Compact cameras (Page 2): What size prints do you usually make? If you don't print over a 5 x 7 I wouldn't be too worried about sensor size. I have a little Canon Elph hs330 that takes...

dragonfist Loc: Stafford, N.Y.

What size prints do you usually make? If you don't print over a 5 x 7 I wouldn't be too worried about sensor size. I have a little Canon Elph hs330 that takes very crisp close ups of flowers, coins, etc. It cost me all of $139.00.

kemo Loc: Tampa, FL

Musella Rose wrote:

Thanks to all of you for prompt responses! Some of these are cameras I have not yet considered, so lots of research left to do.

I'm debating now if I really need an EVF. Do most of you have an easy time with the LCD in bright sunlight? Along that line does the tilting LCD on the RX100 II make that big a difference vs. the fixed one on the RX100?

I tried using screen only and HATED it. Unsteady hands, difficult in bright light, unnatural stance.... it just isn't for me. I know some folks love it but I much prefer the viewfinder

BigWahoo Loc: Kentucky

Musella Rose wrote:

Thanks to all of you for prompt responses! Some of these are cameras I have not yet considered, so lots of research left to do.

I'm debating now if I really need an EVF. Do most of you have an easy time with the LCD in bright sunlight? Along that line does the tilting LCD on the RX100 II make that big a difference vs. the fixed one on the RX100?

I wouldn't consider a camera without a viewfinder. Trying to use the screen in bright light isn't much fun.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

BigWahoo wrote:

I wouldn't consider a camera without a viewfinder. Trying to use the screen in bright light isn't much fun.

Point and Hope. :D

ozmerelda Loc: Osprey, FL

jerryc41 wrote:

Point and Hope. :D

Oh Jerry,
We all live in hope don"t we?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

HowardPepper Loc: Palm Coast, FL

Musella Rose wrote:

I'm new here, but have been reading the forum for ... (show quote)

Let me toss my hat into the ring here. I was in the same predicament as you, and opted for the Canon PowerShot G16. In the time I've owned it, I have found it to be a very competent camera with fairly good image quality. I posted a series of images I took at the Museum of Arts and Science in Daytona Beach, FL this past Saturday:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-251712-1.html

These were all taken with the G16, in manual mode, ISO 400, no flash.

I hope this helps.

HughB Loc: Minneapolis MN

As a result of a previous discussion on traveling with one's large bulky camera and therefore a suggestion to consider a compact one I did just that 3 months ago. I did a lot of research including Dpreview.com and other photo websites and consequently bought the Panasonic Lumix GX7. It is pricier than you want to spend but I did buy it, refurbished by Panasonic, for $800 through Amazon which also included many highly favorable reviews. This little gem appears to have more adjustments than my Canon 6D! It also has the tilt electronic viewfinder in addition to the back tilting LCD. In experimenting with it I also had large prints developed, 20 x 30, and they are, in my mind, exceptional. My learning curve is still there but gradually I am mastering this little gem. BTW, the LCD is a touch screen which makes it easier to make changes/ refinements to the shooting process. I also purchased the kit lenses, 14 - 45 f3.5 and then added the Olympus 50mm f1.8.
Bottom line, I couldn't be happier and at 70 life is great!

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

dragonfist wrote:

What size prints do you usually make? If you don't print over a 5 x 7 I wouldn't be too worried about sensor size. I have a little Canon Elph hs330 that takes very crisp close ups of flowers, coins, etc. It cost me all of $139.00.

The sensor size determines how much light it uses to create the image. More light usually means more information. More information usually means better quality images. Resolution (i.e. MPs) determines size. More pixels means larger size, but it doesn't necessarily mean better quality. If you re-read the OPs "primary" goal, it was quality not size. Cost was one of the lowest concerns since the budget is $1000.

phkowalchuk Loc: Aurora, CO

Musella Rose wrote:

I'm new here, but have been reading the forum for ... (show quote)

You will not be disappointed with the Sony Rx100 III. It's got all you want and more. It's a very small powerhouse; this grip will help provide a steadier handhold http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3660240707/sony-rx100-accessory-grip-from-richard-franeic. And it won't make the camera any less pocketable. You'll love it!

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

I'm going to have to dissuade you from the Sony RX-10, only because it is not compact, and you said that was a primary goal. Instead, you should look at the Sony A6000, which is small enough to fit in a pocket, has an aps-c sensor and can change lenses. If you use the 16-50 lens with it, it is quite a small package, and can be hidden anywhere. Then when you need larger zoom, there are any number of lenses available in the e-mount or A mount with adapter.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

azted wrote:

I'm going to have to dissuade you from the Sony RX-10, only because it is not compact, and you said that was a primary goal. Instead, you should look at the Sony A6000, which is small enough to fit in a pocket, has an aps-c sensor and can change lenses. If you use the 16-50 lens with it, it is quite a small package, and can be hidden anywhere. Then when you need larger zoom, there are any number of lenses available in the e-mount or A mount with adapter.

Yes, for the RX10, you need to be highly appreciative of the equiv. 200mm 2.8 and the size it brings along ! It is a GREAT thing - if you appreciate it and use it.

Bobgood1 Loc: Indianapolis, IN

Musella Rose wrote:

I'm new here, but have been reading the forum for ... (show quote)

I fell a few years ago and broke my neck. After surgery my Nikon was too heavy. A have several Sony DSC's. Now a RX100 does it plus a DSC T200.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

There are a lot of choices for advanced point & shoot cameras, and when your budget is $1,000.00.....it's even more more boggling. In the $400.00-$500.00 range, the Sony RX series and the Canon compact's are very good. In the $300.00-$350.00 range, Nikon has the P330 and P340 compacts. The Canon G 16 and the Nikon P7800 are also good choices...although they are not considered "pocket cameras". If you really want to go to the top of your budget, Nikon makes the Coolpix A, it goes for a little over $1000.00. Good luck.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

go to dp reviews and look at the fujifilm e-2x and you can compare features using their site.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Musella Rose wrote:

I'm new here, but have been reading the forum for ... (show quote)

You'll get all kinds of recommendations. I just purchased a Sony a6000 and love it. I made the mistake of getting the Sony 55-210 and the pancake 16-50. It is not the smallest camera around, but much smaller than my DSLRs and lighter as well. I wish I had spent the $$ and gotten the 18-210 instead.

Why the Sony? First criteria was aps-c sensor. I've had p&s cameras and gotten good shots with them, but the image falls apart when severely cropped or when you want to print at sizes to hang on a wall. (11x14--20x30) That's not true for the larger aps-c. (Full frame would even be better but so would a Hasselblad. LOL)

Biggest drawback now is the dearth of lenses. Only Tamron and Sony have lenses and even they only go to 210mm. (They do have an adapter to use Nikon lenses, but then it all gets heavy again.)