ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, RR: 20 Posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4269 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)
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4260 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.
ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, RR: 20 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4238 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)
kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4188 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
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4144 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.
clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9459 posts, RR: 72 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4141 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.
geocan From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4136 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).
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4780 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4050 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.
ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4036 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)
afterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1112 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4030 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, 
From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9459 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 25 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4780 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1112 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}