# All-in-One Good Low-Light Compact Camera



## Chris Stark

I have an older Nikon D90 with an Nikkor 18-200mm sitting in the closet. Nothing really wrong with it but it's big and bulky and only opens up to f3.5 at 18mm. I like to shoot at night where possible, either hand-held or monopod.

I'd love to get a smaller Leica D-Lux (or similar) but don't want to spend that much.

I've seen some good reviews from the Panasonic Lumix LX100 ii, which I believe uses the same lens. I believe this model sells for $700 - $800.

Both open up to f1.7.

What are you guys shooting with and any recommendations appreciated. With technology seemingly changing before our eyes, the cheaper the better.


----------



## Wolfsatz

Chris Stark said:


> I have an older Nikon D90 with an Nikkor 18-200mm sitting in the closet. Nothing really wrong with it but it's big and bulky and only opens up to f3.5 at 18mm. I like to shoot at night where possible, either hand-held or monopod.
> 
> I'd love to get a smaller Leica D-Lux (or similar) but don't want to spend that much.
> 
> I've seen some good reviews from the Panasonic Lumix LX100 ii, which I believe uses the same lens. I believe this model sells for $700 - $800.
> 
> Both open up to f1.7.
> 
> What are you guys shooting with and any recommendations appreciated. With technology seemingly changing before our eyes, the cheaper the better.
> 
> View attachment 16016957


I have the Nikon D100
and currently the Nikon P9000

a couple of years ago I tried to replicate the same shots with the D100... and I was successful only with heavy editing.
The P9000 is much better at long distance subjects; but at not ideal lighting conditions (which is the norm for most) the I phone just annihilates the Nikon.

I phone XI

Night Watering by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Night ****s by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

NightHawk by Wolfsatz, on Flickr


----------



## Here's Johnny

What's your budget?

I currently shoot a canon R6 and love it.


----------



## dfwcowboy

In terms of image quality I’m not sure there’s a big advantage between a compact camera and a modern cell phone camera. The big advantage to the cell phone camera is you always have it with you. You might want to try a third party app that allows you more creative control over your cell phone camera before investing in a compact.


----------



## Saswatch

The four thirds sensor on the LX100 II will allow for night sky photography at 11mm f1.7. This is roughly a 14mm f2.8 lens for a APS-C sensor. Note that it’s a variable aperture instead of fixed 35mm (70mm in 35mm format) at f2.8 is good enough for portrait shots. You need to get to 40mm to reduce distortion for close ups.

I’ve handled the original GF1-3 line and a GX85. The GX85 is a killer product if you decide to go deeper into an ultralight ILS system.

For a “all in one” the Pana LX100 and Sony RX100 are both capable. LX had the bigger sensor from what I recall.


----------



## teckel12

Chris Stark said:


> I have an older Nikon D90 with an Nikkor 18-200mm sitting in the closet. Nothing really wrong with it but it's big and bulky and only opens up to f3.5 at 18mm. I like to shoot at night where possible, either hand-held or monopod.
> 
> I'd love to get a smaller Leica D-Lux (or similar) but don't want to spend that much.
> 
> I've seen some good reviews from the Panasonic Lumix LX100 ii, which I believe uses the same lens. I believe this model sells for $700 - $800.
> 
> Both open up to f1.7.
> 
> What are you guys shooting with and any recommendations appreciated. With technology seemingly changing before our eyes, the cheaper the better.
> 
> View attachment 16016957


I'd make sure it's a 1" or larger sensor for quality reasons. I wouldn't touch anything lower than 1". Something like the PowerShot G7 X Mark II would be small (even pocketable) and very high quality even in low light.


----------



## Seabee1

Look into the Sony RX100 iii


----------



## medic1

Wolfsatz said:


> I have the Nikon D100
> and currently the Nikon P9000
> 
> a couple of years ago I tried to replicate the same shots with the D100... and I was successful only with heavy editing.
> The P9000 is much better at long distance subjects; but at not ideal lighting conditions (which is the norm for most) the I phone just annihilates the Nikon.
> 
> I phone XI
> 
> Night Watering by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Night ****s by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> by Wolfsatz, on Flickr


Hi- How did you do that? Is that with an iPhone?


----------



## Chris Stark

It seems to me that to take good photos one needs a larger sensor, more pixels, and good glass. This is hard to do in a compact camera, especially for a reasonable price.

It looks like the few cameras with an APS-C sensor with a lens <f2.0 are $1,000+usd. Since any camera I might purchase will be worth $50 only a few years in the future, I'd really like to keep the price down.

Not sure how to proceed.


----------



## Wolfsatz

medic1 said:


> Hi- How did you do that? Is that with an iPhone?


yes on the I phone XI. How did I do what?

ER 40 Anniversary by Wolfsatz, on Flickr


----------



## Saswatch

Chris Stark said:


> It seems to me that to take good photos one needs a larger sensor, more pixels, and good glass. This is hard to do in a compact camera, especially for a reasonable price.
> 
> It looks like the few cameras with an APS-C sensor with a lens <f2.0 are $1,000+usd. Since any camera I might purchase will be worth $50 only a few years in the future, I'd really like to keep the price down.
> 
> Not sure how to proceed.
> 
> View attachment 16017974


It also depends on what your needs are.

