Sony RX10 added to enthusiast compact buying guide

I am missing the Ricoh GR.

It's IQ is better then all of the ones on this list yet there isn't a single mention.
Did it get excluded for the larger sensor. Then why is the much larger RX10 on the top of this list.

the Ricoh GR is a defining enthousiast compact. With it's outstanding lens and 16mp no olpf sensor. It's an street photographer workhorse.

Just like the Fujifilm x100s which is excluded.

Apr 6, 2014permalink

While offering a unique and excellent feature set in a relatively small body, this is not a camera that most of us would call a compact. By size and price, I think that comparing it to a small MFT would be more realistic. Now the problem is wrapping your head around a camera that is so capable but has a fix lens. But the EVF and LCD are great and the zoom is a magnificent 24-200mm f/2.8, a range that encompasses most photography, and try to buy it as an interchangeable lens ... The body is weather-resistant too ... It looks to me that this camera, while clashing with a generally accepted camera design, offers a tremendous bang for the buck for landscape, travel, family and associated photography. It warrants a trip to B&H and some playtime.

Apr 3, 2014permalink

Displaymyname

which camera are you referring to?

Aug 29, 2014permalink

NeoBC

I think he is talking about the Olympus Stylus 1.

Aug 30, 2014permalink

NeoBC

Re: my last comment, I was incorrect. showmeyourpics was talking about the Sony RX10.

Sep 24, 2014permalink

jeffinchiangmai1

Last night I had a pool party. I used my Panasonic GM1 with f.1.7 Olympus lens. I was taking bright pictures In dim light without flash and also with flash. I took videos, bright and clear and the face recognition was constantly working on multiple faces. Then I thought I would try the Olympus XZ1 withe the f.1.8 lens. I like this little camera but there was no comparison with the GM1, in fact the difference was extremely noticeable.
I also have the GX7 and the Olympus E-M5 but with the GM1, I have no need for these bulky cameras. I just love the tiny GM1.
Just miss an evf on road trips because of the very bright light in Thailand.

Apr 3, 2014*permalink

Everlast66

The logarithmic scale of the X axis in a way hides the huge range of some of the cameras going to 200 and 300mm equiv. with most of the other lenses going up to 100mm.
At first it looks strange how Canon lens engineers managed to outperform all others by making their lens faster at all equiv. apertures while still having virtually the same range, untill you look closely at the numbers on the X axis and realise their lens is 5x while some others are 8x or more.
Also if compact cameras are considered ones with fixed lenses (non interchangeable) then probably the Nikon Collpix A and Sony RX1 should be put there as well as dots (having fixed focal lengths)

Apr 2, 2014permalink

Actually, the log scale shows the difference in field of view that you get at each focal length.

100mm is twice as zoomed-in as 50mm (half the field of view) 200mm is twice as zoomed-in again, so it represented by the same distance. 300mm is only 50% more zoomed-in, so the distance on the scale is essentially the same as the difference between 24mm and 35mm, since that's closer to the perceptual difference.

Apr 3, 2014permalink

Everlast66

I am not sure that your first sentence quite makes sence, I understand you wanted to show the magnification capability of the lenses on the X axis. The problem is that due to the way logarithmic scales work everything to the left gets exagerrated, and not all of the lenses shown start at the same focal length. e.g. if you had a 10-20 lens we would see a very long line longer than all of the ones shown even if the lens is only 2x.
A 10-20 zoom might be of great use to some, but the graph will make it look like having a greater range than the 11x Oly (I think) which is 28-300!

Apr 3, 2014permalink

MaxTux

I would suggest that the abscissa ("focal-length axis") on this graph should be neither linear nor logarithmic in focal length, but instead linear in diagonal angle of view, and marked, as it is in the above, in millimeters of 24x36 equivalent focal length.

Apr 4, 2014permalink

CarVac

The log scale is with 100% certainty the correct choice for that graph.

