Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I see this as a two-fold endeavor. Jerry points folks to different websites to look at what the pro's have to say about any particular item of gear, as a reference. Then there is the experiences of the folks on the UHH who actually use the gear on a daily/day to day basis, providing a real-world report of how something performs, and this is why people ask about a certain camera, or lens or tripod or whatever. I don't believe that any way is laziness on anyone's part. It's all part of the informational process. So we offer up opinions based on our experiences and Jerry offers up suggested websites which can lead to further research on the part of the inquiring person. I think we need to lighten up a bit.

erinjay64

Point & shoots are a dying breed. Many One Inch, and Micro Four Thirds, sensored cameras are about as small as a P&S. For near P&S size / weight / convenience, I use a One Inch sensored Nikon 1 S1 I bought used & refurbished.

le boecere

Erin, how do you classify a particular camera as a P&S? I'm not challenging you, just asking a clarifying question, as that term seems to get less defined, year by year.

Griff Loc: Warwick U.K.

I totally agree.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

I would like to join some of the UHH members.

A camera to fit into your shirt pocket should have: Electronic viewfinder, RAW filing system, zoom range from 24mm to 720mm or better, 18 megapixels or better.

There are some very practical ones - like Panasonic ZS line with Leitz zooms.

le boecere

Paul, what must one give up in sensor-size, pixel-size, light-gathering ability, and ultimately; image quality, to carry a 720mm camera around in his or her shirt pocket?

_Van

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Most likely you will have to do with a 1/2.3" sensor, and there may be some softness in the corners at both extreme ends of the zoom range. If the sensor is less than 20mp, such a camera will likely be a reasonable performer in low light situations, however it may struggle when it's dark. The other thing is that with a long zoom, such as 720mm, the auto focus mechanism may tend to hunt before locking in focus in some situations. I have a Panasonic Lumix FZ200. It's not a bad camera and takes decent images, however at the extreme end of the zoom, at 600mm, it has a hard time focusing on things like water scenes and small objects. It also has digital zoom, which is all but useless for focusing. It will focus, but it's difficult. On the upside, because it's just a 12.1mp sensor, it does fairly well in low light. I think the best bet is to pick a number of similar cameras, then check out sites for reviews, such as DPreview, Imaging Resource, Camera Labs, CNET, etc. They tend to give good reviews and will tell you all the positives and all the negatives, and if, in the end, a camera is worth considering.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

Van, in order to fit the camera into your shirt pocket, you do have to make some compromises, but fortunately not too many. I would even say - not the noticeable ones?
This is a small camera you can carry always with you with a respectable zoom range and it gives you an opportunity to record everything you see - worth capturing.
It means that such a camera will have to have a small sensor (about 1/2.3) and 18-20 megapixels.
So far my climbing and hiking experience with several of these gems is quite positive and I do not regret leaving my heavier full frames and larger formats with interchangeable lenses home.
I usually enlarge my prints only up to 16"x20".
By the way, I do read reviews, but the enlarged prints tell me more.

le boecere

Greg, have you divested of your photography equipment with sensors larger than 1/2.3", or do you still use those cameras for very large prints, above 16"x20"?
I'm kinda rebounding off of Paul's reply. You both seem to be accomplished outdoor photographers, and have (apparently) come to the conclusion that nothing [sensor] larger is really needed for that type of photography.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I haven't gotten rid of anything yet, but am looking in that direction. And actually, I got into DSLR photography as a way of encouraging my grandson in his photography. When he leaves for the photography school in August, I think I'll be selling the big stuff. I get tired of lugging that heavy stuff around. The camera is great, but I hate the bulk.

Now, to answer your question. My FZ200 has a 1/2.3" sensor and the G16 has a 1/1.7" sensor. Both take nice images, but I haven't printed anything larger than 8x10 yet, and those look good. The largest I've printed from my D7200 is also 8x10. While the smaller sensor cameras produce nice images, I'd have to say that a crop or full frame sensor camera is going to produce the best images for very large prints. Helps to have very good glass, too, which is something you don't have any control over in a fixed lens camera.

le boecere

Paul, I'll ask you a similar question to the one I asked Greg: It appears that cameras with 1/2.3" sensors have met your needs. Are these cameras the only ones you use? ~ Or, are they just your outdoor photography choice?

One of my main reasons for these (rookie) questions of you and Greg, is because I know more than one (published) outdoor photographer who seem to prefer cameras with larger sensors.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

Van, to answer your question what one might need to give up using a small sensor (1/2.3)shirt pocket cameras:


Some - not much noticeable but inevitable loss of definition on larger than 16"x24"prints.
Cameras work at their best in a good light. For low light conditions you will need a lightweight tripod or an auxiliary flash gun (buy a camera with a hot shoe). However, it is still a much lighter package than a FF camera with lenses.
If you want to use a polarizing filter, you might look for some filter adapters or make one yourself. I made CPL adapters for all my cameras, including the FF SLR's because to put the filter on is faster than to screw the filter on.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Good suggestions. Some of the cameras have a regular lens cap, so you can use screw in filters, while others have retracting lenses with a built-in blade type lens cover that opens and closes automatically. You'd need some sort of filter adapter for those. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention. One other drawback, as I think about it is, some of the compact cameras have no ability to use a remote shutter release. I guess that would necessitate having to use the self timer. Not as handy or convenient as a remote release, but it works.

jtwind

Are you talking about the rx10 III? It was $1600 for a long time and then for some reason 3-5 months ago it came down $200, which is when I bought it. Now I see it's back up to the earlier price. Who knows. The rx100V is still the same price.

le boecere

It appears (to this rookie) that there are multiple "crowds" regarding this issue. There's the (sensor) "size matters" group ~ then there's the "Nope! It doesn't." group ~ and the "tweeners" (like some of the experts on UHH), who opine that the modern camera sweet spot is between the (so called) 1" and the APS-C

(and then, of course, there's a sizable number of photographers who are satisfied with nothing less than the vaunted "full-frame", and,now, even larger).

Apparently, there are enough of the "size matters" enthusiasts (with money in their wallets) to keep the pundits talking on the net, and the manufacturers in business.

For me, I found that my 1/1.7" sensor Canon compacts were wonderful to carry, but would not stop speeding grandkids and dogs. So, I joined the "'tweeners".