One compact camera for world travel: image quality above all

Traveling around the world and wanting the best image quality available today, what would you take with you. I currently have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS1 that is their "ruggedsized" camera with Leica folded optics. The Lumix recieved good reviews for a rugged camera, pretty much the best of the lot at the time, and has served me well so far. However, it's a couple of years old now and as far as IQ goes all the reviews qualifies their results with something akin to "for it's class". I want a camera that can fit in a cargo pocket and take the knocks that come with being stowed in a cargo pocket. I don't want it to seem intimidating when using it for "street photography" in rural undeveloped areas but I also want to be able to capture landscapes. I also don't want to shed too many tears about replacement costs when it takes a header into a ravine somewhere. I know I'm asking a lot but I'm confident you lot have some interesting and well informed answers.
Thanks,
Mick

 

This may not be what you are after, but I just purchased a Canon S95 compact P&S and I am VERY impressed with its image quality and flexibility (you can shoot RAW, too). It is quite small, so it is perfect for me to take skiing, biking, etc. I am thinking it will do well for my street photography as well and it won't be as imposing as a full-up DSLR. Just an idea to consider. If you do get one, make sure to Google "S90/95 grip" and get one of those little buggers so your big meaty paw can hold onto the tiny thing.

 

Thanks. How rugged does the Canon feel? I forgot to mention RAW capture is essential which is where the Lumix fails to meet the requirements.

 

I bought an LX5.....well made, great glass, great iq, raw, t'would be my choice for what you suggest.....

 

I kept getting ever newly released Canon point an shoot cameras, starting with S40, and half a dozen of newer models released afterward, ... good pictures but severe limitations, and require experience to avoid bad picitures.
Yes, once I got the Lumix DMC-TS1, I stopped upgrading pocket cameras. This one is also water proof/underwater, crash proof, dust proof, zoom from 28mm wide, AVCHD video clips built-in, etc. I had some reservation about it since it has folding optics lens design. However, after I got it I discovered that the quality of the pictures is even better than the Canons I had, Olympus, and Nikon point and shoot.
Leica lens, and economical Panasonic electronics pair very well. Since you were happy with the DMC-TS1, so Lumix, perhaps the latest model, would be the pocket camera I recommend.
What does DMC-TS1, I do not need to upgrade yet, since it is already good for pocket size camera, and the improvements advertised alsewhere, need to be looked at with a magnifying glass. There was no significant technology breakthrough, so you may not notice greater improvement yet with tha latest models.

 

I have been using a Sony NEX 5 for the past four months. I am a NikonFF DSLR user. Pictures from the Sony have impressive detail. I bought it due to its APS-C sized sensor. Dunno if it is better/worse than others mentioned, but it bears looking into. Did I mention a larger sensor.

 

One of the new mirrorless cameras with sensors way, way bigger than any compact and 2-3 of their tiny lenses. Mirrorless models are more than small enough to not be a problem travelling for any amount of time with, especially if you're really concerned about ultimate image quality compared to ANY compact model. The only type person who would think otherwise is a strict snap shooter, who's not going to be nearly so concerned with image quality in the first place over just having a recording device. Hell, there are people willing to just use a cell phone. I don't care how "good" they've become, I'm guessing 15 years ago someone like that was probably happy shooting with a Kodak pocket 110 or single use 35mm box camera you'd find on an end-cap at the grocery store.

 

I'd go along with the micro 4/3 suggestion. Several brands to choose from, I use an EPl1 with a Panasonic 20 1.7 lens and find it to be an ideal combination of great IQ and reasonable portability. I'm also a Nikon shooter (D200) like Curt, and I find the IQ of the Olympus at low ISOs to be almost on par with the D200. It also has program modes if I should want to let my wife use it, or if I get lazy, so for me, I'd take it anywhere in the world.

 

I am very pleased with my new Nikon P7000. It is compact, lightweight, and has superb image quality up to ISO 1600. 28-200mm zoom range. Gorgeous rear 920k pixel LCD. And 1280p video with zoomability while shooting. Custom adjustable white balance (not just presets). Intervalometer. And a viewfinder if you don't want to use the LCD. Superb battery life too, this little camera uses the same battery as the Nikon D3100 DSLR. Can shoot RAW files as well. I find the low ISO image quality to exceed that of the Nikon D200. Highly recommended!

