Compact thoughts?

R

rosswalker

Suspended / Banned
Messages
19
Name
Ross
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Folks,

Currently own a Pentax K2000 but I have never had as much use of it as I want because of the size (bag, lens, etc.). I was thinking of getting compact so I take it with me more often (i.e. not when specifically going out to take some photos) but don't want to lose too much of the functionality.

I was looking at something like a Nikon 1 but not sure specifically what to watch out for. Can anyone suggest what to look at and if the Nikon 1 is a decent bit of kit?

Thanks in advance,
Ross
 
Hi Ross, I went from a Pentax Kx to micro four thirds (Olympus) cameras a few years back. Really happy with the system, great choice of small lenses and much easier to carry about for very little penalty in image quality.
 
Nikon 1 is a whole range of cameras but they're not noted for giving much control over the camera functions. The advantage, of course, is that there's an adapter to take DX & FX Nikon lenses. There are a couple on Nikon 1 threads which I'd recommend reading to see if it's the right series for you.
 
John Lewis usually have a pretty good range of current decent cameras that are powered up and ready to play with. Worth a trip if there's one near you...
 
You say compact then mention the Nikon 1 which technically is a compact system camera or a mirrorless.

What kinds of shots are you taking?
 
The "best bang for the buck" I've come across is the Panasonic GM5: Tiny, M43 sensor, takes a wide range of lenses and can be found for around £300. I have two and am well pleased with them.
 
Thanks guys. I think a trip into John lewis is a good shout.

I'm not specifically looking to take particular types of shots, its more about being able to have it with me more often.

I haven't managed to cut the list down yet but I'll keep you posted. Sony a6000 might be worth a look too.

Cheers
 
I bought my wife a Fuji X30 and it's made me seriously question why I bother lugging a bag of lenses around.
 
frod said:
I bought my wife a Fuji X30 and it's made me seriously question why I bother lugging a bag of lenses around.
Click to expand...
I bought myself an x30 to use instead of my D7100. I liked it that much I ended up selling the D7100 to buy a Fuji X-T10.

I still have the x30 and doubt I'll sell it now tbh!
 
I love my X30 too but it's now getting difficult/expensive to source new.
 
A friend managed to borrow a Nikon 1 J5 for a play. Lovely camera, and size-wise it is about right. The one thing that I think will annoy me with CSC's is the lack of a viewfinder. What are peoples experiences in sunlight with the screens? I know you can tilt and turn most but does that get a bit of a pain after a while?
 
I've tried cameras without viewfinders but my eyesight means I need to wear glasses to see the screen properly and, if you're holding the camera out at arms length then you're just not holding it as stably as possible. Now, I only consider cameras with viewfinders to be viable.
 
Sony RX100mk2 and mk3 are very pockatable cameras.(y)
 
What you need to decide is how compact do you need the compact to be ?

I have the Sony A6000 and it is a great camera, paired with the kit lens (16-50) it is certainly not large but . . . you will need a small camera bag. Now if you are going to carry a 'small' camera bag everywhere then why not carry a slightly 'larger' camera bag plus the A6000 with a high quality (think larger) lens or heaven forbid a larger camera.

Then somewhere down the road you cannot be bothered to carry 'that' camera bag everywhere so you are back where you started. I have been down this road :(

So is the answer a really compact 'compact' camera ? that is pocketable think high quality Sony Rx100 series or I have a Panasonic LF1 (very good but not RX100 quality . . . or price. )

See if this is a (just in case) camera i.e in your pocket if needed, can you justify 'big bucks' (RX100 etc) for occasional use 'snapshots' ? Truth is most modern cameras (I certainly include my Panasonic LF1) are well capable of taking very decent images providing you do not need A3 or shoot at iso3200.

I would add I have owned the Sony RX100 mk3 and it's great but it lived in my pocket and simply did not earn its keep (justify the £600.00 it cost)
Hence the Panasonic LF1 that is now in my pocket but as I found a new one for £150.00 (bargain) I sleep easier.

I hope the ramblings of an old man help ?
 
