"Bridge" camera purchase advice sought

[Elizabeth]

I am planning to purchase a new compact camera (something easy to take hiking and keep handy in a waistpack in summer or in a large inside jacket pocket in winter). I'd love to get advice from other hiker/photographers. I'd like my new camera to have greater control-ability than my current point-and-shoot. So it has to have at very least aperture and shutter priority modes. I'd also like to be able to shoot in RAW at some point in the future (something to grow into). In the past I have mostly used a point-and-shoot in the "Auto" mode; but am now taking a photography class, and am beginning to upgrade my skills using a neighbor's borrowed Sony (too bulky to take hiking).

I have researched through several digital camera review sites. Every time I think I have narrowed my choices, I get sidetracked by another possibility. The Canon Powershot G series are appealing in some ways; but have the drawback of a relatively limited zoom. Also, while reviews are mostly favorable, some consider them too expensive relative to sensor size.

I'd appreciate any opinions on the Canon G 10 or 11 or other brands/models that meet my criteria.

Thanks,
Elizabeth

 

[David Metsky]

The G11 (which is better than the G10 in several ways) or the S90 are fine choices from Canon. The Panasonic LX3 is a great camera, although limited by very little zoom. The Panasonic ZS7 gives you more zoom and manual controls, but has a much smaller sensor than any of the others mentioned. Finally, the Canon SD4000 is brand new but should be a good compact, although it doesn't have the larger sensor of the G11, S90, or LX3.

 

[Grumpy]

I cut my digital teeth on full-size Nikon professional DSLRs, which are (to understate the case considerably) big and heavy, especially when fitted with premium quality zoom lenses and flash units.

The growing desire for something smaller as a casual “walkaround” or hiking camera finally overwhelmed me late in 2009 and I purchased a Canon G-11. So far, this has turned out to be a satisfactory move.

Here are the G-11 pluses (not necessarily order of priority), from my perspective:

+ Relatively compact and lightweight, yet substantial enough to make me feel like I have a real camera in my hands. I can carry the camera comfortably in a jacket or pants pocket.

+ Optical viewfinder. It’s not especially accurate as to the framing (only 77% coverage) but close enough for my purposes (and I always can use the LCD viewing screen for greater accuracy, if desired). The built in diopter adjustment allows me to fine tune the viewfinder to my own vision. The optical viewfinder allows me to hold, point and use the camera in a familiar and comfortable way. It is a primary reason I chose the G-11.

+ Good, usable zoom lens range (equivalent of 28mm-140mm in 35mm format). Not adequate for most wildlife shooting and much sports shooting, but by-anfd-large covers the range of day-to-day photos very, very nicely. (Back in the 35mm film days, as a newspaper photog I estimate that about 80% of my news and feature shooting was done using 35mm and 85mm primes.)

+ The image stabilization feature really works. This means I can use relatively lower ISO settings (which results in lower shutter speeds) for somewhat better image quality.

+ Good range of ISO settings, from 80-3200. I usually shoot in the ISO 200-400 range, occasionally go up to ISO 800 and seldom use ISO 1600 or above. Image quality is very satisfactory in my usual ISO shooting range.

+ RAW format. This was a must-have for me.

+ Available manual controls – another personal must-have. I particularly like the custom program options, in which I can set up my own protocols from a variety of choices (aperture or shutter priority, use of flash, white balance, etc.). Usually I like aperture priority with auto exposure and white balance, which works very well for my purposes.

+ Available manual controls 2. I use the “exposure compensation” feature extensively to add or subtract a little exposure from the automatic setting’s choice, depending on circumstances.

+ Good image review feature. I use the option that provides a histogram and some tonal clipping indicators, which helps guide my exposure compensation (+/-) tweaks.

+ Excellent color reproduction. Using the “auto” color mode most of the time, the colors I see reproduced are very “authentic” and pleasing to my eye.

+ Decent proprietary battery pack. In my experience with the G-11 so far (six months) Canon’s battery packs have proved powerful and reliable. I purchased an extra pack with the camera, to provide for a charged backup.