 

Based on early testing, it would have to be the Fuji F550EXR (not yet available). It isn't chunky like the G12 or P7000, nor unpocketable like the NEX or 4/3 cameras with zoom lens. RAW mode, GPS, 24-360 lens, better than the S95 at high ISO.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=37880950

The Pentax W90 is superb for a waterproof/tough camera, but wow, it sux at ISO 400 and above, as does the TS2.

 

I would sneak one in my other pocket. Two is much better than one
Here are some options:
one compact and one 4/3rd or nex/nx EX: EPL2 and LX5 / EX1 / G12 / XZ1
two compacts: one low light / one day light superzoom EX: EX1/LX5 and one of those f3.5 superzooms
two compacts: short range / tele end EX: LX5 / EX1 and XZ1 / G12 / P7000
It would make much sense to get two cameras that uses the same batteries but good luck with that.
One cam, if it screws up somehow on the trip...you are fcuked, much time and $$$ not to mention photographs losted.
If you have decided that you are going to get only one compact, you have to compromise. Do you like wide or more tele or bigger range or lowlight?
P7000, G12, LX5, EX1 or XZ1 would be my choices...

 

There are too many compact camera to really know them all. You wouldn't go wrong with the Nikon P7000 or Canon G12 (I think they're up to 12). I think they run between $400 and $500.

 

I've looked at the NEX and the APS-C sensor appeals to me, especially the low-light capability. With that size sensor I could crop and enlarge after shooting with the 16mm "pancake" (why 16mm and not 23mm; the decisions that are being made at some of these companies boggles the mind) . The only prob I have is if it hits the deck I'm out a considerable amount of money (for me) and there is no OVF for manual focusing. I really wish the TS1 did RAW, even with the small sensor, folded optics and lack of OVF I would probably be happy considering it's price and rugged design. Okay, how about something like the P7000, G12, or TS1 with an APS-C sensor? Is there such a thing?
The P7000 and G12 look good but their price and fragility concern me.
Thanks for all the replies so far. Good stuff.

 

The F550EXR is $350 pre-order, $80 less than the G12, $30 less than the P7000, so it's less to lose. It marks your pictures with latitude and longitude, which seems handy for travel. More samples (my favorite is Coca-Cola can with bokeh):

http://www.panoramio.com/user/3326997?with_photo_id=48860056

There will never be a P7000, G12, or TS1 with APS-C sensor because the zoom lens would be too large for pocketability. If you want such a thing, get the NEX with 18-200 lens, $1350. NEX-5 has GPS, NEX-3 does not.

 

i have the ex1 aka the tl500. its modeled after the lx3/5, but with a slightly better (metal_ build, plus an articulating AMOLED screen which can be folded up to shield the monitor. if i could only take one cargo pocket-able camera, that would probably be it.
essentially, any of the 1/1.63" 10mp CCD sensor cameras will have comparable IQ. these include the TL500, LX5, and XZ-1. essentially, all of the 1/1.7" 10mp CCD cameras will have similar IQ. these include the Canon G11/12 and the nikon p7000.
all of the above cameras have a metal body, which is a must for "rugged" use IMO. the s90/95 also has a 1/1.7" sensor, but it has a plastic body which will wear out faster than a metal chassis.
so, basically, i concur 100% with leslie's recommendations. it's up to you to determine whether you want all-around versatility (G12), a longer telephoto (P7000), or fast aperture and 24mm wide angle (TL500, XZ1, LX5). all of those cameras are good, so it comes down to semantics and individual quirks, like fold-out screen vs. vari-aspect ratio vs. click-dial vs. HD video. i dont think there is a clear winner as far as image quality, especially at 400 ISO or under. but i went with the TL 500 mainly b/c of the 24mm and f/1.8, which is a killer spec DSLRs can't even match without expensive prime lenses.

