Jacket-pocketable, APS-C, up to 75mm eq. focal length?

[Rdmkr]

Does something like this exist for under $1500? I'm guessing the Sony Nex 5-7 series with kit lens are my best bet? How pocketable are these exactly? Has anyone used them or similarly sized and specced cameras?

I don't mind if the lens is fixed as long as it has a zoom range from at least 35mm equivalent.

 

[Rdmkr]

The Sony NEX 5T and NEX 6 with 18-50mm retractable zoom lens seem to offer exactly what I was looking for. I'm quite amazed both by how compact and how cheap these are. The ability to switch in a lens with 200mm telephoto focal length is very nice. Definitely thinking about going for one of these as my "main" camera next to the rx100 II that I'll keep using as my jeans pocket cam.

Gonna have to try them out in a real life shop to see if I want the viewfinder of the NEX 6 or the less bulky NEX 5T.

 

[jtvang125]

If you have that much to spend I'd recommend the current gen a6000 or a5100. New 24mp sensor vs 16mp and much better AF system. Many of the reviews found the new AF very impressive.

 

[Rdmkr]

$1500 is the upper limit of what I'll look at, mainly with the intent of possibly buying the camera in question later when it's been priced down a bit.

The NEX5 series cameras seem to perform poorly on tests like these:
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/ca...s/sony-nex-5t-1175740/review/4#articleContent

Worse than the RX100-II even. That's not reassuring at all. My sights are now set on the A5100...

 

[shortylickens]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000


I always check DPReview when I have a specific need. This place is more about general discussion.

 

[CuriousMike]

I have the NEX 3N, which is similar in size to the A6000.
Below shows both with their kit 16-50 zooms attached.
They are small, but nowhere near pocketable. I've thrown my 3N in my cargo shorts "big pocket", but end up pulling it out because it swings too much and just is a bad fit/look.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#442.360,535.360,ha,t

 

[Rdmkr]

I have the NEX 3N, which is similar in size to the A6000.
Below shows both with their kit 16-50 zooms attached.
They are small, but nowhere near pocketable. I've thrown my 3N in my cargo shorts "big pocket", but end up pulling it out because it swings too much and just is a bad fit/look.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#442.360,535.360,ha,t

Thanks for that site. I added the RX100 to the widget so I have a familiar reference point and it honestly doesn't look that bad to me. Like I said I'm not looking to carry it in any kind of trouser pockets, just jacket pockets. And even then I might just want to do that only some of the time. Just want to have the option when the need arises. For longer term pocket carrying I have the RX100-II.

I'm still kinda looking for a strong confirmation that an A5100 or similar model gets significantly better images than an RX100-II... From an APS-C sensored device I'm really expecting a world of difference, but a lot of benchmarks make the gap in image quality look minor. I can't justify spending hundreds of dollars on yet another camera to get only marginally different results. Has anyone compared an RX100 model to a good APS-C sensor camera in real life?

 

[Syborg1211]

I'm still kinda looking for a strong confirmation that an A5100 or similar model gets significantly better images than an RX100-II... From an APS-C sensored device I'm really expecting a world of difference, but a lot of benchmarks make the gap in image quality look minor. I can't justify spending hundreds of dollars on yet another camera to get only marginally different results. Has anyone compared an RX100 model to a good APS-C sensor camera in real life?

It's going to depend on your light level really. Outside during the day, you aren't going to see a whole lot of difference, but as soon as that sun goes down that's where sensor size really starts to show its worth. I have an RX100 as well as a Fuji X100s, and if it's night time I usually grab the X100s since it provides more usable night images than the Rx100.

I suggest the X100s as your jacket-pocketable camera, but it is a fixed lens at 35mm equivalent. They have an adapter lens that screws on the front and makes it 50mm, which I love but it no longer will fit in a pocket with that lens attached.

 

[slatr]

http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/18/sony-a-5100-hands-on/

 

[jtvang125]

There's a slight increase in IQ by going to aps-c. Significance will be less in good lighting and more in low lighting. Going with premium lens will extent that increase but will get expensive. That cost may not be worth it to you.

