[shuttertalk]

I always have trouble recommending "good" compact cameras to people, but dpreview's test of 3 enthusiast compact cameras helps a bit. They put the Canon S95, Panasonic LX5 and the Nikon P7000 head to head, and examine all the major areas compared to each other. Apparently the Nikon is the inferior of the lot, while they were splitting hairs between the S95 and the LX5.

we consider that the Canon S95 is the most pleasant to use. Although it lacks the huge range of customization available from the LX5, or the versatility of the P7000's 28-200mm (equivalent) lens, the S95 is exceptionally quick, very portable, and produces great images. If you want more manual control, and you like the idea of a faster lens, there is no doubt - the LX5 is the camera for you

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q42010hi...pactgroup/

[matthew]

It's a recurring theme: Nikon just can't manage to make a decent compact camera. There are a couple of neat ideas in the P7000, like the button that changes its function based on the position of the dial that surrounds it, and the aperture control that's relative to the maximum aperture (1-stop down) instead of absolute ("f/4"). It also has a couple of things in common with my Sony F828 (circa 2003) - the same 28-200mm-e zoom range - except that the Sony is larger and a stop or two faster, and feeding a larger sensor - and they both lock up for a half-dozen seconds if the photographer has the audacity to want a RAW file.

Ah, the good old days.

People often ask me to compare the G12, S95, and/or the LX5 in various combinations. I have the answer down to an easy sixty-second summary, hitting the high points of each camera. It's a common request - happens every day. But last week, for the first time, someone asked me "Can you compare the G12 to the P7000?"

My answer: "No."

[Zig]

Spot on Matthew. I wonder if Nikon could unhitch the albatross from around its neck by just 'fessing up and saying in the blurb something like, "actually folks, these outsourced unter-Nikons are as much Nikon as the Pope is presbyterian."
Yes Jules...and the conversation is then never about the cameras, as one then always has to ask the enquirer, "what do you want a camera to do?"
I'm vaguely amused by the nomenclature of camera users too: we had/have Pro, followed by "pro-sumer" to cover that supposed gap between supposedly skilled amateur and supposedly skilled person who says (s)he earns money from taking pictures. "Enthusiast": now, does that moniker embrace or subsume "amateur"...or is it a catch-all level that comprises amateur and "Duffer"?
And are duffers those who know jack about light and cameras, who are sold Sony NEXs by the strap-line "and you can add background blur"(true if you see the telly ads in the UK!), and who are just about biting back the words, "how do I phone someone on it?"
Probably difficult to identify where "duffer" ends and "enthusiast" begins, with the waters muddied by "professionals" in fora who need someone else to decide "what lens should I use?"
Good ol' dpreview: jolly helpful for both information and a source of satire.

[Toad]

Hmm. Compact cameras are as good as $10,000 cameras. It has nothing to do with the camera - it has to do with the photographer...sorry for alternate view. A spot on photographer with a piece if s**t camera can do amazing stuff. It ain't about the camera...

[matthew]

Hmm. Compact cameras are as good as $10,000 cameras. It has nothing to do with the camera - it has to do with the photographer...sorry for alternate view.

I always like to hear different viewpoints, but I have to wonder if you're playing devil's advocate, if only a little bit. After all, a good compact camera - like the Leica D-Lux 5 - can be had for a fraction of the price of one of the lenses for your Leica M9. According to their website, "The D-Lux 5 is a true Leica, not only in terms of its elegant design but also in its superior optical performance: The result are images of excellent quality." On paper, the LX5 - excuse me, D-Lux 5 - even has some significant advantages over the M9: multi-aspect sensor, a lens range that exceeds your three primes, an accurate viewfinder, autofocus, it records HD movies… it's probably the better choice for 98% of people who own a camera. Yet I suspect that you aren't any more likely to trade your favourite camera for one than I am.

A spot on photographer with a piece if s**t camera can do amazing stuff. It ain't about the camera...