Apr 4, 2014permalink

atalaya

I initially bought an RX100 to fill the gap between my OMD M1 and my iPhone 5S. But, I ended giving up on it.
1. I find it almost impossible to do serious photography in bright daylight without a view finder. 2. The camera was very fiddly to use. 3. The color on the JPEG's is way too cool and I was never able to correct for this in post processing.

I replaced it with a LX7 with the optional EVF. Unlike the Sony, this camera is a joy to use. And, in a back-to-back comparison of the same subjects taken at the same time with both cameras I preferred the LX7 pic the RX100 pic every time.

I recently spent 2 weeks in Paris with the LX7. I didn't think it was worth carrying the M1 for the small amount of time I would have for photos in grey January weather — and I didn't fancy looking like a tourist.

The pics were all excellent — including people and action shots taken at a night time PSG soccer game. Great to have an unobtrusive little camera with a a fast lens.

Apr 2, 2014*permalink

atalaya

I would suggest that the RX-10 is most likely to be cross-shopped against the both the super zoom bridge cameras (e.g. Panasonic FZ-200) and MFT and APS-C cameras.

I tend to think of it as a quite big, and quite expensive super zoom with a considerably larger sensor and a shorter maximum zoom range.

For me, an enthusiast compact camera is one that I will choose when my iPhone 5S will not be sufficient but I want something much smaller, lighter and less obtrusive than my OMD M1.

I would have to really need the reach of that 200mm zoom to choose an RX10 over, say, an OMD M10 with a decent zoom lens.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

Gesture

Maybe, bridge camera still applies. Even though this is an awfully expensive one.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

zodiacfml

I still think this camera is in the compact category since it is simply not in a DSLR with a mirror. The abilities and price though is pretty much far from the established category........ because it is just well ahead from its category just like the RX1.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

dwm2020

I fail to see how the RX10 is considered a 'compact' camera, beside it having a small sensor.

Why is the sony different from other Bridge cameras and not considered one?

Apr 2, 2014permalink

if you can't see why RX10 is a compact then you must have no clue of photography. For us who understand this art we know anything that is this small with this lens is compact.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

dwm2020

So educate me and give me the Specs that make this a 'compact' camera as opposed to a bridge/super zoom. I clearly don't understand what compact means, or understand the Art of photography, since photography is ALL about knowing the terminology and what the latest gadgets are, and not taking photos. I see DSLR's that are around the same size (K3, Canon XSi) are they considered to be compact in comparison as well? So tell me again how is this compact compared to others in the category? Is it just because of the lens and FL it has?

Again, please outline the 'ART of Photography's' definition of compact.

Apr 3, 2014*permalink

http://camerasize.com/compact/#489,333.25,ha,t

Disrespectful, misguided comment that disregards the feelings of most of our fellow commentators. I do not not know who the "us who understand this art" are. I have been a successful fine art photographer for decades, have worked with more film and digital gear that I can shake a stick at, have a truckload of awards, write about and teach the art but still agree with dwm2020 100%. Please stay out of this forum if you cannot maintain a civilized discourse.

Apr 3, 2014permalink

Tonio Loewald

Why get bent out of shape over categories?

This camera clearly doesn't fit into existing categories terribly well. If the RX100 is a large sensor compact, it seems that is a large sensor bridge/superzoom.

Apr 3, 2014permalink

CarVac

The RX10 is waaaay smaller than a DSLR with an 18-135mm lens.

No contest.

The reason it's included in this is it is more of an enthusiast camera than a typical bridge camera.

Apr 4, 2014*permalink

b craw

I, too, have taught photography for over a decade and fail to understand what zxaar is suggesting - what well known consensus exists between experts relating to this topic. And, the tone unfortunately demonstrates a rather ugly territorial tendency present among too many photographers.

Apr 5, 2014permalink

Carvac it's the same size as an mirrorless with more reacht

http://j.mp/1hv7Zu0
I used the 12-35mm since they don't have the Pana14-140mm F3.5-5.6 yet. The lenses are roughly the same size.

