Comments on: Cheese! Wanted a Sigma DP2 but having doubts, recommendations?

Question: Cheese! Wanted a Sigma DP2 but having doubts, recommendations?

doctor.dan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:54:12 -0800

I've been thinking of buying a new point-and-shoot camera for a while. I've had some lame experiences with previous point-and-shoots (blurry photos, bad colour balance, etc), so I'm asking the green for some advice.

I initially had big hopes for the Sigma DP2 because of its SLR sized sensor, but have been reading some very mixed reviews.

Any recommendations for a small-factor camera that shoots gorgeous pictures, as the DP2 does, but without the supposed downsides?

I've had a read through a similar previous question, but don't really know what I'm looking for.

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:05:29 -0800

The question you linked to is all about finding a high quality compact camera. What else do you want to know that isn't covered there?

By: box

box — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:07:50 -0800

Canon G9 with CHDK firmware.

By: bz

bz — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:07:55 -0800

Promising is the just announced Olympus E-P1. It has interchangeable lenses (currently only two are available). I have a feeling that this is going to be a well received camera.

Personally, I have the Lumix DMC-LX3 which I like but it is no match for a DSLR. As a grab camera it is a clear step up from a typical point and shoot but it is not the glorious picture taker that many people have made it out to be.

By: Admiral Haddock

Admiral Haddock — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:49:16 -0800

I agree that this is mostly covered in the other thread, but I'd note that I wouldn't fixate on the Sigma's "SLR-sized sensor." I'm not sure what that is intended to mean, given that there is a lot of variation in the size of SLR sensors, but the sensor on that camera is pretty damn small (about 21x14 mm).

If you really want to be taking steps to make your pictures better, you should be shooting in an uncompressed format (i.e., RAW or TIFF). These file formats allow you to make finer adjustments to the photos after the fact (whereas shooting in JPG format will set white balance, contrast, vibrance, sharpening all in the camera--and degrade the image with JPG compression). The Lumix and the Sigma each allow you to shoot like in this format. Various programs (iPhoto, Lightroom, Aperture and others) will allow you to take advantage of RAW shooting.

By: doctor.dan

doctor.dan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:59:16 -0800

b1tr9t, the other poster had very specific needs, a camera that can be used when the SLR is too bulky. What I'm after is something that will be a primary camera, not just something quick and dirty in place of a superior one. Also, not being someone who has a lot of experience with photography, I'm not really in the same position as the other poster.

Thanks box, will look into the Canon G9. I've seen it mentioned a few times so it must do something right.

Cheers bz. The Olympus is quite the unattractive camera, IMHO, which hopefully means that it will be very good at what it does. I've seen the Lumix mentioned a lot but I don't understand the appeal. What some claim as an advantage, others list as its flaws. What are the main strengths of the Lumix?

By: blaneyphoto

blaneyphoto — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:08:07 -0800

Just a note: you may have trouble getting the G9, since its a few years old. The G10 is the current model. I love the G9 as a pocket camera though!

Also - blurry photos, color, etc are often "operator failure" issues rather than camera problems. Make sure you're doing everything right and KNOW AND UNDERSTAND the features of the camera you're using before spending cash on a new camera.

By: drpynchon

drpynchon — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:51:37 -0800

Another vote for the LX3. Better if you shoot in RAW and learn how to appropriately post-process yourself. Which is not to say that shots out of the camera are bad, but I've come to learn that some (not all, of course) of the image quality people ascribe to DSLRs is really attributable to a relatively greater amount of time spent fastidiously processing images, which most don't spend on P&S shots.

By: drpynchon

drpynchon — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:12:10 -0800

To answer your question about the strengths of the LX3: near SLR-level control of camera settings with the fastest available, high-quality Leica lens and the best low-light performance in its class. To me the major sacrifice they made to deliver great IQ is the limited focal length range of 24-60mm. If you can live without tele and shoot more wide, it's what I'd go with, but if you really want more flexibility in focal length the G10 or the Fujifilm F200EXR (both 28-140mm, I think) are the best alternatives these days.

By: Billegible

Billegible — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:19:32 -0800

The Canon PowerShot line has never let me down, and it covers a lot of ground from cheap to high-end. I've had several from the very cheap to the middle-to-high end and they've all been fantastic.

