I'm hoping that someone could help me with my dilemma. I'm looking for a high quality camera that fits my pocket. I've been shooting with Canon G7X for the past year and a half and I took it to Burning Man twice and it's basically done - lens is full of dust and flash doesn't pop up properly anymore.
I decided to take my game to the next level. Easy, right? Wrong. After carefully researching cameras for hours and hours, I decided to get Panasonic LX100. I took some test shots and I felt something was off. The pictures didn't look great. So, I decided to take the same shot with identical settings in a dim light with Canon G7X and Panasonic LX100. Comparison confirmed my suspicion. The quality of LX100 was far inferior to G7X - detail was missing and noise was completely unacceptable. This compared to G7X with sand in the lens...! First photo taken with that camera was a photo of me wearing a shirt with stripes and the moire effect was horrible. I wanted to love this camera but the photos are just disappointing.
I thought no problem, I'll just go for mirrorless but no matter where I look, all mirrorless cameras with a small zoom lens are far worse compared to Canon G7X according to reviews. Sure you can get better quality by attaching a massive lens to the camera but makes the camera too big. When size is not an issue, I just take my Nikon DSLR and Sigma 30mm f1.4 with me.
I feel like I'm stuck. I want a camera that has at least some zoom that would fit my pocket - and be better than Canon G7X. I find it frustrating that it seems like the mirrorless world has no decent compact zoom lens/body combo that comes even close to Canon G7X/Sony RX100 zooms.
Is my only option to go mirrorless and do crops to simulate zoom? For the record, I rarely print my photos. My photo folder has 110,000+ photos, printing them would be quite the challenge LOL. As long as the end result looks beautiful on my screen I'm happy.
Thank you in advance for any ideas!
I think that you are looking for something that doesn't exist, yet. I had the same dilemma, I wanted dslr quality photos but I wanted something I could have on me. I never want to take my D7200 anywhere because its so large. I looked at the RX100 III, the LX100, X100T, etc. Nothing fit what I was looking for so I had to make some sacrifices. After months of searching, I read about the Ricoh GR II. Somehow I had never heard about this camera. It doesn't make a lot of the lists for compact cameras because it doesn't have a zoom and that turns a lot of people off, originally, myself included.
I bought it and I love it. I can now take dslr quality photos with a camera that I keep in my pocket. I wish it had a zoom, but you just can't have everything. I am now looking at picking up a used RX1 so i can add a full frame camera that while not pocketable, would be a lot more convenient then a typical full-frame camera.
I guess I am just saying you can't have it all, so you need to decide what is most important to you.
You and the OP are talking about the exact same thing I want! I too have looked at the Ricoh but ruled it out due to the antiquated 16 MP count. The DP2 Merrill ticks the boxes for being dust proof and water resistant; but hand holding it is a pain with no stabilization ( lsame for the Ricoh ) and low light over 400 ISO the Merrill is pretty much useless.
How are the Ricoh prints in 13 by 19?
Yeah it's really tough to get by with just 16 MP. If I had the money I'd by the RX1R II so I can finally get enough of them.
If you're target output platform is for screen or web, 16MP should be fine. It's when you're doing enlargements is where extra MP is going to really show. 16MP is still a respectable resolution. Part of me says that camera companies use MP count as a marketing thing, to make people think they "have" to get a 24 or 36MP camera. I just picked up a Olympus O-EM10 Mark II which has a M4/3 16MP sensor and it does the job I want to it. But that one doesn't fit in your pocket. Point being ,don't rule something out just because it's only 16MP or 20MP. There's more to it than just MP count.
Its print size I want. I don't print out a ton of pictures at 13 by 19, but when I do, I want them to look outstanding.. The new Oly I think will have 20 MP and its on my short list; not sure how small it is though.
If it's the Olympus O-EM10 Mark II, it's only 16MP.. But I think you can still do 13x19 with 16MP. That may be the limit, but I think it's still reasonable. Now, it also will depend on what technology is being used to do the prints and how it's being enlarged.
Are you doing these prints yourself or are you sending them off to a lab to be enlarged and printed? From the quick Google search I did, you should be fine with a 16MP image for 13x19" or somewhere around there. There are ways to get it larger without deforming the images, though, and many print labs will know how to do this I think.
For pocketable cameras, you are exchanging convenience for quality in many cases. Most pocket sized cameras lack high ISO image quality (they tend to suffer more than their larger siblings--the ones with the APS-C sensors and FF sensors). So is it a must that it be pocket sized and fit in your pocket? Something like the a6000 would be a great camera, but it doesn't quite fit in the pocket (but is much smaller than the average DSLR, but it's probably no bigger than your GX7, and if it is, not by much). Plus the a6000 is a 24MP so you could pull off larger prints much easier. But in short, 16MP shouild be fine for the size prints you are talking.