Probably true, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a compact camera is "as good as" a $10,000 camera - it's a completely different question altogether. The occasional stunt of an excellent photographer using an inherently inferior camera simply proves that s/he is able to understand and work within the limits of the camera in their hand, which is something anyone who's seriously interested in photography should be able to do. In just the past week I've used four different cameras (GH1, D700, ZIkon, GX680) specifically for their different limitations and abilities; with only certain exceptions, I couldn't have taken the photos with one that I took with another.

I have no doubt that you'd be able to bring back fantastic photos from Iceland with a compact camera, but how many more - and how many better - photos would you miss by not having your M9?



Looking specifically at the cameras in the DPreview comparison, here's something from their page on the P7000's performance:

If you switch to continuous advance mode and keep your finger held down, the P7000 can capture 5 images at just under 2fps before locking up for approximately five times as long as it takes to write a single image - so roughly 25 seconds with a fast card.

This is Nikon's top-of-the-line prosumenthusiompact camera: the best that they can do with state-of-the-art technology to compete at a price that can buy an SLR. With my decade-old not-really-pro Nikon F100, I can take an entire 36 exposure roll of film and load a fresh one in the time it takes the P7000 to take 5 and write them to its memory card. How is that not an embarrassment? It hurts the entire Nikon brand when they put their name on something like that.

[Toad]

Matt:

Well, there is really no way of arguing with what you say - in retrospect, my arguments are both insincere and inaccurate - there is no way of reconciling my anti-technology rant with my hell-bent-for-leather acquisition of high end hardware. I am actually embarrassed that I posted such a flagrantly unhelpful and pompous post.

I am not sure what to say about that. I clearly have 2 distinct views about hardware - Jekyll and Hyde - so to speak. On one hand, I disparage the acquisition of hardware and on the other hand, I actually do it to excess. If anyone still debates the existence of doppelganers,they should look at this as proof...some creature is clearly trying to diminish my creditability as a photographic savant...

[matthew]

Well, that'll teach you not to log in from public computers.

I clearly have 2 distinct views about hardware - Jekyll and Hyde - so to speak. On one hand, I disparage the acquisition of hardware and on the other hand, I actually do it to excess.

Please - I'm the king of that. I'm the one who got so frustrated by the rapid obsolescence of digital cameras that I went out and bought yet another camera. And then another one since then. I own more different lens mounts than most semi-serious photographers own lenses. Yet when I encounter another photographer who's even half the gear-geek that I am, I think they should just get over it and take some photos.

I also have mixed feelings about how much the camera matters. To me, clearly, it matters a great deal; for people who aren't into photography and/or cameras as a hobby, I expect them to be broadly interchangeable. After all, when I buy a toaster I choose based on the number of slices, price, and appearance - I don't care about how many heater coils it has or if there's a waffle setting. I expect it to last for years, and when it breaks, I'll buy another one without having learned anything from my experience with the last model. Why should most people look at digicams any differently?

But I also believe that, like in art, there are genuinely and objectively bad cameras out there - to quote Mike Johnson, most of them are poo. Yet people will use them, be happy with them, and get photos that they'll love. (It doesn't really matter if I think the results are still poo….) I might think that a certain camera isn't worth using to prop open a door, but if my aunt loves it, then I'll keep my peace and be happy for her.



… I think I might have been going somewhere with this at one point, but I can't imagine where that would be.

[Irma]

Most of my stills and pictures from the forest are taken with a canon 350D and a p&s G9. I only worked with my 5D for paid works and my visit to Prague. The reason of the change is that I don't see any possibility of having an upgrade of my 5D in the near future. So I think I should use it only for paid work.

For my stills and art photography I don't get any money, so I take pictures with my small cameras. The question here is how much image quality I will be missing when it comes to print my stills (if one day I can sell one of them) as I am not using my 5D?

Sometimes I think as if I am knitting a beautiful sweater with cheap wool. When it comes to wash it, the color will go and the sweater will lose the shape.
Was it worth all my work using cheap wool?

Sorry about the domestic example, but I don't know if that could be the same with my pictures.