Compact camera advice

[Abitconfused]

Who consistently makes a high quality compact camera suitable for the carry on traveler? Something larger than a shirt pocket size but smaller than a ASP-C size. I think my budget will allow $1200 +\- and I want jaw dropping quality. Well perhaps lip smacking quality anyway.

[Black Pearl]

Either the Panasonic DMC-LX100 or go mad and buy the Leica D-LUX (typ 109)

M4/3 sensor - razor sharp lens - DNG - aperture ring on the lens - shutter dial on top - EVF - Exp Comp dial

[mugge]

The Panasonic DMC-LX100. I have one. Has not failed me yet. In Australia expect something like $800 to $900.
Cheers Ole

[DanK]

I'd also suggest looking at the Lumix LX100. I recently bought one for that kind of use and have been quite pleased. The controls are superb--unlike most compact cameras, which require that you hunt through menus. So far, I have found the image quality quite good. The EVF, which is built in, is a must for me; I find it difficult to use an lcd to compose, particularly in bright light.

It doesn't fit in a shirt pocket, but I do sometime carry it in a jacket pocket, and it fits in a fanny pack.

I don't see any reason to buy the Leica Typ 209. It's basically the same camera, with a higher price tag. I've read that it actually lacks some of the Lumix's video capabilities, but I don't do video, so I don't know if that is correct.

[rpcrowe]

I go along with Dan's comment that using a LCD for a viewfinder is a chancy proposition, especially in the bright sun.

I would select a compact camera that has an eye level viewfinder. That would be my very first criteria in selecting a compact camera.

My son-in-law (who is not a photography buff) shot an African Safari using a Canon SX50-HS bridge camera and did a pretty decent job. Especially for a camera which cost him about $250 (USD). There are quite a few downsides with this camera but, poor I.Q. is not one of them...



However, some cameras have accessory eye level viewfinders that fit on the cameras hotshoe. These viewfinders increase the size (and price) of the camera.

Of course, you can always use a Hoodman style LCD viewer



but, to me... that is pretty silly to buy a compact camera for its size and then attach a humongous accessory viewer...

I have a standard Hoodman viewer for my DSLR cameras but, I simply use it to view my images and especially my histograms which I cannot see very well in the bright sun. I don't use it as a standard viewfinder...

[xpatUSA]

I would select a compact camera that has an eye level viewfinder. That would be my very first criteria in selecting a compact camera.

However, some cameras have accessory eye level viewfinders that fit on the camera's hot shoe. These viewfinders increase the size (and price) of the camera.

I bought an Olympus VF-1 for a fixed lens Sigma compact camera. It was originally designed for 17mm lenses on micro 4/3 sensors 17mm x 13.8mm but works well enough on a 24mm DP2 (21 mm wide sensor).

Currently $99 US from B&H. $49 from Amazon (1 left).

[ionian]

What focal lengths do you use? I got a micro four thirds camera which would give you loads of options with lenses, but you may not want to buy into another lens system. Still, something like the GM5 is as small as a compact, has a viewfinder, dual control wheels, and will let you use lenses with ff equivalence of 15-800mm. I have the gx7 which is small enough, but the gm5 is just tiny and ideal for travel.

[Geoff F]

When I purchased a pocket sized camera I started by listing all the must have functions, which considerably narrowed the choices.

For me, the main requirements were; a real viewfinder, the ability to shoot Raw, a sensible amount of zoom and able to fit in a jacket or large trouser pocket. I measured the exact max size of a few pockets.

Eventually I went for the Fuji X20 which has worked well for me.

[Abitconfused]

I am more interested in 4:3 now that I have seen these cameras and I have dome a little snooping concerning a 16MP model that looks very nice. I hadn't given enough respect to 4:3 but am in repentance.

[tao2]

Who consistently makes a high quality compact camera suitable for the carry on traveler? Something larger than a shirt pocket size but smaller than a ASP-C size. I think my budget will allow $1200 +\- and I want jaw dropping quality. Well perhaps lip smacking quality anyway.

Hi Ed,

the only differences between the Lumix and the Leica - apart from around $400 more for the Leica - is an extra year or two warranty plus Lightroom included with the Leicas. The Leica is built by Panasonic. Panasonic releases their version, then, around 3/4 months later Leica release theirs, apart fae outward appearance, it's the same camera.

The Sony rx100 outperforms both (and probably all the others in the category), in every aspect. Ah've used the Lumix, had a hands-on with the Leica, both excellent cameras...ye pays yer money...

[DanK]

One thing to keep in mind is that many of the Lumix models have fewer effective pixels and a smaller effective sensor size than the nominal numbers. This is because it will shoot at very different aspect ratios, ranging from 1:1 to 16:9. (See the photo that Robin posted.) Each of these crop the sensor area differently. You can see diagram of this here.

I generally shoot mine at 4:3. I started with the traditional (35mm) 3:2, but I usually crop from the sides with that aspect ratio, so I get more pixels in the final image in most cases by shooting at 4:3.

[Donald]

Yep, another very happy Lumix DMC LX100 user here. Superb little tool.

[inkista]

Who consistently makes a high quality compact camera suitable for the carry on traveler? Something larger than a shirt pocket size but smaller than a ASP-C size. I think my budget will allow $1200 +\- and I want jaw dropping quality. Well perhaps lip smacking quality anyway.

Don't rule out APS-C. I really like my Fuji X100T. I got mine for $1100; used you can find 'em around $800.



For me, the Fuji colors make for jaw-dropping, not just lip-smacking. I have a Panasonic GX-7. Its colors don't (although they ain't bad). Of course, I'm an eccentric that doesn't mind shooting with a single prime many days. If you are, too, then the X100 family or an X70 might fit the bill? The X70 is smaller, still APS-C, and is slightly smaller than an LX100. Of course, you're giving up viewfinder and zoom convenience. But you said you wanted jaw-dropping image quality.

[Black Pearl]

Another massive fan of the X100 range here but you need to be willing to give up the zoom.

[John 2]

Another massive fan of the X100 range here but you need to be willing to give up the zoom.

Ditto because of the larger sensor however, I'm looking seriously at the new X70 purely for the size advantage.

[rachel]

I'm another fuji fan - they used to make pocket sized compacts with very good zoom. The last in the line seems to be the F900EXR - it seems that there'll be no more after that. I managed to get one (having worked my way up over the years from the f10) and will have to make sure it lasts as long as possible.

I have my eye on the new X70 but not sure how I'll adjust to the loss of zoom. And let's face it, it's not quite so compact either.

[Davejl]

I love my (original model) Fuji X100. Really easy to carry on a bike ride or when hill walking and very easy to use, especially thanks to the firmware upgrades that Fuji were so generous with. Touch wood, I won't need to upgrade to the newer model for a while yet, but I wouldn't want to be without it (or its successor).

[LePetomane]

Two cameras that I like are the Fujifilm X30 and the Lumix DMC ZS40. I take the Lumix on fishing excursions where I don't want to carry a lot of weight and a point & shoot will suffice. I bought it at a good price so if something happens to it I'm not out that much.