This one probably is really dumb -- so forgive me my ignorance... :)
I just want a point and shoot to stick in my purse when I don't have my canon slr.
I don't want any lag time between when I press the button and when the camera shoots -- all the point and shoots I've played with have this, but I think they're all old, so hopefully that's not an issue.
In an old thread, people talked about the RX100. It says that the lens equivalent is 28-100. Is that with the zooms? So my maximum is 100mm when zoomed all the way in? Is that with the optical zoom, but not the digital?
All I know is, even with a point and shoot, I'll still want a reach of 300mm, if at all possible, or I'll probably not use it very often. Is this even possible on point and shoots, or is the quality to sucky at that point?
Thanks! I probably should know this, but I have no clue. :)
A 300mm equivalent is asking a lot for a pocket or purse sized camera. I'd suggest the Canon S series. Good image quality and it shoots RAW. Images are not dslr level but I have pulled quite a few high scoring shots with my S90 and the G11 that preceded it. I think all you woulg give up is the really long reach on the zoom. Probably more of an issue for you, since you do a lot of bird photography.
the 28-100 is the optical range, so the 100mm is the max it will optically go. then it has a 14x digital zoom which will bring things in much closer, but with a bit of reduction in image quality.
as far as the shutter lag, they all have it because the camera has to focus. The big problem with these is the images will be a little noisy due to the size of the sensor Vs the mega pixels it has.
I keep the digital zoom turned off on my Sony point n shoot and I pretty much just use it for landscape shots when i dont want to switch out lenses on my DSLR.
I have the Sony DSC-HX50V and its got some neat features I really like
Digital zoom is the equivalent of cropping the image on your computer. I can see a benefit of it for snapshots but not for anything that you are going to do post processing to.
Digital zoom is the equivalent of cropping the image on your computer. I can see a benefit of it for snapshots but not for anything that you are going to do post processing to.
What he said: you get the exact same result by cropping the 100mm shot in post. And as far as P&S that reach as far as the equivalent of 300mm+, you won't be happy with the quality at extreme zoom anyway. At least not in my experience, anyway. Those aren't very good lenses.
I really wish there was something I could stick in my purse so I don't have to carry my camera. I flew out to Chicago for a wedding, and wasn't going to bother with pictures. But on the way, I saw geese on the ice -- which I would have loved shooting.
There was a crow sitting on barbed wire, framed by razor wire all around him -- awesome shot!! But 100mm wouldn't have done it. 200-300 would. But 100 wouldn't have done much of anything with either of those shots.
When I walk around with my 24-105 lens, I just get frustrated, because I zoom in on everything: even in street photography.
Aren't there a number of 30x optical zoom cameras available? I don't know which support RAW, but I think what you're looking for (more or less) does exist.
... And as far as P&S that reach as far as the equivalent of 300mm+, you won't be happy with the quality at extreme zoom anyway. At least not in my experience, anyway. Those aren't very good lenses.
My Canon shoots at a 35mm EQ of 432mm ... I think the image quality is more affected by the small sensor size than the lens quality. It's not the same as a dSLR, but darned handy to be able to quickly go from landscape to wildlife by just zooming ... this type of camera is too big for a shirt pocket but should fit in an average purse.
Handheld FL: 432mm (35mm EQ) • f/4.00 • ISO 80 • 1/1614 sec • Resized, a little noise-reduction and sharpening, but no other editing ...
this is a sad area, technologically/industrially/commercially. years ago I shot with both the Pana FZ10 and its smaller sibling the FZ5 which was NO trouble to schlepp around, though it was the shape of a mini dslr. 450 mm equivalent at the far end for both, great handling, and really not bad at the long end, especially the FZ10, which stayed wide F 2.8. Four and five megapixels. The days before the numbers war. Some days I am tempted to pick up a 2nd hand FZ7 or FZ8, because I miss that fabulous and minimally compromised versatility.
otherwise, Wendy, you should commission the camera of your dreams....
If you can wait a month or two till it hits the stores another superzoom option maybe the Olympus SH-1 just announced today. Same focal range as the Panasonic that Cory recommends but comes with 5-axis image stablization and micro 43rds Pen styling and size. Will however be a much slower lens at the long end.
I have both the RX100 and the FZ200 (and had a LX5). Oh, and I have a G5 too. Talk about GAS.
The FZ200 is very sharp corner to corner. Maybe sharper than the RX100. That being said, the IQ on the RX100 is significantly better within it's focal length range. SLR better. Of course, the FZ200 goes to 600mm. Check out some of the samples over at the fllkr page. Some pretty good wildlife shots, not possible with the RX100. The camera controls on the FZ200 are very well laid out too (better than the G5, though that also has a touch screen).
The RX100 has two types of zoom...clear image zoom is an interpolation based zoom which brings it to 200mm, I believe. (It works like a crop and than upsample using onOne perfect resize). It's ok, but since I'm a pixel peeper, I normally keep it off. I wouldn't bother with digital zoom. But it has that too. If you look closely at the RX100/II page at Flikr, you won't see the wildlife shots, but you'll see some pretty SLR-Like photos.
I also had the LX5. It was a pretty good camera and also an option, if you're always shooting outdoors in good light. I sold it to buy the RX100 and after a year, it's still my favorite camera. Though the LX5 goes wider and is a very good camera, at a lower price. Still not that large sensor goodness of the RX100.
None of the other compacts of course have as large of a sensor as the RX100. This makes a big difference. Plus the 1" sensor seems to be a really good tradeoff in size...much better than the sensors in the Canon G series and Panny LX series. In RAW mode, you can really shoot to 3200 and get a usable print. Pixel peeping, not much worse than my D7100 regarding noise.
Of course, there's always the M43 cameras as throw in your purse "compacts". I have the Panny G5...and it's small and light with the kit lens. For $500 more, you can add the 100-300mm Panny lens, and get effective 200-600mm. I have that lens, and it's pretty good, and weighs about a pound. Not F2.8 and not nearly as portable as the FZ200, but better IQ, in my opinion. Here's a nice example from the G5 Flikr pool. The G5 is pretty cheap, but if I had it to do again, I'd probably go with one of the Oly's.
