Compact digital camera

[Sketch]

Hey all, I am in the market for a new camera.

Now, I am downgrading from a Nikon D300 to a less bulky and somewhat compact camera. I just don´t have as much time as I used to, so don´t really need a DSLR.

That being said, I still like the idea of having some control over WB, ISO, Aperture, Shutter, etc without the DSLR bulkyness. But I don´t need inter-changeable lenses though (such as Sony Alpha NEX-5N).

What I am mostly interested in the picture quality. I mainly shoot in RAW format and I think I would still like to shoot in that. As far as the zoom goes, I like a decent zoom, somewhere equivalent of 18-200mm on a DSLR. Of course would be great to have a super-zoom camera, but then again, from what I have read, most of these super-zooms (30x, approx. 600mm equiv.) don´t produce sharper images towards the telephoto end, so I don´t really see the point. I am not much of a fan of the movie function either, so not really a selling point for me. Budget is somewhere around 500 USD.

I haven´t had a proper look around, but Nikon Coolpix P7100 and Canon Powershot G12 seems to fit the profile. I was wondering if anyone of you guys are using these and what do you think about them? dpreview does not have a full review of P7100, but from what I saw, essentially there is no difference between p7000 and p7100, so I am not sure what has changed. Also, P7000 does not have good RAW quality. Same goes with Canon Powershot G12, RAW imgae quality is not as good as jpeg.

I am not in a real hurry here, and I can wait until next year March/April. So if you think new ones will be popping out next year around said time, I can wait.

Any thoughts, recommendations, comments on this?

Thanks a lot.

Cheers

[drewprops]

!!!-IMPORTANT-!!!

You photography people are NOT allowed to let this thread devolve into blather about full-size cameras. Stick to compacts!! :p



...

[PB PM]

Canon S100, G12, Nikon P7100, Olympus XZ-1, Panny LX-5 or Fuji X10 would be your best choices. Pick based on price and size preferences. The are all good cameras.

[Dorian Gray]

PB PM has listed most of the raw-capable compacts. They have different lenses (quality, focal length range, and brightness), some of them have different sensors, and they all have different sizes, weights and ancillary features. None of them quite have a zoom range equal to a 18-200 mm on a DX SLR, but the S100 and LX5 go wider (equivalent to 16 mm on your D300).

Can you elaborate on why you think the P7100 and G12 have poor raw image quality, or raw image quality not as good as JPEG? Technically, all cameras shoot raw, since that's just the data as it's read off the sensor. Some cameras store that data in a file, allowing you to do what you want with it later, on a computer. The in-camera JPEG is the camera's best attempt at interpreting that raw data itself, using a tiny CPU and minimal battery power. Normally you can do better at your computer later, with appropriate software.

[PB PM]

I had a P7000, and I don't understand the poor RAW performance comment either. None of them get DSLR like RAW performance, but that comes down to the sensor, not the RAW files themselves.

[Sketch]

or raw image quality not as good as JPEG?

That.

I had a P7000, and I don't understand the poor RAW performance comment either. None of them get DSLR like RAW performance, but that comes down to the sensor, not the RAW files themselves.

While I am aware of the fact that you can´t get the same DSLR like RAW performance, I am expecting them to perform similar to that of their own jpeg quality. But both p7100 and G12 have less quality RAW output compared to their jpeg output (based on dpreview).

The other problem is that, since I have never used a compact camera (I started off with a DSLR from day 1), I don´t know how much control they offer and how well they perform in terms of image quality. So this is why I am little hesitant and probably being picky.

I am sure there are couple of folks here who uses both DSLR and compact cameras who probably can offer me some advice.

As PB PM and Dorian mentioned, yes, I am looking through those cameras, thanks for pointing them out.

[PB PM]

I never thought that the RAW quality of the P7000 was worse than the JPG files. They are more flexible, just not by much. There isn't much in terms of highlight recovery detail if that is what you are wondering about. The same could be said for any of the cameras of that type, they just don't have as much dynamic range in the small sensors.

