eronald]

I think the S90 could be really nice for us, if the controls were done properly; the compacts don't seem to get the design quality of the SLRs and this is what hurts them most. File quality is actually decent on the S90.

Edmund

[stefan marquardt]

Don't take this wrong. This is to no one in particular. Every time I pick up one of these tiny little cameras, they seem cool in the beginning, but then you go to actually use them, and the controls are very hard to master, (way too many), and the viewfinder experience is beyond horrible. In short, has anyone on the planet ever shot a memorable photograph with one of these cameras? Or are they relegated to simply grip and grin snapshots, or drunk party shots? The shutter delay on this little location-scouting camera that I have is horrid; i think it's called a Fuji f100 or something. Great quality files, but the experience of actually making a photograph is so bad.

Can anyone speak to this? I'd love a great small pocket camera, but the ones people rave about, I just never seem to ever connect with. Thoughts?

I use this little sigma DP1s with a voigtländer viewfinder. the 28mm viewfinder is very bright but distorts a little. the camera is then set to "monitor off" and to manual focusing (via a tiny wheel). when you don´t use the AF there is not too much shuttlerlag. you have to wait between the frames taken (while the cam wrights) but that doesn´t bother me. you just take one picture at the time.
the files are very good and sharp and have a nice grain to them at higher iso - and very smooth at iso 100 because of the large sensor they use. think of old 6 mp mediumformat quality - i prefer it to the old 5d.  the lens is on of the sharpest wides i have seen.
used with monitor off and no AF it´s just like shooting an old slow rangefinder-fimcamera. you get them with a 28mm or a 40mm lens (35mm-aqui.).
here in germany the sell them over ebay off rather cheap at the moment (200 euro or so).

stefan

[gwhitf]

When it comes to shooting with P&S cameras, I believe it's just a state of mind.

I guess I get this, in theory, but in practice, there's nothing worse than having a lame camera with you, when you see something worthwhile. Inversely, why would I take a photograph of something with a substandard (lazy) camera? I find, when I shoot with those little P/S lazy cameras, I get home, and process the files, and think "Why did I think that was worthwhile?"

Maybe it's just me.

To me, keep it simple -- find your camera that works for you, and just carry it. In my world, I just can't image "A scenes" and then "C Scenes". Why bother photographing "C"? Just stand there, enjoy it, and keep walking.

It's kinda like Alec Soth, shooting a scene with an Almost645, when in truth, he shoulda' shot it with that 8x10. It doesn't hold a candle.

[rsmphoto]

As one who makes his living with MFDBs, and after years of owning/trying various P&S cameras, searching for the right combination of image quality, size, & convenience, I can only say that the M9 is for me at least, the ultimate answer for an everyday camera. I love this camera - the optics, the build, the color engine, the ease of use - it's as close as you can get to MF quality in a small, pocketable camera. And if I want to carry extra lenses, I can carry the camera and 4 lenses/batteries, charger, etc. in an simple canvas 7x11x4 shoulder bag. Yeah, I have the 28-35-50 as well. The issue is the price, not only the  camera, but the lenses. Yet they can't build them fast enough...

[Steve Hendrix]

I guess I get this, in theory, but in practice, there's nothing worse than having a lame camera with you, when you see something worthwhile. Inversely, why would I take a photograph of something with a substandard (lazy) camera? I find, when I shoot with those little P/S lazy cameras, I get home, and process the files, and think "Why did I think that was worthwhile?"

Maybe it's just me.

To me, keep it simple -- find your camera that works for you, and just carry it. In my world, I just can't image "A scenes" and then "C Scenes". Why bother photographing "C"? Just stand there, enjoy it, and keep walking.

It's kinda like Alec Soth, shooting a scene with an Almost645, when in truth, he shoulda' shot it with that 8x10. It doesn't hold a candle.

I think we just do what we can do that's practical. Most of us see opportunities every day where ever we go to capture something that resonates with us often unexpectedly. I'm standing in the checkout at Publix and there's just something about the cashier as we're talking - I really want to take her photograph, but I'm not going to carry my Canon 5DMKII around my neck every time I go into the grocery store or when I'm driving to work, or...