The Sony is faster at the long end though and is stellar in video

Apr 6, 2014permalink

Kawika Nui

So a poster asks a reasonable question (why is RX10 in the "compact" list and not the "bridge" list--which, for the record, is where most review sites have it) and some troll immediately asserts that he is clueless, and ignorant of the "art of photography." So he responds, expressing his displeasure, and then he gets flamed for being "disrespectful" and "misguided"? And someone else asks why get bent out of shape over categories?
Seems clear enough: poster takes offense at the dumb wisecrack made by a jerk troll. Poster uses irony to express irritation.
Still no answer from smart-ace troll to very simple question.

Jun 23, 2014*permalink

@Kawika Nui,

"Still no answer from smart-ace troll to very simple question."

I haven't seen the replies this is why. I will try to reply in the language you understand (that is speaking in jerkish)

Those of you who are illiterates in photography (this includes you Kawika Nu too), try 24-200mm constant F2.8 lens on FF and compare yourself as to why is RX10 a compact camera.

If any one of you do not understand that this camera has 24-200 mm F2.8 lens for 1" sensor then you guys are clear ignorant dumbs and do not really worth any reply.

Jun 23, 2014*permalink

@ showmeyourpics
" I do not not know who the "us who understand this art" are. "

Those who understand 24-200 F2.8.

Jun 23, 2014permalink

@ b craw
" And, the tone unfortunately demonstrates a rather ugly territorial tendency present among too many photographers."

Sorry for the tone. That was probably outcome of reading a threads on dpr where it is really difficult to know when someone is asking a genuine question or just trying to be smart A.

I take it that those who visit DPR understand why there is so much talk over a 1" camera with this lens and thus also understand as why this camera would be called a compact.

Jun 23, 2014permalink

Loremax

I am a one camera kind of guy. Need the camera for travel and taking pics of our kids when performing on stage (ballet), which means I need to zoom in on moving people in low light conditions. Our Canon Power Shot sx200Is is not doing the job. Trying to decide between the Olympus Stylus 1 which has the 10x zoom or the Sony rx100II which has the larger sensor (might require cropping). I would appreciate the opinions of sophisticated photographers as to which camera will deliver better pics under intended use. Thanks.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

mrdancer

Look at that RX-10! It gives a whole new meaning to "F8 and be there..."!

Apr 2, 2014permalink

Indeed The Sony is better to keep between f2.8 and at most F5.6

Apr 6, 2014permalink

George Veltchev

G1 X Mark II is the answer folks ... just read the above graphic carefully !

Apr 2, 2014permalink

Menneisyys

The lens of MkII is VERY ambitious. Frankly, I don't think it'll be able to deliver the same IQ as the G1X, particularly not wide open and at 24mm equiv.

Hope I'm wrong though...

Apr 2, 2014permalink

bobbarber

Yeah, the size and specs of G1 X Mark II scream "poorly corrected lens, lots of software correction and less sharp images than you would expect." To be fair, we don't know for sure yet.

We do know that it doesn't have a viewfinder, though...

Apr 2, 2014permalink

beavertown

Tried the P7800 EVF, it was a joke.

The worst EVF ever made.

They should have put the same EVF of the V1.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

DigitalMission

This Sony RX10 should be compared by PRICE to some DSLR cameras!!!! It looks like A LOT of people posting on here agree that this is not a "compact" camera. Don't you think people compare more on body-size and price? I DO! Hope DPReview is listening. Compare this interesting camera with some of the non-compacts and even a DSLR or two!

Apr 2, 2014permalink

Photomonkey

Did I miss the complaints about the lack of a FF sensor?

Apr 2, 2014permalink

EXX

LOL. You have a point though: where is the Sony RX-1?