I've just bought a Canon GX9 to replace my Panasonic LF1.
Not a huge difference in IQ but better functionality (for me). Great little camera - similar in size to to LF1 ie much smaller than the RX series (my RX100 mk1 broke recently). So, truly pocketable.
Canon currently have a £30 cash back and John Lewis offer a two year guarantee and price match......
 
@Roy and david:)...

The 'ramblings' (very coherent ramblings, in my opinion!) and comments are most interesting to me.

Last autumn, I bought the Panasonic Lumix TZ55. It had come out early in 2014. Here it is - I got the red one for £109, but it seems to have rocketed in price:confused::

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-...64431433&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+lumix+tz55

My question is: would you consider my TZ55 to be on a par with the LF1 that you both obviously think highly of?
 
If you want a compact camera then I would recommend the Sony RX100 mark III/IV, Canon G7x, or even Canon G5x. If you want a compact system camera (such as the Nikon 1), I'd recommend m4/3. The Sony a6000/a6300 and Fuji CSCs are really good, but lens size/bulk starts increasing (depending on lenses you're comparing)
 
badlywornroy said:
What you need to decide is how compact do you need the compact to be ?

I have the Sony A6000 and it is a great camera, paired with the kit lens (16-50) it is certainly not large but . . . you will need a small camera bag. Now if you are going to carry a 'small' camera bag everywhere then why not carry a slightly 'larger' camera bag plus the A6000 with a high quality (think larger) lens or heaven forbid a larger camera.

Then somewhere down the road you cannot be bothered to carry 'that' camera bag everywhere so you are back where you started. I have been down this road :(

So is the answer a really compact 'compact' camera ? that is pocketable think high quality Sony Rx100 series or I have a Panasonic LF1 (very good but not RX100 quality . . . or price. )

See if this is a (just in case) camera i.e in your pocket if needed, can you justify 'big bucks' (RX100 etc) for occasional use 'snapshots' ? Truth is most modern cameras (I certainly include my Panasonic LF1) are well capable of taking very decent images providing you do not need A3 or shoot at iso3200.

I would add I have owned the Sony RX100 mk3 and it's great but it lived in my pocket and simply did not earn its keep (justify the £600.00 it cost)
Hence the Panasonic LF1 that is now in my pocket but as I found a new one for £150.00 (bargain) I sleep easier.

I hope the ramblings of an old man help ?
Click to expand...
It's not big bucks for an rx100, the mk1 is circa £250 new and its stills quality is near on identical to the newest ones. Video is very good too as long as you don't need super slowmo or 4K.
 
Eltheza said:
@Roy and david:)...

The 'ramblings' (very coherent ramblings, in my opinion!) and comments are most interesting to me.

Last autumn, I bought the Panasonic Lumix TZ55. It had come out early in 2014. Here it is - I got the red one for £109, but it seems to have rocketed in price:confused::

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-...64431433&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+lumix+tz55

My question is: would you consider my TZ55 to be on a par with the LF1 that you both obviously think highly of?
Click to expand...


Hi Elizabeth, the short answer to your last line question is no ! I am basing this solely on image quality. Individuals need (are attracted by) different 'bells & whistles.

Let me qualify my statement, all things being equal (and they mostly are among major camera manufacturers) the bigger the sensor the more capable (think image quality) the camera.

The TZ 55 has a 1/2.33" sensor (6.08 x 4.56mm) the LF1 1.17" (7.44x5.58mm) sensor. Not a huge difference and in good light with manageable DR (dynamic range) you probably wouldn't notice a difference.

The bigger sensor flexes it's muscles when the light drops or the DR of the image increases.

Of course the Sony RX100 has a much bigger sensor so much more muscle and so on to the Sony A6000 bigger sensor than RX100 and so you keep climbing the tree spending more and more money until you are spending thousands of £££'s on a camera with a full-frame sensor

but maybe all you are doing is posting pictures on the web and printing off the occasional 6x4 or 8x6 ?

My point is what expectations do you have for your pictures ? decide and then manage those expectations and buy a camera that will do the job. e.g do you need a Posche to take your elderly mother to the supermarket once a week ?

Regards
 
Last edited:
badlywornroy said:
Hi Elizabeth, the short answer to your last line question is no ! I am basing this solely on image quality. Individuals need (are attracted by) different 'bells & whistles.