So, to me, the question is what can I always have with me, that is unobtrusive enough where it wouldn't be a hindrance carrying it, yet gives me enough quality to make it worthwhile. I think the micro 4/3 do this - at least from the quality standpoint. It would be nice if they could also be as compact as say, a Canon S90, but I don't know if that can ever happen because it seems to come down to sensor size.


Steve Hendrix

[fredjeang]

Found this link: http://www.seriouscompacts.com/

Maybe it helps.

Cheers.

[gwhitf]

Found this link: http://www.seriouscompacts.com/

Serious Compacts. Isn't that like Military Intelligence?

[gwhitf]

Most of the greatest images I have ever seen had nothing to do with uber image quality.

John,

I noticed a similar thing at a museum show of William Christenberry. Before he'd do a painting of one of his "southern barns" he'd go out with, literally, a Brownie camera and photograph as reference for the painting. Later, he'd go back with a "real camera" and rephotograph the same barn, and he'd show that as a photograph. (He'd show sculpture, photographs, and paintings, all mixed in one show, but all with the same content).

In the show I saw, he also displayed the reference print that he shot with the Brownie, next to the print with the real camera. Invariably, side by side, the Brownie print had much more feeling and atmosphere than the real camera, (don't know what, probably a Hasselblad or Rollei or maybe even 4x5). It was very informative to me, standing there looking at both of them, side by side -- the Brownie print was maybe 5x5", and the real camera print was maybe 24x30 or so, but I preferred the Brownie version every time.

http://www.pacemacgill.com/williamchristenberry-45-8.html

Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to fantasize about driving around the country and photographing with one of those little cameras, but to me, they offer no real mojo, atmosphere, or advantage. They seem to be just a bad version of a 5DMarkII, ie nothing special.

Maybe if there was a Tischy point and shoot, or a Brownie Digital, or a Lomo that was half good, they might be interesting.

As far as that Feaverish blog, I sorta agree with you, and I never thought I'd say this, but I'm kinda sick of a million versions of topless young girls at ASA 1000, backlit. There must be a school somewhere that pumps out these photographers.

Agree with you about Uber too -- I start thinking about the P40+ or the H4D, and then I start thinking about the money, and the asterisks (**), and my film Hasselblad seems just fine.

** I have a friend who had a great line once: "Why is it that every single Medium Format Digital camera/back always has at least one asterisk by it?" As in, you know you gotta plan for some kind of workaround when you use it.

[fredjeang]

John,

I noticed a similar thing at a museum show of William Christenberry. Before he'd do a painting of one of his "southern barns" he'd go out with, literally, a Brownie camera and photograph as reference for the painting. Later, he'd go back with a "real camera" and rephotograph the same barn, and he'd show that as a photograph. (He'd show sculpture, photographs, and paintings, all mixed in one show, but all with the same content).

In the show I saw, he also displayed the reference print that he shot with the Brownie, next to the print with the real camera. Invariably, side by side, the Brownie print had much more feeling and atmosphere than the real camera, (don't know what, probably a Hasselblad or Rollei or maybe even 4x5). It was very informative to me, standing there looking at both of them, side by side -- the Brownie print was maybe 5x5", and the real camera print was maybe 24x30 or so, but I preferred the Brownie version every time.

http://www.pacemacgill.com/williamchristenberry-45-8.html

Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to fantasize about driving around the country and photographing with one of those little cameras, but to me, they offer no real mojo, atmosphere, or advantage. They seem to be just a bad version of a 5DMarkII, ie nothing special.

Maybe if there was a Tischy point and shoot, or a Brownie Digital, or a Lomo that was half good, they might be interesting.

As far as that Feaverish blog, I sorta agree with you, and I never thought I'd say this, but I'm kinda sick of a million versions of topless young girls at ASA 1000, backlit. There must be a school somewhere that pumps out these photographers.

Agree with you about Uber too -- I start thinking about the P40+ or the H4D, and then I start thinking about the money, and the asterisks (**), and my film Hasselblad seems just fine.