Apr 2, 2014permalink

ravinj

As noted by others, RX10 is an outlier and does not really belong here. The only thing compact about it is the sensor size. An E-PL5 with a 14-42 or 14-45 is equally compact, more capable and price is lower. The only possible argument for keeping RX10 in this category is that its lens is 24-200 equiv @F2.8 constant aperture and with that in mind, it is compact compared to the alternatives.

Sony RX100II is the "true" compact and should be ranked #1.

Apr 2, 2014*permalink

abortabort

On what planet is an E-PL5 with 14-42mm even close to an RX10?

Apr 2, 2014permalink

minzaw

Compact=?? definition

Apr 2, 2014permalink

Naveed Akhtar

fixed lens

Apr 2, 2014permalink

minzaw

ALL bridge camera have fixed lens>> compacts>??
Non pocketable>> compacts?

Apr 3, 2014permalink

Rachotilko

It is compact, iff every open cover of it has finite subcover.

If we're talking Euclidean, then it's the same thing as being closed and bounded at the same time

Apr 3, 2014*permalink

Richard Pealer

It falls into the "compact" class because it uses a smaller sensor than a dSLR (APS-C sensor). My Fuji X-S1 is a rather large camera, but it still falls into the "compact" class with its 2/3" EXR CMOS sensor, which is a little larger than these cameras except for the Sony 1" sensor.

May 11, 2014permalink

joe6pack

An enthusiast COMPACT? Nice try. I'm not falling for your April Fool's prank.

Apr 1, 2014permalink

CDC1

How would the Fujifilm XQ1 compare to these? It looks like it should be pretty competitive.

Apr 1, 2014permalink

The XQ1 did OK but didn't especially stand out in the High-end pocketable compact roundup.

Apr 1, 2014permalink

mosc

The RX10 is clearly in the wrong category. Except for the fact that it's kit lens can't be removed, it lines up much more closely with the K3, the 70D, and the D7100. It's every bit as expensive and the dimmensions aren't that dissimilar. It's "fixed" kit lens compares very similarly to the 18-135/140 lenses that those cameras have. A little slower at wide, a little faster at tele, very similar range. And the price of all the cameras I mentioned here was within $100 unlike this hodgepodge category it got lumped into.

Apr 1, 2014permalink

It's not a camera that fits terribly well into any of the categories.

We have a long-term plan for how to deal with situation, but putting a fixed lens camera into a DSLR roundup isn't the answer.

The RX10 review - linked from this roundup - makes clear that its nearest competitor in many respects is the Sony a6000 with 18-105mm F4.

Apr 1, 2014permalink

2eyesee

I'm with mosc on this. The RX10 is much more comparable with a DSLR with big zoom (e.g. D5300 + 18-140mm). You could never refer to the RX10 as a compact camera - size, weight, price and zoom range are much closer to DLSR.

Apr 1, 2014permalink

2eyesee - I'm not arguing that an APS-C camera with longish zoom isn't a relevant comparison (which is why we make precisely those comparisons in the RX10 review).

However these roundups are by common category and, while the RX10 doesn't fit well into any category, it makes more sense here than anywhere else. Here it's alongside other cameras with comparatively bright zoom lenses with a moderately-sized sensor, which makes some (if not perfect) sense. Whereas no amount of bulk or cost suddenly makes it a DSLR.

Apr 1, 2014*permalink

Revenant

Also, regardless of size, weight, price and zoom range, there's a fundamental difference between fixed-lens cameras (usually referred to as compact cameras, regardless of size) and interchangeable lens cameras.

Apr 1, 2014permalink

2eyesee

@Richard: Well, you've got all the 'Likes' - no love for mosc or myself :( So while I respectfully disagree, I do appear to be in the minority on the matter.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

@2eyesee - Likes or not, I do take your point. We're looking to be able to present this information in a number of better ways, so that there would be roundups based on price, or capability, rather than simply class/category.