For occasional photo shoots, crop sensor dSLRs are cheaper and plenty of third party lenses from Rokinon Tokina etc. I prefer Canon Ti series in that regards.

For backpackers, I don't think there's anything yet that can rival the micro4/3 ecosystem in the ILS market. The Sony RX100 series are good but comes with a smaller 1" sensor and priced high. The GX85 is possibly the best balance in price size weight and comes with in-body IS. Olympus has some good rugged ILS cameras namely the OMD M1 and M5 but they're slightly bigger.

I still haven't bought into the FF and medium format mirrorless cameras hype. Eliminating the mirror box but having to carry additional batteries defeats the purpose IMO.

Edit: The Sony RX100 is not a ILS camera but competes in that category due to compactness. The Pana LX100 is much better though.


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> It also depends on what your needs are.
> 
> For occasional photo shoots, crop sensor dSLRs are cheaper and plenty of third party lenses from Rokinon Tokina etc. I prefer Canon Ti series in that regards.
> 
> For backpackers, I don't think there's anything yet that can rival the micro4/3 ecosystem in the ILS market. The Sony RX100 series are good but comes with a smaller 1" sensor and priced high. The GX85 is possibly the best balance in price size weight and comes with in-body IS. Olympus has some good rugged ILS cameras namely the OMD M1 and M5 but they're slightly bigger.
> 
> I still haven't bought into the FF and medium format mirrorless cameras hype. Eliminating the mirror box but having to carry additional batteries defeats the purpose IMO.
> 
> Edit: The Sony RX100 is not a ILS camera but competes in that category due to compactness. The Pana LX100 is much better though.


I'm looking for something that I can carry around and maybe throw in my backpack or hang around my neck. I've had many versions of the Canon Power Shot Elph's but they aren't much better than a phone camera, just a little more versatile.

The GX85 looks decent but usually comes with a f3.5 kit lens, which would not be great for low light photography. Also, I believe this is an older camera that was released 5 years ago. But at whatever my price point is I'm guessing that the newest model is not in...my cart.

It looks like the real winner in this category is the Fujifilm X100V. I'm not counting any Leica's.


----------



## Seabee1

Chris Stark said:


> It seems to me that to take good photos one needs a larger sensor, more pixels, and good glass. This is hard to do in a compact camera, especially for a reasonable price.
> 
> It looks like the few cameras with an APS-C sensor with a lens <f2.0 are $1,000+usd. Since any camera I might purchase will be worth $50 only a few years in the future, I'd really like to keep the price down.
> 
> Not sure how to proceed.
> 
> View attachment 16017974


If you haven't, take a look at the fujifilm x100 series. I think the x100t or x100f may be a good choice both spec-wise and price-wise. Or find a used (only) fujifilm x70, they are smaller and lighter than the 100s. I have the x70 and love it and found it works for just about everything, it is a bit slow in low light with a 2.8 lens but you can account for that with higher ISO. I also have the sony rx100 iii which is more pocketable so more convenient to take and, with a 1 inch sensor and f:1.8 lens.


----------



## Chris Stark

I see a pre-owned _Panasonic LX100 ii_ on the bay for $649. Buyer has 100% feedback with over 1,000 sales. The problem with cameras, like watches, is you never know if they've been dropped or banged hard.

Update: The one that seems to float my boat the best is the Fujifilm X100F. It has most of the features I like but the price still seems high for an "older" model, plus it has a fixed lens and only f2.0.

Trying to stay with at least an APS-C sensor.

Still looking but haven't found my Shangri-La yet!


----------



## Here's Johnny

For pocketable awesomeness, it's gotta be a Ricoh GR. Check out the GR III (their latest one). I've owned x100t and Ricoh GR II. The Fuji is good looking, but the Ricoh is just brilliant for 1 handed pocketable travel/street shooting.


----------



## Chris Stark

Here's Johnny said:


> For pocketable awesomeness, it's gotta be a Ricoh GR. Check out the GR III (their latest one). I've owned x100t and Ricoh GR II. The Fuji is good looking, but the Ricoh is just brilliant for 1 handed pocketable travel/street shooting.


Thanks for the heads up. I took a peek at the GR iii and the lens is fixed at f2.8. I'm looking for something faster.


----------



## Saswatch

Chris Stark said:


> Thanks for the heads up. I took a peek at the GR iii and the lens is fixed at f2.8. I'm looking for something faster.


X100F advantage over GRiii - EVF, built-in flash, larger aperture, 35mm (in 35mm format) focal length is more versatile.
GRiii advantage over X100F - inbody IS, wider focal length for landscape shooting








Fujifilm X100F versus Ricoh GR III: Which is better for you?


The Fujifilm X100F and Ricoh GR III are two very different cameras, but they're broadly aimed at the same audience. We take a detailed look at how they stack up against each other, and who might be better served by each.




www.dpreview.com





The Fujifilm is better unless you're into night sky photography.


