S90/95 with better optics?

[vbuggy]

So I'm pretty happy with the Canon, especially in terms of it's true point & shoot usability.

But there are (often) times I'd like higher quality than the apparently fairly limited optics on this compact can manage. But I'm not an inveterate DSLR wielder and I've found through wallet-beating levels of trial and error that I'm not one for 'big' cameras. Not even more compact rangefinders (which actually presented an entirely different usability issue, but that's another story).

Is there some sort of happy medium? Near-DSLR quality at least on the 35-75mm (35mm equivalent) range, doesn't sacrifice the core P&S usability but is pretty compact?

 

[996GT2]

So I'm pretty happy with the Canon, especially in terms of it's true point & shoot usability.

But there are (often) times I'd like higher quality than the apparently fairly limited optics on this compact can manage. But I'm not an inveterate DSLR wielder and I've found through wallet-beating levels of trial and error that I'm not one for 'big' cameras. Not even more compact rangefinders (which actually presented an entirely different usability issue, but that's another story).

Is there some sort of happy medium? Near-DSLR quality at least on the 35-75mm (35mm equivalent) range, doesn't sacrifice the core P&S usability but is pretty compact?

Sony NEX-3, NEX-5
Olympus E-PL1
Panasonic GF1
Sigma DP2
Leica X1

 

[vbuggy]

Sony NEX-3, NEX-5
Olympus E-PL1
Panasonic GF1
Sigma DP2
Leica X1

Interchangeable lenses are not what I'm looking for. The Micro 4/3s are still too big, and the Sony is a potential but it's still relatively huge with the 18-55.

The Leica is not a contender - it is about as far away from point & shoot (at least from a casual-use standpoint) as you can imagine. I tried it at the shop I bought the (now abandoned) M and D-Lux from, enough to know it isn't for me.

Actually mentioning that, what I'm aiming more for is a D-Lux or better optical quality with the innate usability of the Canon.

 

[996GT2]

Interchangeable lenses are not what I'm looking for. The Micro 4/3s are still too big, and the Sony is a potential but it's still relatively huge with the 18-55.

The Leica is not a contender - it is about as far away from point & shoot (at least from a casual-use standpoint) as you can imagine. I tried it at the shop I bought the (now abandoned) M and D-Lux from, enough to know it isn't for me.

Actually mentioning that, what I'm aiming more for is a D-Lux or better optical quality with the innate usability of the Canon.

Optical quality is not the problem. In fact, among point and shoots, the S90's fast f/2-4.9 28-105mm lens is already among the best. The problem is that all small point and shoots (including the S90 and LX3) have sensors that are too small to produce good image quality, especially in low light. Cramming 10 million pixels onto something the size of a pencil erase means each photosite is tiny and has very little area to capture light with.

The only way to get better image quality is to get a camera with a bigger sensor, and the ones I listed above are about as small as they get. You could alternatively look at the Sigma DP1/DP2 if you don't need interchangeable lenses, but it's not much smaller than the other cameras I listed.

If you really want the best image quality in a small package, the way to go would be a Panasonic GF1 or Olympus E PL1 with 20mm pancake lens (40mm equiv). Alternatively, Sony NEX-5 with the 16mm pancake is quite small as well. You sacrifice the versatility of a zoom lens, but you gain a fast aperture, better lens sharpness, and a sensor that is 5-10 times bigger than the sensor in the S90.

 

[vbuggy]

I hear what you say about sensors, but I have had better pictures from (much older) lower-MP 'prosumer' cameras with similar sized sensors. And the D-Lux does have better quality than the S90, something that's especially visible in well exposed outdoor shots. I do realise that to get significantly better I need to up the sensor size, and if there's something that fits the above needs then I'm all for it.

I looked at the DP's but the review comments about the usability of the interface put me off, as well as the studiedly ambigous conclusions in the DPReview review. I'd like to hear from owners though.

I played for a short time with the idea of getting a NEX, but apart from the size with the non-pancake lenses it has no flash, not even the tiny one of the Sigma.

 

[Munky]

From the images I've seen, the S95 is about as good in image quality as you'll get without stepping up to a larger sensor camera. It's not the optics that's holding you back, but the small sensor.

 

[ElFenix]

i'm going to echo the comments of munky and 996gt2. the only way to get better IQ is to step up to a larger sensor. unfortunately, there are very few cameras with larger sensors in such small bodies, and all of them have very limited lenses (the leica X1 and the sigma DP1/2. the new fuji fx100 is quite a bit bigger). and they're all rather expensive.

the nex 5 is very small but the 16mm lens is too wide for everyday use, imho (there's a reason a lot of people's ideal kit is the 5D2 and 35L). the GF1 is a bit larger but the 20mm lens is a much more useful focal length. the nex has quite a bit better sensor than the u4/3 kit.