So, while we need to make do with this for now, in the long run I hope we can satisfy both approaches.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

mosc

I appreciate the discussion. I think it's a growing problem for the website as the lines blur. We no longer have a 1/2.33" vs APS-C sensor gap to nicely bucket things into. We have plenty of small sensor cameras with interchangeable lenses (Q, 1, NX-M) and lots of big sensors with fixed lenses (RX1, X100, CP-A, etc). Put another way, SLR's are becoming more like bridge cameras and bridge cameras are becoming more like SLR's. The RX10 is equal parts both in my mind.

OVF doesn't an SLR make, look at the m4/3rds with EVF's and the Sony A-mount line (if they ever make another). Sensor sizes are similarly all over the place. The RX10 shouldn't be thought of as less capable than a 1 series nikon ILC for example, the RX10 covers nearly the entire lens SERIES range with the same senor area!

Dimensions and capability make for better groupings than sensor sizes or ILC flexibility.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

2eyesee

@Richard: Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate you guys taking the time to enter into the debates in the comments section - especially when you have such a full review schedule.

Apr 3, 2014permalink

deep7

"While image quality in this class won't compete with a good mirrorless camera paired with a good lens". Actually, the G1X certainly competes. I have an EM1 and good lenses and a G1X and speak from experience. In fact, the G1X image quality is every bit as good as the Canon 60D I recently sold.

Then again, is the G1X series really in the same class as the others? Only on body size. Better to think of the original as a Fuji X100 with a zoom lens and crappy viewfinder...

Apr 1, 2014permalink

yabokkie

I think DPReview should include Nikon 1, m4/3", and 18-135/140 for APS-C.

a user may mistake RX10 for a higher category (for the misleading "f/2.8 lens" for example) so better include those cameras even if they are not in the same league.

Apr 1, 2014*permalink

Joseph Mama

Agreed. Why exactly would it NOT compete? Its got a larger than 4/3rd sensor. RX10 is no slouch either. Heck for 1300 bucks it had BETTER be pretty decent...

Apr 1, 2014permalink

In the RX10 review, you'll find that camera compared to two APS-C cameras with 18-1XXmm lenses (Canon 1.6x crop and 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 and Sony 1.5 crop with 18-105mm F4). In fact, go to the review today and you'll find we've already added the G1 X II to the chart.

Nobody is suggesting the G1 X II and RX10 don't compete with interchangeable lens cameras (hence those comparisons being explicitly made in the review). However, this chart is taken from a comparison of fixed lens, moderate sensor size cameras, and is quite crowded enough just making those comparison.

Apr 1, 2014permalink

deep7

My quote was taken directly from the article!

I'll admit that I don't know if a G1XII is as good as a G1X and I understand that the statement was a general one applied to a range of small sensor cameras but my point remains valid (and didn't apply to the RX10).

I think Canon made a mistake with the G1X in that they "disguised" it as a G-series camera. Had they taken the concept but given it a unique form (and added an electronic view finder!), it might have had a better reception. As it is, most people don't really understand what it is.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

Menneisyys

"I'll admit that I don't know if a G1XII is as good as a G1X "

No one knows. The lens of MkII is VERY ambitious. Frankly, I don't think it'll be able to deliver the same IQ as the G1X, particularly not wide open and at 24mm equiv.

Hope I'm wrong though...

Apr 2, 2014permalink

technic

@ Menneisyys:
it's difficult for the G1X to compete at 24mm or f/2 ... ;-)

I guess the best one can hope for is that the G1X II is at least as good as the G1X at the same focal length and aperture, said otherwise f/2 24mm, macro mode etc. is 'better than nothing'. My impression is that the G1X Ii lens is very soft wide open and that you need to stop down at least 1-2 stops for decent corners; not really a camera for landscape type photographers but possibly great for low light people/event photography and similar stuff.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

technic

@ deep7:
" In fact, the G1X image quality is every bit as good as the Canon 60D I recently sold."

A 60D without lens doesn't have any image quality. Or do you think that IQ is just a function of the sensor?

