The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

As a m4/3 shooter, do you also find a need for...

Tesselator

New member
I've noticed that people who primarily seek IQ from these little P&S generally declare the S90/95 as "the one".

I'm different in that I can't understand looking to them for IQ. Im my case I think the only things about them that make them worth having are their form factor and their ruggedness. These days with the Pen, GF1/2 or the NEX models being about the same size and yet totally snuffing all compacts in IQ, there's just no point considering IQ when looking at compacts - they're all damn close to each other anyway. So if I were to shop for a compact these days my requirements would be like:


  • Can be dropped in a pool and not die,
  • Can be sat on and survive,
  • Can be dropped and not burst into parts,
  • Can be left in the sun on my car's dashboard for a week and not melt, change color, or stop working perfectly,
  • Can be left in the car for a week in sub-zero temps or dropped in the snow,
  • Looks cool and sporty,
  • Looks as good as the next one (IQ).

And to that end I like these OK:



LUMIX TS3 is Waterproof, Shockproof, Freezeproof, Dustproof, and Adds
Full-HD Video Recording, a New 3D Photo Mode and
Easy Facebook and YouTube Uploads.



Pentax Optio W90 rugged compact waterproof digital compact camera
designed for worry-free underwater photo-shooting,
with a "Digital Microscope" mode.



Olympus "Tough 8010": Shockproof to 2m, waterproof to 10m,
crushproof to 100kg freezeproof to -10°C and scratchproof



Casio EX-G1 shock-resistant, waterproof, dustproof, Freezeproof etc.
848 x 480 (30 fps) movies, and so on.



Canon PowerShot D10 Waterproof (to 10m), shockproof (1.22m),
freeze-proof (-10°C), dust-proof digital camera



For me, again, selecting a P&S these days doesn't include looking very closely at noise issues, RAW abilities, or color accuracy and etc.. We have Pen, GF, and NEX that cream all of them so badly it's not funny - and which are easily pocketable or purse-able with a pancake lens or whatever. Of these I would probably go for the Pentax or the Canon. When I read the reviews they out-performed the others in several significant ways IIRC.





.
 
Last edited:

DHart

New member
Michael.. You're saying that the S90 is quiet and does not have a mechanical shutter? Sorry I was a bit confused by your a and b.

Tesselator... Those are some very interesting points and durability can be extra important in a camera you will slog everywhere no matter what.

I do wonder about the compact to IQ comparison, at least in the case of the XZ-1 to the GF1. Looking at the RAW samples on DPR (I'm not at all concerned about the jpg comparisons, because I prefer to shoot only RAW) the XZ-1 RAW in studio test image is clearly superior to the GF1 RAW test image at ISO 100 and 400 at least. It looks like that camera may actually rival the GF1 in IQ, or am I missing something?

There is a true convenience/versatility factor to cameras like the LX5 and XZ1 in that when you are walking out the door and want to have a camera with you that is small, very versatile, and has a fast zoom lens, you can just grab one of these and go and be confident in being able to capture images with a 4x focal length range and pretty darn good IQ.

With the m4/3, there is always the decision about which lens to mount on the camera to bring... And if you want a small, fast zoom for maximum versatility, m4/3 can't quite do that, yet anyway.
 

DHart

New member
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusxz1/page11.asp

This comparison of RAW output from the XZ-1 to the LX5, S95, and GF-1 is very interesting... scrutinizing many areas of the sample image and comparing the output among the selected cameras would seem to indicate that the RAW output of the XZ-1 is easily crisper and sharper than the LX5 and S95, and at least as good, if not possibly even better than the GF-1. The Zuiko lens, no doubt, having much to do with this. This isn't the definitive comparison, of course, but the results have a reveal a significant finding... the XZ-1 RAW output may possibly rival the output of the GF-1... what do you think?
 

cjlacz

Member
I don't really find myself wanting one. Like Tesselator I am more interested in a rugged camera than one that has great IQ. I have played with the panasonic offerings a bit, but even going this route I wasn't happy with the controls. I think I'd be happier with a Ricoh GRDII where the lens doesn't stick out.

One think I do like is how they work with Oly/Panasonic flashes and other hot shoe accessories from the m4/3s cameras. Maybe to go with the GH2 or such but I don't see myself picking it over a GFx or EPLx.

If I had to get one it would probably be the XZ-1. Art filters, faster lens, wireless flash support and better evf. A rugged pocketable camera would be first on my list though.
 

