Another possibility if you're considering a small camera is to get a compact micro 4/3 camera. There's plenty of great compact m43 lenses, like the pancake Panasonic 20mm or the 12-32 kit lense....
Another possibility if you're considering a small camera is to get a compact micro 4/3 camera. There's plenty of great compact m43 lenses, like the pancake Panasonic 20mm or the 12-32 kit lense. The main company making m43 shooters is Olympus (or OM-Systems now) - you can also consider older Panasonic models (they unfortunately haven't made a compact m43 camera since the gx9).
Of course, you give up some things for that flexibility. Some of those compact shooters are incredible in what they fit in - the Sony one has a full frame sensor! But having a fun thing to fiddle with is a major reason to get a camera, and an interchangeable lense camera is what gives you that.
I love my full frame camera but really 6000x4000 full frame is overkill most of the time, I can make 8.5x11 prints just fine with my camera in APS mode and even buy an occasional E mount (not full...
I love my full frame camera but really 6000x4000 full frame is overkill most of the time, I can make 8.5x11 prints just fine with my camera in APS mode and even buy an occasional E mount (not full frame) lens because I can still take great pictures that way. Sometimes I think micro 4/3 would be a lot of fun.
FF isn't really for the resolution - even m43s can get up to 30mp. It's about a stop and a third better in low light compared to APS-C, and you can get more pronounced bokeh and shallower depth of...
FF isn't really for the resolution - even m43s can get up to 30mp. It's about a stop and a third better in low light compared to APS-C, and you can get more pronounced bokeh and shallower depth of field. In that respect, you actually get less noise with less megapixels for a given sensor size, as the larger the photosensors the less noise there is in low light.
It's a pleasure to handle a dedicated device whose sole purpose is to make picture. The picture quality you get from dedicates camera when doing even moderately large print is unmistakable.
It's a pleasure to handle a dedicated device whose sole purpose is to make picture. The picture quality you get from dedicates camera when doing even moderately large print is unmistakable.
Really? The photography market is pretty big. It’s gotten much larger since the pandemic as well, which seems to be where everyone decided to find a hobby. It may be even crazier to you that what...
Really? The photography market is pretty big. It’s gotten much larger since the pandemic as well, which seems to be where everyone decided to find a hobby.
It may be even crazier to you that what really blew up in popularity is film photography. Yes, analog film that you have to develop. It’s very expensive to, usually around $30-$40 to develop a roll of color film and since only Kodak really makes film anymore, people are bidding on expired film on eBay and it’s getting increasingly expensive.
While I’m not into film, I do own a fancy camera and lenses for it. AMA
I think that's true, but in terms of the article OP posted, I'd note that the compact cameras there are all extensions of the enthusiast/hobbyist market (I really don't think "pro" is the right...
I think that's true, but in terms of the article OP posted, I'd note that the compact cameras there are all extensions of the enthusiast/hobbyist market (I really don't think "pro" is the right moniker - most people who buy mirrorless cameras are not professional). Like the cheapest one on the list is ostensible $800, but tends to actually sell for $1400, and the most expensive is a Leica that cost $6000. Pretty much all of them are more expensive than flagship smartphones.
Those cameras are not the $200 point and shoots that you buy for a utilitarian purpose of recording images in a particular space and time. Phones have taken over that market.
Those cameras are for hobbyist who require a small form factor, whether that be for discreet street photography or as a daily carry, and don't mind the lack of versatility. They are expensive, very well crafted, and take excellent photos.
There are a lot of semi-pros, not to mention people who make money off YouTube videos, a market Sony has really gone after. Mirrorless photography is better than the film SLR ever was, I mean, I...
There are a lot of semi-pros, not to mention people who make money off YouTube videos, a market Sony has really gone after.
Mirrorless photography is better than the film SLR ever was, I mean, I laugh at high ISO noise now that Lightroom has a neural enhancer, between that and the motion compensation in my Sony it is like 4-5 stops of extra light. My choice of lenses, including really weird things from 7Artisans, is better than ever because Sony cooperates with third-party lens makers. I can pack two batteries and an XXL SD card go and go to a sports game and shoot the equivalent of 20 rolls of film and not have to pay for film and developing.