 

Based on early testing, it would have to be the Fuji F550EXR (not yet available).​

Bill, i know you like EXR cameras. but 16 mp in a 1/2" sensor? that bucks the smaller MP/larger sensor trend considerably. also, the body looks plastic. maybe Fuji has some secret sauce tech, but i would either expect noisier pics or heavy-handed NR (pixel-smearing) even at base ISO with those specs, which would only get worse in low light. also, comparing two different images at ISO3200 isnt really a credible test.

 

You said image quality above all. In my opinion this rules out all small sensor compact digicams. All of them. Sorry. That leaves Sony NEX5, Olympus EP-2 and EPL-2, Panasonic GF-1 or 2, Ricoh GXR and Sigma DP-1 or 2. Leica M9 is a bit too big. For compact size you are most likely looking at a fixed focal length lens, either around 24-28mm equivalent or a 35-50mm equivalent, or possibly both. Olympus makes a small collapsible zoom that could be handy as well, but I would hesitate to take it as my only lens.

 

Ilkka, I keep coming back to sensor size as well. The more I research the more I think it may be wise for me to wait until the last minute in the hopes that the nexgen products become available. It will mean learning a new OS while I travel. I wonder if anyone here can cue me in to the math behind sensor size and cropping equivalents, i.e.; a photo captured with the Sony 16mm can easily be cropped and enlarged to "simulate" a longer lens. At what point do we reach diminishing returns? At what point does IQ get reduced to the quality of a smaller sensor? I guess this is a a little off topic but it is closely related to my issues in choosing a camera.

 

I G N O R E
T H E
L A S T
P O S T
P L E A S E
Ilkka, I keep coming back to sensor size as well. The more I research the more I think it may be wise for me to wait until the last minute in the hopes that the nexgen products become available. It will mean learning a new OS while I travel. I wonder if anyone here can cue me in to the math behind sensor size and cropping equivalents, i.e.; a photo captured with the Sony 16mm can easily be cropped and enlarged to "simulate" a longer lens. At what point do we reach diminishing returns? At what point does IQ get reduced to the quality of a smaller sensor? I'm not talking about "crop factor" as it relates to lenses, sensor sizes, and DOF. I want to know, all else being equal (which I know it will never be), if I capture an image using a 16mm lens and APS-C sensor then make a print that simulates the field of view of a 66mm lens on said APS-C (100mm FF equivalent) how would that print compare to a image captured using a 1/1.7 sensor at a 22mm focal length (100mm FF equivalent). I guess this seems a little off topic but it also seems to be the real heart of my question. I know in the end that, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, a great "photograph" has little to do with the gear used during capture (some powerful photos were taken with cell phones during recent events in Egypt).
Thanks again everybody (sorry for yelling, it took longer than ten minutes to clarify my thoughts in the edit)
Mick

 

forget cropping the 16mm to a portrait fov unless you are printing very small.

Get the xz1, p7000 or g12 for portraits and watch the background!

 

sorry michael, but you completely lost me with that last post. analysis paralysis, perhaps?
if IQ is your only concern, then a sigma DP series might be worth a look. I've considered those, but the crummy UI and slow write times have held me back. maybe the fuji x100?

 

Eric, the new EXR cameras (F500, F550, HS20) are 8 Mp cameras in DR and SN mode, which owners who compare with full-res mode almost always use instead.

I disagree that all 1/1.6 to 1/1.7 P&S models have the same image quality. The Samsung is clearly worst, based on the dpreview comparison widget. The G12 and P7000 are best in different ways, but shooting the P7000 is a slow-menu experience for many people. Though they are similar in RAW, the XZ1 has better JPEG processing than the LX5, which has the best movie mode. The F200EXR has the best dynamic range. The S95 has too much high ISO blurring, and with pathetic long zoom, I wouldn't want one.

As I have said before, I think the micro 4/3 cameras are a waste of time because the NEX and NX are so much better, and similar in size.

I once had a single-focal length P&S, the Yashica T4 Super, and wouldn't want another, though some people enjoy that soft of thing (SIgma DP, X100, etc.) Cropping has its limits, and is a lot of work compared to proper framing at capture time.

