Please suggest compact/P&S

[Muse]

I have what's for me a quite adequate DSLR with some glass (Pentax K-x), but my smaller digicam (which I've had since 2004) isn't so great, it's a Samsung Digimax V3. It's not its 3.2 megapixels that's the issue, it's:

1. the dismal battery life -- it uses AA's and I'm lucky to get 20-30 shots with even recently charged Eneloops

2. ~7 seconds between shots

It has a pretty good lens, probably, a Schneider Kreuznach, also a viewfinder. I have never had a camera without a viewfinder and I don't anticipate liking to have to use an LCD to compose all my shots. I use the viewfinder on my Samsung P&S not just because I like a viewfinder but because of the horrible battery life, the constant fear that the camera will shut down any second, which only gets worse if I have the LCD active. On the Samsung the LCD is tiny, too, only about 1.6" diagonal.

I have a hard time declaring a budget for this, that's not my top criterion. I know that viewfinder/small cameras are getting rare. I've been looking at the Canon A1300 and A1200. I saw some stuff online saying that the A1300's lens is "poor." I saw some discussion concerning it's 16 megapixel sensor, that this is excessive and actually results in serious problems such as pixelization. The A1200 is 12 megapixels, still maybe excessive. It was suggested you can shoot at lower resolutions, which I'd probably do consistently, but someone said that the high megapixel sensor would still result in inferior image quality. This has me concerned. The A1300 and A1200 are similar, the A1300 being 1/2 oz lighter, a tad smaller. The A1300 is light enough (6.14oz with batteries), uses AA (I like that!), has viewfinder, kind of slow for continuous shooting (2.7 seconds between shots, but apparently has a multi-shot mode where it gets 0.8 fps). It's lighter than my 7.8oz Samsung, and somewhat smaller. The A1300 and A1200 also don't have optical image stabilization, which is a serious drawback. They do support 720p video, which I could hopefully use to record and watch my golf swing, maybe use at other times. Rather than jump on one of these I thought I should definitely seek advice, options here. Thanks for some any info and suggestions!

 

[dougp]

You might want to post a budget, because people could suggest the higher end Canon's or Sony's.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

ANY camera today will have appreciably better image quality than your existing one.

16MP being "too much" is splitting hairs. You will never actually view those images at their full resolution anyway. They will be downsampled to ~2MP for display on screen (~3-5MP if you have an iPad3 or rMBP), and when printed on photographic paper, the pixels will be so tiny (unless you are printing poster size or larger) that you really will not notice them (not to mention that photo printers spray/blend the ink in such a way as to make the notion of "pixels" purely academic).

The ISO performance will be at least 2 stops better. Whereas you might be happy with ISO 200 on your Samsung (ISO 400 if it was really an outstanding performer for its day), a modern camera will give pleasing results out to ISO 800 or 1600.

I honestly would not worry about using just the LCD instead of a viewfinder. I am a DSLR guy (see sig) but I never see the point in using the tiny POS viewfinder on a P&S. The first digicam I ever owned (Nikon Coolpix 2500) was one of the first to do away with a viewfinder, and I never missed it. I have had a few Canon SD/ELPH cameras that had viewfinders, but the only time I ever used them was when I was trying to be sneaky in a dark room (e.g. performance venue) and not attract attention / disturb the people around me with the light from the LCD.

That all being said about "ANY" camera being better; I have only recommended Canon and Panasonic as the P&S brand to purchase in the past several years. I really like the UI on both of those brands, and they tend to make the right compromises to give an overall high level of performance for the price point. Cameras from other brands might better the competing Canon or Panny models on one or two points, but never across the board. (Considering: Speed/ease of use, image quality, lens versatility (aperture/zoom), size/weight, build quality, LCD screen quality, usable flash, battery life) There are exceptions (e.g. Pentax makes a very good "tough"/waterproof model) but they mostly occur in niches. (Another example being certain Casio models for high-speed shooting up to 1000FPS.) For a compact, general-purpose, carry-around, day-to-day snapshot camera I would go for a Canon A-series or ELPH series, no question. For higher-end/superzoom/travelzoom it is more of a toss-up between Canon and Panasonic.

 

[Muse]

You might want to post a budget, because people could suggest the higher end Canon's or Sony's.

To be perfectly honest I could see spending anywhere from $70-$500. That's not to say price is no object. If $500 would buy me a camera that would be much more satisfactory than a $200 camera for a period of years I could justify the additional expense.

Thanks for those comments, slashbinslashbash, I've been wondering if my prioritization of a viewfinder is possibly unjustified. The only camera I've ever had with an LCD is the Samsung described in the OP and it's LCD is both tiny (about 1.6" diagonal) and a power hog on a camera that's prone to shutting off at any time even with the LCD off, therefore I've never used it to compose a shot. Maybe if I had a camera with a 3" LCD, especially with as much as 460,000 pixels, and decent battery life when using it, I'd not miss a viewfinder. I'm going to rethink my search process.

