Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: eronald on May 25, 2015, 08:59:13 am
-
Hi folks, what's your favorite luxury compact, and how does it compare to your SLR and camera phone?
Edmund
-
I have the RX100M2. I prefer over the M3 (need that 100mm equivalent more than I need wider than 28mm equivalent).
Image quality is more or less equal to my dSLT in all but low light conditions.
-
I have the RX100 Mark II as well, and it's a fine little camera. But the "compact" that I keep going back to is the Fuji X100s. Yes, it's a fixed lens, yes it's larger and heavier, but dang it's a lot of fun to shoot and makes some great files.
-
I'd have to go with the RX100 III. I love the addition of the view finder and couldn't go back to the I or II without it. But I will say that my favorite compact camera to shoot landscapes with is the RX1r. The RX1r is such a fun and simple camera to work with and provides excellent IQ. I love that I can use a traditional threaded cable release with the camera, it reminds me of my medium and large format days.
-
I'm using a Panasonic GM1 with the 12-32 as my compact. Bigger sensor than the LX100/RX100/etc. Very small, very light, excellent kit lens, interchangeable lenses, good price point.
The GF7 is nearly identical to the GM1. The GM5 has an EVF, but it's not fantastic.
-
RX100m3. I previously used compact-sensor cameras like the XZ1 or Canon S90. But the larger and denser sensor, tilting screen and EVF of the RX100m3 wins. While I do occasionally put it in a pocket, it's weight and thickness make this uncomfortable to me.
I added the Franiac grip, which I've done on other soap-bar cameras as well.
-
The best one is: Lumix LX100. 24mm (equivalent) wide. Very quiet shutter, good UI, excellent lens, varying aspect ratios and at a good price.
-
I am using the LX100 and am pleasantly surprised at how much I like it.
Dave S
-
My x100 is my current everyday compact, though it's not particularly compact, and I've never liked it as much as the Ricoh GRDii that it supplanted. I'm tempted to pick up one of the latest GR's.
Actually, I should say that my current everyday compact is my Nexus 5. I shoot and post to a Tumblr (onthego.photos) from the phone far more frequently than anything.
-
Leica D-Lux 5.
Yes, I know all the Panasonic stuff (LX-5 equivalent), but it's a really nice package in Leica form.
I sold the DSLR - it offered few advantages for the weight. D-Lux is now my only digital camera (I still use film for large prints - entirely a different kind of work). It gives all the quality I need up to A3 size reproduction, and I've had more images published from it than from any other camera. Biggest drawback is that it cannot isolate a narrow field of focus very well, but that's about my only reservation. The more I use it, the more I like it.
My Nokia Lumia 1520 camera phone is pretty good, but it's not up to publication quality, so is no substitute. Poor DR by comparison.
-
Interesting. I have an LX5 and I'm quite disappointed with it as to me my old LX2 took sharper images at low ISO, both are rubbish at higher ISO's. To me LX5 files look mushy when pixel peeping and I wouldn't recommend the camera to anyone. Maybe the Leica version is better.
-
Well, luxury plus compact spells Leica Typ 113...
-
Why do you describe them as luxury?
-
Why do you describe them as luxury?
They cost as much if not more than an SLR
e.
-
I bought an RX100 MKIII as it had all the features I required [24mm lens, EVF, flash, tilting screen, good high ISO, large sensor and still fitted in my trouser pocket.
As for quality, pretty darn stunning.
-
Interesting. I have an LX5 and I'm quite disappointed with it as to me my old LX2 took sharper images at low ISO, both are rubbish at higher ISO's. To me LX5 files look mushy when pixel peeping and I wouldn't recommend the camera to anyone. Maybe the Leica version is better.
The images should be exactly the same out of the camera - there is no difference under the skin. However, I'm not sure I would recommend too much pixel-peeping - it does not really give you much idea of what an image finally published in a magazine will look like. Enlarge to no more than A3 size, either on screen or in print - the camera is not intended or claimed to work well for anything larger. I think the in-camera JPEG sharpening is fairly subtle for a compact camera, but I prefer it that way - it's easier to add than remove!