Myself my main camera is a Sony Alpha 7ii, people on Mastodon really like my flower pictures so I take more of them, also I got into sports photography because my office overlooks the athletic complex and it hit me that I can find a few sporting events a week, most of which I can get into for free when school is in session. Both of those benefit from long or macro lenses. I am lusting after a better body or a G Master lens but I feel like I need to sell some photo or art work to justify that.
I collect stereogram cameras also, as well as taking making red-cyan anaglyphs so I have a bunch of weird ones like a Gameboy 3DS (good for little things), a Qoocam Ego (great for things the size of a hay wagon), a Lytro Illium (still looking for something it really wins at) and a stereogram attachment for phones that just sucks.
And I take pictures with my iPad too.
All of those compacts are in a tough spot between interchangeable lens cameras aimed at me and phones that are really good. The thing is we really are in the golden age of photography and nostalgia for film is like nostalgia for cassette tapes.
I don't know about anyone else, but IMO the photos you get from a dedicated camera are just different from the photos you get from smartphones. I bought a secondhand Fujifilm X70 and bring it with...
I don't know about anyone else, but IMO the photos you get from a dedicated camera are just different from the photos you get from smartphones.
I bought a secondhand Fujifilm X70 and bring it with me pretty much everywhere now.
Not everyone has a phone that takes great pics. I barely use my phone's camera because I've never been able to take a pic worth having on it. If I desperately want to capture a moment and I've...
Not everyone has a phone that takes great pics. I barely use my phone's camera because I've never been able to take a pic worth having on it. If I desperately want to capture a moment and I've forgotten my camera it'll do but the pictures are always middling at best.
I've had a Fujifilm X100T (precursor model to the X100V in the article) for years now in a hobby format, and I've loved the shots I've gotten out of it. I have no interest in the professional side...
I've had a Fujifilm X100T (precursor model to the X100V in the article) for years now in a hobby format, and I've loved the shots I've gotten out of it. I have no interest in the professional side of the market, I just take pictures with it for the fun of it.
I got a Ricoh GR IIIx in April and I’m very happy with it. It’s not just good for street photography, I’ve used it on vacations taking photos of landscapes as well.
I got a Ricoh GR IIIx in April and I’m very happy with it. It’s not just good for street photography, I’ve used it on vacations taking photos of landscapes as well.
I'm still rocking my Fujifilm X70. I occasionally wish for a viewfinder, but I'm getting better. I'm always struck by how much nicer the photos are than my various phones over the last few years.
I'm still rocking my Fujifilm X70. I occasionally wish for a viewfinder, but I'm getting better. I'm always struck by how much nicer the photos are than my various phones over the last few years.
I recently invested in a Fuji X100F (a generation younger than the X100V in the article). Seems to be a great little camera so far. I mostly shoot film but wanted a pocketable camera to take on...
I recently invested in a Fuji X100F (a generation younger than the X100V in the article). Seems to be a great little camera so far. I mostly shoot film but wanted a pocketable camera to take on holidays for situations when film is impractical (low light when I've got low sensitivity film in, rain so I don't destroy my Leica M6) or when I want more attempts at a shot than would be reasonable with 36 exposure rolls.
Can definitely recommend it to folks who are looking for a compact, pocketable camera that takes much better shots than your phone manages. There's a ton of customisation, to the point where it gets pretty complex, for people who want that; but it's equally good just out of the box to point and shoot. The X100V has been super hard to get for the last year, so I went for the F. I'm sure the V is better in some ways, but to save some money looking a model or two back would still be a good option for most people.
I'm kind of the opposite, I find myself using my X100V less and less these days. Sure it's more compact than an SLR, but still not as compact as my phone. And my phone's pictures lately have been...
I'm kind of the opposite, I find myself using my X100V less and less these days. Sure it's more compact than an SLR, but still not as compact as my phone. And my phone's pictures lately have been perfectly fine for my purposes. (Internet and small prints). Although I don't like some of the onboard processing that happens, it's still been my main camera at this point. I'm unsure if I'm losing my love of the game or if photography is just different these days for me or otherwise. It used to be my life.
I have like 7 binders full of developed film I've shot over the years and it makes me sad film has become so increasingly unaffordable over the last couple of years, because that's truly what I enjoy shooting. Even black and white film is out of reach these days.