My G-11 minuses:

- It would be nice to have a true manual focus capability. One day perhaps I will master the quirks of the autofocus system (which is pretty good most of the time, but when it comes to photography I am something of a control freak).

- Manual control over the lens zoom would be nice, too. It would offer more precision in focal length selection (and framing) than does the motorized control, which is pretty coarse.

- Shutter lag time. The G-11 is not bad for the type of camera, but shutter lag time definitely is there. I have been spoiled by the instant response of my pro-grade film and digital SLR shutters.

- Ugly built-in flash. The flash is too close to the lens axis for my taste, resulting in unattractive flash-lit photos. (With tweaking it can work acceptably as a fill light, though.) Happily, Canon has provided a hot shoe to receive an accessory flash, which I have not acquired (as I already have several flashes for my Nikon DSLR kit – gotta draw the line on gadget acquisition somewhere).

- Questionable weather sealing? I haven’t really put this to the test, and don’t plan to do so deliberately. I don’t think the camera and its built-in lens, flash, etc, generally, is as well sealed against weather and dust as my DSLR, and this makes me a little apprehensive at times.

- Flimsy lens mount/barrel? Now I am getting picky – spoiled rotten by the industrial strength “build” and rock-solid feel of my primo grade DSLR zoom lenses. The collapsible lens barrel on the G-11 just seems a tad “wobbly” by comparison.

Overall I m very happy with the G-11, which seems so far to perform well and suit the purpose for which I purchased it.

G.

 

[Elizabeth]

Thanks David and Grumpy for your very helpful answers. All the dedicated camera stores in our area have gone belly up, so I am going to head down to Best Buy to look at and handle some options. A couple of people have advised me not to actually purchase from them, though. Any thoughts on that?

I'd also love to hear from anyone else about the G11 or other, similar cameras.

 

[Grumpy]

I have spent more money with B&H Photo than I care to think about. But every purchase has been satisfactory in terms of price and service. So I can recommend B&H as a vendor:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

G.

 

[DougPaul]

B&H is a good dealer, as is Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/ (I'm a satisfied customer of both.)

A number of the pundits have reviewed the G11 favorably. eg:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/g11.shtml
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/compacts/g11.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G11/G11A.HTM

The S90 uses the same sensor, but is smaller, lighter, has a faster lens, and has better controls, but loses the viewfinder. Here are some reviews (also favorable):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/s90.shtml
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/s90.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PS90/PS90A.HTM

If I were in the market for this class of camera, I'd probably get a G11 or S90.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

I cut my digital teeth on full-size Nikon professional DSLRs, which are (to understate the case considerably) big and heavy, especially when fitted with premium quality zoom lenses and flash units.

A lighter and smaller alternative DSLR is the Canon Digital Rebel series (crop factor 1.6)--the XTi body weighs 18 oz. The Canon 5D-MkII (21MP full frame) is also relatively light: 32oz (body only). Ken Rockwell has recently been carrying the 5D-MkII with several (light weight) prime lenses--the image quality is good enough that one can crop after-the-fact rather than use (heavy) zooms and the total weight is reasonable. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii.htm

A G11 or S90 is, of course, smaller, lighter, and cheaper than either of the above.

- It would be nice to have a true manual focus capability. One day perhaps I will master the quirks of the autofocus system (which is pretty good most of the time, but when it comes to photography I am something of a control freak).

My work-around for having to use autofocus is to set it to use only the center focus sensor. I point it at the object that I want in focus, half press the release button, re-aim, and shoot. (I got tired of the camera focusing on the wrong part of the scene...)

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

When I saw the title on the OP for this thread – the reference to a “bridge” camera – I was immediately put in mind of a recent musing by Mike Johnston, in his The Online Photographer Blog.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

In his “Letter to George” post, and a followup “P.S.” Johnston essentially recommends picking out the camera and lens kit you really want and need for the kind of photography you want and intend to do, and go for it, pretty much irrespective of cost, etc. He does this by satirizing the path of compromises and accommodations – acquiring and discarding a series of “bridge” kits -- so many of follow to reach that end anyway, and which wind up costing us more than we may have spent by going for broke from the git-go.

