Mirrorless camera or High end compact?

I thought I was set on buying a mirrorless camera- better image quality, pocketable enough form, and better handling than P&S cameras.

But recently I've been realizing (and bringing myself back to Earth) that I probably won't be buying more than 2 or 3 lenses (depending on if I can buy just the pancake or telephoto lens and skip the kit zoom lens) due to lack of money. So then I've been thinking that a compact point and shoot will offer a more flexible, all in one lens albeit at the cost of worse high ISo quality

Should I buy a compact like the Panasonic LX5 or Samsung EX1, or is it worth dishing out the extra money for something like the Panasonic GF1 or Samsung NX100?

It depends on what you wish to do with your images. If you are in a Camera Club with competitions needing print enlagements up to size A3 ( 11.7 x 16.5 inches ) or even the A4 (8.3 x 11.7 in.) then a camera with a larger sensor is is the best choice.

The Panasonic LX5 is an excellent compact and with good lighting could produce an A4 print. This would be a good choice if large prints are not required.

Sensor sizes are not the only key factor but they are very relevant.

The four thirds sensor area size is 225 mm2 but the compact sensor 1/1.6 is only 48.56 mm2.

It all depends on what type and quality of photography interests you.
Hope this helps
aatom

If the lightning is good, then I don't think the difference will be huge. In daylight, both types of cameras take adequate pictures.

It is in low light situations that the 4/3 sensor excels. They can handle higher ISO better.

This is quite simplified, of course, but if you primarily take pictures in daylight, then you're just as well off with the enthusiast compact. In my opinion.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/

I'd say the LX5 / S95 / EX1 all print fine at A3 also. I did some S90 prints not long ago that looked fine at 16x20 and didn't start to break down until 20x30. So I'd say the difference is whether any of the following are important to you:

• focal range - the nice compacts go as low as 24mm OR as high as about 105 (I think 140 with the Canon G12, which is about as large as an m43 camera except for the lens). With an m43, you can go much wider and much longer, if this matters to you. But it does require additional lenses.

• low low light. The LX5 and the EX1 are very good in low light and the S95 is close, but the m43 cameras with a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens is quite a bit better. Not to mention some of the even faster manual focus lenses available.

• narrow DOF/subject isolation. The smaller the sensor, the wider the DOF you're going to get in real world conditions. In some situations this is a good thing, but some folks really like to shoot with the subject in focus and the foreground and/or background heavily blurred. This is MUCH more difficult to do with the compacts, a good deal easier with the m43, and a good deal easier yet with a full frame DSLR.

If any of these things are really important to you and you're willing to buy 2-3 lenses, the m43 (or Nex or whatever) cameras are a much better way to go. If they're not important or important enough , one of the nice compacts is a great way to go. I have an ep2 and a gf1 with a few lenses. I also have an LX5. I use the LX5 way more than I ever imagined I would. Its that good.

-Ray

It basically boils down to what's most important to you personally?

• convenience (small size/weight/not having to switch lenses), or

• image quality (lower noise at high ISOs/dynamic range) and shallower DOF

Those are the major differences.

Realistically speaking, if budget is tight, then a good quality compact, then adding some addone Wide and tele converter lens can be just as good a platform for the craft as a mirrorless system, within their context and limitation. Todays better Compacts like the Samsung EX1, Panasonic LX5 or that of Ricoh GXR ( with the 24-72 equivalent module ) are pretty decent camera and work well enough for lots of need. Of course they won't be as good as a large sensor mirrorless, but they are mostly good enough and then some more.

Another way you might consider is to buy a 2nd hand body and lens set , or gray import ( locale to you that is ). Panasonic G1 / GF1 had seen their price quite drawn down in fact to the point that they can be had cheaper than the best of the compacts in some locale. Or check if there is any special deal on any of those ( say the NEX-3, or E-PL1 set seems having loads of such )

--

• Franka -

I've been contemplating the same question .

jj74e said:

I thought I was set on buying a mirrorless camera- better image quality, pocketable enough form, and better handling than P&S cameras.

Click to expand...

True.

So I was looking at legacy lens on eBay, and you can buy compact, high-quality and bright lens for less than 50 dollars and stick it on a mirrorless camera with a short registration distance (which excludes the Sony SLT-cameras).

jj74e said:

But recently I've been realizing (and bringing myself back to Earth) that I probably won't be buying more than 2 or 3 lenses (depending on if I can buy just the pancake or telephoto lens and skip the kit zoom lens) due to lack of money. So then I've been thinking that a compact point and shoot will offer a more flexible, all in one lens albeit at the cost of worse high ISo quality

Click to expand...

