Compact Camera for £500 and very easy to use!
Discussion
I have had several models of Sony RX100 over the years, finishing with a Mk 5, and they were terrific.
But, I bought a Ricoh GRIII last year and haven’t looked back. Absolutely bonkers imagine quality from such a tiny camera, APS-C size sensor etc.
£900, but worth every penny in my opinion.
But, I bought a Ricoh GRIII last year and haven’t looked back. Absolutely bonkers imagine quality from such a tiny camera, APS-C size sensor etc.
£900, but worth every penny in my opinion.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 18th April 07:42
Jonny TVR said:
Any suggestions?
I don't like reading instructions and just want a compact camera that takes pictures that are much better than my smartphone. Needs to be compact etc
Which smart phone do you have? And what do you mean by 'better' pictures.I don't like reading instructions and just want a compact camera that takes pictures that are much better than my smartphone. Needs to be compact etc
My S21U has 100% taken over from my previous DSLRs/Mirroless setups. I cannot imagine many situations where a compact camera will outperform the camera setup on any of the top end smart phones.
gangzoom said:
Jonny TVR said:
Any suggestions?
I don't like reading instructions and just want a compact camera that takes pictures that are much better than my smartphone. Needs to be compact etc
Which smart phone do you have? And what do you mean by 'better' pictures.I don't like reading instructions and just want a compact camera that takes pictures that are much better than my smartphone. Needs to be compact etc
My S21U has 100% taken over from my previous DSLRs/Mirroless setups. I cannot imagine many situations where a compact camera will outperform the camera setup on any of the top end smart phones.
I have an iPhone 12, which has a pretty decent camera, but if I take the same image with my Ricoh GRIII (APS C sized sensor) then the differences between the images are easily noticeable. Things like dynamic range, sharpness, noise, distortion, etc are all worse in the iPhone images.
Even viewing the GRIII images on the small iPhone screen you can see the difference between them and the same shot taken with the phone. The difference in detail and dynamic range is obvious. Once you view them on a decent sized monitor, the weakness of the phone images becomes apparent very easily. Once you have something printed at a decent size to hang on the wall, the weaknesses of a phone photo are even more visible and potentially distracting.
You just can't cheat physics. A tiny lens and tiny sensor in a phone cannot complete with a comparatively massive lens and sensor on even a compact camera. It simply cannot collect light in the same way. Detail, dynamic range, noise, and so on, will always be the trade off.
Thats before we get into features now packed into compact cameras such as optical stabilisation, which helps hugely in getting sharp handheld shots, especially at night. The Sony RX100 and the GRIII both have optical 3 axis stabilisation.
Don't get me wrong, I take most of my photos on my iPhone, and I think the improvements in phone camera technology have been absolutely amazing, but I still stick my camera in my pocket when travelling, on holiday, or when I'm out somewhere where I think there may be some good photos to be had, as I would prefer them to be taken with my camera instead of my phone.
Just one example is that I have a large print hanging on my living room wall which is a photo I took on my old Sony RX100 mkV pocket camera. It is looking out from the top of The Shard across the city. I tweaked the RAW file in Lightroom to bring out even more detail and then converted it to black and white. It looks amazing, and you can stand staring at it and see all the fine details of the buildings and the streets.
I took some friends recently to the Sky Garden, and we naturally took a few photos as it was a lovely clear day, and I just had my phone with me. I snapped away quite a bit, and a few days later dumped the images into Lightroom to see if there was any that were good enough to print out for my wall as it was a really great view. I was really disappointed to be honest. Just not good enough to print large and put on the wall. The detail was a mess, and you could see how blurry they were when you zoomed in, really noisy, despite it being full daylight and plenty of light. I am regretting not slipping my GRIII into my jacket pocket that day!
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 20th April 13:00
Lord Marylebone said:
Don't get me wrong, I take most of my photos on my iPhone, and I think the improvements in phone camera technology have been absolutely amazing, but I still stick my camera in my pocket when travelling, on holiday, or when I'm out somewhere where I think there may be some good photos to be had, as I would prefer them to be taken with my camera instead of my phone.