I agree you don't want to use high ISO - but I rarely seem to have reason to.
-
They cost as much if not more than an SLR
e.
So I hear, but mine including Lightroom cost exactly the same as an LX5 plus buying Lightroom separately, and I didn't already have LR, so I went for it! ;D
Overall, though, speaking as an old-ish codger who grew up with 35mm film before SLRs ever had 'D's in front, I am consistently impressed with what the more serious compact cameras are now capable of - the best are really very good indeed, and DSLRs as an everyday camera are probably no longer really necessary.
The D-Lux 5 is long obsolete officially, but I'd still prefer to get thoroughly familiar with any camera so as to understand it before deciding to replace it with the newest model. The new D-Lux (7?) (I mean LX-100 ;)) looks tempting, but I'm in no hurry, as I know what my little thing can do and what it can't - and now I understand it, I'm more often impressed than disappointed.
-
I agree that the more serious compacts are surprisingly good. They also approach the size of some old film cameras like the Pentax MX (or ME, either with the pancake 40 mm lens) which, of course, were full frame as it were in film days.
Dave S
-
Well, luxury plus compact spells Leica Typ 113...
I suppose you could also add the X Verio though, IMHO, that zoom lens sticks out a bit to much to fit the camera into the compact category.
-
Forgetting about zoom and optical finder for the moment, how do these others compare with the Fuji x100 in terms of IQ, ergonomics and UI?
-
Forgetting about zoom and optical finder for the moment, how do these others compare with the Fuji x100 in terms of IQ, ergonomics and UI?
I've never used any of the recent Sonys or an X100, but I have a Canon G7X (which reportedly has the same sensor technology, if not the exact same sensor, as the RX100 III, and gets a slightly higher DxOMark score) as well as a Fuji X-T1 and X-E2 (which have the same X-Trans sensor as the X100t), and my answer to your question would be "not even close." The G7X has considerably weaker low-light performance and dynamic range. The Fuji images seem considerably punchier to me, with nicer colors and microcontrast (although these characteristics obviously are influenced by the lenses I use on the two Fuji bodies as well as the sensor). I can't comment on the user-agents of the Sonys since I haven't used a Sony camera in years, but I looked at an RX100 III the other day and it doesn't have a lot of physical controls. And many reviewers seem less than pleased with the design of the Sony menu hierarchy.
On the other hand, I can't stick either of my Fujis in a pants pocket. . . .
-
Interesting. I have an LX5 and I'm quite disappointed with it as to me my old LX2 took sharper images at low ISO, both are rubbish at higher ISO's. To me LX5 files look mushy when pixel peeping and I wouldn't recommend the camera to anyone. Maybe the Leica version is better.
Or maybe your particular LX5 is just not so good?
Here's an old comment I saved off of some chatter
about the LX3:
"As for the LX, I use 21 mp full frame cameras professionally,
and I've been very surprised at the photos I get with my LX3.
It's always with me, but I carry a purse. But guys, you can
always stick it in your front pocket and impress the ladies!"
I have an LX3, and when it went on the fritz (several impacts'
effects eventually being too much), I debated going for the
finally materialized LX100 (once rumored to be a 1"-sensor'd
upgrade) or the earlier latest version the LX7. I got the latter,
cheaper. The LX5 extended zoom range of LX3 from 24-60 to -90mm (eq),
and the LX7 opened aperture a full stop (2-2.8/3.3 => 1.4-2.8 (!)) on the
extended range. And changed from CCD to CMOS sensor supposedly
better at higher ISO.
.:. I have not yet given up thought to acquire another LX3,
but have come to like the LX7 and think overall it's giving
similar IQ (damn slow at times writing or going to View?!).