A NX100, which was $409 at Electronics Expo + 2 or 3 legacy lens can be fun to play with, however I don't know how MF will work out for you. I don't know how MF would work out for me either .

jj74e said:

Should I buy a compact like the Panasonic LX5 or Samsung EX1, or is it worth dishing out the extra money for something like the Panasonic GF1 or Samsung NX100?

Click to expand...

I recently tried a mid-level compact (Ricoh CX) and was sorely disappointed. It was a bit better than my 6-yr-old Casio, but not enough. Given the small difference in moving from 1/2.5 to 1/1.7 sensors, and great return-item prices at Amazon Warehouse (plus a gift card), I'm grabbing a G1 to test against my K-7. I might be able to find a new hi-level compact for nearly the same price but I doubt it -- and if the G1 doesn't do it for me it's just the price of shipping lost.

Remember it's not just lens swapping and low light to consider! Getting out-of-focus areas to look smooth to isolate your subject (bokeh) will be much better with mirroress cameras, whether 4:3 or aps-c sensor. That's big for me.
--

Jim in Oregon.. granitix.blogspot.. A200 veteran, now K-7 + 16-45, 55-300 + elder PK

It depends what you want and how much money you want to spent.

If you only want something like G1/G2 or GF1/GF2 with the kit-lens and compare them to the LX5 not much is in favor of the mirror-less system.

The quality per sensor-area in the top range compacts is much higher than with the old 12MP-sensor. While this is of course not enough to equalize the big difference in sensor-size, the F2,0-F3,3-lens compared to F3,5-F5,6 will.

Additionally the LX5 is much smaller than any of the ILCs when the lens is attached and you get 24mm wideangle which is considerable wider than 28mm. You also get the multi-aspect-ratio-sensor and the disadvantages are rather small. Continuous shooting is worse with the LX5, AF is a sometimes a bit slower than the internal-focus-lenses for µ4/3 (but always faster than the 20mm). The MF-enlargement shows less quality on the LX5 compared to µ4/3, although on the other hand the LX5 has the advantage, showing focus-distance as well as DOF-range during MF. Not having the option for an high-quality-viewfinder like on the G-series doesn´t help either.

Of course the smaller sensor also means higher DOF, if this is an advantage or disadvantage depends on your type of shooting. But when we just compare the kit-lens even this difference is pretty small, the slow lens almost eats up any advantage.

Of course it is a different thing if you want to invest in more lenses. With the 20mm for example you get an even faster lens + better high-ISO and there is no way to substitute the lack of tele-range on the LX5, while you can buy an appropriate lens for µ4/3.

If you want to buy a GH1 or GH2 instead you get of course something different, but also something more expensive and much bigger.

If you buy it with the kit-lens there is not much to compare with the LX5, you get a lot more range in a much bigger package. Also this 2 cameras have a considerable noise-advantage over all other µ4/3-offerings, so even with the kit-lens the LX5 is not able to compensate the big difference in sensor-size.

If you have to ask, then you'll probably be much better off and happier with a compact.

I think its also worth running a ruler (measuring device) over the actual lens of a camera your going to buy. The P&S cameras have less area to let the light in, hence if you get more light in, that is better IMO.

As to buying three lenses: you get one with your camera, that leaves two left. Lets say the camera will cost $500 with a lens. Add two more lenses at $350 each, that is $700, for a total of $1,200. That's your extra cost. However, the lenses will not depreciate all that much. Lets say they'll go down by around one third. That means you could sell the two extra ones, for $200 each. So - ignoring cash flow - your risking not $1,200, but $800. Add the kit lens, that might be only $600. Its not too harsh of a risk perhaps.

You might also be brave, and buy a DSLR such as the Nikon D90. An awesome camera with lots of potential, that sold for $1200 a year ago. Now worth under $800 for new ones I think. Put a $110 fast 50mm prime on it (the Nikon F1.4 50mm is also said to be remarkable great glass and bears no relationship to its very low price), and its a good enough camera to crop down from the 90mm Full 35mm film Frame equivalent lens to lots of P&S photos resolutions in your software package.

In low light its in another world, it focusing super quickly, Its got tonnes of incredible engineering and experience in it, and you can tack on old second hand Nikon lenses some of which are cheap and awesome, and the D90 will focus them (thanks to a mechanical screw that focuses the old Nikon lenses that do not have motors in them). Its also got a gorgeous 920,000 dot LCDscreen. A nice bright viewfinder. That camera has been the #1 seller in Japan this year too. If your thinking outside the box, and $1,000 is on the table, then IMO the D90 is the best value of all !!

Definitely worth getting the m43, 2 or 3 lens? I have 4 lenses but that includes 2 old canon FD lens which are dirt cheap (which is another benefit right there) I use 1 lens 85% of the time - 20mm.

Get the m43, get the 20mm and enjoy making more than just snapshots.

IMHO, your desire/need to control depth of field answers this question.

