Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Point-and-shoot  
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6267 times:

Hi all,

Do you have any suggestions for a decent quality compact, but not too tiny camera for use when I'm travelling light? Aviation photography is not the main purpose but it should be suitable for shooting through wire fences.

Thanks,

Peter 


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6258 times:

These days you're really spoilt for choice! Personally I would go for something in the micro 4/3 format -

1 - with a 2x crop sensor, you're not compromising much on image quality (compared to most genuine compacts)

2 - you're buying into a large system - in fact, through the use of adaptors, you can use most lenses ever made from a variety of manufacturers (as well as some very high quality purpose built lenses.

3 - variety of body styles and specs available. Now with 2nd hand models appearing, need not cost too much.

I use a GF1 with a few lenses - 14, 20 pancakes plus 75-150 (x2 for equivalent focal length) , and all can fit in my jacket pockets. All would be fine through normal fences.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6236 times:

Thanks for that Colin.

I think interchangeable objectives kind of beat my objective, at least for my upcoming hiking trip. On the other hand, the flexibility might be useful later.

Therefore: Without wanting to rake up an old disucssion, the 75-150 gives you more or less the same focal range as an old SLR with a 300? And does it actually produce reasonable pictures of stationary objects @ 150 mm?

I'm not very technical, but I gather I should be looking for a crop factor as small as possible for picture quality?

Cheers

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinekukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6186 times:

Hello Peter   

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 2):
Without wanting to rake up an old disucssion, the 75-150 gives you more or less the same focal range as an old SLR with a 300?

Correct - with an old SLR or a current full frame DSLR.

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 2):
I'm not very technical, but I gather I should be looking for a crop factor as small as possible for picture quality?

The bigger the sensor the better the quality, but that's keeping the megapixel count constant. What really matters is the pixel density on the sensor, not sensor size as such. As you know, image resolution varies widely - there are now compacts with a 16MP resolution. So a camera with slightly bigger sensor might actually have a higher pixel density than one with a smaller sensor.

Needless to say, the best thing to do would be to check out full-size image samples from your favoured models on dpreview or elsewhere and examine them for yourself. Comparing pixel density only gets you so far.

Regards,
Charles



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6142 times:

Quoting kukkudrill (Reply 3):
What really matters is the pixel density on the sensor, not sensor size as such

If all else is equal - but it seldom is. No single measurement can really give you the full picture. Pixel sites can vary in size, so you need to look at BOTH pixel density and sensor size. And of course there are all kinds of issues relating to how the image is processed in camera.

Ultimately you will probably have to compromise between quality, convenience and of course price.

I've owned a few digicams, and while initially I enjoyed using them, in retrospect I've always regreted using them as the quality is simply not in the same league. I have not yet seen a small sensor camera which did not 'mush' fine detail (for example foliage or grass), esp when compared to large sensor models.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6139 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I would get a Canon G. I have a G12, used to have a G10, and they are great. Throw on a 270EX and it's a clever little kit.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King



User currently offlinegeocan From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6134 times:

Can concur with the Happy Clicker about the Canon G Series.
Even with my high rejection rate I managed to get a few photos taken with a G7 through the screeners.

Although I have not yet had my hands on one, the new Canon G1X seems a good buy.
It has a sensor almost the size of a APS-C, RAW capable, a reasonable 4 times zoom starting at SLR equivalent 28mm and it still is pocketable (albeit with a large pocket).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani



User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6076 times:

Quoting kukkudrill (Reply 3):

Hey Charles. I hope you are well  

Thanks all for your opinions. Much appreciated.

The Canon G1 does look like a great camera, but I think the price is too steep for something I probably won't be using all that often.

I'm impressed too by the Samsung EX1 (TL500) which gets very good reviews.

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6048 times:

Peter,

I go through spells of exploring the compact option but thus far have always shied away from it as my faith in them just isn't strong enough.

I did, however, go down the micro 4/3 road just after Christmas with an Olympus E-PL1, but was extremely disappointed. I was expecting something pretty close to my DSLR but it just didn't happen - high noise, soft images, lack of detail and no proper viewfinder, amongst other cons.

I may at some point give the Canon G series a whirl but like you it's only viable if it's cost effective. Spending nearly as much as another DSLR costs defeats the object for me as I only require something smaller when I need to be discreet or poke the lens through a fence.

Karl


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6034 times:

Thanks Karl.

I just bought the Samsung EX1. At least it's obviously well built. I really like its feel.

This is mainly for holiday and family stuff, maybe I didn't stress that enough. I don't demand much of it aviation photography-wise. The shooting through fences thing is a bit of an afterthought. You know Schiphol East a bit, sometimes aircraft are quite close and then it's easier to shoot through the fence than over it.

If it could do anything on a mini tripod in a dark hangar or museum that would be a bonus.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineafterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1209 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6028 times:

If you like to shoot in low lights, Olympus XZ-1 is a very good choice. It's the point-and-shoot camera with the highest lens aperture, f1.8-2.5. And it has 4x zoom.

User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6026 times:

Selalat malam,

And you're telling me that now  

However the EX1 has f/1.8 - 2.4.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineafterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1209 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5915 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 11):
And you're telling me that now

Oops, silly me. Somehow I didn't read your post above mine.   


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5915 times:

No problem  


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5896 times:

Peter, can you tell me how you get on with your Samsing please? Also, how much did you pay?

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5841 times:

I paid 260 euros Karl. Going on my hiking trip now, will post how I like it later.

Cheers,

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5580 times:

One of my first aviation shots with the EX1, unedited:

http://www.horizonten.nl/ruw/EX1sample.jpg

Shot at ISO 200, f/2.5, 1/90th sec, so suboptimal settings. Noise is definitely worse than with a DSLR but still, I'm quite content.

Photography here was officially forbidden so the smaller stealth camera already proved to be an advantage in some situations  

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Point And Shoot posted Fri Jan 15 2010 17:57:54 by FedexL1011
Low-Cost Point-and-Shoot posted Tue Dec 1 2009 06:35:24 by JohnJ
Opinions On Point And Shoot Cameras For Spotting posted Sat Jul 26 2008 18:58:54 by 76794p
Looking For A Point And Shoot Camera posted Sat Jun 30 2007 02:11:39 by F.pier
Best Point And Shoot For On-the-go Spotting? posted Thu Feb 23 2006 19:49:37 by CFIjames
Need Advice On A Point-and-shoot posted Wed Nov 23 2005 04:57:49 by Cancidas
3Mp Point And Shoot Camera Uploads posted Thu Sep 22 2005 17:22:18 by JetTrader
Point-and-shoot For Airplane Photography? posted Thu Jul 18 2002 23:54:51 by Airplanetire
High ISO On Compact/Point & Shoot Cameras posted Thu May 24 2007 14:35:40 by Fergulmcc
Point And Shoots Still Work. posted Fri May 5 2006 14:03:02 by NIKV69
Point And Shoots Still Work. posted Fri May 5 2006 14:03:02 by NIKV69