DHart

New member
I haven't looked at the Ricoh, but I will.

IQ is still an important thing to me as there will be times when this is the only camera I will have on me and my interest is more in keeping IQ higher if possible than in ultra ruggedness... My lifestyle doesn't have as much need for ruggedness as it might for others.

I'm still intrigued by the RAW output of the XZ-1 compared to the GF1... that was unexpected!

The rumored Panny 12-50 f/2.5-3.3 on a GF2 would be an alternative, but the lens is likely to be largish. The XZ-1 still has my interest.
 

m3photo

New member
Re: Shutters

Michael.. You're saying that the S90 is quiet and does not have a mechanical shutter? Sorry I was a bit confused by your a and b.
A and B referred to the pasted paragraphs of your message.
As with many compacts, through user-menu inputs the shutter can be set to emit a certain noise and at different volume levels or set to silent altogether - this is the case in the S90/95 and not the case with the m4/3 cameras.
 

DHart

New member
Re: Shutters

A and B referred to the pasted paragraphs of your message.
As with many compacts, through user-menu inputs the shutter can be set to emit a certain noise and at different volume levels or set to silent altogether - this is the case in the S90/95 and not the case with the m4/3 cameras.
Michael... Thank you for elaborating. I understand now that the m4/3 cameras have the mechanical shutter in front of the sensor, so no control over the sound.

Good to know that the S90/95 has an electronic shutter of some sort (or leaf shutter in the lens?) which is virtually silent.

Do you know if the LX5 and XZ1 are the same way?
 

Tesselator

New member
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusxz1/page11.asp

This comparison of RAW output from the XZ-1 to the LX5, S95, and GF-1 is very interesting... scrutinizing many areas of the sample image and comparing the output among the selected cameras would seem to indicate...
I've found that DPR's noise samples are just about completely meaningless. They don't test for any of the factors that make a camera good or bad at noise handling.

Almost any of the RAW samples from this year's compacts are going to look about the same in those tests. And one which may look worse in those tests may actually be MUCH better in real-world use.

Why do you want RAW? If you're like me and most RAW shooters it's so you can squeeze every last drop of goodness from the files' dynamic range and because when we need to correct the exposure ± a stop or two we get better resulting highlights and shadows.

Yet DPR doesn't show what a camera's files look like when doing that and I doubt they would be interested in ever doing so as it would require a lot of sample data and a lot of hand processing.

The noise characteristics that makes the files from these little cameras more, or less, /processable/ varies widely from model to model and does not show up in DPR's samples. I haven't found any on-line resources that do show this. And peoples opinions are too varied and political to accredit any tangible meaning to. This leaves us in one of two positions as I see it. 1) we can't care about RAW from a P&S at all, or 2) assume all RAW capable P&Ss are good enough and move on to more meaningful specs - like zoom range, glass maker, lens design, pixel density, or whatever else we think is important.

The real truth as I have discovered it, is that there's just no real or meaningful difference in terms of ISO noise from small sensor cameras. They're all about he same or "damn close" and completely indistinguishable after figuring out how to process for the one you end up with. The lens design is far far more important.

Here's some ISO 800 shots after typical processing. These were taken on an 8-year old Konica/minolta A2. It has a very good APO zoom lens and so addressing noise removal is straight forward and uncomplicated by things like CA and etc. The A2's 800 ISO is probably worse than any of the cameras named in this thread so far - at their highest ISO setting.


Even the camera's 64 ISO setting is noisy after applying tone-curve or slight exposure adjustments:


Look at the sky areas.


Check out his Jacket...​

With just typical processing that all of these P&S RAW images will require anyway, fairly good results can be achieved even from the worst ones:



Minolta A2, 1/10s, f/8.0, ISO64, 180mm (Common name: Australian bottle plant, Physic nut, Buddha belly plant )
And, no, actually, I did not increase the saturation. It's just really that pretty!




Minolta A2, 1/50s, f/11.0, ISO64, 195mm


More here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/897047

For me personally I hope to never have to process RAW images from P&S cameras again. If I can't be satisfied with their jpegs (except on rare occasions) then toss-it, I'll just not have one. :D I have the GH1 and there are many other awesome cameras for the same price as these P&Ss (like the $250 Pentax K-x) if I'm all into IQ. That's not what a P&S is for (these days) IMO.