I'm really happy with the pictures from my Canon Powershot G7X III. It's beefy and heavy and barely counts as compact, but I picked it up because it has a 1" sensor and can take rapid clear,...
I'm really happy with the pictures from my Canon Powershot G7X III. It's beefy and heavy and barely counts as compact, but I picked it up because it has a 1" sensor and can take rapid clear, focused pics in low interior light. I had a baby last year and realized I needed to upgrade my photo game if I wanted to capture the cuteness. My G7X has taken some effortlessly beautiful portraits of my son. It has a lot of features and filters I have yet to play with, but I wanted to just be able to quickly take a good photo in the moment without a lot of set up. It's been well worth the money, especially when I compare them to phone pics or videos of him. However, its big shortcoming is that its zoom is slow and not far at all, so capturing something like a bird or an action shot at a sport event would definitely be a challenge. It's also just big enough that it fits awkwardly in my purse. I used to have a big DSLR which was even more awkward to carry so I wouldn't go back to that, and I take way better photos with this. Are there phones out there that could take comparable pictures? Maybe, but they're the $1000+ flagship phones with all the bells and whistles neither my husband nor I need.
Another possibility if you're considering a small camera is to get a compact micro 4/3 camera. There's plenty of great compact m43 lenses, like the pancake Panasonic 20mm or the 12-32 kit lense. The main company making m43 shooters is Olympus (or OM-Systems now) - you can also consider older Panasonic models (they unfortunately haven't made a compact m43 camera since the gx9).
Of course, you give up some things for that flexibility. Some of those compact shooters are incredible in what they fit in - the Sony one has a full frame sensor! But having a fun thing to fiddle with is a major reason to get a camera, and an interchangeable lense camera is what gives you that.
I love my full frame camera but really 6000x4000 full frame is overkill most of the time, I can make 8.5x11 prints just fine with my camera in APS mode and even buy an occasional E mount (not full frame) lens because I can still take great pictures that way. Sometimes I think micro 4/3 would be a lot of fun.
FF isn't really for the resolution - even m43s can get up to 30mp. It's about a stop and a third better in low light compared to APS-C, and you can get more pronounced bokeh and shallower depth of field. In that respect, you actually get less noise with less megapixels for a given sensor size, as the larger the photosensors the less noise there is in low light.
Other than professional photographers and those over 80, I'm amazed there is any market for cameras.
It's a pleasure to handle a dedicated device whose sole purpose is to make picture. The picture quality you get from dedicates camera when doing even moderately large print is unmistakable.
Really? The photography market is pretty big. It’s gotten much larger since the pandemic as well, which seems to be where everyone decided to find a hobby.
It may be even crazier to you that what really blew up in popularity is film photography. Yes, analog film that you have to develop. It’s very expensive to, usually around $30-$40 to develop a roll of color film and since only Kodak really makes film anymore, people are bidding on expired film on eBay and it’s getting increasingly expensive.
While I’m not into film, I do own a fancy camera and lenses for it. AMA
I think that's true, but in terms of the article OP posted, I'd note that the compact cameras there are all extensions of the enthusiast/hobbyist market (I really don't think "pro" is the right moniker - most people who buy mirrorless cameras are not professional). Like the cheapest one on the list is ostensible $800, but tends to actually sell for $1400, and the most expensive is a Leica that cost $6000. Pretty much all of them are more expensive than flagship smartphones.
Those cameras are not the $200 point and shoots that you buy for a utilitarian purpose of recording images in a particular space and time. Phones have taken over that market.
Those cameras are for hobbyist who require a small form factor, whether that be for discreet street photography or as a daily carry, and don't mind the lack of versatility. They are expensive, very well crafted, and take excellent photos.
There are a lot of semi-pros, not to mention people who make money off YouTube videos, a market Sony has really gone after.
Mirrorless photography is better than the film SLR ever was, I mean, I laugh at high ISO noise now that Lightroom has a neural enhancer, between that and the motion compensation in my Sony it is like 4-5 stops of extra light. My choice of lenses, including really weird things from 7Artisans, is better than ever because Sony cooperates with third-party lens makers. I can pack two batteries and an XXL SD card go and go to a sports game and shoot the equivalent of 20 rolls of film and not have to pay for film and developing.