----------



## Seabee1

Chris Stark said:


> I see a pre-owned _Panasonic LX100 ii_ on the bay for $649. Buyer has 100% feedback with over 1,000 sales. The problem with cameras, like watches, is you never know if they've been dropped or banged hard.
> 
> Update: The one that seems to float my boat the best is the Fujifilm X100F. It has most of the features I like but the price still seems high for an "older" model, plus it has a fixed lens and only f2.0.
> 
> Trying to stay with at least an APS-C sensor.
> 
> Still looking but haven't found my Shangri-La yet!


 Fujifilm X100 Series Comparison (X100, X100S, X100T, X100F and X100V)








Fujifilm X100F versus Ricoh GR III: Which is better for you?


The Fujifilm X100F and Ricoh GR III are two very different cameras, but they're broadly aimed at the same audience. We take a detailed look at how they stack up against each other, and who might be better served by each.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> X100F advantage over GRiii - EVF, built-in flash, larger aperture, 35mm (in 35mm format) focal length is more versatile.
> GRiii advantage over X100F - inbody IS, wider focal length for landscape shooting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fujifilm X100F versus Ricoh GR III: Which is better for you?
> 
> 
> The Fujifilm X100F and Ricoh GR III are two very different cameras, but they're broadly aimed at the same audience. We take a detailed look at how they stack up against each other, and who might be better served by each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dpreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fujifilm is better unless you're into night sky photography.


I do like the idea of image stabilization, esp. for low light photos, so a nod to Ricoh here. This may help offset the slower lens. The Ricoh is also smaller, which sounds good, at least on paper. However, no viewfinder on the Ricoh, which I tend to use (old school!). I also think I'd like to have a flash, esp. if I can get it to bounce since straight on flash with these compact cameras causes red-eye. They make some after market stuff for this. The Ricoh has No flash (possibly a deal killer). Battery life is double on the Fuji.


----------



## Chris Stark

Btw, I messaged the guy on the bay with the used Panasonic LX100 ii and it sounds legit.


----------



## Chris Stark

Seabee1 said:


> Fujifilm X100 Series Comparison (X100, X100S, X100T, X100F and X100V)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fujifilm X100F versus Ricoh GR III: Which is better for you?
> 
> 
> The Fujifilm X100F and Ricoh GR III are two very different cameras, but they're broadly aimed at the same audience. We take a detailed look at how they stack up against each other, and who might be better served by each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dpreview.com


Last night I watched a YouTube video of a guy who has owned and used some of the Fujifilm X-series over the years and he seems to speak highly of them. Of course the X100V is $1,400 dollars so it should work. This sounds expensive to me while others think it's a steal.


----------



## Wolfsatz

Chris Stark said:


> Last night I watched a YouTube video of a guy who has owned and used some of the Fujifilm X-series over the years and he seems to speak highly of them. Of course the X100V is $1,400 dollars so it should work. This sounds expensive to me while others think it's a steal.


As a purist... even 5 years ago... anyone that would ever tell me that a 'smart phone' could/ve-should/ve' replaced my Nikon; I would've also laugh at their face and don't take them seriously.

Spring forward to 2019 the release of the Iphone XI (the only reason I upgraded from Iphone 8S was the camera).

Just as in watches, the cost / value it's going to be very subjective to each photographer and each individual need. You have a specific theme or need in mind when selecting a fast camera and compact enough to carry.

When I got the Nikon P9000; I had a very specific need; and it fulfills that need very well 90% of the time; being able to get close at very long distances. It excels at that....however, it is not very versatile at close distances or harsh lighting conditions. This subject is probably about 70 feet away and 35 feet high.

Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Perhaps some of the audience here had the exact same feeling as I would of have 5 years ago. Let the pictures speak for themselves.

Who does it better? See if you can tell which one is the one from the Nikon and which one is form the rotten apple.
All shots have not been edited in anyway.

Subject number 1:


Spoiler: NIkon or Apple



Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr



Subject 2 '


Spoiler: The Drive



Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr



Subject 3 -


Spoiler: The Drive II



 by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr



Subject 3 -


Spoiler: Blue Spruce



Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr



Subject 4


Spoiler: Red Maple



Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

 by Wolfsatz, on Flickr



Subject 5


Spoiler: Baloon Flower



[Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr



Subject 6 -


Spoiler: Fancy Mint



[/Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr]
Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr



Subject 7 -


Spoiler: Hydrangea



Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr





Spoiler: Bonus Shots



Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

 by Wolfsatz, on Flickr


----------



## Chris Stark

Wolfsatz said:


> As a purist... even 5 years ago... anyone that would ever tell me that a 'smart phone' could/ve-should/ve' replaced my Nikon; I would've also laugh at their face and don't take them seriously.
> 
> Spring forward to 2019 the release of the Iphone XI (the only reason I upgraded from Iphone 8S was the camera).
> 
> Just as in watches, the cost / value it's going to be very subjective to each photographer and each individual need. You have a specific theme or need in mind when selecting a fast camera and compact enough to carry.
> 
> When I got the Nikon P9000; I had a very specific need; and it fulfills that need very well 90% of the time; being able to get close at very long distances. It excels at that....however, it is not very versatile at close distances or harsh lighting conditions. This subject is probably about 70 feet away and 35 feet high.
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Perhaps some of the audience here had the exact same feeling as I would of have 5 years ago. Let the pictures speak for themselves.
> 
> Who does it better? See if you can tell which one is the one from the Nikon and which one is form the rotten apple.
> All shots have not been edited in anyway.
> 
> Subject number 1:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: NIkon or Apple
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Subject 2 '
> 
> 
> Spoiler: The Drive
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Subject 3 -
> 
> 
> Spoiler: The Drive II
> 
> 
> 
> by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Subject 3 -
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Blue Spruce
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Subject 4
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Red Maple
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Subject 5
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Baloon Flower
> 
> 
> 
> [Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Subject 6 -
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Fancy Mint
> 
> 
> 
> [/Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr]
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Subject 7 -
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Hydrangea
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Bonus Shots
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> by Wolfsatz, on Flickr