Manual controls on the G12 and P7100 will feel very similar to a DSLR. Go play with them in a camera shop. They are not as fast in terms of auto focus, AF tracking is useless, but accuracy is good. Shot to shot time isn't great and the buffers only allow small bursts (2-5 shots). Stepping down to a point and shoot is a big step down. You cannot expect as nice a user experience.

[Dorian Gray]

The latest Nikon and Canon cameras have really good JPEG engines; I'll grant you that! However, I still feel you can do better with good post-processing software, for any desired quality (colour - whether accuracy or visual appeal, sharpness, noise, etc.).

DPReview's studio comparison tool (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20compari son&masterCamera=canon_g12&masterSample=img_1078&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=canon_g12&slot0Sample=img_1078&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=canon_g12&slot1Sample=img_1078.acr&slot2Camera=nikon_cpp7100&slot2Sample=dscn9951.acr&slot3Camera=nikon_d300s&slot3Sample=nikond300s_iso100-acr&x=0.09134097035040438&y=-0.8984038308060653) doesn't show you raw, even though it claims to (i.e. it allows you to select "RAW"). Since a raw file is just the data from the sensor, it's not possible to see it. It first needs to be demosaicked, have a tone curve applied, etc. What DPReview show when you select "RAW" is a JPEG they've created from the raw file with Adobe Camera Raw (using default settings, I think, but don't quote me on that). You could equally create a JPEG from the raw file that would look completely different: sharper, less noise, more vivid or subtle colour, etc.

Thankfully, DPReview let you download the raw file (by clicking the yellow "RAW" label below the comparison images). With that file you can see for yourself what the quality is really like, using Photoshop, iPhoto, Lightroom, etc.

[Sketch]

There isn't much in terms of highlight recovery detail if that is what you are wondering about. The same could be said for any of the cameras of that type, they just don't have as much dynamic range in the small sensors.

Yeah I was afraid of this, now that you have confirmed this, hmm, this is just bad. I like the post processing and since I do also considerable amount of B&W shoots, this is essential.

Stepping down to a point and shoot is a big step down. You cannot expect as nice a user experience.

Was thinking about this too, just didn´t know how bad this would be. I mean compact cameras have a come a long way right (or so I thought)?

However, I still feel you can do better with good post-processing software, for any desired quality (colour - whether accuracy or visual appeal, sharpness, noise, etc.).

Hope you are right on this one, although I am doubtful about any desired quality

Thankfully, DPReview let you download the raw file (by clicking the yellow "RAW" label below the comparison images). With that file you can see for yourself what the quality is really like, using Photoshop, iPhoto, Lightroom, etc.

Didn´t check this, thanks, good to know. I will try and see how it is for me.

Thanks guys, seems like I have few points to seriously consider.

[PB PM]

The compacts have improved more in the area of noise performance. Dynamic range is still poor IMO. Even the bigger sensors found in micro four thirds cameras are behind cameras like the D300 in that area.

[Dorian Gray]

Since the lower boundary of a camera's dynamic range is determined by its signal-to-noise ratio, less noise equals more dynamic range. (The upper boundary is determined by the full-well electron capacity of the pixel, adjusted for sensor area, and hasn't hugely improved in years.)

Compact cameras have great sensors in terms of performance per area. But they're very small, which limits their peak performance. For example, a D300 has a sensor about 10x larger than a G12 or LX5. (A D700's sensor is about 20x larger.) If the D300's sensor was as good per area, it would equal the performance of the compacts at an ISO sensitivity 10x higher (e.g. ISO 800 for D300 versus ISO 80 for LX5). The truth is, the LX5's sensor is better at ISO 80 than the D300's sensor at ISO 800. It's nearly as good as the D300's sensor at ISO 400. Some good info here (http://sensorgen.info/), mostly derived from DxOMark (http://www.dxomark.com).

The lens is another matter.

When you remember that a D300's sensor is 10x larger than a P7100's, it helps put the performance in perspective. Don't expect a compact camera to compete at equal ISOs. Of course, because the compact has more depth of field at a given f-number, and possibly a faster lens, you'll often be able to use a lower ISO anyway.