Myself my main camera is a Sony Alpha 7ii, people on Mastodon really like my flower pictures so I take more of them, also I got into sports photography because my office overlooks the athletic complex and it hit me that I can find a few sporting events a week, most of which I can get into for free when school is in session. Both of those benefit from long or macro lenses. I am lusting after a better body or a G Master lens but I feel like I need to sell some photo or art work to justify that.
I collect stereogram cameras also, as well as taking making red-cyan anaglyphs so I have a bunch of weird ones like a Gameboy 3DS (good for little things), a Qoocam Ego (great for things the size of a hay wagon), a Lytro Illium (still looking for something it really wins at) and a stereogram attachment for phones that just sucks.
And I take pictures with my iPad too.
All of those compacts are in a tough spot between interchangeable lens cameras aimed at me and phones that are really good. The thing is we really are in the golden age of photography and nostalgia for film is like nostalgia for cassette tapes.
I don't know about anyone else, but IMO the photos you get from a dedicated camera are just different from the photos you get from smartphones.
I bought a secondhand Fujifilm X70 and bring it with me pretty much everywhere now.
Not everyone has a phone that takes great pics. I barely use my phone's camera because I've never been able to take a pic worth having on it. If I desperately want to capture a moment and I've forgotten my camera it'll do but the pictures are always middling at best.
I've had a Fujifilm X100T (precursor model to the X100V in the article) for years now in a hobby format, and I've loved the shots I've gotten out of it. I have no interest in the professional side of the market, I just take pictures with it for the fun of it.
I got a Ricoh GR IIIx in April and I’m very happy with it. It’s not just good for street photography, I’ve used it on vacations taking photos of landscapes as well.
I'm still rocking my Fujifilm X70. I occasionally wish for a viewfinder, but I'm getting better. I'm always struck by how much nicer the photos are than my various phones over the last few years.
I bought a secondhand X70 late last year. I really enjoy using that camera. It takes very nice photos too.
I recently invested in a Fuji X100F (a generation younger than the X100V in the article). Seems to be a great little camera so far. I mostly shoot film but wanted a pocketable camera to take on holidays for situations when film is impractical (low light when I've got low sensitivity film in, rain so I don't destroy my Leica M6) or when I want more attempts at a shot than would be reasonable with 36 exposure rolls.
Can definitely recommend it to folks who are looking for a compact, pocketable camera that takes much better shots than your phone manages. There's a ton of customisation, to the point where it gets pretty complex, for people who want that; but it's equally good just out of the box to point and shoot. The X100V has been super hard to get for the last year, so I went for the F. I'm sure the V is better in some ways, but to save some money looking a model or two back would still be a good option for most people.
I'm kind of the opposite, I find myself using my X100V less and less these days. Sure it's more compact than an SLR, but still not as compact as my phone. And my phone's pictures lately have been perfectly fine for my purposes. (Internet and small prints). Although I don't like some of the onboard processing that happens, it's still been my main camera at this point. I'm unsure if I'm losing my love of the game or if photography is just different these days for me or otherwise. It used to be my life.
I have like 7 binders full of developed film I've shot over the years and it makes me sad film has become so increasingly unaffordable over the last couple of years, because that's truly what I enjoy shooting. Even black and white film is out of reach these days.
I'm really happy with the pictures from my Canon Powershot G7X III. It's beefy and heavy and barely counts as compact, but I picked it up because it has a 1" sensor and can take rapid clear, focused pics in low interior light. I had a baby last year and realized I needed to upgrade my photo game if I wanted to capture the cuteness. My G7X has taken some effortlessly beautiful portraits of my son. It has a lot of features and filters I have yet to play with, but I wanted to just be able to quickly take a good photo in the moment without a lot of set up. It's been well worth the money, especially when I compare them to phone pics or videos of him. However, its big shortcoming is that its zoom is slow and not far at all, so capturing something like a bird or an action shot at a sport event would definitely be a challenge. It's also just big enough that it fits awkwardly in my purse. I used to have a big DSLR which was even more awkward to carry so I wouldn't go back to that, and I take way better photos with this. Are there phones out there that could take comparable pictures? Maybe, but they're the $1000+ flagship phones with all the bells and whistles neither my husband nor I need.