Some good shots Wolfsatz, thanks for sharing. I think the Nikon(?) must have some kind of focusing issue so may not be a fair fight. Phone shots can be very good except that bc of the small sensor size, sometimes 14X smaller than even an APS-C sensor, they cannot be enlarged much larger than we are seeing here. With that said, and with the assumption that 90% of viewers will only use their phone to view anything you might share with them, phone cameras do their job, and as you state, they continue to get better and better.


----------



## Saswatch

Wolfsatz said:


> As a purist... even 5 years ago... anyone that would ever tell me that a 'smart phone' could/ve-should/ve' replaced my Nikon; I would've also laugh at their face and don't take them seriously.
> 
> When I got the Nikon P9000; I had a very specific need; and it fulfills that need very well 90% of the time; being able to get close at very long distances. It excels at that....however, it is not very versatile at close distances or harsh lighting conditions. This subject is probably about 70 feet away and 35 feet high.
> 
> Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Perhaps some of the audience here had the exact same feeling as I would of have 5 years ago. Let the pictures speak for themselves.


Nice pictures @Wolfsatz

Here's one I pulled from your account and I don't think an iPhone currently has the ability to capture it even with a clip-on lens or something to that degree.


----------



## Wolfsatz

Chris Stark said:


> Some good shots Wolfsatz, thanks for sharing. I think the Nikon(?) must have some kind of focusing issue so may not be a fair fight. Phone shots can be very good except that bc of the small sensor size, sometimes 14X smaller than even an APS-C sensor, they cannot be enlarged much larger than we are seeing here. With that said, and with the assumption that 90% of viewers will only use their phone to view anything you might share with them, phone cameras do their job, and as you state, they continue to get better and better.


That is my biggest issue with the P9000; focusing is an issue.... the type of shooting I do I need the lense to quickly focus on the subject... and this struggles when many layers at different distances are around the subject. Think bird perching inside a tree. Low light conditions also prove difficult for the P9000.

I do not follow your statement about sizing. Unless you are blowing a picture to be WALL size; this can be blown up pretty well without issue and to be fair, what you see here in the forum is not the true picture, as it is being scale down per the forum. I have no idea how Apple has done it; all I can tell you is that if kicks many entry level cameras @SS specially in low light conditions. Most of the shots I've posted are done just hand held and without any accessories. On the contrary, taking pictures of subjects at a distance more than 10 feet and zooming... really makes the shot flat and without any depth.

Fair fight? I would think that a gadget totally made to take pictures SHOULD reign supreme on pretty much all conditions. I can use the Nikon to recreate the same shots as I do with the Iphone, but I would have to use many other accessories to accomplish the same level of sharpness and color (tripods, lights).

So.. I guess you are right, it is not a fair fight because the smart phone kicks @SS.


----------



## Wolfsatz

Saswatch said:


> Nice pictures @Wolfsatz
> 
> Here's one I pulled from your account and I don't think an iPhone currently has the ability to capture it even with a clip-on lens or something to that degree.
> 
> View attachment 16025598


Correct!
Most birds or objects at a distance are shot with the Nikon P9000. Indoor/ low light conditions are usually done with the Iphone. Most of my watch shots are Iphone.

This Morning P9000
Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

this morning WRUW shot
Mrs. Wallace by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr


----------



## Chris Stark

Sold my Nikon D90, 18-200mm VR lens, SB-400 flash, and everything on Craigslist today.

Clean slate!


----------



## Chris Stark

Another compact has caught my eye. _*The Canon PowerShot G5X II*._ It has a lot of what I'm looking for except for the small 1" sensor. And of course the price seems high, at least to me, of $899 msrp.

The reviews I've read says it has a Stacked CMOS sensor. Not sure what this means. What are they stacking and how is this better?

Any thoughts?


----------



## Saswatch

Heard of it but never owned a camera with one. They’re comparable in image quality performance to BSI sensors which was a big leap when it was announced. Otherwise it’s access to and from the sensor which theoretically means better AF and live mode (screen/evf) granted the software takes advantage of it.

The problem with smaller sensors <1”, 1”, m43 is the DoF. Since you sold your only other camera, you’re going to want a body with a larger sensor for versatility. The smallest I would go is m43 like the Pana LX100 but as you’re not going to be pouring $2000+ on lenses, your budget can stretch that much further. The trade offs with FF and Medium format cameras is battery life which makes crop sensor the best option for a one camera household.


