a small camera

[Petrus]

Those of you who recommend the Fuji X100 -  is there something you'd recommend with a longer focal length?

Fujifilm X100s, not X100, Sir… There is a difference.

For longer focal lengths Fuji X-series bodies with exchangeable lenses, 35mm 1.4 is great, the new 56mm 1.2 is likely be great also, but cannot be small. 18-55 2.8-4 zoom is also great if one is into zooms.

[Manoli]

if money is an option the a used Leica m8, because they're going for point and shoot money...

And the reason is .. there's an 'end-of-life' notice out on the M8. If you crack the rear LCD, Leica can no longer replace it. The camera is scrap.

Picture-wise the M8 is actually as good as cooter says, but if it's the only camera you have you will become a nervous wreck.

Never felt the need to reach for the Valium, I've had mine since they were first released and have never had any power, banding or battery problems. They also don't need an IR filter unless you go below 35mm.

[Manoli]

Those of you who recommend the Fuji X100 -  is there something you'd recommend with a longer focal length?

Fujifilm X-E1 with either a 35 or 50 Summicron (non-asph)

[studio347]

thanks for the suggestion. I will do some research for this(maybe used leica m8) as well.
My main camera is sinar p2 With it, I think I learned to be patient. Hassel is just for some cases.
It's for my personal work...so, I don't need a fast focus. Manual is perfect.
Your point about really being able to like using it, seems to be important to me also.
Sometimes, I don't need or want to see through the viewfinder or set the focus through it since I spend a lot of time for those in job. I need something which can be a part of me~
and also something with which I don't bother other people's feeling when pointing to them.. which I can feel when others point the camera to me on street...
Strangely, I don't feel like using any zoom lens for this, I mean the shape when it zooming in~ haha
Thanks all!

[fredjeang2]

The M...
Well to be honest, the files are great. That's prety much
What I love about the M.
I've been shooting with it in amateur sessions, you know
Those when you meet with talents at a friend's studio
For the fun, with iberico ham and Rioja wine.
Don't know if because of the wine vapors but
The camera is a damn brick and tend to slide in hands.
I don't find the handling natural at all and it's rather on
The big size. Then, I do not focus well with it. Whatever
I've been trying, I find it damn hard to nail the focus.
It's totally vintage approach, for the good and the hugly
But frankly it's more an extravagant elegant camera
From another age. I'd be much more interested to try
A S, but it's out of question for me because of the price
Of the all system, as I do not shoot stills profesionaly
But just to maintain the buzz sort of alive.
What I really love with the Pentax is that it does not
Copy a vintage camera rehorned at the digital sauce. It's
Built to work in the hardest conditions in the spirit of
Cine cams.
Michael said a long time ago that the Pentax had no
Issues but was a boring camera. I understood his view,
But I think that they are underestimated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obRn__ZBq2A

[Ken Bennett]

Those of you who recommend the Fuji X100 -  is there something you'd recommend with a longer focal length?

I've shot a lot of cameras over the years. The Fuji X Pro 1 with the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 lens is something special. (It's an APS sensor, so the coverage is like a 50mm in full frame terms.)

[eronald]

And the reason is .. there's an 'end-of-life' notice out on the M8. If you crack the rear LCD, Leica can no longer replace it. The camera is scrap.

Never felt the need to reach for the Valium, I've had mine since they were first released and have never had any power, banding or battery problems. They also don't need an IR filter unless you go below 35mm.

I have had a bunch of replacements, and field failures - the power system is defective on a lot of them, if your batteries go down while you're shooting, the camera freezes and there is no quick way to reset although a good battery may save you. As for filters, colors are ok without them except everything made of nylon and colored black to the eye prints deep magenta, while natural materials that look black tend to print black; this happens reliably and has nothing to do with focal length and a lot to do with the fact that the camera "sees" near infrared; images will also be slightly blurred because of this. There is some UV sensitivity in the  original S system, solved by UV filters built into the lenses. Which means that anyone using third party lenses on S should probably add a filter too.