Apr 2, 2014permalink

deep7

"A 60D without lens doesn't have any image quality. Or do you think that IQ is just a function of the sensor?"

Good grief!

Apr 2, 2014permalink

JABB66

Hello

There's a chance to add some day the Casio Ex-10 or the not announced here Ex-100? Thank you :)

Jose

Apr 1, 2014*permalink

We've been promised an EX-100, but haven't yet received it.

In terms of the aperture diagram, the EX-10 will be the same as the Olympus XZ-2 and the EX-100 will be the same as the Stylus 1, since they appear to use the same lenses.

Apr 1, 2014*permalink

ageha

Amazon can't afford to buy one for you guys?

Apr 1, 2014permalink

fuxicek

I am an enthusiast but unfortunately money is (yes) factor to me... so I got Canon sx150 for 90 euro, film camera Canon 3000v for 20 euro and 50mm lens for 120 euro... and smartphone, samsung galaxy ace, this is s-it, but still better than nothing :)

fail to post the new comment because it contains swear words.... ok ok, I´ve fixed that s-it alredy :D

Mar 19, 2014*permalink

oldman1234

Have several of the Sony camera including rx100....Migrated from Minolta to Sony. About 3000 in cameras 3000 in lenses..Guess what the $95 point and shoot does 95 percent of any of the highend camera. The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever

Jan 31, 2014permalink

skytripper

"The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever"

Baloney! Even pros struggled to capture low-noise photos in low light in the days of film. In a head-to-head test of low-light capability, even the best film camera would fail miserably because of the limits of film.

Feb 5, 2014permalink

DStudio

"The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever"

Or so it would seem, because it's been this way with other technologies that have moved to digital, like audio.

While there are still good reasons to use film, there are so many advantages to going digital that it's been nearly universally adopted, from the top to the bottom (Pros and amateurs alike).

Perhaps it has more to do with cost and accessibility. Clyde Butcher makes fantastic photos (you really need to see the large prints to appreciate them), but he has to lug around relatively exotic 8x10 or larger cameras - plus he's a skilled print maker. But you only have to plug in a $300 turntable to hear the advantages of analog audio.

Feb 17, 2014permalink

Haim Hadar

True only in one aspect - power consumption. In all others Digital has already far exceeded film...

Apr 1, 2014permalink

dynaxx

The switch to digital for photography, video and audio is driven by profitability and convenience, not the pursuit of improved quality. Just listen to a good record on a good turntable with the same speakers as used with a SACD.

Scaling up film ( 4"X 5" film , equivalent to 200 megapixels , 5 X 7 and 8 X 10 were commonly used in the 1920's ) is simpler and cheaper and the post processing options are comparable. Imagine how the quality of film and film processing/digitising would have been improved with modern scientific knowledge if the R&D had been spent there and not on sensors.

Apr 2, 2014permalink

Jefbak

I am also curious about the zoom range, but also how it would crop compared to a pocket camera with a larger zoom range like the Olympus Stylus 1 (which has a 10x zoom but smaller sensor). If I could crop the sony image and end up with the same relative quality, then I could make do without more zoom from it.

Jan 27, 2014*permalink

yabokkie

multiply the equiv. focal length by the sqrt pixel count and you will get an idea about the reach (lens resolution and image quality should also be considered but let's keep it simple at first, from data in specs).

Apr 1, 2014*permalink

clburton2

Hello, this new Sony DSC-RX100 II has everything I believe I want in a point and shoot camera including a larger sensor except for the zoom range. Is there any chance a longer zoom range is coming? Why doesn't anyone offer this camera with greater zoom? Is my expectation unrealistic?

Jan 19, 2014*permalink

lysiajoy

I agree!

Jan 22, 2014permalink

braisim

RX10 offers the same sensor in a super zoom camera.