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> Heard of it but never owned a camera with one. They're comparable in image quality performance to BSI sensors which was a big leap when it was announced. Otherwise it's access to and from the sensor which theoretically means better AF and live mode (screen/evf) granted the software takes advantage of it.
> 
> The problem with smaller sensors <1", 1", m43 is the DoF. Since you sold your only other camera, you're going to want a body with a larger sensor for versatility. The smallest I would go is m43 like the Pana LX100 but as you're not going to be pouring $2000+ on lenses, your budget can stretch that much further. The trade offs with FF and Medium format cameras is battery life which makes crop sensor the best option for a one camera household.


Yeah, I'm really struggling with what to do, and perhaps more importantly, how often will I use it if I buy it.

The leader in this segment is the _Fujifilm X100V_ (or even older _X100F)_ but I simply refuse to spend $1,400 dollars on a compact camera that will be worth $300 dollars a few years from now. And I've now seen it in person, and quite frankly, it's not all that compact.

I've probably looked at every compact camera on the market and they all have some things I want or don't want.

Sony also seems to be doing some nice stuff _(a6xxx)_ but many reviews complain about their non-intuitive on-screen menus. Canon seems to be the best in this area.


----------



## Saswatch

Sony A6xxx series are ILS. The body is compact but the lenses aren’t because e-mount was designed for FF. The kit lens is somewhat on the compact size and a coworker loved it on his a6000 for many years.


----------



## Saswatch

Since you also brought up price as a factor, there is no competition in the compact all-in-one camera market to the Panasonic LX100ii. In-body IS, integrated EVF, larger than 1” image sensor, high burst rate, high ISO, high DR, and other features. Sony NEX series come close but missing a few features and the older ones were heavy from my recollection.

Now if you were to go the compact ILS route, the Panasonic GX85 and now GX9 are tough to beat in price, features, performance. They also come with in-body IS.

The m43 sensor is highly capable for night sky shooting and to some degree DoF similar to crop sensor. But don’t go with a smaller sensor like the Canon G5X or the Sony RX100 unless you plan on getting a FF/Medium format camera.


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> Sony A6xxx series are ILS. The body is compact but the lenses aren't because e-mount was designed for FF. The kit lens is somewhat on the compact size and a coworker loved it on his a6000 for many years.


With what I'm trying to do now size matters. I don't mind using a little "sneaker zoom" as they call it. I think I would be ok with an incorporated prime lens or whatever they call it on some of these all-in-one compacts. The prob is you can't get a telephoto retractable zoom lens that's worth it's salt. I had one on my old Canon Elph, and while it zooms ok, the photos aren't very good; and perhaps worse, the digital zoom after the optical is a joke.


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> Since you also brought up price as a factor, there is no competition in the compact all-in-one camera market to the Panasonic LX100ii. In-body IS, integrated EVF, larger than 1" image sensor, high burst rate, high ISO, high DR, and other features. Sony NEX series come close but missing a few features and the older ones were heavy from my recollection.
> 
> Now if you were to go the compact ILS route, the Panasonic GX85 and now GX9 are tough to beat in price, features, performance. They also come with in-body IS.
> 
> The m43 sensor is highly capable for night sky shooting and to some degree DoF similar to crop sensor. But don't go with a smaller sensor like the Canon G5X or the Sony RX100 unless you plan on getting a FF/Medium format camera.


I will review your post here a little later.

With regard to the Panasonic, it comes very close. But has a odd 4/3rds sensor instead of an APS-C (but of course the Canon was even smaller), fixed rear screen, no flash(?), and I heard the menus are a disaster. However, it is still in contention.

And I find it funny, after reading any number of reviews for all these cameras, the ratings are all clumped somewhere in the 79% - 83% range. I tend to like the reviews on dpreview.com.


----------



## Saswatch

Chris Stark said:


> With what I'm trying to do now size matters. I don't mind using a little "sneaker zoom" as they call it. I think I would be ok with an incorporated prime lens or whatever they call it on some of these all-in-one compacts. The prob is you can't get a telephoto retractable zoom lens that's worth it's salt. I had one on my old Canon Elph, and while it zooms ok, the photos aren't very good; and perhaps worse, the digital zoom after the optical is a joke.


I always struggled with the term "Telephoto" lenses. Strictly going by the 35mm format focal lengths, this can mean 80mm or even 800mm.

Your old Nikon APS-C lens was a 18-200mm.
In m43 format, that focal length would be equiv to 14-150mm.
In FF/35mm format, it would be equiv in native focal length to 28-300mm.

Hope that clears out doubts on telephoto lens in your search.


----------



## Saswatch

BTW look for “pancake zoom lens”. They compromise on clarity but more than make up for in size.

“Prime lens” are fixed focal length. Most photographers have one or more fast prime lens. Google up “camera lens f/0.95” … beautiful bokeh.


----------



## Seabee1

These were all taken with my Sony RX100 iii, the bottom two I sharpened a bit in editor but other than than, straight out of the camera


----------



## Chris Stark

I tried out some cameras at Best Buy this afternoon.

