Two new compact SLR-like cameras

[Mohamed Ellozy]

I would not dream of following David Pogue's advice in buying a camera, but he does make me aware of new developments. Today I read his Tiny Cameras, Big Tricks column. He starts off with a theme he harps on a lot:

Why doesn’t everyone buy an S.U.V.? So much space, so much power!

Why doesn’t everyone wear steel-toed work boots? So rugged, so protective!

And why doesn’t everyone buy S.L.R. cameras? Gorgeous photos, sensational low-light shots, interchangeable lenses, no shutter lag!

This is a rhetorical exercise, of course. You know very well why everybody does not buy those things: For most people, they’re excessive, huge and unwieldy.

But what if they weren’t? For example, what if you could carry an S.L.R. in your pocket?

He then gives a bit of history and introduces the two new cameras:

Panasonic and Olympus took the first step with a format called Micro Four Thirds. These cameras shrink everything proportionally — camera body, lenses and, alas, sensor. Sony’s NEX camera bodies are even smaller — easily pants-pocketable — yet contain a real S.L.R.-size sensor, for incredible pictures. The drawback is that the lenses aren’t much smaller than regular S.L.R. lenses.

This month, two more big-name camera makers join the fray, Nikon and Pentax. Their new cameras are insanely, ridiculously, jaw-droppingly small.

Alas, they both have fatal flaws (read the review for details). But he ends on an optimistic note:

Both the Pentax Q and the Nikon 1 are important experiments. Both demonstrate that the camera industry has, at last, given up the meaningless race to cram more megapixels onto a sensor — and moved into more important pursuits, like better photos and smaller cameras.

Unfortunately, both cameras are also flawed in their own special ways. Yes, the world’s camera engineers have finally brought us the pocket S.L.R. But perfection continues to elude them.

Yes, perfection continues to elude them, but they are getting closer.

 

[David Metsky]

The biggest problem with the EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lenses) is the lack of optical viewfinder. For shooting action shots at high zoom it pretty much renders them useless. They have to solve that problem before I'll consider them.

In particular, the new Nikon and Pentax are IMO a step behind the current offerings from Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony. The small sensor size of the Pentax pretty much makes it an also ran from the get go. Nikon may do well with their camera but I'll wait a long time before worrying about that.

I have two use cases for cameras

1. Something to carry around while hiking. Needs to be small, light, and excel at outdoor shooting
2. Size doesn't matter, image quality, low light performance, and burst mode are critical.

Right now, these cameras don't meet either of those needs. They may someday, but by then my phone will be taking care of the first scenario.

 

[skiguy]

The biggest problem with the EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lenses) is the lack of optical viewfinder. For shooting action shots at high zoom it pretty much renders them useless. They have to solve that problem before I'll consider them.

This is going to be a tough nut to crack. Most of these cameras have been marketed to be compact as an alternative to a bulky/heavy DSLR in comparison. Being non mirrored makes them slim,compact and lighter but also non reflexive; therfore not possible to have a through the lens viewfinder. I have been running the Olympus EP2 with a top mounted/look through viewfinder and have found it to be a big improvement over using the Cameras LCD backscreen even though it is still electronic. It would be nice to see more offering in the old style non-electronic viewfinders. At the moment this market is more of the "Run and Gun" mentality which IMO is OK. If you want to tote the load of the larger DSLR...yea your probably going to get better and more consistent results...but then you could still be packing a 5x7 box camera too. It's a matter of style and what you are trying to accomplish. I agree action shots are where the compact cameras lack the most. Although with Landscape some excellent results are possible. Just take a look at some of Tim Seaver's stuff. He's done alot with Micro 4/3rds.

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

Just take a look at some of Tim Seaver's stuff. He's done alot with Micro 4/3rds.

Tim, could you tell us something about your experience with Micro 4/3rds?

 

[Tim Seaver]

I have been using Panasonic's DMC-LX3 as my "six-gun shooter", as in on the hip and ready to blast any unsuspecting hikers or the occasional unicorn jumping through a rainbow, as I have found that neither creature tends to stand around waiting for me to take my pack off, take my camera case out, take the camera out of the case, take the lens cap off, and muck around with a bunch of buttons and menus until I'm "ready". By then, the unicorn is long gone, the smile has faded, and the rainbow has vanished.

These type of cameras are great for catching moments that pass relatively quickly, but certainly don't have the same performance for high speed action like downhill skiing (which may be where Dave is coming from, skiing buff that he is). The main reason I love this camera is the wide and fast lens, which certainly isn't for everyone - it maxes out at the equivalent of 60mm!

Seeing what the heck you are shooting without a viewfinder is definitely a drag, especially in bright sun - no arguments there. Whatcha gonna do?

Not to say I don't have an SLR in my pack and get great "action" shots with it, it's just generally more a deliberate type of shooting, the exception being situations where the weather and terrain allow walking along with an SLR hanging from my neck and ready to go.

If I had to identify the day of optimal usage of this little camera, it would be the day I Didn't Run across the Presis with Cath - moving quick and light, and shooting from the hip.

FWIW, I guess this particular camera isn't technically a 4:3: (from the DP site linked to above):

The LX3 does away with its predecessor's unusual 16:9 aspect ratio sensor, instead using a more conventional 3:2 sensor but then using only a crop from it, depending on aspect ratio. The key thing is that the LX3 even uses a crop from the sensor at 4:3 ratio, rather than using the entire sensor.