By: sully75

sully75 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:26:27 -0800

I'm waiting to see how the Olympus is...looks very promising and will also have great video most likely.

The other choice is the G10. Jackoff, all trades. I tried one and wasn't impressed with any particular characteristic of it but it does do a lot of things. Image quality is decent but not amazing (I have a Canon 5d so I'm spoiled).

Seriously, wait till at least the reviews start coming in for the Olympus. It just might be an amazing camera.

By: puffmoike

puffmoike — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:34:20 -0800

@doctor.dan not being someone who has a lot of experience with photography

I'd second blaneyphoto at this point - make sure you have a reasonable expectation of what a new camera will or won't do for you. If you told us what camera you currently use, then the experienced photographers here we'll be able to make an educated guess as to whether a new camera is likely to be worthwhile, or whether you might be better served spending a bit more time understanding your current camera better first. For example if you want to reduce blur then the best advice might be simply to stop holding the camera one-handed with your arm outstretched, and instead hold it with both hands, resting against your forehead, with your arms tucked in and your legs at shoulder width apart, like you'll notice most professional photographers do...

Admiral Haddock makes some good suggestions about RAW and the use of software to make your photos better, but from your second post I get the impression you just want a camera that produces a decent shot "out of the box".

Conversely Haddock's comment that the DP2 has a small sensor is frankly pretty ridiculous in the context of the OP's question - whilst not as big as a $3000 full-frame SLR sensor 21mmx14mm is significantly bigger than any other P&S-sized camera the OP is likely to consider purchasing, (and will change the depth of field considerably compared to cameras like the Canon G series.)

And if the OP doesn't understand the expression "depth of field" then my advice would be to stay way from a camera like the Sigma DP2 or the Olympus Pen - they're not really intended for users like you, and you'll probably be much happier using a P&S Canon, for example, which has a user interface geared towards casual users. Even a low-end recent Canon P&S is an excellent camera - i tell 90% of my friends just to buy a $200 not-so-basic Canon

Further to my it's-not-the-camera-it's-the-photographer rant, if you want to see what a frankly pretty crap camera like the iPhone's (2MP, no autofocus, inconsistent colour) is capable of in the right hands look at Chase Jarvis' site (click on Portfolio and then iPhone As Art - Flash site, so no direct link possible). All taken with an iPhone, and any processing done in the phone before being uploaded directly to the website.

By: bonobothegreat

bonobothegreat — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:36:20 -0800

I'm happy with the Canon Powershot SD400 and Canon Powershot SD500. They take better pictures than Nikon Coolpix I've seen.

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:12:41 -0800

The Olympus is quite the unattractive camera, IMHO, which hopefully means that it will be very good at what it does.

That is a bit like saying that Lotus makes rather ugly cars, so they might happen to go fast. Lotuses look the way they do for a reason, and once you understand that reason they can be beautiful. The E-P1 was designed to appeal to a very specific aesthetic. It might turn out to be an amazing camera, but it could be a big letdown as well. The price is high, and there aren't any fast lenses yet.

You should probably get the BMW M3 of cameras - the G10. It is fairly powerful and obviously a serious camera. Once you understand what the BMW does and doesn't do, you might be ready for the Lotus, unless you find out that you much prefer Corvettes or Porsches.

Alternately, get a Canon SD880. Canons are very good cameras and make a great starting point for someone who wants to be more serious about their photography. Canons usually do all things well and are sometimes excellent.

Don't get the Sigma DP2 - that is a Lamborghini, only appropriate for the truly crazy and excessively rich.

By: box

box — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:17:02 -0800

Ooh, ooh, what kind of car is the G9, b1tr0t?

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:24:31 -0800

All of the Gs are M3s.

The most desirable is the G1, which was the four-cylinder supercar of cameras when it was introduced. It also had an unusual sensor design which produced great images. Its Achilles heel was its easily blown, yet impossible to replace fuse.

By: box

box — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:35:38 -0800

What about the Canon SDs? Mini Coopers?