-Canon G7X and G7X ii (no G5X to try)
-Sony RX100 iii
-Canon EOS M50 ii
-Sony a6000 and a6100

The G7X ii was a nice little piece. Pocketable and small with some nice features. There is a small handhold for your fingers and also a small thumb rest. My hands are pretty big so, while a great travel camera, might take some getting used to the small size.

Same thing with the RX100 ii. Maybe _Seabee1_ can chime in but this is also a very small camera and has no handholds or thumb rest at all. Perhaps because it is pretty light Sony wanted to keep the look clean. Also, I think this one is well over a thousand bucks so probably out of the running.

The M50 was surprisingly comfortable. It felt basically like a Jr. version of a full dSLR. I believe this camera has an APS-C sensor. The form factor is a little more bulky than the other compacts but wasn't terrible. But like most every other camera in the world, it has a f3.3+ kit lens.

The one that felt best in my hand was the Sony a6000/6100. Great handholds and a decent viewfinder. It seems like the a6000 was ahead of it's time with this camera when it came out 6 or 7 years ago. Seems like it still holds its own but is larger than other compacts and heavier as well. What this would mean for me in the long run is hard to say.
The difference in price between these two is $200, $649 and $849. The a6000 can be had cheaper online and there are some used ones out there too.


----------



## Seabee1

Chris Stark said:


> I tried out some cameras at Best Buy this afternoon.
> 
> -Canon G7X and G7X ii (no G5X to try)
> -Sony RX100 iii
> -Canon EOS M50 ii
> -Sony a6000 and a6100
> 
> The G7X ii was a nice little piece. Pocketable and small with some nice features. There is a small handhold for your fingers and also a small thumb rest. My hands are pretty big so, while a great travel camera, might take some getting used to the small size.
> 
> Same thing with the RX100 ii. Maybe _Seabee1_ can chime in but this is also a very small camera and has no handholds or thumb rest at all. Perhaps because it is pretty light Sony wanted to keep the look clean. Also, I think this one is well over a thousand bucks so probably out of the running.
> 
> The M50 was surprisingly comfortable. It felt basically like a Jr. version of a full dSLR. I believe this camera has an APS-C sensor. The form factor is a little more bulky than the other compacts but wasn't terrible. But like most every other camera in the world, it has a f3.3+ kit lens.
> 
> The one that felt best in my hand was the Sony a6000/6100. Great handholds and a decent viewfinder. It seems like the a6000 was ahead of it's time with this camera when it came out 6 or 7 years ago. Seems like it still holds its own but is larger than other compacts and heavier as well. What this would mean for me in the long run is hard to say.
> The difference in price between these two is $200, $649 and $849. The a6000 can be had cheaper online and there are some used ones out there too.


there is this rubber grip Sony AG-R2 Attachment Grip it's also sold directly by sony but I couldn't find it just now. Thing I like about the sony is that it does fit into a pants pocket whereas my fuji x70 needs a jacket pocket.

Edit:
I bought my sony used, really really good condition and I paid $300 for it. New ones are ~$700, the iv and v are expensive with the v I think $1200. The camera is small in the hand but you get used to it, it doesn't feel as small as it looks and the popup EV is really nice and clear.


----------



## Chris Stark

Seabee1 said:


> there is this rubber grip Sony AG-R2 Attachment Grip it's also sold directly by sony but I couldn't find it just now. Thing I like about the sony is that it does fit into a pants pocket whereas my fuji x70 needs a jacket pocket.
> 
> Edit:
> I bought my sony used, really really good condition and I paid $300 for it. New ones are ~$700, the iv and v are expensive with the v I think $1200. The camera is small in the hand but you get used to it, it doesn't feel as small as it looks and the popup EV is really nice and clear.


Ok, I have to confess that I mentioned above that I was looking at the RX100 iii at Best Buy but I might have been looking at the RX100 vii, judging by the price. The numerous versions of this model seem endless and the model number is hard to read at a quick glance. Apparently there are at least 8 models of the RX100. Pretty sure Best Buy isn't selling the iii any longer. But thru all 10 years of models they have chosen to keep to the 1" sensor.

Do I really need a larger sensor? Well, I guess it depends. If the lens is not very good then it doesn't matter what sensor you have. With all things being equal, which is seldom the case, a larger sensor is the way to go. Most of the problem is the "kit lens" they tend to throw on models to keep the cost down.

I think the CMOS sensor that was in my D90 is similar in size to the newer APS-C sensor, for what it's worth.









Sony RX100 Series Comparison (I, II, III, IV, V, VA, VI and VII)







photographylife.com


----------



## Chris Stark

Does anyone have any experience or knowledge of the _Panasonic GX9?_

Seems to get decent reviews, has a four thirds sensor, and some nice features.


----------



## Saswatch

Chris Stark said:


> Does anyone have any experience or knowledge of the _Panasonic GX9?_
> 
> Seems to get decent reviews, has a four thirds sensor, and some nice features.


The GX85 was a great little camera while I had it. Its better than the LX100 II if you plan on getting multiple lenses. For me I got tired of relearning the button layouts when switching to it from my Olympus and Canon bodies.


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> The GX85 was a great little camera while I had it. Its better than the LX100 II if you plan on getting multiple lenses. For me I got tired of relearning the button layouts when switching to it from my Olympus and Canon bodies.