(I shoot SOOC JPEG, lo-tech.)
Their stabilization isn't too shabby, btw. One one recent
shot that I repeated w/E-M5 I happened to come out better
that time (I'm not into testing) at 1/6 w/LX7 than the 1/8 w/E-M5.
.:. YMMV.
Yes, I know all the Panasonic stuff (LX-5 equivalent),
but it's a really nice package in Leica form.
What gets me is that not only is the essentially equal
item sold w/the Red Dot for a huge mark-up (now tried
to be rationalized by the LR gambit (I recall one guy
remarking that he'd now a slew of LR licenses :o)),
but you don't even get the slight grip on the body
--no, but you can purchase one from Leica ($150?) !
The new D-Lux (7?) (I mean LX-100
Well, for you --for us, per my dilemma above--, there is
the D-Lux 6 to consider, for a bump in aperture and some
other things.
But none of these LXes is all so compact and pocket-fitting
as the Canon S90/95/100, RX100(s).
OTOH, I much like the easy selection (ring on lens, which
w/LX7 also has an aperture ring) of FRAMING : 1:1, 4:3,
3:2, & 16:9 --which have common image circle except
for the 1:1. Sized resp. 7.5 - 10 - 9.5 - 9, mpx for LX3-5-7.
-d.
-
Interesting. I have an LX5 and I'm quite disappointed with it as to me my old LX2 took sharper images at low ISO, both are rubbish at higher ISO's. To me LX5 files look mushy when pixel peeping and I wouldn't recommend the camera to anyone. Maybe the Leica version is better.
The only difference is the name and red dot. My local camera store sells loads of Leica rebadged Panasonics, even though they always tell the customer the cameras are identical bar the 20% price premium.
-
A thought that came to me a while ago - I'm not so sure the Leica compacts are just "rebadged Panasonics". This has more of the feel of a long-term relationship between complementary companies, and I get the feeling there is actually a fair bit of Leica design input into the cameras from the outset - and not just the lenses. That even seems to be increasing: such as with the manual controls and ergonomics of the LX100. I would expect that Leica gets a royalty fee for every Panasonic version sold - and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they may even make more money that way than selling their own badged items.
-
I have the original RX100 and for the size it's a very good camera. Not perfect of course but I have very good 13x19 prints from it. The thing that annoyed me the most was that the stabilization was not good in stills while in video was decent; they released a firmware for it and I did install it but didn't get to test it yet as I'm using the bigger cameras these days. As with most zoom compacts it gets softish at the long end of the zoom.
I used and still have the Canons S90 and S100. More pocketable, good quality in good light with better DOF (you have to watch for those highlights, I was using mine with -1/3 compensation by default). Easier to get nice colors. When significant postprocessing is involved or light is not good there is no comparison, the Sony is much more flexible.
-
They cost as much if not more than an SLR
e.
I picked up a used RX100M1 for $260 on eBay and an RX100M2 for $360.
Not really "luxury" prices, IMO.
-
I picked up a used RX100M1 for $260 on eBay and an RX100M2 for $360.
Not really "luxury" prices, IMO.
I had two RX100s. The first was very very good, but went into "buzz mode" after 10 days. It was swapped for the second which took bad pictures and I sold it.
I think the MarkIII doesn't have the buzz issue, because of which you cannot buy these cameras used.
Edmund
-
I had two RX100s. The first was very very good, but went into "buzz mode" after 10 days. It was swapped for the second which took bad pictures and I sold it.
My RX100M1 was very good, I gave it to my son who didn't want to carry around his dSLR gear anymore.
My M2 is also very good. No issues with either one.
I think the MarkIII doesn't have the buzz issue, because of which you cannot buy these cameras used.
Edmund
Sure you can:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100M3-B-20-1MP-Compact-Camera-Black-/171811779153?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2800c7b251
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100m-III-Digital-Camera-Demo-/191593644832?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c9bdf0320