I’ve seen that advice before, especially related to tripod purchases. I think it has some merit.

But reading the OP on this thread I sensed that Elizabeth really wasn’t looking for advice about what to buy to tide her over while yearning for her idealized kit. Instead, I read her question as addressing her choices for a camera to fit in a fairly specialized niche of her photographic life. And I responded accordingly, having recently been through that decision-making experience in my own very real life. I provided a review of my own, authentic (non-theoretical) experiences and impressions of my camera of choice, above.

There is absolutely no question in my pea brain that the Canon G-11 (my choice, ultimately) was and is a compromise setup.

The G-11’s smaller image sensor – even at a much greater megapixel rating (or whatever we call it) – never will produce image quality matching that of my now generation old Nikon D2Hs. The mechanical systems – focusing, shutter response, burst capability, etc. -- don’t compare especially favorably either. Nonetheless, it pretty much does the job I purchased the G-11 to do, and fits pretty comfortably with my working style, all at a price I decided was (for me) affordable and reasonable. In short, despite its shortcomings the G-11 fits nicely in the niche I purchased it to fill, and I am very well satisfied with my decision.

Other photogs are happy with their own choices in these matters, meaning all is well in the world. That is why we have so many different makes and models available.

Just for moment, now, I’ll dream a bit.

Had I my ultimate druthers for a rugged, compact digital “hiking” camera kit, it probably would be a Leica M9, with fast 35mm and 90mm lenses. Total weight would run just over 3 lb. I might consider adding a 21mm or 24mm lens at some point when I am feeling flush and giddy. The M9 is a “full frame” camera, so the lenses would perform as they would using 35mm film. But, we are looking at a basic kit (no 21mm lens) cost of about $12,000.

When I see that, Mike Johnston's advice notwithstanding, the Canon G-11 still looks pretty good from the standpoint of my personal realities. Sigh ...

G.

 

[Elizabeth]

"Bridge" camera

I was thinking of "bridge" as essentially a bridge between the quality and options available in a larger camera and the convenience of something that is easy to carry and have handy. Weight is less of an issue for me than size. It has to fit in a waistpack along with a water bottle, dog leashes, snacks, maps, and other things that I want more accessible than the stuff in my backpack.

I am also thinking of it as a photographic-skills bridge between a point-and-shoot and something more. It should allow me to improve my photography, while still having an "auto" mode when I just want to let the camera do the thinking for me. I like the fact that the G11 has the option of attaching other lenses for zoom and wide angle, if I want to add those later.

BTW, I struck out at Best Buy. They do not carry any of the cameras I am considering. They have simple point-and-shoots and DSLRs; but not much in-between. I will probably have to order a camera sight-unseen, which makes me doubly appreciative of you-all's advice.

 

[DougPaul]

I am also thinking of it as a photographic-skills bridge between a point-and-shoot and something more. It should allow me to improve my photography, while still having an "auto" mode when I just want to let the camera do the thinking for me. I like the fact that the G11 has the option of attaching other lenses for zoom and wide angle, if I want to add those later.

Modern DSLRs (and film SLRs) have automatic modes. When engaged, one need only point, adjust the zoom, and press the button--just like a P&S. The manual settings on P&Ses are often klugy and hard to use. IMO, if you want to learn to use manual modes, get a camera with good manual controls (ie an SLR/DSLR). (The G11 is a relatively high cost P&S--similar to the cost of a low-end Canon DSLR.)

FWIW, I often use my DSLR in a semi-auto mode: manual aperture, auto-focus, auto-shutter time. (However, there is a manual exposure compensation, so if you use it in conjunction with auto-shutter time you are effectively setting the shutter time manually.) I described how I manipulate the auto-focus to do what I want in an earlier post. And I can switch to manual focus if I so desire.

The G11 has a 28-140mm eFL and the S90 has a 28-105mm eFL which cover the vast majority of general usage. The lens attachments are add-ons to the standard lens. Optically, they are unlikely to be as good as a fully changeable lens.