Quality aside there's also the matter of ergonomics. Holding a slippery glass thing up on its edge whilst tapping various bits of it is just wrong IMHO.Jonny TVR said:
I've got an s20 Samsung.
I've been using my new camera quite a bit and it's OK. Image quality better but not quite as good as I'd hope. Will have to see as time goes on.
Some of my best/favourite photos were taken with an RX100. Take the time to learn the settings and modes, and I have no doubt you will get some great images.I've been using my new camera quite a bit and it's OK. Image quality better but not quite as good as I'd hope. Will have to see as time goes on.
You won’t get the best out of it if you just stick to Auto.
Have a play with the different shooting modes, different focus points/modes, and exposure.
I had mine set up in modes for different scenes. Landscapes, portrait, street, long exposure, night, etc.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 1st May 15:41
I just got back from doing the nc500 in Scotland - did most photography with an rx100 v, as I didn't want to lug about a rucksack of camera kit on hikes. Took some great photos with it, and the larger sensor, option to manually control, and better ergonomics, all led to far better photos than my phone, a pixel 4a 5g.... Except for a few occasions. The advantage the phone has is the built in computer and super wide lens.
For example, wild camping, at dusk, the phone using its 'night size' mode, got a way better photo than the Sony. I'm sure I could have got a similar image, with a bit of processing etc, but the pixels AI was able to read the scene and do whatever voodoo it does. Also it's wide angle was way wider than the widest end of the Sony, so I occasionally whipped it out if inside a cave or anywhere else that needed an extreme wide type of shot.
I really wish there was a compact cam the same physical size as the rx100v, with an even larger crop size sensor, and the same zoom and aputure (24-70 f1.8).... But I might be asking for the moon on a stick there
For example, wild camping, at dusk, the phone using its 'night size' mode, got a way better photo than the Sony. I'm sure I could have got a similar image, with a bit of processing etc, but the pixels AI was able to read the scene and do whatever voodoo it does. Also it's wide angle was way wider than the widest end of the Sony, so I occasionally whipped it out if inside a cave or anywhere else that needed an extreme wide type of shot.
I really wish there was a compact cam the same physical size as the rx100v, with an even larger crop size sensor, and the same zoom and aputure (24-70 f1.8).... But I might be asking for the moon on a stick there
I was just about to post something about what you just touched on.
Phones are now packed with very clever automatic image processing software, which is capable of creating images that are very ‘pleasing to the eye’ on casual inspection.
This is why night photos and suchlike look so good straight out of an iPhone, Samsung, Google Pixel etc. The phone is using complex software to make the image look good.
But… if you spend time learning more manual control of a decent compact camera, AND take a little bit of time to tweak the RAW images in lightroom/photoshop (or whatever) then the resulting images would blow the phone pictures away.
One of my favourite types of photo is a night image of a city, and I can categorically state that even the photos from the best smartphone will look dreadful compared to those of a decent compact camera. But that’s only if you know what you are doing.
There is no comparison with phone photos edited by the phone, and camera photos edited in RAW format.
The problem is, people are pretty pleased with the heavily processed images that come straight out of a phone, and anything that comes straight out of a camera looks disappointing, so they don’t bother with the camera again.
There is no right or wrong answer here.
If you just want photos that look good on a phone screen, look good on social media, and look half decent for the occasional 6” x 4” print, then a modern phone will be all you ever need, and you’ll be happy.
If you are fussy about image quality, and are prepared to learn and master the use of a camera, including using the more manual aspects, and you are also prepared to sit down and spend a couple of hours tweaking your images in lightroom, then you will ultimately be rewarded by better images.
Phones are now packed with very clever automatic image processing software, which is capable of creating images that are very ‘pleasing to the eye’ on casual inspection.
This is why night photos and suchlike look so good straight out of an iPhone, Samsung, Google Pixel etc. The phone is using complex software to make the image look good.
But… if you spend time learning more manual control of a decent compact camera, AND take a little bit of time to tweak the RAW images in lightroom/photoshop (or whatever) then the resulting images would blow the phone pictures away.