 

[blastingcap]

It's going to depend on your light level really. Outside during the day, you aren't going to see a whole lot of difference, but as soon as that sun goes down that's where sensor size really starts to show its worth. I have an RX100 as well as a Fuji X100s, and if it's night time I usually grab the X100s since it provides more usable night images than the Rx100.

I suggest the X100s as your jacket-pocketable camera, but it is a fixed lens at 35mm equivalent. They have an adapter lens that screws on the front and makes it 50mm, which I love but it no longer will fit in a pocket with that lens attached.

I agree with Syborg1211 except I'm not sure I'd specifically recommend the X100s... that's a fine camera but make sure you look at alternatives as well such as the Ricoh GR.

 

[ElFenix]

the panasonic LX100 uses a 4/3 sensor, which isn't *that* much smaller than APS-C (~3/4 stop worth after the small crop it does to do multi-aspect), with an extremely nice lens (24-75 equiv f/1.7-2.8).


http://www.dpreview.com/articles/05...uy-a-panasonic-lx100-when-you-could-buy-a-gx7

 

[NAC]

Good timing for your request. I would also vote for the Panasonic LX100 which was just announced, will be available in a month or so.


NEX cameras have a APS-C sensor, but the kit lens is pretty slow. The LX100 has a smaller sensor but with a much faster lens so you should have slightly better depth of field flexibility and image quality (compared to the kit lens). Plus the LX100 is a lot smaller than an NEX with the kit lens. In my experience, I much prefer Panasonic menus and ergonomics (separate shutter speed, aperture, exposure comp dials on the LX100).

Of course, the NEX lets you change lenses, and depending on the model it will have a much better grip.

So it comes down to preference. I wish the LX100 had a better grip – I'm sure there will be third party add-ons.

 

[Rdmkr]

I want a substantial upgrade from my RX100 II... 3/4 doesn't really cut it. APS-C is my minimum.

Kit lens of the alpha/nex series is a bit "meh", I fully agree, although I also think there's a tendency to overrate fast/wide aperture lenses; f/1.8 is pretty specialistic when it comes down to it. There is such a thing as too shallow depth of field. At a certain point it just gets annoyingly unpredictable and eats too much into your image detail. On an APS-C sensored device I think the kit lens should be OK.

Additionally, there is a 35mm (+/- 55mm equivalent) f/1.8 prime lens available for it. Sets you back another $400, but it should be really good in front of an APS-C sensor and it looks compact.

I do think that in the long run I'm willing to invest in large array of possibly quite pricey lenses, so the kit lens isn't something I'll be restricted to.

Anyway, I came across resolution test results on techradar.com and the A5100's scores look seriously weak compared to the A6000. Looks like these two cameras' internals aren't as similar as they're reputed to be. If I'm gonna go ahead with this it'll be the A6000 now.

 

[blastingcap]

I want a substantial upgrade from my RX100 II... 3/4 doesn't really cut it. APS-C is my minimum.

Kit lens of the alpha/nex series is a bit "meh", I fully agree, although I also think there's a tendency to overrate fast/wide aperture lenses; f/1.8 is pretty specialistic when it comes down to it. There is such a thing as too shallow depth of field. At a certain point it just gets annoyingly unpredictable and eats too much into your image detail. On an APS-C sensored device I think the kit lens should be OK.

Additionally, there is a 35mm (+/- 55mm equivalent) f/1.8 prime lens available for it. Sets you back another $400, but it should be really good in front of an APS-C sensor and it looks compact.

I do think that in the long run I'm willing to invest in large array of possibly quite pricey lenses, so the kit lens isn't something I'll be restricted to.

Anyway, I came across resolution test results on techradar.com and the A5100's scores look seriously weak compared to the A6000. Looks like these two cameras' internals aren't as similar as they're reputed to be. If I'm gonna go ahead with this it'll be the A6000 now.

Don't rely on sites like techradar that do not properly test RAW if at all. The a6000 is a better value for the EVF and hotshoe anyway, so unless you really need the $100 I'd get the a6000.

 

[Rdmkr]

I've got the A6000 with 3 lenses: 16-50mm pancake zoom, 50mm prime portrait f/1.8 and 55-210mm telelens. I have 14 days to decide if I do or don't want to return the whole set.

First impressions are pretty mixed. I've done comparison shots between it and the RX100 II and the difference was often huge. But after a few hours of nighttime strolling and taking pictures from 10:00 to 0:30 I couldn't help but feel disappointed. Pictures were on the noisy side and the amount of detail didn't impress me. My expectations have been pretty high and I'm testing it under very challenging conditions, though. A lot of pictures were taken at 25600 ISO, which the auto ISO setting seems very eager to pick when you allow it. Maybe a bit of settings tweaking is required to get satisfying results with this. I'll report back when I have more varied experiences to decide on.

Positive surprises:
- Fits in my jacket side pockets with both the pancake zoom (comfortably) and prime portrait lens (barely)
- Fits in my inner jacket pocket with pancake zoom
- Telelens fits in side- and inner pockets
- Easy to use in one hand thanks to the handy grip

 

[blastingcap]

I can't believe you are complaining about noisy 25600. Pretty much ANY camera short of a A7S will be noisy at that ISO. If you primarily display your images at 1080p or less it should still look somewhat usable after some time in Lightroom/Photoshop. You can change the default noise reduction for JPEGs if you don't want to mess with the RAW files.

You should use the 50/1.8 OSS wide open if there is so little light.

You can also customize the auto ISO to max out at whatever you want, I have mine set at 3200.

You can also turn on SteadyShot (should be on by default) and use Multi Frame Noise Reduction which takes a burst of shots and digitally combines them to reduce noise.

 

[Rdmkr]

My gripe is that it unnecessarily uses 25600 in the first place, not so much that the results then predictably suck. Since this was my first day using the camera I thought I'd let the auto settings do what they want, to see if the camera might know what it's doing. I don't know what it is that makes the auto settings on this thing defy all common sense, but it's really quite ridiculous. It sometimes literally brings ISO all the way up to 20000 while the shutter speed is still around 1/300. In shutter priority it consistently refuses to drop the F-stop before it raises the ISO. I have no idea what the designers of this algorithm were thinking. Maybe it's to "show off" this camera's high ISO abilities or something (which it is decidedly not doing), or they're catering to heavy post-processing fanatics.

Today's strategy: pretty much the opposite. Fix the ISO, fix the aperture and let the damn thing only choose a shutter speed. Results have improved a lot. The advantage on the RX100 in terms of dynamic range, noise and detail is now undenyable. I'm finally having fun.

So far all my tests have been at night since I work until pretty late; I should get the chance to try out the 210mm lens and the camera's low ISO performance by the weekend.

 

[Belegost]

My gripe is that it unnecessarily uses 25600 in the first place, not so much that the results then predictably suck. Since this was my first day using the camera I thought I'd let the auto settings do what they want, to see if the camera might know what it's doing. I don't know what it is that makes the auto settings on this thing defy all common sense, but it's really quite ridiculous. It sometimes literally brings ISO all the way up to 20000 while the shutter speed is still around 1/300. In shutter priority it consistently refuses to drop the F-stop before it raises the ISO. I have no idea what the designers of this algorithm were thinking. Maybe it's to "show off" this camera's high ISO abilities or something (which it is decidedly not doing), or they're catering to heavy post-processing fanatics.

Today's strategy: pretty much the opposite. Fix the ISO, fix the aperture and let the damn thing only choose a shutter speed. Results have improved a lot. The advantage on the RX100 in terms of dynamic range, noise and detail is now undenyable. I'm finally having fun.

So far all my tests have been at night since I work until pretty late; I should get the chance to try out the 210mm lens and the camera's low ISO performance by the weekend.