I would recommend an M9 over an M8 for anyone wanting to use a Leica in real life, in fact I'm shopping for one and I can assure people here that the files are not the issue.

Edmund

[KevinA]

I hear good things about the Sigma pocket range.

[bcooter]

To be honest, all digital is so good, or better put, so close to each other.

Fred 2 posted one of those links where you can compare cameras at the same iso and settings and there is such a small difference, it just doesn't matter.

I know my $6,000 1dx shoots virtually the same file up to 1000 iso as my little em-5.   Naturally the em-5 isn't as robust, doesn't tether, etc. etc., but using the right prime lens the files are equal and I'm sure it's the same with a Fuji, a Leica a Sony (as long as the Sony doesn't shake).

The only time I see a great deal of difference is in lenses.   Good oem primes seem to make a huge difference, vs. zooms and not just in sharpness or detail but in total look.

IMO

BC

[ndevlin]

The right answer to the OP's question is: whichever camera he likes best from the following list, kindly compiled by the assembled authorities:

- Pentax K-anything with pancake lenses ----> if you want a mini-slr

- Olympus OM-D, 5-1-EOMG-1/5 (or whatever it's now called) ----> if you like a micro, faux-slr, w/EVF

- Fuji X100s if you like a fixed 35mm lens and love the Leica ethos

- Fuji X-Pro1, E, etc ---> if you like the Leica ethos but want interchangeable lenses
 
- Leica M9 -----> if you like focusing manually and have rich parents or a real-estate portfolio   

Happy shooting,

- N.

[BJL]

To be honest, all digital is so good, or better put, so close to each other. ... The only time I see a great deal of difference is in lenses.

Agreed: I recommend looking at how well the lens choices fit with what you want to do with the small camera, including the high end "compacts" with a largish sensor and and a fixed lens. Any sensor format from 1" up can provide fine images for the occasions when you want to leave the big kit behind.

[synn]

FWIW,

I helped a friend buy a new camera the other day. She's a girl, so size and style was very important to her. After I gave her a few options, she immediately zeroed in on the Fuji XE2 and pretty much fell in love with it when she tried it.
After we bought it, I spent some time with it and was extremely impressed. It has great colors out of the box and is overall very responsive and really well built. Even the kit lens is rather neat.

I would definitely consider it as a top choice for a "small" camera.

[bcooter]

I've heard this from others but don't understand why some find it difficult and others such as myself take to it like a duck to water. Before I bought into Leica I thought I might like the cameras despite the rangefinder but found myself loving them because of it.

The problem with the leica is it's a few lens camera.   Anything past 50mm get's challanged to focus including the 90mm. 

I couldn't wait to put the leica 90 on my m43 systems and was surprised at how much it underperformed in comparison to the olympus primes.   I'm sure a lot of this is just in camera optimization, though I guess it doesn't matter, as long as it's sharp enough.

Actually I never bought a m43 for stills but the gh3's for video which worked really well and added the em-5 on a whim.    Only after shooting a few serious images with the em-5 did I realize how good it was and bought an em-1 (yes olympus naming is very hard to follow, though so are most).

The interesting thing about these small camera systems is how much easier they are to transport.   I'm use to large cameras and a lot of equipment, but recently moved our contax system on a long flight and was shocked at how large and  heavy they were compared to that little m43 system.   

Anyway, even if your buying a small camera for fun, if your semi serious you'll probably add lenses and I'd look at the available lenses before I put down the cash.



IMO

BC

[fredjeang2]

I couldn't wait to put the leica 90 on my m43 systems and was surprised at how much it underperformed in comparison to the olympus primes.  

This is a fact Leica lenses owners have been pointed over and over again when they tried on m4/3. They thought
"Leica divine quality" would enhance their m4/3 and they are actually worse than the Oly primes.
Thing that I found too when I tried.
But hey, we should not forget that Olympus knows how to make great glasses.
And...if...simply those Oly were better optics? (I know to say that something is better than Leica might sounds
an Heresy but...could it be?)