If you do mostly landscape or macro and want infinite depth of field all the time, the compact offers a lot of advantages.

If you even occasionally want to blur a background, a compact is simply not an option as that blur is not possible with the small sensor

A m4/3's camera may give you more satisfaction as a photographer as they are, generally, more capable than almost any compact. I've used extensively, a Canon G10 and its a fine camera with a very good lens, but less focal range than a 14-45mm plus 45-200mm Panasonic lens. Alternatively, the 20mm Panny lens is a world-class lens which, altho limited in terms of focal length, gives you optical qualities that should be on a lens 2 or 3 times as expensive (and bigger, too). I am selling my G10 because I don't really use it anymore, the GF1 having taken its job. The only real complaints I had about the G10 was the relatively short range of the lens (28-140mm). I bumped it a bit by getting a Canon teleconverter so had, effectively, 28-200mm equ. Still, I was effectively changing lenses, too. So why not get the better camera & a couple of lenses?

Lastly, my biggest complaint about the G10 (and I think its true w/ the G11 & G12 too) is that the JPEG settings aren't as flexible. Also, if you shoot RAW + JPEG, with Canon you are stuck with only one JPEG setting while with the Panasonic, I can adjust the JPEG settings to suit my need of the moment and still get a RAW file. If the JPEG is good, I can use that. If not, I can mess around with the RAW file in PS or other software. With the Canon, no matter what, I had to PP the JPEG file because it was almost never how I wanted it. That defeats the whole purpose (for me) of shooting both.
--



http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/mfurst_photos/Surmang%20and%20Yushu%202009/?albumview=slideshow

If you will be setting camera to iA mode then go with point-and-shoot. But if you venture out of the basic then go with the interchangeable lens system. Your more advanced knowledge of camera manipulation will pay of in better image quality.

For starters, lenses are a good investment even if you only have two. They retain their value and are not obsolete a year or two later. Plus you can always get some cheap legacy lenses.

Second, The LX5 or s95, etc will eventually give way to a better model. Are you going to keep dropping $400+ each time you want to upgrade? And what if your shooting style changes, etc ... With the m43 all you'd have to do is upgrade your body. A nice collection of lenses takes time to accumulate, unless of course you have the funds to drop $$$ on new body, plus 5-6 new lenses, and some adapters on a single shopping trip like some on this forum have done; must be nice.

The GF1 is selling at a great price right now with the 20mm. It's a wonderful combo.

jj74e said:

I thought I was set on buying a mirrorless camera- better image quality, pocketable enough form, and better handling than P&S cameras.

But recently I've been realizing (and bringing myself back to Earth) that I probably won't be buying more than 2 or 3 lenses (depending on if I can buy just the pancake or telephoto lens and skip the kit zoom lens) due to lack of money. So then I've been thinking that a compact point and shoot will offer a more flexible, all in one lens albeit at the cost of worse high ISo quality

Should I buy a compact like the Panasonic LX5 or Samsung EX1, or is it worth dishing out the extra money for something like the Panasonic GF1 or Samsung NX100?

Click to expand...

I have owned the EX1 and G11. No comparison to me vs the Olymus E-PL1, which I currently own.

I have a Nikon D90 system and bought the GH1 for traveling and video. I have recently bought the S95 as a pocketable P&S. Wow, I can tell you the S95 is a spectacular camera in terms of IQ, handling, versatility, and SIZE.

I'm actually thinking of selling all my m4/3 gear because I've been using a Canon G12 more for the type of photography I do, landscape shooting

I don't need high ISO or shallow DOF so a good compact works great for me

On the other hand if you really want shallow DOF, low light shooting etc, then m4/3 is much better

HOWEVER.....

If you really want shallow DOF and low light shooting, then a DSLR could honestly be a bit of a better choice still

m4/3 is pretty decent, but you can get a DSLR for around the same money and a 50mm f1.8 lens on a DSLR is going to give you even shallower DOF than a 20mm f1.7 on m4/3 plus its going to deliver better high ISO performance as well

m4/3 is great for size/weight, but its not really any cheaper, nor is it the best perforer overall. Its a premium for size/weight

millsart wrote:
...

millsart said:

m4/3 is great for size/weight, but its not really any cheaper, nor is it the best perforer overall. Its a premium for size/weight

Click to expand...

I agree with that statement, but I will also add that if you shoot people one of the smaller m4/3 cams is way better in terms of reaction. When I shoot with my DSLR it and I stand out and people react to it. With my E-PL1 I blend in to the crowd of P&S cams and cell phones. That may not sound like a legit thing, and I did not expect it to be a positive with m4/3s, but it clearly is (for me, at least).

I know the newest compacts are "quite close" but even to the untrained eye the quality of a larger sensor is immediately apparent, especially in larger prints (A4 and upwards).