You could also try setting the max ISO to limit what the auto system will select. I saw this thread on it at DPReview.

 

[Rdmkr]

That's probably what I'll end up doing, but it still makes me feel like I'm not getting the most out of the camera. Ideally I'd want the auto settings to leave ISOs above 6400 alone UNTIL one of those situations pops up where doing anything less leaves hardly anything visible at all. But I guess I'll have to adjust the ISO manually when that happens.

 

[Syborg1211]

That's probably what I'll end up doing, but it still makes me feel like I'm not getting the most out of the camera.

Manually controlling the camera IS getting the most out of the camera. The camera can't read your mind. This is the reason why anyone serious about photography does not use auto mode. You don't want to be at the mercy of whatever the programmer decided to do with the auto algorithm so just accept some customization of settings is going to be the norm.

 

[CptObvious]

The 16-50mm pancake lens is full of compromises (I've owned it several times). In order to get a slim lens to cover an APS-C image circle and zoom 24-75mm equivalent, they had to sacrifice with huge distortion. The raw file looks like a semi-fisheye on the wide end with the corners cut off. Like someone said the center is sharp but the corners are smeary at any aperture.

Sensor size, zoom, size, and lens quality - you have to sacrifice one and the 16-50mm does it on the lens quality. There are a couple of cameras that sacrifice only on the zoom (Ricoh GR and Nikon Coolpix A). The LX100 and RX100 III do it on the sensor size but I think the choice of trade-offs on those cameras are pretty logical.

 

[CuriousMike]

^--- I have to agree about the 16-50 not being sharp at 16mm.

Unfortunately, I purchased the 3N with the 16-50 to take hiking, assuming the 16mm would be an inexpensive but nice for portable lens for landscapes.

It's just not sharp.

 

[blastingcap]

^--- I have to agree about the 16-50 not being sharp at 16mm.

Unfortunately, I purchased the 3N with the 16-50 to take hiking, assuming the 16mm would be an inexpensive but nice for portable lens for landscapes.

It's just not sharp.

Shoot at f/8 or smaller and crop a little if the corners bother you that much.

How sharp do you need anyway? 100% zoom-in is not realistic. 16MP is huge.. you can go to 20x30" prints with that. But how many of us do? More likely you are going to print smaller or share it online where you only need like 1MP.

Still not good enough? Maybe you got a defective lens (unlikely but possible).

If not defective, worse come to worst if you are still unhappy sell it.

 

[Rdmkr]

Small update:
Been comparing some more night shots between the RX100 II and the A6000. In all honesty... it doesn't look good. I fail to see much of a consistent advantage in terms of low light performance from the larger sensor at all. Under equivalent conditions the RX100 II will be able to shoot at a lower ISO and/or higher shutter speed. The aperture advantage of the RX100 is noticeable, the sensor size difference is not.

It's unacceptable to me. There is hardly any advantage to lugging the A6000 and its lenses around. The only pro is the ability to use lenses with shorter or longer focal lengths than the RX100 can manage at acceptable F-stops, but you've got to change the lenses constantly which is a major pain.

I swapped the gimped pancake zoom lens for a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 prime lens that gets great reviews, but again the difference is marginal if noticeable at all. The pancake zoom was plainly worse than the RX100 II at night.

Another swap I've made is to trade in the 55-210mm for an 18-200mm Tamron lens. Still gotta test that one, but so far the sharpness seems slightly inferior. Whether its worth it for the extra versatility is to be seen.

I've had some good results from my daylight shooting in the weekend, but the RX100 performs great there as well.

This thing probably requires Carl Zeiss lenses to properly perform at its potential. Don't bother if you just plan to use budgety ones.

As it stands, I'm ready to throw in the towel and return the A6000 on Saturday. I'm pretty sure what I'm suffering from is mainly a luxury problem; that RX100 II is a force to be reckoned with. But I just can't recommend a camera like this to anyone when there are so much more convenient options available.