 

[996GT2]

i'm going to echo the comments of munky and 996gt2. the only way to get better IQ is to step up to a larger sensor. unfortunately, there are very few cameras with larger sensors in such small bodies, and all of them have very limited lenses (the leica X1 and the sigma DP1/2. the new fuji fx100 is quite a bit bigger). and they're all rather expensive.

the nex 5 is very small but the 16mm lens is too wide for everyday use, imho (there's a reason a lot of people's ideal kit is the 5D2 and 35L). the GF1 is a bit larger but the 20mm lens is a much more useful focal length. the nex has quite a bit better sensor than the u4/3 kit.

Yeah, I think the best you could do at a reasonable price is either a Panasonic GF1 with 20mm or an Olympus E-PL1 with the Panasonic 20mm lens. Both are similar in size, and the 20mm lens (40mm equivalent) is a useful focal length for many things.

The GF1 focuses faster and has a better screen, but the PL1 has built-in image stabilization and costs less. Take your pick.

If only Sony made a 35mm f/2 prime for their NEX line...

 

[vbuggy]

I know the micro 4/3rds bar the Sony are too big. They will not be used - I know me and cameras now. And the Sony has lens issues at the moment in terms of focal length / physical dimensions.

So if it has to have a smaller sensor so be it - but I do know, from personal experience (I owned the S90 and the DL4 simultaneously for a short while until I finally decided to dump the DL4 for the Canon's superior usability), that better images can be had than the S90 even from a smaller sensor. So I'm partly wondering, if not a bigger sensor, how much you can stretch a smaller sensor.

Pricewise - well, the X1 was actually under active consideration until I actually demoed it. Anything like that will not be a problem. Admittedly the M8.2 was an impulse purchase for me as well, but I'm not doing that again for a while.

 

[996GT2]

I know the micro 4/3rds bar the Sony are too big. They will not be used - I know me and cameras now. And the Sony has lens issues at the moment in terms of focal length / physical dimensions.

So if it has to have a smaller sensor so be it - but I do know, from personal experience (I owned the S90 and the DL4 simultaneously for a short while until I finally decided to dump the DL4 for the Canon's superior usability), that better images can be had than the S90 even from a smaller sensor.

Pricewise - well, the X1 was actually under active consideration until I actually demoed it. Anything like that will not be a problem. Admittedly the M8.2 was an impulse purchase for me as well, but I'm not doing that again for a while.

Then you're pretty much stuck with S95 or LX5. Take your pick from those because you honestly aren't going to do better with your size limitations. The D-Lux 4 is basically a rebadged LX3 with slightly different processing algorithms, just like the D-Lux 5 is basically a rebadged LX5.

 

[vbuggy]

Is there a counterpoint to the DPReview take on the DP2?

 

[randomlinh]

Is there a counterpoint to the DPReview take on the DP2?

that isn't a small camera. You're approaching a GF1+20 in size. Not to mention the "usability" of sigma. DOn't get me wrong, I wanted that camera to kick ass. But all the quirks I'd read about, some ppl were fine with it, I was not. Hence holding out for m43's.

 

[ElFenix]

that isn't a small camera. You're approaching a GF1+20 in size. Not to mention the "usability" of sigma. DOn't get me wrong, I wanted that camera to kick ass. But all the quirks I'd read about, some ppl were fine with it, I was not. Hence holding out for m43's.

DP2 is the same size as the LX5

 

[randomlinh]

DP2 is the same size as the LX5

It's a hair bigger: http://www.43rumors.com/e-p1-lx3-dp1-size-comparison/ (yes, it's old cameras, but they've maintained pretty close sizes)

Both are approaching the size of a GF1+20.

 

[vbuggy]

Hmmmm...


How likely is a GF2 within the next few months?

 

[996GT2]

Hmmmm...


How likely is a GF2 within the next few months?

Not very likely, but it doesn't really matter because most micro 4/3 cameras these days perform about the same. Not sure how much more they can really squeeze out of that sensor.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I hear what you say about sensors, but I have had better pictures from (much older) lower-MP 'prosumer' cameras with similar sized sensors

I think you proved his point... the "much older" cameras probably had 4 or 5 megapixels in the same sized sensor.... doubling or tripling that to 11 or 15 mp has resulted in much smaller individual pixels.

 

[vbuggy]

I think you proved his point... the "much older" cameras probably had 4 or 5 megapixels in the same sized sensor.... doubling or tripling that to 11 or 15 mp has resulted in much smaller individual pixels.

Hmmm... Good point Batman.