Best point-and-shoot for a DSLR semi-snob?

June 21, 2011 5:01 AM

Days before I'm supposed to leave for India, the 1.4/50mm lens that I use almost exclusively broke. As someone who's used to having that narrow depth-of-field and a DSLR's semi-manual options, what's the best pocket digital camera for me to pick up right now?

I'll repair the lens, but not before an important family baptism and this India trip. After this accident, I'm convinced I want something smaller and sturdier for this trip. I'd can spend up to $500 but would, of course, rather keep it in the $200-300 range. My DSLR is a Canon.

Here's what's important:

Ability to control depth-of-field and shoot in relatively low light.
Ability to go for very wide angles (the one thing I can't do easily with my current DSLR setup. Wide is more important than zoom (I can always get closer!)
Small size.

I don't care about:
Batteries v power pack
Movie mode.

I don't want to get into micro 4/3rds - I'll stay 35mm for the time being. With five minutes of searching on DPReview, the Olympus XZ-1, Canon G-12 (too big?) or S95 all look like higher-price-range contenders. What else should I look at? Anything cheaper? What about other manufacturers?

posted by These Premises Are Alarmed to Media & Arts (22 answers total)

Have you thought about picking up the 1.8/50mm?

It's not "smaller and sturdier" but certainly cheaper, which might work instead...
posted by robtoo at 5:28 AM on June 21, 2011

What about just getting a used 50mm/1.4 and reselling it on ebay after you've repaired the old one? The distinct advantage is that you'll be shooting this important trip and family baptism with a set-up that you're already comfortable with, not trying to get good images with a new system you're unfamiliar with.

I noticed you were in CT, here is one used on on craigslist for $390 and another for $450.
posted by arnicae at 5:56 AM on June 21, 2011

i have a canon dslr and use the 50mm 1.8 a ton. I quite like it; if you're used to having all the controls of a DSLR in front of you, i would think that the amount of menu diving required by a point and shoot is going to be frustrating.
posted by dubold at 5:57 AM on June 21, 2011

Go and buy a used 50mm lens for less than a shitty P&S. Come down to NYC, we've got Adorama and B&H. They will hook you up. OR you can rent any lens you could ever imagine from either of them for less than a P&S.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 6:08 AM on June 21, 2011

Response by poster: I appreciate the 1.8 suggestion. That was actually my fall-back plan if I can't find a point-and-shoot that looks satisfactory. Still, I'd rather not carry the whole kit if avoidable, I'll be doing some shooting inside offices and, while this is contractually acceptable, would like to be more discreet.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 6:09 AM on June 21, 2011

You want the Ricoh GR Digital III. 28mm/F1.9, portable, great photos in low light. At the top of your price range, but something that you'll probably use for years. Here's a relevant Flickr group.

(Note: I don't actually own one, but have heard great things about it. I'd love to get one, but no $$$)
posted by griseus at 6:45 AM on June 21, 2011

Another option is the Panasonic LX5. 24-90mm / f2-3.3. Decent low-light performance via a large sensor (large for a P&S). $400 on Amazon, so more or less within your price range.
posted by jedicus at 6:48 AM on June 21, 2011

I highly recommend the canon S90 which I found refurbished with a bunch of goodies somewhere on the internet for $350
posted by masters2010 at 7:26 AM on June 21, 2011

Even the larger sensor compacts won't give you the depth control of a 50mm f/1.4 on a DSLR. Have to agree with those that say you need to find another lens, if that's what's most important to you. Compacts like those Canons don't get anywhere near the same effect.
posted by normy at 7:27 AM on June 21, 2011

I switched from a Canon SLR with a 50mm f/1.8 lens (runs around $100) to a Canon S90 (previous version of the S95) because I just wasn't lugging around the SLR very often; as you know, the best camera is the one you have with you. The SLR is a great little camera - so easy to slip in a pocket - and has full manual controls, but the big tradeoff is that there's much less depth of field than with the 50mm f/1.8. You have to get really close (like with a couple of feet) to blur the background, while I used to be able to do that taking portraits from 10 feet away. There's also a tiny bit of delay, which you avoid with an SLR, but it's not an issue 95 percent of the time.