Are you sure that the cheap P&S's of today will have better image quality than that of my Samsung Digimax V3? I was at Costco today and saw a Samsung P&S, also with a Schneider kreuznach lens, way smaller than my V3. A Costco employee commented that my 7 second between shots problem with the V3 is due to its very slow processor.

Can anyone comment on my curiosity (posted above) about the super slow motion feature in some of the Canon P&S's?

 

[PhoenixEnigma]

The super-slow-motion is on Casio, not Canon, cameras. I haven't played with one myself, but I've seen some of the footage, and it's pretty neat. If you don't have a use for it, though, I could see it quickly becoming just a neat party trick.

I'd second the suggestion of Canon and Panasonic, as well - they generally have solid cameras across the board, though as mentioned they can be beat for some niche uses. I've also heard good generally things about Samsung, though not as much or as often. I can't recommend Nikon - they make great DSLRs, but they have a bad and long running habit of using cheap materials for their compact lens extension mechanism, which is a serious reliability issue.

For a viewfinder, have you considered cameras with EVFs? Optical viewfinders tend to have poor coverage and alignment, and don't really work well with longer zoom ranges. EVFs are a bit of a middle ground, with better coverage, perfect accuracy, information overlays, and the viewfinder format, at the cost of not being quite as 'real'.

 

[radhak]

Muse, cameras are not a good example of 'old is gold'. 2004 is ancient times, and I fear you have held onto your camera for 5 years too long. Any random camera today will be much better than that. And the LVF is not really used in P&S nowadays - DAMHIKT!.

But, to keep things simple, my recommendations :

Less than $100 : Canon A800. I got this at for my niece last christmas, and I am stunned at some of the pictures she takes, and how roughly she uses it. I'd have loved it more if it had re-chargeable battery, but AA is a great option too.

Intermediate ($150 to $300) : I have a Canon SD1100, and love it. Today, I'd easily recommend the SD980IS, the SD1200, or the Elph 300, having tried them out from friends.

Top ($350+) : the Canon S95 has been a crowd favorite for ages and my brother-in-law has shown me down with some of his casual snaps with it a number of times; it would do for you for the next few years; or you could go for its upgrade, the S100.

Note that I've only listed Canon. That's because I've tried, and rejected, a lot of others. I love my Nikon DSLRs, but hated their P&S. I'm sure there are other good ones out there, but I'd stick with Canon.

 

[Paladin]

I've always traditionally loved Canon's too. In the top range the S95 probably takes the best stills from what I've read due to it's better sensor.
I'm in the same boat, wanting to upgrade my current P&S (Sony), and have run across the Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-HX30V, it's their 2012 model and is getting great reviews. It has as 20x zoom, 1080/60p video. The S95 would probably still take slightly better stills, but the Sony has a better feature set. So it may be one to consider too for the top-end of the price range.

 

[Munky]

I would suggest comparing sample images online from several modern cameras. That way you can see for yourself which is better instead of going on hearsay and rumors. I also came to the conclusion that Canon and Panasonic tend the be overall the top brands for compact P&S cameras after comparing images. After that, just decide on the price and features you want. Sensors keep improving with each generation, so even a 12MP modern sensor will usually give better image quality than a 10 year old 2MP sensor.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Just to touch on one point, the high ISO performance is heads and shoulders above what was available back in 2005-ish. I did a quick check and most 2005-era P&S's topped out at ISO 400. Now most will do ISO 1600. That's two extra stops of utility in dark environments; and you can bet that the ISO 400 on a newer P&S will look substantially less noisy than ISO 400 on a 2005-era P&S. Hell I remember my Panasonic DMC-FZ20 (5MP, 2004) had visible noise anywhere above ISO 80. Now most P&S's will produce good, mostly clean images up to ISO 400, and usable images even at ISO 1600.

 

[lsman]

Do you absolute need pocket-able?
Is so, there are many choice in $150 range if you look for deals..
But right now Cell-phone pictures quality has been up to P&S level, may be put your money on mobile phone and stuff (phone always with you...)

If not, for a cheap option...
http://www.cameta.com/Olympus-PEN-E...-42mm-Lens-Black-Black-Factory-Demo-52477.cfm

If you look at the current trend: The OM-D m43 IQ has match ASP-C (match/better all the way to ISO6400 than a 650D), it open up a lot for small camera.

 

[Munky]

Cell phones picture quality is nowhere near any half-decent P&S camera, with the exception of 2 phones from Nokia who actually put an effort into making a decent phone cam. It's only acceptable in good lighting if you don't look closely, and in bad lighting the image quality falls apart completely.