Jan 25, 2014permalink

clburton2

yes, I learned of the rx10 recently. I do like it, but its also $1300 dollars. if they could put that zoom on the rx100m2, that would be a winner. yes, I know I ask a lot apparently. :)

Jan 26, 2014permalink

Petak

I would like them to put the rx10's zoom (just brighter) on rx100, keep the size, increase battery life and lower the price and while they are at it - put an apsc sensor inside. How about that :-)))

Mar 1, 2014permalink

Antonio Brito

I was about to buy the Nikon P7800, but after I saw the "enthusiastic compact camera 2013 roundup" I got completely in doubt in face of the ten cameras listed (mainly between the Nikon and the Olympus Stylus 1).
I use camara most for outdoor pictures, nature and landscapes.
What attracts me most:
1 - image quality
2 - the wide and zoom lenths
3 - the versatility in low or bright light (and night photos)
4 - the apperture time
5 - the quick and friendly controls.

Would someone please help me to make a good choice? britoalmg@gmailcom
P.S.: sorry for my english, I am not native speaker.

Jan 16, 2014*permalink

DarrynM

I still love my G15 for on the go photos...beats taking the big SLRs I have :)

Jan 10, 2014permalink

zenpaul

I'm happy with my Fuji X20 which I bought mid-2013. Bit of a steep learning curve but I'm almost there.
I hope that I'll see that it's not so much the camera but the photog's eye that makes a good photo.
I'm using Lightroom and Photomax Pro and enjoying the results.

Happy New Year to all.

Paul

Jan 1, 2014permalink

CeluiLa

Speaking only of what I know, the Olympus Stylus 1 has a filter thread. If you do want to fit a filter you lose the automatic lens cap, but a normal lens cap on a retainer line is not exactly abominable.

If ever you have to be the sober driver at a lousy, boring New Year's bash, take your tablet... a Happy New Year to all, especially the sober drivers.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

jira

Which of these cameras has a filter thread?
I think polarizer is a must in many situations.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Ian.O

The Nikon P7800 has a filter thread, I deleted the lens cap and replaced it with a UV filter and swap to polarising when the occasion arrives.
For those other queries: I am happy with the P7800 for the combination of electronic viewfinder PLUS the articulated viewfinder which is a deal-breaker for me.
The controls get a bit obtuse at times, I've had a succession of Canons and Panasonics over the years, but I'm getting used to its quaint ways.

Feb 13, 2014permalink

KZMike

Don't limit yourself to this list. Over the years, I've come to know that the newest is NOT always the best, buying a G9 about a year ago and finding it Excellent for the task as a case in point for my self. Also finding a Canon 40D and Nikon D300 for some specific projects recently.

If 'pocket size' is not a requirement you may find even better choices, the Canon GX1 or Panasonic FZ70 as just two options that may engage for your needs.

I've ALWAYs been able to find gently used cameras and lenses very well suited and up to the tasks at 'efficient' prices. E-Bay and Craigslist has served me well, as has a few others . . .
DPReview is a good source of info as is many other sites with equipment reviews. . . photo-dot-net is another that I just remembered

Dec 23, 2013*permalink

Mich127

Hi, new to this site and hoping for some advice! My Canon G9 hasn't survived its last drop! It was a well used camera which is going to be missed. Now I need to get a new camera and the choice is endless... I'm not up with the terminology but I know what I want from my next camera

Would like:
Slightly longer zoom than the G9 ( but not massive)
The ability to take portraits (people or wildlife) with a blurred background - I understand this has to do with depth of field but that's about it,
A built in ND filter would be good ( would this help against the 'white sky' problem?

Not interested in :
WIFI
GPS
Video
Printing large size

I've posted in this section as I am interested in this group of enthusiast compact - would any of them offer what I'm after? Also really like the external dials and build quality of the G9 - want to avoid touchscreen interface if poss but willing to compromise.

Any advice much appreciated

Dec 18, 2013permalink

KZMike

If 'pocket size' is not a requirement you may find even better choices, the Canon GX1 or Panasonic FZ70 as just two options that you might engage for your needs.