So basically you're going to have to make the camera size/depth of field tradeoff.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:47 AM on June 21, 2011

Mr. Apparently says: If you need a camera that fits in your pants pocket, the best ultra compact is the Canon S95.

If you're willing to go a bit bigger, then the best are the Panasonic LX5 and the Olympus XZ1. Both have faster lenses than the S95 and will give you better images. Since you don't care about movies, I'd pick the XZ1 over the LX5 for the best fast zoom lens in any compact camera.

And if you're willing to go even bigger, give up zoom, pay a lot more, and you only take pictures of static or posed scenes with good light, then you'll get the best image quality from the Fujifilm X100.

Bottom line: XZ1 is probably your best bet.
posted by apparently at 8:26 AM on June 21, 2011

If you like shallow depth of field, you're not going to be happy with any P&S no matter how wide open it goes. The smaller sensor just doesn't cut it. Get the 50f/1.8
posted by notsnot at 9:38 AM on June 21, 2011

Response by poster: Let's drop depth-of-field down the requirements list, and focus on low-light shooting regardless of the f-stop. I'm leaning toward the S95 or XZ1. The Olympus is a half inch wider and $60 more. The glowing dpreview on the XZ1 leads me to believe it'll do a little better in low light.

Anyone want to weigh in with a tiebreak?
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 10:47 AM on June 21, 2011

I'm not familiar with the XZ1, but I've been pretty impressed with the low-light shots (of still objects, like sleeping kids) that S90 gets with image stabilization. For moving objects (like awake kids), it's going to be a step down from what you're used to with the SLR.

On the dimensions, DP Review lists the XZ1 at 4.4 x 2.6 x 1.7 inches, and the S95 at 4 x 2.3 x 1.2, so in addition to being a half inch thicker, the area of its largest side is also 24 percent larger than the S95. [(4.4x2.6)/(4x2.3)=1.24]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:17 PM on June 21, 2011

LX5 - I've had it for a few months now, and I use it a lot more than the D300. Major advantage - it has a ton of manual controls compared to almost any P&S. The 24mm wide is also a major bonus compared to the 28mm for the S90. When you come back, I'm sure you'll re-buy a nice 50mm lens for your DSLR, but you may find yourself keeping the LX5 anyway, simply because it is so convenient.
posted by VikingSword at 1:16 PM on June 21, 2011

Response by poster: Thanks, b1tr0t & VikingSword, you made my decision more difficult.

I think the 24mm might be reason enough to go with the LX5.

I'll decide after supper, I guess.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 1:22 PM on June 21, 2011

One more thing to consider: The XZ1 lens is 28mm/f1.8 to 112mm/f2.5 and the LX5 lens is 24mm/f2.0 to 90mm/f3.3.

So the XZ1 lens is 24% longer and 2/3 stop faster at the long end, while the LX5 is 16% wider and 1/4 stop slower at the short end. If you want shallow depth of field, the XZ1 is the way to go.
posted by apparently at 2:50 PM on June 21, 2011

Get a Ricoh GRD or the Canon S95.
posted by chunking express at 3:25 PM on June 21, 2011

I love my Panasonic LX-5, is a great contender along side the Canon S-95. The G12 is a lot bigger but also has some great options. If size is the most important factor go for the S-95, it's stupid tiny for such a good camera. I personally have some brand loyalty and existing accessories for the Panasonic. I also like that I can add a barrel adapter and throw on filters from the SLR on my LX-5.
posted by MrBobaFett at 8:03 PM on June 21, 2011

Response by poster: LX-5 it is. Thanks for all the advice. The extra width sold me.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 8:35 PM on June 21, 2011

Response by poster: Got the LX-5. Already enjoying the wide angle. Very disappointed with the manual, though. Any suggestions for a better guide?
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 6:10 AM on June 24, 2011

The manual is famously rotten. I have this: Photographer's Guide to the Panasonic Lumix LX5: Getting the Most from Panasonic's Advanced Digital Camera.
posted by VikingSword at 11:49 AM on June 25, 2011