 

[radhak]

Cell phones picture quality is nowhere near any half-decent P&S camera, with the exception of 2 phones from Nokia who actually put an effort into making a decent phone cam. It's only acceptable in good lighting if you don't look closely, and in bad lighting the image quality falls apart completely.

This.

Whenever somebody shows me a picture on their cellphone and claims it better than pictures on my P&S (or even my DSLR ), I smile politely and talk about the weather, but I really want to pick their photo apart and rave and rant. Under ideal conditions (bright outdoors, close subject), some of those pictures could pass muster, but if anybody wants to digitally zoom onto a dancing kid on a semi-lit stage with a 'smart' phone, they get what they deserve.

 

[Muse]

I've always traditionally loved Canon's too. In the top range the S95 probably takes the best stills from what I've read due to it's better sensor.
I'm in the same boat, wanting to upgrade my current P&S (Sony), and have run across the Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-HX30V, it's their 2012 model and is getting great reviews. It has as 20x zoom, 1080/60p video. The S95 would probably still take slightly better stills, but the Sony has a better feature set. So it may be one to consider too for the top-end of the price range.

I took a look at that Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-HX30V and it does look really good. I'll keep it in mind, maybe buy it or an S95 for a middle camera to complement my DSLR and ultra compact P&S, which I ordered yesterday:

A Canon ELPH 100 HS, which I spotted factory refurb at Amazon for about $97 shipped free. I saw in a thread here that people generally consider refurbs very good deals and in general more reliable than new! It will be my first camera that doesn't use AA's and doesn't have a viewfinder. I've always used a viewfinder exclusively. I like the compactness and am hoping I really like the super slow motion feature to analyze my golf swing. I figure the only way I will see if I can be OK without AA's and a viewfinder is to buy and use a camera without them!

The super-slow-motion is on Casio, not Canon, cameras. -snip-

Actually, I think the Canon ELPH 100 HS, 110 HS, 300 HS and 500 HS all have super slow motion, 250fps or 125fps, and they'll take up to 30 seconds worth at a time at 250fps. There's also a feature that will string them all together for you, I believe. The resolution is not going to be HD, not even SD, I'm told. I won't know until I get the camera and play with it some just how useful it will be for me.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Actually, I think the Canon ELPH 100 HS, 110 HS, 300 HS and 500 HS all have super slow motion, 250fps, and they'll take up to 30 seconds worth at a time. There's also a feature that will string them all together for you, I believe. The resolution is not going to be HD, not even SD, I'm told. I won't know until I get the camera and play with it some just how useful it will be for me.

Yeah but it is more of a side feature on Canons (I didn't actually realize that my 500HS had it until you mentioned it (was that in another thread?) while Casio has made it into more of a calling-card/market niche. Casio has cameras that will do 600fps. They are really popular for the super-slo-mo specialists.

 

[lsman]

If you are good, you can shot with smartphone
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/27/london-olympics-2012-smartphone?fb=native

This is the trend... smartphone will be all over the DC.

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/pro-photographer-cheap-camera-challenge/ODI4OA_A_A

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

 

[HomerSapien]

I had the Canon 300HS. Loved it for 5 months until I left it in an airport.

 

[Muse]

I had the Canon 300HS. Loved it for 5 months until I left it in an airport.

Mmm.... Well, I guess I'll ID mine and hope if I ever lose it someone will call me. I do this with my portable electronics. I hope my 100 HS will be with me a lot of the time. I bought one case for it already.

I lost one MP3 player (and super expensive ear buds) one day when I left it on the seat when leaving the gym in too much of a hurry. Whoever discovered it didn't have those ethics. I still miss that MP3 player. :'(

I encountered an Amazon review and the Canon 300HS owner said he'd had a problem with dust in it. I stored his words in a table I've already created for my 100 HS in case I have a similar problem. I'm wondering first of all if there's something I can do to prevent the problem and also why it occurs. Here's what the owner said:
- - - -

Dust gets inside the lens and you'll get dark spots on every image, more so when you zoom in. Since the camera is now out of warranty, I opened the camera up, moved the LCD upwards, unscrewed the image sensor, and cleaned the clear plastic that covers the lens with a Q-tip. The big spots are gone now, but little ones remain. My A620 has no spots at all, and it's many years old. I had a Sony point and shoot years ago and that too had a dust problem. I might buy the Sony with the fixed lens (the one where the cover slides upwards and downwards) to help avoid dust problems.

 

[HomerSapien]

its part of the joy of traveling with a toddler. You remember all the toys, snacks, books, anything to keep their attention and then realize you have left or forgotten everything else.


I had replaced a Canon SD1300 or something with it when sand got in the lens and it would not come out, but that was more or less due to having it at the beach.

Dust wasn't a problem with it, but I really did not have either one for very long.