Let me qualify my statement, all things being equal (and they mostly are among major camera manufacturers) the bigger the sensor the more capable (think image quality) the camera.

The TZ 55 has a 1/2.33" sensor (6.08 x 4.56mm) the LF1 1.17" (7.44x5.58mm) sensor. Not a huge difference and in good light with manageable DR (dynamic range) you probably wouldn't notice a difference.

The bigger sensor flexes it's muscles when the light drops or the DR of the image increases.

Of course the Sony RX100 has a much bigger sensor so much more muscle and so on to the Sony A6000 bigger sensor than RX100 and so you keep climbing the tree spending more and more money until you are spending thousands of £££'s on a camera with a full-frame sensor

but maybe all you are doing is posting pictures on the web and printing off the occasional 6x4 or 8x6 ?

My point is what expectations do you have for your pictures ? decide and then manage those expectations and buy a camera that will do the job. e.g do you need a Posche to take your elderly mother to the supermarket once a week ?

Regards
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's not just about printing sizes. Better sensors will simply be able to create better images, full stop :) You'd notice that even on an 8x6.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone mentioned the TZ100? 1" type sensor with relatively long zoom :)
 
odd jim said:
To be fair, it's not just about printing sizes. Better sensors will simply be able to create better images, full stop :) You'd notice that even on an 8x6.
Click to expand...

To be fair I never said it was all about printing sizes " The bigger sensor flexes it's muscles when the light drops or the DR of the image increases. " i
 
badlywornroy said:
To be fair I never said it was all about printing sizes " The bigger sensor flexes it's muscles when the light drops or the DR of the image increases. " i
Click to expand...

To be fair that is fair.
 
badlywornroy said:
Hi Elizabeth, the short answer to your last line question is no ! I am basing this solely on image quality. Individuals need (are attracted by) different 'bells & whistles.

Let me qualify my statement, all things being equal (and they mostly are among major camera manufacturers) the bigger the sensor the more capable (think image quality) the camera.

The TZ 55 has a 1/2.33" sensor (6.08 x 4.56mm) the LF1 1.17" (7.44x5.58mm) sensor. Not a huge difference and in good light with manageable DR (dynamic range) you probably wouldn't notice a difference.

The bigger sensor flexes it's muscles when the light drops or the DR of the image increases.

Of course the Sony RX100 has a much bigger sensor so much more muscle and so on to the Sony A6000 bigger sensor than RX100 and so you keep climbing the tree spending more and more money until you are spending thousands of £££'s on a camera with a full-frame sensor

but maybe all you are doing is posting pictures on the web and printing off the occasional 6x4 or 8x6 ?

My point is what expectations do you have for your pictures ? decide and then manage those expectations and buy a camera that will do the job. e.g do you need a Posche to take your elderly mother to the supermarket once a week ?

Regards
Click to expand...

Hi Roy!

Thanks very much for taking the time to reply.

Yes, I know a bit about sensor sizes. My main aim is to learn. The TZ 55 has more manual controls than I've ever had before. I've learnt about the Exposure Triangle, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority etc. This camera is right for me at the moment.

I don't post many pics on the web; I occasionally print photos to send to friends overseas. I do photography for me. I'll move on, but not until I've thoroughly got to grips with what I've got.

I've taken photographs over five decades - purely for my own pleasure. I also have two film cameras, an old Canon Powershot and my first digital camera (still much used) is a Canon Ixus 105.

P.S. I'd love to take my mum to the supermarket in a Porsche but she died in 2012:(.

Thanks again.
 
" P.S. I'd love to take my mum to the supermarket in a Porsche but she died in 2012:(."

Elizabeth, I am sorry for using your Mum in my example and possibly invoking sad thoughts. I also lost my Mum many years ago but they are always with us in our memories.
 
Thanks folks. I think I have settled on an rx100 mk3. Decent camera, even when compared with adslr, still has similar functionality, has a viewfinder and fits in my jacket pocket. I'm just trying to find one for good money now. Typical, but I keep finding the cameras I ruled out cheap.

Ross
 
Bare the TZ100 in mind too I had the mk3 and sold it after 3. Months didn't have enough reach for me, I now have it replaced by the tz100 great camera and does everything and more that the RX did
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top