** I have a friend who had a great line once: "Why is it that every single Medium Format Digital camera/back always has at least one asterisk by it?" As in, you know you gotta plan for some kind of workaround when you use it.

Well, this is interesting.

Actually I share your thoughts. The fact is that these clinic perfect outputs we have now is made at its best with MF. Everything else on the market are bad versions of the same clinic look. That is why I've never been able to like the files of smaller formats than MF, they are just overpushed bad clones.

Our eyes are educated now but the day we're in front of an old print,  feel that something's wrong, it's just human. It vibrates. Digital does not. It's precise, unforgiving but it just does not have this organic aspect.

It's ridiculous in a way that we use sofwares to make the pics more "unperfects". In C1 I often look at the 70's look style for example.

Remember that in Fine arts, I was broke all the time and the only gear I could afford was a Russian 6x6 Lubitel: Fantastic camera! Not kidding.
Print 2 meters portraits with it...no hassle of 100% magnification etc...

If it was not for the flexibility and costs I would not use digital cameras.

[Hywel]

I guess I get this, in theory, but in practice, there's nothing worse than having a lame camera with you, when you see something worthwhile. Inversely, why would I take a photograph of something with a substandard (lazy) camera? I find, when I shoot with those little P/S lazy cameras, I get home, and process the files, and think "Why did I think that was worthwhile?"

Maybe it's just me.

To me, keep it simple -- find your camera that works for you, and just carry it. In my world, I just can't image "A scenes" and then "C Scenes". Why bother photographing "C"? Just stand there, enjoy it, and keep walking.

I do two radically different sorts of photography. My commercial work is fetish images of beautiful women. I shoot these with a Hasselblad H3DII-31.

The other sort is "captured fleeting moments of light", usually in the mountains. I've been a keen hill-walker and mountaineer for 25 years.

The requirements of these two different sorts of photography are radically different. Just how different I found out on a recent photo trip to Norway. I took both the Hasselblad and my GF1.

The weather conditions were challenging. Driving rain and think mist above the cloud-base around Bergen, and snowstorms in Finse. For the latter, I literally had three 30-second windows in the entire day when the sun momentarily broke through the clouds and transformed the landscape from virtual whiteout to something much more interesting.

For me, the speed of action of the GF1 put it streets ahead for my "fleeting moments" photography, especially in the challenging conditions. The Hasselblad was in my rucksack. I didn't really get it into position in time in one of the three 30 second windows. The GF1 was in a small pouch clipped to my walking rucksack chest strap. It was *right there* when the light suddenly changed, or when I found an interesting thing to shoot in a rainstorm.

And whilst the quality of the Hasselblad shots is indubitably better when you can use it to get the shots, the GF1 with 40mm f/1.7 lens is sharp, the noise at low ISO nicely controlled, the noise at high ISO pleasantly organic and grain like and overall the quality very comparable with my old 5D. And the camera can be effortlessly clipped on without thought, whereas taking the Hasselblad into the mountains is a major decision to load oneself up with 5-10 kilos (depending on lenses) in addition to ice axe, crampons, snow shoes, water, food, extra clothes, and whatever else.

So... the Hasselblad is just the ticket for my fetish work. The GF1 is just the ticket for the mountains. (And, parenthetically, my 7D is good if I think I'll need video or want a long focal length for anything close up). Cameras are just tools, with different strengths and weaknesses, so it is just a matter of finding the one which seems best suited to the situation.

I'm fully of admiration for people who cart MFDB or view cameras around the mountains, but it isn't for me, as it turns out. But a GF1 on my chest strap? Absolutely!!

Cheers, Hywel.

[gwhitf]

The Hasselblad was in my rucksack. I didn't really get it into position in time in one of the three 30 second windows.

There's another asterisk, right there.

[Hywel]

There's another asterisk, right there.

I'm not sure what you mean?

  Cheers, Hywel.

[peterv]

I agree the GF1 is a very interesting 'quality compact'. It'll be interesting to see what Sony comes up with on may 11.

There's already been an official announcement saying this new Sony NEX line will be APS-C size compacts with interesting specs.

Lots of speculation too:

http://sonyalpharumors.com/