Are there compact cameras with large sensors?

Question

Is there any compact camera (for example about the size of the Olympus xz-1) having ASP-C (or similar size) sensor?

If not, is there any technical reason? Because I think it would be a really nice product: great quality and fits in your pocket. Maybe using a retractable lens there is not enough room for the the camera-sensor distance required by ASP-C?

Asked by Paolo

Answer

For a long time there were no large or even medium size compacts but now they are starting to appear in numbers, with cameras like the Sigma DP1, Fuji X100 leading the way. Most of these cameras are on the large side and feature prime lenses.

There are a number of interchangeable lens compacts with a variety of sensor sizes from the very small pentax Q (5x crop), Nikon 1 (2.8x crop), micro 43rds (2x crop) and Sony NEX, the largest of the lot (1.5x crop).

Recently Canon announced the G1 X, with a m43ish size sensor and more traditional compact features and handling.

Sadly most customers of compacts aren't concerned with lowlight image quality (daylight image quality is good, even with a small sensor, and deep DOF makes these cameras easier to use)

There's no technical reason for the relative scarcity of large sensor compacts, after all one time most compacts used 35mm film, so a full frame pocket camera is possible. The main difference is that 35mm compacts tended to have prime lenses, and the ones with zooms were very slow (f/5.6-f/8).

Nowadays people are more than willing to trade sensor size for zoom range. You simply can't make a fast 20x zoom for a large or medium sensor and get the thing in your pocket!

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

What's the difference between the Canon PowerShot S100 and the PowerShot SX260 HS?

Question

I rather like the Canon PowerShot S100, it has received great reviews.

But I now see that the PowerShot SX260 HS has been launched at a similar price and wondered what the difference is.

The onsite comparator shows the SX260 as having greater zoom, but the S100 has the in-lens multi-function dial, the S100 also has lower f settings.

The differences seem to be less of this, more of that etc. I'm wondering if there is some profound difference and if the SX260 is meant to supersede the S100 or instead address another kind of user?

Thoughts?

Asked by robserverdavista

Answer

You would be basically deciding on image quality versus zoom capability.

The S100 has a bigger sensor, handles higher ISOs better and offers a faster lens. On the other hand, the SX260 offers you a lot more optical zoom.

There is no clear winner here, it all depends on what aspect you value the most in your shots. The ability to zoom further or the ability to register the shot with higher quality.

Note that none of these aspects would necessarily imply better pictures per se.

Answered by André Carregal

Check more discussion of this question.

Will a dSLR and compact camera produce the same bokeh output at f/2.0?

Question

Will a Nikon D80 + 50mm f/1.8D and a Lumix LX5 set both at an aperture of f/2.0 (50mm @ f/2.0 for D80 and 24mm @ f/2.0 for LX5) have the same bokeh ouput? I plan to get the LX5 as a second camera, and I love "bokeh-ish" shots, so I'd like to know your thoughts.

I don't know if the distance between where I am and where the subject is will matter (i.e. I have to be closer to the subject with 24mm to get a similar framing as with the pic I take with 50mm), but I do know that the degree of "out-of-focus" of the background will depend on the distance between the subject and the background. Again, I don't know if this is relevant to the question or not...just thinking out loud. :D

Asked by Eric

Answer

No. The sensor size plays a major part in bokeh. Sensor dimensions of your dSLR are about 3 times bigger than sensor of the compact, so a photo taken with compact's 5.1mm f/2 will look similar to one taken at 16mm f/6.3 using APS-C sensor. Also, the shorter focal length will reduce bokeh effect, because wider angle of view means more background has to fit into same image space and therefore each background object will be projected smaller (more dot-like, i.e. sharper).

Here's a quick comparison of two photos with similar subject, both at f/2, first taken with a compact camera (at its widest focal length) and second with a dSLR (58mm lens):

The angle of view will be similar near the longer end of the LX5 lens, where maximum available aperture is f/3.3; to see how its bokeh would look like, set your 50mm on D80 to f/10.

Here's a quick comparison of two photos with similar subject and similar angle of view, first taken with a compact camera (at its longest focal length) at f/3.2, second taken with a dSLR (58mm lens at f/11):

To get bokeh effect on a compact camera, you have to pay up for a large sensor, such as in Fuji X100 or Sigma DP2. And even then, the effect will be weaker, because the angle of view of those cameras is wider than your 50mm on a dSLR. Or, you could rely on some alternative techniques to get good background separation.