One of my favourite types of photo is a night image of a city, and I can categorically state that even the photos from the best smartphone will look dreadful compared to those of a decent compact camera. But that’s only if you know what you are doing.
There is no comparison with phone photos edited by the phone, and camera photos edited in RAW format.
The problem is, people are pretty pleased with the heavily processed images that come straight out of a phone, and anything that comes straight out of a camera looks disappointing, so they don’t bother with the camera again.
There is no right or wrong answer here.
If you just want photos that look good on a phone screen, look good on social media, and look half decent for the occasional 6” x 4” print, then a modern phone will be all you ever need, and you’ll be happy.
If you are fussy about image quality, and are prepared to learn and master the use of a camera, including using the more manual aspects, and you are also prepared to sit down and spend a couple of hours tweaking your images in lightroom, then you will ultimately be rewarded by better images.
Lord Marylebone said:
There is no right or wrong answer here.
There is and it shines through in almost every post. What you get out is directly proportional to what you put in.You can't expect to spunk a load of money on a camera and it take good pics if you can't be bothered to read the manual or research and learn how to take good pictures and edit them.
I look at some of the pics on here and ones of camera friends in awe and would love to have a go because I know I could do it and live in an area which has huge opportunities for fantastic wildlife and scenery shots.
I also know that I don't have the time to dedicate to it right now so it would be a waste of money.
All the gear, no idea.
I've got a Panasonic G7 mirrorless, with lenses and various accessories. I also have a Panasonic TZ compact. The latter goes with me most of the time, in the car, out for a walk, or just visiting the kids. Both cameras suit the purpose for which I use them. I publish my images online and it is normally impossible to see any difference in source by quality.
I occasionally use my camera phone, but the images are inferior to both my dedicated cameras, although, even here, the difference can be hidden online.
Thinking back, I think I've had my TZ for over 10 years. It's been faultless. It has a metal base which protects it from knocks and such. I take care of my equipment, but even so, 10 years, with holidays, walks, visits and such thrown in, ain't bad. Sturdiness should be a consideration. I've got some criticisms of it, particularly the limited zoom range, and the lack of wifi connection. Other than that, it's great.
I don't normally think about the technical side when using my compact. I'll switch between modes without hesitation. It's comfortable in my hands, so to speak. That, I think, matters more that most people give credit for.
I occasionally use my camera phone, but the images are inferior to both my dedicated cameras, although, even here, the difference can be hidden online.
Thinking back, I think I've had my TZ for over 10 years. It's been faultless. It has a metal base which protects it from knocks and such. I take care of my equipment, but even so, 10 years, with holidays, walks, visits and such thrown in, ain't bad. Sturdiness should be a consideration. I've got some criticisms of it, particularly the limited zoom range, and the lack of wifi connection. Other than that, it's great.
I don't normally think about the technical side when using my compact. I'll switch between modes without hesitation. It's comfortable in my hands, so to speak. That, I think, matters more that most people give credit for.
Jonny TVR said:
I'll spend a bit of time trying the features .. as you suggest
Time to go back to the beginning. You want photos 'better' than your phone takes. Can you define what it is about the photos it takes that you don't like? Or how the new ones fall short of your expectations? Only then can we make constructive progress.Lord Marylebone said:
Some of my best/favourite photos were taken with an RX100. Take the time to learn the settings and modes, and I have no doubt you will get some great images.
You won’t get the best out of it if you just stick to Auto.
Have a play with the different shooting modes, different focus points/modes, and exposure.
I had mine set up in modes for different scenes. Landscapes, portrait, street, long exposure, night, etc.
If you have the time would you care to share some of your favourite settings? I have an original Rx100 and I’d like to get the best out of it.You won’t get the best out of it if you just stick to Auto.
Have a play with the different shooting modes, different focus points/modes, and exposure.
I had mine set up in modes for different scenes. Landscapes, portrait, street, long exposure, night, etc.
Edited by Lord Marylebone on Sunday 1st May 15:41
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff