Best small digital camera?

[Squisher]

I need a recommendation for a small digital camera. The smaller the better, but I've noticed that at some point you can't incorporate the optics that give really good pictures. I'm sure anything you recommend will have a higher MP than I'll ever use. Price? I don't know, most I look at are pretty cheap. Maybe, less than $300.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: Squisher
The smaller the better, but I've noticed that at some point you can't incorporate the optics and/or the sensor that give really good pictures.

fixed,

Whats your intended use of this camera?

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Originally posted by: Squisher
The smaller the better, but I've noticed that at some point you can't incorporate the optics and/or the sensor that give really good pictures.

fixed,

Whats your intended use of this camera?

Vacation pics, pics of the grandkids, etc.

 

[deanx0r]

Fujifilm F10, F11, F30, F31 are highly recommended, however those are discontinued and really hard to find.

DPreview posted a serie of digital point & shoot roundup a few weeks ago:

Enthusiast cams
Premium cams
Ultra compact cams
Budget cams

My personal pick would be the Panasonic LX3. But it might a little bit out of your budget (worth every penny tho). The Fuji F100fd might be your best bet for your budget.

 

[Squisher]

Thanks

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: deanx0r
Fujifilm F10, F11, F30, F31 are highly recommended, however those are discontinued and really hard to find.

DPreview posted a serie of digital point & shoot roundup a few weeks ago:

Enthusiast cams
Premium cams
Ultra compact cams
Budget cams

My personal pick would be the Panasonic LX3. But it might a little bit out of your budget (worth every penny tho). The Fuji F100fd might be your best bet for your budget.

On that ultra-compact list the Panasonic got a strong recommendation as well. Mostly for image quality but also for menu interface.
That might seem minor, but for anyone who's used a variety of cameras the experience with a fast, easy interface versus a slow, clunky one can make all the difference in the world.

 

[ElFenix]

if you want something about the size of a deck of cards all the cameras are pretty similar and the only reason you see so many is an attempt to crowd competitors off of store shelves. i would seriously advise you to half your budget for one. in this class, spending more money doesn't necessarily get you nicer optics or a nicer sensor. for $150 you can still get a very nicely specced and well built camera. i'm partial to the fs3, having bought one on ebay for ~$80 (used and returned, the box was pretty beat up, but there's only a small scratch on the camera). compared to other cameras in the price range, it's got a slightly wider wide angle, a lens that is up to a half a stop quicker at the wide angle, and doesn't get quite as slow on the telephoto end as the sonys.

if you're set on spending that much on a camera, i'd probably look at the panasonic tz5/6 or the canon sx200is. they're super-zooms in very compact bodies, a class panasonic likes to call the 'travel zoom' segment. they invented it, so why not? on each camera you get a proper wide angle (28, 25, and 28 mm respectively) and a very long telephoto (280, 300, and 336 mm, respectively). panasonic tz7(aka zs3) review sx200 review

 

[whoiswes]

Another vote for the Panny TZ series. I've had three Panasonic P&S cams, all of them mega-zooms (or whatever you call it) and in good light the pictures I can produce rival what my D40 can do.

I don't think you can go wrong with the TZ3/5/7

 

[jpeyton]

I've never been a fan of super-zooms, or zooms in general. Still waiting for someone besides Sigma to make a small, compact, relatively inexpensive pocket digital camera with a fast prime lens.

Something the size of a ZS3 or SX200, but with a fixed 35mm (equivalent) lens at f/2 or faster. I would happily pay $450 for one, but not $600+ like the Sigma.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I've never been a fan of super-zooms, or zooms in general. Still waiting for someone besides Sigma to make a small, compact, relatively inexpensive pocket digital camera with a fast prime lens.

Something the size of a ZS3 or SX200, but with a fixed 35mm (equivalent) lens at f/2 or faster. I would happily pay $450 for one, but not $600+ like the Sigma.

you may be asking for the impossible, size wise. the lens would need to be larger than what's on the DP-2, and the big boys use larger sensors than the DP-2 does. further, while the electronics could largely be lifted from the SLRs, the lens would probably have to be just for that camera, limiting its value (iirc nikon's new 35 is retrofocal, and even if it weren't it's still too far away from the sensor to make a truly compact camera).

the best hope seems to be one of the micro systems. panasonic has a 20 f/1.7 kicking around which would approximate the fixed lens cameras from the 60s and 70s.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I've never been a fan of super-zooms, or zooms in general. Still waiting for someone besides Sigma to make a small, compact, relatively inexpensive pocket digital camera with a fast prime lens.

Something the size of a ZS3 or SX200, but with a fixed 35mm (equivalent) lens at f/2 or faster. I would happily pay $450 for one, but not $600+ like the Sigma.

you may be asking for the impossible, size wise. the lens would need to be larger than what's on the DP-2, and the big boys use larger sensors than the DP-2 does. further, while the electronics could largely be lifted from the SLRs, the lens would probably have to be just for that camera, limiting its value (iirc nikon's new 35 is retrofocal, and even if it weren't it's still too far away from the sensor to make a truly compact camera).

the best hope seems to be one of the micro systems. panasonic has a 20 f/1.7 kicking around which would approximate the fixed lens cameras from the 60s and 70s.

Not necessarily; the compact doesn't have to have an APS-C sized sensor. Something with a high-resolution 1/1.7" CCD would be fine. Making a fast prime to cover such a small image circle shouldn't be too hard. Using a smaller sensor and lens would keep the cost down too.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Not necessarily; the compact doesn't have to have an APS-C sized sensor. Something with a high-resolution 1/1.7" CCD would be fine. Making a fast prime to cover such a small image circle shouldn't be too hard. Using a smaller sensor and lens would keep the cost down too.

ah, yeah, i see you didn't specify a large sensor. i guess i saw 'sigma' and went running.

of course, the lx3 is almost there already. it's roughly the same size as a tz and the sigma, and starts at f/2. no idea what the f-stop is around 35 mm equivalent. 2.3 maybe. if you can find one they're under $450.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Not necessarily; the compact doesn't have to have an APS-C sized sensor. Something with a high-resolution 1/1.7" CCD would be fine. Making a fast prime to cover such a small image circle shouldn't be too hard. Using a smaller sensor and lens would keep the cost down too.

But having an APS-C sized sensor is sooo nice =) Though, I'd settle for m4/3's because it seems a lot more likely than canon/nikon/anyone dropping in a DP2 competitor.

the other nice thing about m4/3 is the m mount adapter (granted, this is a small minority that might find this useful): http://www.cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43.htm