I am looking at a few used ones now. I guess the question is, do I get something a little older and save money or get something newer and spend more money. I'm also wondering if, nowadays, if 16mp is large enough. It seems like most all cameras now are 20-24mp. Does this even matter much anymore I don't know. Will I be printing any photos larger than 11 x 14, probably not.

Also, I've read that this camera has some autofocus issues. Did you find it so?


----------



## Saswatch

Chris Stark said:


> I am looking at a few used ones now. I guess the question is, do I get something a little older and save money or get something newer and spend more money. I'm also wondering if, nowadays, if 16mp is large enough. It seems like most all cameras now are 20-24mp. Does this even matter much anymore I don't know. Will I be printing any photos larger than 11 x 14, probably not.
> 
> Also, I've read that this camera has some autofocus issues. Did you find it so?


I don't recall having a single issue with the GX85 other than finding it too small for daily use and the unfamiliar button layout. Between the GX85 and GX9, the price difference makes the GX85 a better option.

The iPhone can handle 11x14 prints. The m43 can handle 20x30 prints. Significantly beyond that is FF/MF territory.

On the topic of cameras, since budget is a top priority for you, these 3 things might help:
1. The body depreciates fast.
2. The lens depreciate slow.
3. Kit lens are fine for the majority of the shooters unless you're getting into macro or portrait.


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> I don't recall having a single issue with the GX85 other than finding it too small for daily use and the unfamiliar button layout. Between the GX85 and GX9, the price difference makes the GX85 a better option.
> 
> The iPhone can handle 11x14 prints. The m43 can handle 20x30 prints. Significantly beyond that is FF/MF territory.
> 
> On the topic of cameras, since budget is a top priority for you, these 3 things might help:
> 1. The body depreciates fast.
> 2. The lens depreciate slow.
> 3. Kit lens are fine for the majority of the shooters unless you're getting into macro or portrait.


I just missed a great deal on the bay for a GX85. I went to press Buy and it was gone. Oh well.

I'll keep looking for something in this size range I think. They're not "pocketable" but some but not as bulky as a DSLR.

I personally like the idea of Bluetooth since I can just download some to my phone and perhaps share with others since everyone has ADD now and can't wait a couple hours to view them.

If I want to go Bluetooth it will mostly limit my selections to more recent cameras and $$$.


----------



## Chris Stark

I ended up purchasing a compact Panasonic LX10 to replace my Nikon D90 dSLR.

I was out and about taking a few photos yesterday afternoon. Let me know what you think. And yes, there is an obligatory pano shot included.

All photos shot RAW with very minor post using the software in Apple Photos.

Edit: For some reason when I upload photos they are slightly blurry, or at least not as crisp as I see them, on my computer.


----------



## Saswatch

^^^ Congrats on the new camera and nice shots.

You’re uploading in 1240x854 resolution which is why they look unclear. Are you posting here from the iPhone mobile browser? If so are you using iCloud to store the full images and reduced res on your device?


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> ^^^ Congrats on the new camera and nice shots.
> 
> You're uploading in 1240x854 resolution which is why they look unclear. Are you posting here from the iPhone mobile browser? If so are you using iCloud to store the full images and reduced res on your device?


My process is to Export them from Photos to my Desktop, then to here.

When I export to Desktop I'm using JPEG quality High and size Large. It does not give a size.

What is your rec?


----------



## Saswatch

Chris Stark said:


> My process is to Export them from Photos to my Desktop, then to here.
> 
> When I export to Desktop I'm using JPEG quality High and size Large. It does not give a size.
> 
> What is your rec?


By "Export" are you referring to a program that exports pictures directly from your camera over bluetooth/wifi or are you inserting the SD card from your camera to your computer and then using a program to do so? Whatever it maybe though, if you don't see specs on the quality, you may as well switch to "full size" or "original size" options if available.

On a Windows computer, you can right-click on your picture and click on properties to see the resolution. It should be under the "Details" tab. On a Mac, ctrl+click and "get info" to see the resolution.

For a non fussy way, if the image looks good on your computer monitor, then it is good.
Most monitors these days are 1920x1200 or 1920x1080. Some are obviously higher and older ones are lower.


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> By "Export" are you referring to a program that exports pictures directly from your camera over bluetooth/wifi or are you inserting the SD card from your camera to your computer and then using a program to do so? Whatever it maybe though, if you don't see specs on the quality, you may as well switch to "full size" or "original size" options if available.
> 
> On a Windows computer, you can right-click on your picture and click on properties to see the resolution. It should be under the "Details" tab. On a Mac, ctrl+click and "get info" to see the resolution.
> 
> For a non fussy way, if the image looks good on your computer monitor, then it is good.
> Most monitors these days are 1920x1200 or 1920x1080. Some are obviously higher and older ones are lower.


I am uploading pics from my SD card thru a card reader. I have tried to upload via the supplied USB cable but it does not work for RAW files, only JPEG's. Oddly enough, I was able to upload RAW files by a standard USB cable.

The Export process is Photos > File > Export.

There are 4 Quality choices: Low, Med, High, Max.