Answered by Imre

Check more discussion of this question.

Does image quality on compact cameras degrade when zooming in?

Question

I have a Panasonic Lumix LX5 which I find generally produces good photos. However I have noticed on numerous occasions that the image quality when at the limit of the optical zoom (not using the digital zoom) seems to be lower (more grainy/blurry). Is this most likely to be effects like camera shake, or even atmospheric pollution, or is it technically possible that the lens isn't as sharp at full zoom? What would be the best way to test this theory out?

EDIT:

Updated following the suggestions to include a couple of 100% crops plus the original resized.

Original Image (resized)

1st 100% crop

2nd 100% crop

Asked by mdresser

Answer

The problem is probably multifaceted.

You mentioned that the image was more grainy at the limit of the optical zoom. The LX5 has a variable aperture, from f/2.0 down to f/3.3, which would mean you either need a slower shutter speed or a higher ISO to compensate. If you use a lower shutter speed, its more likely that you'll introduce camera shake, and if you use a higher ISO you'll introduce more noise. If you shoot at a lower ISO and force a longer shutter, you could get camera shake, and also need to increase the brightness in post, which would again increase noise (probably making it worse than if you just used a higher ISO to start with.)

Finally, while the lens on that camera is good, all zooms have to make compromises. Its entirely possible that its a little soft at the extremes (or one or the other extreme), as its impossible to make a zoom lens cost effective and also maintain prime-level IQ.

I can't say specifically if you actually have any issue, or what it may be, without seeing some sample shots. If you added 100% crops as well as scaled down full photos, it would help us determine if what you are seeing is simply the result of pixel-peeping, and therefor something you could ignore...or a true problem.

EDIT:

Based on the sample images that were added, I can't say I see any serious quality issues. For one, there are some compression artifacts, and thats just something you can't get away from with JPEG. Second, the lower detail in the distance is a combination of atmospheric haze eating away detail before it even gets to the camera, and the simple fact that its off in the distance...only so much the lens in the LX5 can do to resolve detail that far away. The foreground detail looks pretty good, so I wouldn't worry about anything.

Answered by jrista

Check more discussion of this question.

Could I get decent underwater photos from a waterproof compact camera or is it worth buying a housing?

Question

I'm going travel next month and been told that it's going to be great snorkeling waters where I'm going. So I thought it would be fun to take some underwater photos, which I have never done before.

I was originally planing to buy a underwater housing for my Panasonic LX3 but the only one I can find is from 10Bar and it's rather expensive.

Could I get decent photos from a waterproof compact camera or is it worth buying the housing?

Any camera recommendations?

Answer

Your idea is great, I've done it too. These cameras are perfect for snorkeling and do not cost much. If you compare underwater cameras side-by-side, then you will notice they are all very similarly specified.

The major difference you have are the Pentax WGs are not stabilized and the Canon D10 does not have a wide-angle lens. There also only two that shoot full HD video and those are the Nikon AW100 and Panasonic TS3 which happens to go deeper than all other models.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the advantages camcorders have over zoom digital cameras?

Question

It seems that the latest models of compact digital cameras come with many features which used to be only in camcorders: image stabilization, low-light shooting mode and of course high-definition to name a few. This article shows some candidates which IMO give pretty good competition to modern camcorders. I already have a decent SLR camera for taking still pictures, and now i am interested in buying a camera for shooting home videos. I thought of buying a digital camera instead of a camcorders - but only if I will not be missing out anything that only camcorders have to offer.

Answer

The video capabilities of even the best digital cameras are but a small fraction of these of video cameras. The gap is smaller now but only marginally so.

Where digital cameras compare very well is in terms of image quality, particularly when it comes to low light shooting. For almost everything else, video cameras trump digital cameras.

Camcorders have sophisticated and detailed control over audio recording. They can set levels and recording angle which almost no digital camera can do. You can plug an external audio source on some still cameras but that is about it.

The optical zoom of camcorders is specially designed for video. It moves silently and smoothly to give a natural look. Camcorder lenses are built with a continuous variable apertures so that the brightness of images can vary smoothly rather than in steps (only a handfull of SLD lenses can do that). The focus system works equally smoothly and quietly while most digital cameras record AF noise in the audio track.

Camcorders have tons of features which are meaningful to video. Fading, transitions and even video effects are the norm. They can also record for much longer both continuously and in sequence than still cameras. You can get up to a 128GB SDXC card for a still camera but it is costly while a camcorder can easily have a 200GB HDD built in.