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:46:45 -0800

The SDs might be Mini Coopers. The As are definitely Toyotas. Highly functional and affordable. Sometimes ugly, sometimes surprisingly good for their price. The higher end Canons are BMWs though - prestige cameras that are solidly competent, but almost never exceptionally good.

Nikon's P&S cameras are Audis. They look great on paper, but often disappoint or are overly complex in the real world.

Panasonic might be Alfa Romeo - usually flawed, but also very good in some way that just doesn't make logical sense.

Four Thirds cameras are all French. They live in their own world and make sense to the people who want them, but not to anyone else.

dSLRs are amateur race cars. When tuned well, they can be amazing. Typically they are less than impressive (too many kit lenses).

That's about as far as I can take this analogy, someone else had better pick up and run with this :)

By: box

box — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:51:44 -0800

I could see SDs as Miatas, too.

Uh, Olympus is Subaru--durable, well-engineered and idiosyncratic.

Casios are Nissans--functional, occasionally inspired, but still inexplicably second-tier.

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:53:35 -0800

One more - Sonys are Fords. Most people think Mustang when they are buying a Sony, but end up with a Pinto. The Sony R1 was the Ford GT.

Incidentally, doctor.dan got lots of great advice the last time he asked this question. The DP Review forums are a fine place to go if you want to read a lot of camera advice, or just chat about them.

By: bz

bz — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:29 -0800

Oh gawd. I had a G1 and never had a problem with it but I really thought it was limited and noisy at anything over ISO50. Further, it's white balance, especially under fluorescent light, sucked. It was my first digital camera and was eventually stolen. I've never missed it.

I also had a G2 and two G3s and their durability was an issue usually dying with the lens retract mechanism freezing up and throwing a fatal error code message such as "err99." My Lumix LX3 is better than any of them but only if you like a predominantly wide angle camera. The Leica optics are very good, bright and contrasty (however, the fluorite glass on the Gs is very good as well). The camera has very low lag The downside is that its got a very fiddly and somewhat counter-intuitive UI and it is very easy to shoot in some gawd-forsaken weird mode.

But, still, I think it is the best small camera on the market... at least until the Olympus comes out and, even then, it may still be better.

One thing is for sure, the build quality of the Lumix is excellent and one only has to hold it in their hand to know it's not a typical pocket camera.

I just isn't a DSLR.

By: unmake

unmake — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:35:19 -0800

Although it's conceivable you might be perfectly happy with them, the Ricoh and Sigma cameras are niche products with quirky performance and quirkier specs. I'd take a long look at Canon's ultracompacts before diving into a G10 or LX3 which, although compact, don't fit in as many pockets.

By: purephase

purephase — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:37:49 -0800

Canon SD's. I've been through so many point and click cameras and now that I've found them, I'm never looking back.

By: jeremias

jeremias — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:54:10 -0800

I have the Panasonic Lumix LX and it has proven to be a very dependable camera with enough control to keep me happy.

The main reason I got it was because in addition to the good pictures it turned out it has a 24mm starting point for its zoom. 24mm has a bit more wide angle than most other point and shoots and this helps for the type of pictures I like to take.

I have a pretty firm understanding of the principles of photography and while I wish there were better ways to control shutter speed and aperture, I usually can get the look I want.

I use it for travel and everyday family photos and whenever I use it for more "artistic" images I'm rarely disappointed. It's flat profile seems to fit into shirt and pants pockets very well, even when in a case.

By: soma lkzx

soma lkzx — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:15:45 -0800

I'd take a long look at Canon's ultracompacts before diving into a G10 or LX3 which, although compact, don't fit in as many pockets.

I bought a G7 as a carry-around for a trip to Italy, and boy can I not stress this enough. The G's are unwieldy enough that it isn't that much better than lugging around a DSLR. Unless you have huge pockets, go ultracompact!

By: Meagan

Meagan — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800

My Canon Powershot SD1100IS is hands down the best point and shoot I've had the pleasure of using. Great shots, great camera design, great everything. And a great price too. I highly recommend it.