Just another 2¢ from the peanut gallery. :)
 
Last edited:

DHart

New member
Leica77.. thanks for that suggestion. The Fuji sure looks like an interesting camera even if it doesn't quite meet my purpose with this pursuit. It will probably produce some stunning images!

Tesselator... thanks for the links... it's surprising to see what some good noise detergent (thanks, Jorgen!) can achieve.

Seems like the XZ-1 is at its best used RAW instead of JPG, with some good noise detergent, especially if using ISO 400 and beyond is in the cards. The camera seems to provide slightly sharper, crisper images than the competition, but with a little more noise. If that noise cleans up reasonably well, the camera can probably produce some sparkling results. JPG only shooters may want to keep the ISO below 400 as the in-camera noise reduction is reportedly very heavy handed and causing smearing. With more of these in use and evaluation, no doubt we'll get more useful data.

I'm not quite ready to plunk down money on my ZS3 replacement just yet, but at present I'm leaning toward the LX5 for it wider AOV (24mm vs. 28mm), brighter lens at zoom (vs. S95), excellent video features, and multi-aspect sensor. Shot RAW, with good processing, I'm sure the LX5 image results will be significantly nicer than what I've been getting from my present "casual purpose" camera, the ZS3, even if the size is a bit larger and the zoom range much shorter.
 
Last edited:

Tesselator

New member
I love the styling!

It's bigger than the GF1 (which I like but most of you won't - probably).

I'm not interested in actually buying one tho. It's a fixed lens/ORF system and it's too light in weight for me. I did like using the Nikon SP rangefinder (a year 2000 recreation) tho - so I guess I'm not completely opposed to overpriced RFs. ;)

If the Fuji had a similar RF system to Nikon's universal optical rangefinder (ORF) system which could accommodate various focal lengths (28mm, 35mm, 55mm, 85mm, 105mm and 135mm) RF-Nikkor lenses, and also interchangeable lenses, along with that Fuji overlay system then.. yeah... I'd think about getting one. With it's current spec and form-factror it's not worth the $1200 they're asking - IMO. Maybe $350? :D
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I love the styling!

It's bigger than the GF1 (which I like but most of you won't - probably).

I'm not interested in actually buying one tho. It's a fixed lens/ORF system and it's too light in weight for me. I did like using the Nikon SP rangefinder (a year 2000 recreation) tho - so I guess I'm not completely opposed to overpriced RFs. ;)

If the Fuji had a similar RF system to Nikon's universal optical rangefinder (ORF) system which could accommodate various focal lengths (28mm, 35mm, 55mm, 85mm, 105mm and 135mm) RF-Nikkor lenses, and also interchangeable lenses, along with that Fuji overlay system then.. yeah... I'd think about getting one. With it's current spec and form-factror it's not worth the $1200 they're asking - IMO. Maybe $350? :D
Disagree.

It's the right size for my hands, based on the photos. The GF1, nice as it works, is clumsy in my hands ... too small, not enough to grip.

The Nikon SP rangefinder of 2000 was a re-creation with modern materials and lenses of the Nikon SP rangefinders which preceded the Nikon F. See http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/d-archives/history-sp/index.htm for details. Lovely things, I had one of the originals.

But I'm happier shooting with the DSLR kit when I need the versatility of interchangeable lenses. What I'm looking for is a compact (not tiny) camera with a top notch, fast, wide-normal lens for a different kind of shooting aesthetic. And with very simple, easy to use controls. Because I have a complete FourThirds lens kit, the E-PL2 with its VF-2 accessory finder plus a couple of dedicated lenses is one option (with the ability to use any of my existing SLR lenses, it's a rational choice).

However, such a purchase gets me yet again into the second system business ... a single lens, top notch performing camera like the X100 may provide the right constraint for my intent. Given what I'm seeing in the build quality and lens of this camera, I think $1200 is a very good price for what is certainly a niche product.

Can't wait to see one in person. :)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
@ Tesselator :

I had one of the Konica Minolta A2s as well. It was about the best performing of that generation of 2/3" sensor cameras and had both great controls and features.


©2005 by Godfrey DiGiorgi
Konica Minolta A2
ISO 100 @ f/3.2 @ 1/60 sec, Program (FL=12mm, 47mm equivalent 135)
Click on image above for larger rendering.


However, when I purchased the Pentax *ist DS at the end of 2004, there was no going back to the A2 as the DS was just about the same size and far more capable.
 
Top