Check more discussion of this question.

How important are in-depth reviews when selecting a compact camera?

Question

I'm going to buy a super-zoom compact camera for my travels and I'm reading a lot of reviews to find which one best suites my needs.

I though that a good camera should result good in all reviews, but this is not: for one review a camera gives good pictures, for another not; a review highlights some cons (e.g. slow operation), which are not even mentioned by another...

So, here is the question: as far as a not-professional cameras are concerned, can we say that nowadays all cameras are good enough to a satisfy an enthusiast photographer (and so, reviews can only point out minor issues) or should I take into account those "pixel-level" reviews?

Answer

No, I do not think that cameras are 'good enough' for an enthusiast photographer that they should simply assume any one will satisfy their needs OR that a buyer should take the manufacture's word for it.

An enthusiast understands features and has a sense of what features are most important to him or her. Knowing which camera truly provides those features is important. For example, most cameras state they offer high-ISO, but often get there with different methods, many leading to significant noise, or shutter speed trade-offs. Camera reviews are essential to understanding these trade-offs.

Each camera provides trade-offs, and remember that pricing has little to do with cost, and everything to do with image. In other words, cameras are priced to place them in a category more than to reflect the cost of manufacture. A Canon 60D does not likely cost much more than a Canon 1000D, but is priced higher to place it in the enthusiast, or semi-pro category.

I think comparing ACROSS reviews is difficult at best, and misleading at worst. Because each review 'site' uses different criteria and values different things in cameras, trying to garner a consensus from several sites will only end in confusion and frustration.

Several sites have a defined evaluation process and method and repeat this for each review. These sites have significant consistency, and allow direct comparison of one camera to the other. Sites such as DPReview.com, imaging-resource.com, Steve's DigiCam are good, established sites.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is the iPhone 4S camera good enough to serve as one's “everyday-carry”?

Question

I'd like to have a camera with me at all times, but my DSLR is often too bulky. For some time now, I have tried cell phones as a compact camera substitutes, but with limited success. Often, the picture quality was dismal and the setup/app loading time really too high for snapshots - especially with iOS 4 on my iPhone 3G.

I've heard about the sensor and lens improvements of the iPhone 4S, as well as the possibility to access the photo application directly from the unlock screen, all of which sounds pretty interesting.

Is this finally a cell phone camera that can substitute a separate compact to an acceptable degree?

Answer

The iPhone 4s alongside iOS5 makes a very compelling argument against a standard point and shoot camera in addition to a phone.

The backside-illuminated CMOS sensor included in the iPhone 4s(iPhone) is the same sensor found in the Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc and the Xperia Neo. Both of these cameras have faired very well in low-light comparison tests. Recent question about the sensor: What are the advantages or disadvantages of a back illuminated CMOS sensor?

iOS5 has made some major improvements to make the experience with the camera more enjoyable. The lock screen has a new way to access the camera that makes opening it up possible without unlocking the device. Images can now be captured not only by tapping the on screen shutter release, but by using the volume up hardware button. In actual use I found found this to be a huge improvement in certain situations. For example, I was taking shots at a concert venue, and holding the camera above by head with one arm. To hold the phone and use the touchscreen at the same time above my head is very difficult, but to use the hardware volume button as the shutter release was very easy and worked well.

If you search online you will find articles outlining how high of a priority the camera operation and speed was to the Apple development team. They supposedly shaved every millisecond possible off of the cameras start-up time to limit the dreaded "aperture" waiting screen that many of us are familiar with.

The iPhone as a camera does have some downsides, the two biggest being that it lacks any optical zoom, and the flash is nearly useless.

Some examples of photography with the iPhone 4 that I did can be found in this answer: How do I get the best results with a cell phone camera?

Overall, I have found the colors, white balance, and speed of the iPhone 4s and iOS5 camera to be very impressive and overall capable in replacing the need for a pocket point and shoot camera.

Some images straight out of the iPhone 4(not as good as the iPhone4s):

Check more discussion of this question.

Canon PowerShot S95 vs. Nikon Coolpix s9100 [closed]

Question

Which one is better buy?

Canon:

pros: auto and manual settings, better picture quality
cons: high price (330€), low zoom

Nikon:

pros: much lower price (230€), huge zoom
cons: no manual settings, lower picture quality

Is the picture quality of Canon really worth 100 euros?