Note that P&Ses, in general, have a very large range-of-focus due to their small diameter lenses. (And the P&S lenses do not stop down to small apertures due to diffraction blurring of the images.) If you want to work with narrow range-of-focus images, you will need the large diameter lenses found in SLRs/DSLRs.

All cameras are compromises (cost, size, weight, control, optical quality, range of conditions (eg low light capability), weather-proofing, ruggedness, etc). I carry a DSLR + lens[es] when I want more control and better image quality and carry a P&S when weight and size are at a premium.

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Dave Metsky put me on to CHDK for Canon cameras which gives you an additional range of controls not available on stock P&S. I use it all the time on my A570 IS. It will give you RAW mode (Adobe DNG format) among many other nice features. If you are looking at a Canon with limited features, you might check to see if the model is on the supported list and if CHDK provides you with the feature(s) the camera does not support with the native firmware.

Tim

 

[David Metsky]

I like the fact that the G11 has the option of attaching other lenses for zoom and wide angle, if I want to add those later.

Honestly, don't bother. It's a "nice to have" feature but the added size and complexity (and reduced image quality) really don't make them worthwhile IMO. If you want to add on lenses, look at the 4/3 system. That will give you much more control than any P&S like the G11 and without too much additional size and weight.

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

If you want to add on lenses, look at the 4/3 system. That will give you much more control than any P&S like the G11 and without too much additional size and weight.

Not to hijack the thread, but the micro 4/3 series does seem to be the ideal answer for those who want more than a P&S but less weight than a DSLR. Comments, please, knowledgeable ones!!

 

[Grumpy]

Now that Elizabeth has clarified what a "bridge" camera means to her ...

I don't think auxiliary lenses for the Canon G-11 would be a good option to increase that camera's capabilities, for reasons others have cited.

The G-11 has proved itself to be a satisfactory camera for my "walking around" purposes. It is quite complete as it comes in the box. (Having an extra battery and at least one extra memory card of substantial capacity is a very good idea. I regard these things as essentials rather than extras.) The "extra" I might consider as an add-on would be an external flash -- but that is only a very faint "maybe." And I might consider a polarizing filter, although that also is a faint "maybe."

(I did get a Really Right Stuff L-bracket so I can mount my G-11 on my tripod and monopod using RRS clamps, though. Talk about having "married" into a system! But that's a whole 'nother story.)

If you really are looking to buy an expandable system camera I would not recommend the G-11.

That said I do think the 4/3 system -- which I know nothing about except that it reportedly packs a lot of capability (including lens interchangeability) into a small package -- is worth considering if you are looking for expandability and flexibility in a compact bundle.

G.

P.S. to Mohammed: I don't think you are hijacking the thread. I fact, I think your post about the 4/3 format option is very much on topic here, as it has turned out.

 

[blaze]

Ultra zoom cameras such as Canon's SX20 IS offer another possibility. Most do not offer RAW capability out of the box (although as previously noted, you might work around this using the CDHK).

The lens on the SX20 IS ranges from 28mm to 560mm (35mm equivalent). That is great, not only on the zoom end, but on the wide angle side as well - very nice for landscape shooting in my opinion.

You may not need the big zoom lens every day. But the capability is there when you need it, and when you do need it, it's right there - no hasty lens changing required while the animal vanishes into the distance.

I would personally have difficulty using a camera that did not have a viewfinder.

Also important in my opinion is the ability to attach filters. I use polarizers and neutral density filters most often, but there are others.

What do you intend to do with your photos? That is an important consideration as well.

 

[Elizabeth]

What do you intend to do with your photos? That is an important consideration as well.

In all honesty, 99% of the time I just post photos on the internet (Flickr and/or Facebook). However, I do also take photos for work of properties being conserved, which photos serve a variety of purposes. I would also like to keep my options open for the future.

I am interested in the idea that RAW can be added to a camera after the fact. That broadens prospects considerably.