However, under Size, you can pick Small, Med, Large, Full, and Custom, where you can pick Max Width.

Original file size is give or take 5472 x 3648. Once sent to Desktop it is 1280 x 854. So what is the best file size to upload for WUS?


----------



## Saswatch

Chris Stark said:


> I am uploading pics from my SD card thru a card reader. I have tried to upload via the supplied USB cable but it does not work for RAW files, only JPEG's. Oddly enough, I was able to upload RAW files by a standard USB cable.
> 
> The Export process is Photos > File > Export.
> 
> There are 4 Quality choices: Low, Med, High, Max.
> 
> However, under Size, you can pick Small, Med, Large, Full, and Custom, where you can pick Max Width.
> 
> Original file size is give or take 5472 x 3648. Once sent to Desktop it is 1280 x 854. So what is the best file size to upload for WUS?


Windows, Mac, Linux?


----------



## Chris Stark

Saswatch said:


> Windows, Mac, Linux?


Mac


----------



## bielwatches

I used to be a professional photographer and had the latest Canon and Nikon offerings when doing so. The last year or two of my stint as a wedding photographer, I went with a Fuji X-Pro (1 or 2). I then got burned out of photography altogether and didn't even own a camera for a few years. I recently got back into it and decided upon a Sony Alpha a6300. It's old by today's standards but I figured I was able to shoot weddings with gear that is really out of date and it did the trick... So anything "fairly new" would be perfect. It has been a joy to shoot with and doesn't break the bank.


----------



## Chris Stark

bielwatches said:


> I used to be a professional photographer and had the latest Canon and Nikon offerings when doing so. The last year or two of my stint as a wedding photographer, I went with a Fuji X-Pro (1 or 2). I then got burned out of photography altogether and didn't even own a camera for a few years. I recently got back into it and decided upon a Sony Alpha a6300. It's old by today's standards but I figured I was able to shoot weddings with gear that is really out of date and it did the trick... So anything "fairly new" would be perfect. It has been a joy to shoot with and doesn't break the bank.


Well, the Panasonic LX10, while being a fun camera, was just too small for me to use and the 1" small sensor size bothered me, so I returned it. So I actually made the leap to Sony, like you.

I picked up a used Sony Alpha a6100 in near perfect condition and haven't looked back. It has an APS-C 24mp CMOS sensor, which is about as good as it gets without going full frame. The form factor is just what I was looking for: Somewhere in between a point and shoot and DSLR size and easily transportable.

The pluses for me are the articulating screen, dedicated ISO button, EVF, bounceable in-unit flash (yes, it works better than I thought it would), and sick fast auto-focus.

The minuses are, not cheap for what they call an entry-level mirrorless, menu system goes on forever, the handgrip is better than some but still worse than a dSLR, the hard button layout not terribly intuitive (how much of an after-thought was the placement of the video button?--I changed the C1 button to start/stop video), still overexposes in bright sunlight like most APS-C sensor cameras no matter the A, S, or ISO settings, and the Imaging Edge Mobile app is basically a disaster.


----------



## Chris Stark

This mark (a circle with a line thru it) is on top of my camera. Even after reading this in the Sony owner's manual I don't understand it. Can someone provide any clarification?



The image sensor is the sensor that converts light into an electric signal. The







mark shows the location of the image sensor. When you measure the exact distance between the camera and the subject, refer to the position of the horizontal line.








If the subject is closer than the minimum shooting distance of the lens, the focus cannot be confirmed. Make sure you put enough distance between the subject and the camera.


----------



## Saswatch

Chris Stark said:


> This mark (a circle with a line thru it) is on top of my camera. Even after reading this in the Sony owner's manual I don't understand it. Can someone provide any clarification?
> 
> 
> 
> The image sensor is the sensor that converts light into an electric signal. The
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mark shows the location of the image sensor. When you measure the exact distance between the camera and the subject, refer to the position of the horizontal line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the subject is closer than the minimum shooting distance of the lens, the focus cannot be confirmed. Make sure you put enough distance between the subject and the camera.


Could be in reference to the minimum focusing distance. Very handy when not using the EVF or screen.


----------



## Seabee1

So how are you enjoying your new camera?


----------



## Chrispy1

Wolfsatz said:


> I have the Nikon D100
> and currently the Nikon P9000
> 
> a couple of years ago I tried to replicate the same shots with the D100... and I was successful only with heavy editing.
> The P9000 is much better at long distance subjects; but at not ideal lighting conditions (which is the norm for most) the I phone just annihilates the Nikon.
> 
> I phone XI
> 
> Night Watering by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> Night ****s by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
> 
> NightHawk by Wolfsatz, on Flickr


Wow 🙂


----------



## Chris Stark

Update: The Sony system is gone. Sold it to KEH to avoid the Ebay nonsense these days. Nice camera with sick-fast-and-accurate auto-focusing (best I've seen) but complicated menu system. Still too big for what I was looking for.

Picked up a _Ricoh GRIII_ and couldn't be happier. 24mp sensor, f/2.8 fixed lens (28mm effective). Shoots RAW (DNG) and has some very interesting Jpeg modes, esp. in B&W.


----------