Answer

it probably mostly depends on what you want to do with your camera. this page might help you decide :

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_PowerShot_S95-vs-nikon-s9100

now, I'd personally go for the s95 for it's size, Lens and its noise management. it's f2 Lens will allow you to shoot in darker situations and will give you more 'arty' shots because of the shallow depth of field. What it WONT give you is a huge zoom which I can understand can be a deal breaker for some people.

I hope this helps.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there at least one reason why I should buy an entry-level/prosumer APS-C DSLR versus a compact/four-thirds/bridge camera?

Question

I'm considering a Nikon D3100 as it is a DSLR and therefore provides flexibility of lenses, exposure and focal configurations, shallow depth of field as well as a viewfinder, useful in bright sunlight. There is also a vanity factor in that it looks (and is to some extent) a proper DSLR camera - great for work at functions where one would need to be taken seriously rather than carrying around a silver cigarette-sized compact.

However, I've noticed that smaller, non-DSLR cameras are becoming more advanced and appear to be greatly overlapping capabilities of entry-level/prosumer DSLRs (i.e. DSLRs which are APS-C not full 35mm full frame). Their compactness is an advantage and they offer lenses that are interchangeable. Examples include those from Olympus (PEN), Samsung etc.

What should I be looking for that would tip me in either direction, apart from the saying "the best camera is the one you have with you".

Answer

Against a bridge camera or high-end compact, the arguments are straightforward: a larger sensor gives better image quality, and interchangeable lenses give more flexibility.

For dSLR vs. one of the mirrorless alternatives, it's more complicated, but there's two broad reasons here as well: technology maturity and system maturity.

Under technical maturity:

1. Contrast-detect autofocus as used in most compact and mirrorless cameras is just not as fast as phase-detect. This will change as processor power and algorithms improve, but phase-detect has an intrinsic advantage because the AF sensors tell the system "go this direction to get the correct focus", whereas contrast detect has to seek back and forth to see which way is better. Perhaps in the future, a hybrid solution will be preferred, or perhaps contrast-detect (which already has an accuracy advantage) will become fast enough that it just won't matter.
2. Electronic viewfinders have come a long way, but they still don't beat optics. This is an area that will definitely change: I'm very comfortable saying that in ten years, electronics will beat optics in every way. Five years, maybe. Right now, though, advantage to through-the-lens optics.

System maturity:

1. You don't have as many choices for lenses or for TTL-automated flashes. The systems are relatively new and being built up from scratch. You can use lens adapters in many cases, but usually with reduced functionality (and without the advantages of smaller size). If a compact mirrorless system has what you want (and they do cover the basics), this might not hold you back, but a more-established system (even including relatively small ones like 4/3rds (in the non-micro form) offers more flexibility.
2. One can't help but notice that the two 800-pound gorillas, Canon and Nikon, haven't thrown their hats in the ring. (Gorillas wear hats, right?) That's not a problem, per se, but it might be a reason to keep watching.

Update: Rumor has Nikon announcing a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera Very Soon Now. This looks to be an interesting offering, because, like the Pentax Q, it uses a tiny compact-camera-sized sensor. This basically fits under all of the caveats above (except the gorilla one, of course), with the addition of the sensor size concerns. Time will tell on quality, but it looks like these will basically fall under "expensive toy designed for the Japanese market" rather than competition to dSLRs.

Check more discussion of this question.

What “Top Tips” should I give compact camera users in a short talk?

Question

I am putting together a short talk which I'm going to give to some non-photographers.

I'm going to talk about things they can do with their compact cameras to make their images nicer. I have a bunch of ideas / tips to pass on to them, but I need to cut out most of them (it's a short talk - 20 minutes or so).

What are your top tips for "normal" people who own a compact camera (or even just a phone)?

Also, any tips for talking to these guys? Any pitfalls you've encountered?

Answer

Unless it's a specific event "for compact/phone camera users only", don't stress the equipment part that much - that's not what photography is about, and some normal people have dSLRs too.

Since you have a short talk, choose 3 to 5 ideas and cover them with examples rather than dash through as many tips as you can. You can't fit a whole beginner's course in that time-frame anyway. I'd choose something from

• composition (placement, clutter in background, using perspective)
• lighting (golden hour, avoiding ugly shadows, using light to lead attention)
• post processing (choosing "keepers", fixing horizon, cropping)

Tell your tips, show samples (random snapshot vs. same shot using your tips) and only later tell them the samples were taken with just a compact/phone camera. Name the ideas shortly again in summary speech and there's a good chance some of them will stick with some listeners.

Check more discussion of this question.