By: captainsohler

captainsohler — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:48:32 -0800

to continue with the metaphor, take a look at the digital Hasselblads. Rolls Royce? For a nice down payment on a home, you too, can have a 38MP camera with the best glass in the world.

that said, I always tell people to not be so hung up on a better camera. If you know what you are doing with your point and shoot, then you can achieve great results. Taking good picutures relys on practice and understanding convention.

Spend at least 200 dollars. Optical zoom is more important than digital zoom. Supports RAW? A must. Plus, what will you be taking pictures of?

I hear great things about the G line for Canon. "The point and shoot the pros use"

By: smackfu

smackfu — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:52:10 -0800

I don't know about recommending a Canon SD. Sure it's nice for being so small, and the IS is great. I've owned a few and it is a good choice for many people. But at heart, it's still got a very tiny lens with virtually no aperture control, and the sensor is tiny too. The ~$500 cameras mentioned above are just a different beast.

By: bz

bz — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:20:37 -0800

"I'd take a long look at Canon's ultracompacts before diving into a G10 or LX3 which, although compact, don't fit in as many pockets."

This is very true and my calling the Lumix a "pocket camera" is, in practice, an inaccuracy. You see, the LX3 is rather heavy for its size which, although a hallmark of high quality, makes it almost impossible for a pocket. In a light jacket pocket the weight will, at best, cause the jacket to pull and sag and, at worse, try to take the jacket right off of you. Very heavy coats are, of course, affected less but because the coats are usually longer I've found the weight of the camera can cause a pendulum effect as I walk which I find annoying. I end up holding the coat tail in my hand and so, I might as well just have the camera in my hand.

Additionally, because the lens doesn't retract and it has a separate lens cap its not a very good fit for a pocket. The few times I tried, the lens cap kept getting popped off and, since there is no way to mount an IR or other protective glass over the primary element, I risked having the lens or lens coating scratched or abraded. In a case, the camera is even harder to fit in any pocket.

It is, however, smaller than the G10 and, although it probably is slightly noisier than the Canon, the 24mm wide angle is, for me, the advantage to the camera over the G10. If a high end point and shoot is what you seek, as many have already said here, the LX3 or the G10 are very good choices.

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:40:38 -0800

Although I really like my LX3, I don't think it is going to be the best camera for doctor.dan. An SD series Canon will produce much better images than his old Sony, and a G10 will provide even more manual control. The G10 might be overwhelming, so I would suggest one of the SDs.

You see, the LX3 is rather heavy for its size which, although a hallmark of high quality, makes it almost impossible for a pocket. In a light jacket pocket the weight will, at best, cause the jacket to pull and sag and, at worse, try to take the jacket right off of you.

The only pockets the LX3 and G10 fit comfortably in are large jacket pockets. I often carry my LX3 in the side pocket of this jacket and don't have any trouble. When it isn't in my jacket pocket, it lives in one of the outer pockets of my timbuk2 bag. I can hardly fit my d70s with a 28mm 2.8 in the main compartment of the same bag.

By: artdrectr

artdrectr — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:12:14 -0800

Canon SD1100IS

By: stumpyolegmcnoleg

stumpyolegmcnoleg — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:06:52 -0800

If you'd like to get an idea of what others (usually everyday 'amateurs') produce from all the various cameras mentioned already, take a look at:-

PBase

Part of their site, (linked directly to above) is devoted to a database of user-submitted images arranged according to camera used. Just pick the camera model and browse sometimes 10's of thousands of images (for the older/more popular models). Its not exactly a direct comparison of the relative capabilities of the cameras, as these are usually just snapshots taken by average users, and sometimes the image shown is scaled down from the original taken, but still its informative and gives you an idea of what to expect. Its also like viewing peoples personal photo albums and can be fun.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:39:04 -0800

If you want a really good point and shoot, there are a few standout options: The Ricoh GR-D (either version), the Ricoh GX200, the Canon G10 (though it's a bit big), and the Panosonic LX3. The Olympus Micro-4/3rds camera looks promising, but you probably can't stuff it in a jacket pocket.

By: bz

bz — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:52:12 -0800

I must disagree with the Ricoh options simply because they are so noisy. Really noisy.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:57:01 -0800

This is true. They also have incredibly slow auto-focus systems. (I'm not sure the other P&S's fair better.) Still, they take phenomenal photos.