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

Thanks, Tim, this is (I believe) the first VFTT report of these newfangled critters As a matter of curiosity, where in the Whites do you find unicorns

Seeing what the heck you are shooting without a viewfinder is definitely a drag, especially in bright sun - no arguments there. Whatcha gonna do?

I am pretty set never to buy a camera without a viewfinder, electronic or optical. In bright sunlight I find the big screen unusable. Alas, most "EVIL" cameras do not have an EV

 

[David Metsky]

As for optical viewfinders, only 4 compact cameras have them today; the Canon G12, the Canon A1200, the Fuji X10 (new, I'll have to look at this one), and the Nikon P7000/7100. None are as small as my current camera so I'd have to compromise to get a real viewfinder.

The only compacts with an electronic viewfinder are super zooms which are much bigger still. I have one already (and older Canon S3) and when I replace it I'll be getting an SLR most likely.

If I can convince myself that I can get by without a viewfinder I could get something like the Canon ELPH 510 to replace both my current cameras, and use the DSLR for the critical shooting. But I'm having a hard time believing that I can get the kind of shots of skiers without a viewfinder of some sort.

 

[MichaelJ]

Dave, what about something like the new Canon SX-40? Has an electronic eyepiece viewfinder *and* a swing-out, adjustable LCD (as well as a suite of features that makes me drool). Viewfinder for the stills, LCD (if the sun cooperates) for the hi-def video. Nice still burst mode, too, and 35x optical zoom.

I sure wouldn't say no to a compact camera like this for skiing and hiking when I didn't want to haul out the dSLR.

 

[TomD]

I'm with Dave. I'm totally old school and hate the EF only cameras. Years ago, two interesting smaller camera designs were the Olympus Pen F rangefinder and the Olympus OM-1 through OM-4 SLR. The Pen F was weird because it was a half-frame camera so the frame was vertical, not horizonal-portrait instead of landscape.

Believe it or not there also used to be a tiny Pentax SLR that used 110 film cartridges. The picture quality wasn't that great because the frame was so small.

I don't understand why there can't be small DSLRs since you don't need the film transport that takes up so much space.

 

[JNewell]

I had pretty much decided the LX-3 was my (not necessarily anyone else's) ideal compromise trail camera. The recent LX-5 improves on it in two ways. First, the far end of the zoom range now extends to 90mm equivalent, which is more realistic as a zoom. Second, it will accept the Panasonic eye-level electronic viewfinder made for the GF-1 and similar m4/3 Panasonic bodies. I'm finding myself very happy with the LX-5.

I have been using Panasonic's DMC-LX3 as my "six-gun shooter", as in on the hip and ready to blast any unsuspecting hikers or the occasional unicorn jumping through a rainbow, as I have found that neither creature tends to stand around waiting for me to take my pack off, take my camera case out, take the camera out of the case, take the lens cap off, and muck around with a bunch of buttons and menus until I'm "ready". By then, the unicorn is long gone, the smile has faded, and the rainbow has vanished.

These type of cameras are great for catching moments that pass relatively quickly, but certainly don't have the same performance for high speed action like downhill skiing (which may be where Dave is coming from, skiing buff that he is). The main reason I love this camera is the wide and fast lens, which certainly isn't for everyone - it maxes out at the equivalent of 60mm!

Seeing what the heck you are shooting without a viewfinder is definitely a drag, especially in bright sun - no arguments there. Whatcha gonna do?

Not to say I don't have an SLR in my pack and get great "action" shots with it, it's just generally more a deliberate type of shooting, the exception being situations where the weather and terrain allow walking along with an SLR hanging from my neck and ready to go.

If I had to identify the day of optimal usage of this little camera, it would be the day I Didn't Run across the Presis with Cath - moving quick and light, and shooting from the hip.

FWIW, I guess this particular camera isn't technically a 4:3: (from the DP site linked to above):

 

[bikehikeskifish]

As a matter of curiosity, where in the Whites do you find unicorns

You can't. They have all been eaten by mountain lions.

Tim

 

[Tim Seaver]

Not all of them

Two words: Davis Path

A warning: They are frisky little fellers.

 

[skiguy]

Cameras are just like Skis...all about quivering....wether you want Unicorns or Powder...it's all about the PEAKS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wether

 

[David Metsky]

Dave, what about something like the new Canon SX-40? Has an electronic eyepiece viewfinder *and* a swing-out, adjustable LCD (as well as a suite of features that makes me drool). Viewfinder for the stills, LCD (if the sun cooperates) for the hi-def video. Nice still burst mode, too, and 35x optical zoom.

That's essentially my S3, but with more zoom and a better burst mode. I'm not sure if the image quality is as good as my current camera, but I would hope it's close. But while a superzoom is relatively compact, it's still a pain to carry while skiing. I really want an ultracompact or something similar so I can have it very easy to access while skiing on difficult terrain. I can get everything I want in a ultracompact except for the view finder.

If only they'd put an EVF on one of the compact ultrazooms, like the Panasonic ZS8, that would be perfect. Or an optical viewfinder on the Canon S100, that would also be a fantastic option.