The problem with the leica is it's a few lens camera.   Anything past 50mm get's challanged to focus including the 90mm.  

Totally.
I don't know with what lens Bruce Gilden is shooting his N.Y candid but for sure a wide in hyperfocal otherwise...
although he may still uses analog body that I wouldn't be surprised and the tolerances are not as strics as in digital.

Ps: Keith might like the vintage cars...preferently british for the oxydation buzz. You know those Triumphs that we were
driving to the Wight island damped roads (paths?) listening to Daltrey and Townsend (...I wasn't born yet, okay my generation -pun intended-
belongs more to Morissey).
Gosh...give me a M and I buy an E-Type, with rust of course.
Keith, don't tell me that you bought one of those new conceptual Mini...you didn't, didn't you?

[bcooter]

But hey, we should not forget that Olympus knows how to make great glasses.
And...if...simply those Oly were better optics? (I know to say that something is better than Leica might sounds
an Heresy but...could it be?)

I think nearly all oem lenses are better than others.  Maybe a few Zeiss aftermarket manuals are "slightly" sharper, but not enough for the asking price.

I know with the Olympus primes I have both of my bodies turned down to minus sharpening and zero noise reduction, preferring to add it in post if needed, though I think we have too much obsession on ultra sharp images.

For still and the OM series I use only primes as I find the zooms not necessarily soft, but it seems like something is missing.

For video with the gh3's I prefer the zooms as they have a softer roll off that works for motion.

I believe that when I tested the om series against the sony A7 and found the om a better looking file was I was using the olympus primes and on the sony the A mount zeiss.

Yes, Olympus can make lenses and there is only two holes in their system.  Needs a fast 1.7 or so 100 to 110 and a fast 9mm or 10mm wide probably f2 at the slowest.

But olympus lenses hold up in price and quality.

The 100mm F2 for the film om series still sells for a thousand dollars.  That's a lot for a small manual lens.  (though of course not Leica prices)

IMO

BC

[Manoli]

I don't know with what lens Bruce Gilden is shooting his N.Y candid ...

28mm Elmarit - f2.8 (asph)

[fredjeang2]

I think nearly all oem lenses are better than others.  Maybe a few Zeiss aftermarket manuals are "slightly" sharper, but not enough for the asking price.

I know with the Olympus primes I have both of my bodies turned down to minus sharpening and zero noise reduction, preferring to add it in post if needed, though I think we have too much obsession on ultra sharp images.

For still and the OM series I use only primes as I find the zooms not necessarily soft, but it seems like something is missing.

For video with the gh3's I prefer the zooms as they have a softer roll off that works for motion.

I believe that when I tested the om series against the sony A7 and found the om a better looking file was I was using the olympus primes and on the sony the A mount zeiss.

Yes, Olympus can make lenses and there is only two holes in their system.  Needs a fast 1.7 or so 100 to 110 and a fast 9mm or 10mm wide probably f2 at the slowest.

But olympus lenses hold up in price and quality.

The 100mm F2 for the film om series still sells for a thousand dollars.  That's a lot for a small manual lens.  (though of course not Leica prices)

IMO

BC

A question James (sorry to be out of topic but it falls naturally after this quote):

You said that the GH3 is a great step in terms of AF accuracy for motion and indeed the camera has this reputation.
But what's not clear for me is if it's the GH3 with the Pana lenses only or it would AF as well with the Oly lenses too?

Being the same m4/3 standart.

[fredjeang2]

28mm Elmarit - f2.8 (non-asph)

Thanks Manoli. That explains why he does not have focus issues.

[fredjeang2]

Hey, my car is one of the only things I prefer without rust.

I knew it!...

(there was a Leica called Mini actually, I didn't know that)

[JV]

For video with the gh3's I prefer the zooms as they have a softer roll off that works for motion.

Probably slightly of topic but any zooms in particular that you would recommend?