Canon SX600 HSCanon IXUS 255 HSCanon SX260 HSSamsung EX1Fuji F100fdRicoh R4Optio 555Oly C700UZ
This is the sensor size and zoom range I have been waiting for, finally a lesser known company like casio produces one. Now I just have to figure out where these can be bought in Australia.
brianj: I can buy a canon ELPH for $200, with 24-240 mm optical zoom, can someone explain why this camera with less features and a higher price is more desirable.
I would happily buy one of these cameras like the one reviewed if it had a zoom lens. The IQ is more than enough for my needs. I am hoping that by the time P&S are extinct that they will have worked out how to fit a small zoom lens to these phones.
It sounds like a jack of all trades but a master of none. The main concern is that if these devices kill the P&S, what will we buy as a decent replacement.
I can buy a canon ELPH for $200, with 24-240 mm optical zoom, can someone explain why this camera with less features and a higher price is more desirable.
Why send anyone, just ignore them, that's what they fear the most.
So the best is the one with the biggest sensor, irrespective of any other shortcomings.
Michael Long: The camera in the new iPhone 6 / 6 Plus rivals (if not bests) most small sensor P&S cameras, and we're just in year 7 of the smartphone era.
IOW, smartphone cameras are only going to get better and as such they're going to cramp the P&S market more and more and more.
Factor in the APS-C class mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras taking out high-end DSLR sales, and it doesn't take much to see that camera companies are competing to offer their wares to an ever shrinking market.
I'm still waiting for the phone cameras to get a decent zoom, maybe then they will make a real impact.
Lee Jay: They might be nice, but every one of them is too big to be comfortably pocketable for me, and so they're all non starters. I don't know what I'll do when my Elph 500HS dies, as nothing newer can replace it.
That's why I bought two ELPH 330HS and cross my fingers that they last a long time.
It provides a very expensive P&S camera without any zoom, I wonder why people fall for it.
Lassoni: all I see is woman's butt. This is plain wrong!
What's wrong with seeing a woman's butt?
George Veltchev: Sooo much stress around this little harmless noisy aphid ... but where are these photographic geniuses when you browse the photo challenges above, I wonder .... after the first top 3.. 4 images the rest seems a total garbage ....
Most people have given up on the challenges due to cheating by entrants and infighting between those that try to run it.
beavertown: Comparing this camera to Canon S series is naive.
Sour grapes all over this forum.
For small prints and web images I think the IXUS looks much better, can you demonstrate otherwise, I have already given the link to my album. Everyone doesn't need billboard prints or shoot in the dark, some people actually use their cameras for their holiday trips, and family etc. As I said, this camera delivers a lot of what I don't need and by the increasing use of phone cameras, I would say what most people don't need.
photo perzon: Brianj they look good to me. Does the rx100 seem better to you?
@ dpmaxwellI took your suggestion and had a look at the RX100 images, and they are excellent, no doubt about that.
So what went wrong with dpreviews examples, is it the mk III or a bad day for photography or do the flickr examples have a lot of PP.
I know that good results can be coaxed out of any camera, so is sony's jpg engine a dud?
brianj: The images look quiet bland, lacking in contrast and no real blacks, maybe EV -.3 would help, They look like they were taken in a smoke haze, no real vibrance to them at all. I get much better images from a cheap IXUS.
I guess I am shocked at how ordinary these examples look, I was prepared to be blown away and feel under pressure to buy a new camera. Everyone is frothing at the mouth at how good it is in the dark, but I shoot in the dark about 1% of the time, of course some people may shoot in the dark 99% so this will be a good camera for them. A good picture is more than just having low noise, and yet that seems to be the emphasis in these comments. it needs consistant and accurate WB, some of these shots look way off, too much cyan.
For me, this camera would deliver a lot of what I don't need, so fine, people can say, then don't buy it, but that's not the point of these comments, we are here to say what we think of the examples, and I think they are poor.
dpmaxwell: Canon fans seem really active around here lately. Something has them all riled up...
I make web sized images and small prints, why would I need to spend a huge amount for that. What is the use of a good blown up image if it is washed out.
jimjim2111: I'd not normally post such a lame off-topic question but what the heck.. after 2000 posts in the thread... have a 15 second break from worrying about the corner pixels..
I use my iphone for pub photos and I'm fine with that compromise. But for holiday photos, would an rx100 (i/ii/iii) achieve any improvement over my small canon ixus p&s for daytime, bright light, low iso landscapes. No pets, kids, evenings, results viewed on computer screen.
I would hang on to your IXUS if I was you and use the savings for your vacation as previous poster suggested. If you are worried about DR causing washed out skies then turn on Icontrast.
My $200 IXUS looks better, I wouldn't pay such a ridiculous amount for a camera. Maybe the sony can do higher ISO with less noise, but I seldom have that need. My album: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5128303546/albums/ixus-255
The images look quiet bland, lacking in contrast and no real blacks, maybe EV -.3 would help, They look like they were taken in a smoke haze, no real vibrance to them at all. I get much better images from a cheap IXUS.