Comment edited 1 minute a

Dec 23, 2013*permalink

awsin

I have recently bought a Nikon P7800 after my 2 second hand Canon Pro 1 got dead. It got 28-200mm zoom, f/2-4, built in ND. swivel screen (good for odd angle shooting), Good image quality and capable macro. So I am not missing my Pro 1 any more. However, everyboby crticize it slow write time, but I do not feel it too slow as I use Jpeg entirely.

Jan 9, 2014permalink

avronaut

"What enthusiast compact camera should I buy?"

If money is no factor:

Sony RX1R

Dec 12, 2013*permalink

TheNomadWay

Loads of people say that the small interchangeable lens cameras mean compacts are losing relevance...I think these offer loads of benefits. Still some of the basics are missing on most of them. I still lean towards the P7800...
http://www.thenomadway.com/best-travel-camera.php

Dec 4, 2013permalink

Geren W Mortensen Jr

I have the Fujifilm X10 (predecessor to the X20), and I absolutely love it! It offers a lot more than my other compacts (I have two), and I enjoy using it more than my DSLR. If they made an equivalent with an APS-C-sized sensor, I'd buy it in a New York minute! Yes, I'm aware of the X100s and the X-Pro1, but there's not an equivalent lens available ... yet.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

sbansban

Nikon Coolpix A and Ricoh GR are two pocketable cameras with APS-C sensors.

Dec 10, 2013permalink

yet excluded from this list for whatever reason since the RX10 is still here

Apr 6, 2014permalink

Tony0211

How do any of these manufacturers put a $500 plus price tag on those offered without viewfinders?

Dec 4, 2013permalink

vladimir314

I myself don't use viewfinder, therefore I would change your question in the following way: " ... on those offered without articulated display?" Since I cannot imagine work without it. Have nice days. :-)

Dec 18, 2013permalink

I have been around advanced technology and been a part-time pro photographer for a bunch of years shooting nature, travel, events and basic product. In addition to my pro-level gear, I have been carrying a compact camera almost everywhere I go. I recently replaced my Canon G12 with a Nikon P7800. With a UHS-1 card, I have been shooting landscapes, people and simple studio photography with these conclusions. Composing with an LCD is not OK to me. You cannot see any meaningful details, are distracted by the surroundings, and the shooting stance is very unstable. The EVF of the P7800 is not perfect but is still a great improvement over no viewfinder or the optical versions of the Canon G's. The range of the zoom is unique in this category and the lens is quite bright. Raw + jpeg write speed is about 1.5sec/frame, 0.5 sec/frame slower that dpreview’s favorite camera and not an issue for me. Operations are quick once you learnt them. I truly believe that this camera is getting a bad rap.

Nov 28, 2013permalink

PedroMZ

could not agree more about the lack of viewfinders and trying to photograph with the rear screen---more like a shot in the dark. Although the Fuji OVF only covers about 82% of the field of view, it is bright and has that all important info. I looked at the Nikon, who are to be congratulated for including an EVF but this has made it very expensive in the UK

Nov 28, 2013permalink

Too bad, the more I use mine the more I like it. It really pays to go through the manual and learn settings and operations because once you have done it it's a lot of fun to make the camera jump through hoops. I am getting some remarkable pics in tough light conditions. With the camera's IQ and resolution, I have no trouble making truly good 16x24" pics (on art paper with the Epson 3800). I am not trying to put down the other camera models which are all great (and everyone has the right to decide which one is best for them), just giving Caesar (the P7800) what belongs to him.

Nov 28, 2013permalink

Nerkdergler

The viewfinder vs LCD issue is largely a preference thing. There are pros and cons of composing each way, and it comes down to what you personally prefer and are used to. I shoot both ways and find it's worthwhile occasionally challenging myself to see whether I've been constructing 'reasons' to defend what is essentially a habit.

Nov 28, 2013permalink