Thanks for the advice (from several of you) not to bother with extra lenses for the G11. The 4/3 systems are intriguing. I'll look into them some more; but at this stage I am leaning towards the simplicity of an all-in-one camera.

 

[DougPaul]

The lens on the SX20 IS ranges from 28mm to 560mm (35mm equivalent). That is great, not only on the zoom end, but on the wide angle side as well - very nice for landscape shooting in my opinion.

A trade-off for super-zooms is that they have poorer optical quality than other lenses.

Primes (fixed focus, non-zooms) are best, small-range zooms are not as good, and super-zooms have even poorer quality.

Doug

 

[blaze]

With any camera you're considering, it's worth looking at sample photos online. "A picture is worth a thousand words" - it really is true. Look at what that particular camera is capable of, and decide for yourself if it will work for you. You can find both downsized and full sized images online, if you really want to get up close and personal w/regard to image quality.

I like using Pbase for reviewing sample photos because they have a pretty extensive and easy to use database of cameras (and lenses). pbase.com/cameras. But there are many other places where you can look.

Another word about RAW. CDHK stands for Canon Digital Hacker's Kit. The CDHK is not necessarily available for any Canon camera, and it is, as the name says, a hack. This is not something that everyone will feel comfortable doing. You might want to research this a bit before assuming that it'll work for you. If you're not comfortable with it, and you really have to have RAW capability, then you might be better off buying a camera that has RAW right out of the box. For posting photos online, I am honestly not sure if you really need to shoot in RAW format.

EDIT: it really is CHDK not CDHK - but it does stand for Camera Hack Development Kit.

Also consider your "bridge" camera may be yet another stepping stone to something even better. I can't seem to get by owning less than three digital cameras at a time! =) Much to my wife's chagrin.

 

[DougPaul]

I'll look into them some more; but at this stage I am leaning towards the simplicity of an all-in-one camera.

In general, the trend for simple all-in-ones has been toward more automation and less manual control.

I have an older P&S with manual controls (as well as automatic modes). The manual controls are sufficiently klugy that I almost never use them. IMO, trying to get SLR-like control out of a P&S works poorly at best--one is better off with two cameras: a DSLR for control and a P&S for portability. That said, the optics in some of the P&Ses are pretty good and one can take nice pictures with them. (Luminous Landscape did some comparisons of prints from a G10 vs a medium format camera with a 39MP back under certain conditions and professional photographers couldn't tell which was which... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml)

The higher quality P&Ses (eg G11, S90) are pretty good within their envelopes (envelope=range of conditions under which they work well)*. But I wouldn't try to use one to substitute for a DSLR, which among other things, has a larger envelope.

* The small sensors alone place some limitations on P&Ses. And the rest of the camera is generally designed for a different market than a DSLR.

Doug

 

[blaze]

I would say that manual controls (as with all controls) are well implemented on some cameras, and poorly implemented on others. Including SLRs. This is definitely a consideration.

But I use manual controls fairly often on non-SLR cameras, and I think they can be implemented rather well. I will not say the images are "good" or "not good" - that is in the eye of the beholder. But I will say, the images please me.

This is from a Canon S2 IS (5 megapixels). I used shutter speed priority, exposure compensation, and two filters (polarizer and neutral density).

Is it Great Art? No. Might an SLR have done a better job? Probably! BUT on the other hand, I wouldn't have carried an SLR that day - I also hiked three 4000 footers in the cold and snow. I don't (typically) subject my SLR to those conditions.

The real question may be - how "good" does "good image quality" need to be? You are going to hear different answers to that question, depending on who you ask. You already have!

It doesn't help that image quality is described in such subjective terms. A reviewer may use the term "excellent image quality" reviewing a $250 point and shoot, and also use the same phrase when reviewing a $3000 SLR. Does that mean the image quality is the same in those two cameras? Don't bet on it!

But that point and shoot, at the very least, probably does stand up well against other cameras in its class.

Whatever else you do, whatever you buy... go out a lot, shoot a lot, and have fun. The more you shoot, the better you will get, and the more you'll know what features are important to you. That real world experience will inform your next camera purchase! =)