 

NEX is by far the camera with the best IQ. The m4/3s are fine, but their poor dynamic range and even poorer high iso kills them...but they are very capable and enjoyable to use. Typical small sensor point & shoots are pretty bad at anything other than their base ISOs...but handy, nevertheless.
The NEX 3 has been discontinued. If you don't need the extra features the NEX 5 offers you might find these at some decent discounts.

 

bill, similar (which is what i said) and the same (which is how you rephrased it) are two different things. also, DPReview's widget, which uses a coin, doesn't factor in things like rendering of skin tones, which several review sites say the TL500 does better than the LX5. IQ is also subjective as different camera settings and lighting conditions can affect it. for example, i've taken better shots with the $350 P&S than the $5k pro camera on occasion at 24mm because fast aperture trumps high-ISO, especially when you have backlighting from a neon sign overexposing your pic in a way you hadn't intended.
.
what is apparently true is that the 1/1.63 sensors all seem to be the same and the 1/1.7 sensors also seem to be the same--meaning the same sensor was used in both cases--which leaves us with processing engine (this includes high ISO NR) and lens as the only differentiating factors between IQ for any of these cameras.
it is interesting that one would buy a 16mp camera and then only use half the resolution. what happens if you use full-res? does it blow up? and how's the Fuji's build? personally, i find a metal body reassuring and likely more durable over time. if Canon made an all-metal S95 i would definitely have to consider that. but they probably wont, because that would cut into GXX sales.
ultimately, the only thing that matters is real-world experience. i mean, i would rather be out shooting the world than stuck behind a computer comparing P&S specs.
in my experience, the TL500 is good up to iso 800, and it has a huge advantage over both the g12 and p7000 in low-light because of the 1.8 aperture, which the Oly XZ-1 also has. but the Oly doesnt have an articulating monitor screen like the TL500. i have a feeling the next gen of these cameras will be better, but will also probably not be perfect. anyone expecting one camera to do everything the best will probably be disappointed.

 

Another serious suggestion is the Ricoh GXR with either 28 or 50macro lens as the main one (your choice depending on your expected needs) and the 28-300 small sensor lens unit for times when you need the extra reach, and image quality is not that important. This essentially gives you two cameras with the same control setup and charger. Of course two separate cameras are better for backup but you end up carrying two sets of batteries and chargers as well. The biggest limiting factor with NEX is lack of small fixed focal length lenses. You basically end up with the 24mm equivalent 16, unless you are willing to carry a very bulky zoom. m4/3 is better in this respect because they have a wider choice of small lenses, 8, 9-18, 14, 17, 20, 14-42, 45. Pick two from that list and you are pretty well covered.

 

I looked at the top 100 most expensive digital point-and-shoot cameras at B&H. The Leica D-Lux 5 looks good. It has a 24-90 f2 lens with optical image stabilization and costs under $1,000. It has a 10.1 megapixel sensor, and I would consider that to be a minimum these days. It has a super-high sensitivity setting (ISO 12,800 . . . yes, that's twice the typical ISO 6400 maximum setting of other cameras). It also shoots video at full 720p30. One thing I really like about it is how compact it is for a camera that offers RAW shooting capability. It doesn't have a viewfinder, but it has a flash shoe, so you could carry a little viewfinder/rangefinder with you, if you just HAVE to have one. Leica offers and optional (very expensive) electronic viewfinder you can use on the flash shoe - very cool accessory.The D-Lux 5 gets a five star rating out of five stars possible (39 reviews).
-
If you're looking in the $500 range then I would pick the Fuji HS20 (or as it is officially known now - HS20EXR), but it's not out yet (expected in April). It replaces the HS10, and you may be able to find one of those for a sweet deal. For a more compact camera in this range you probably can't go wrong with the 10 megapixel Canon G12. It gets 4.5 stars with 305 reviews. It offers a 28-140mm range with an f2.8 lens. It also shoots RAW, has a built-in rangefinder-style viewfinder, and includes a fold-out screen (very useful). It's bigger and heavier than the Leica, but that is to be expected, because of its extra features.
-
If you're looking in the $400 range consider the upcoming Pentax waterproof Optio WG-1, because it has the same zoom range as the Canon G12 (no viewfinder or fold-out screen though), it's more compact, it's shock-proof, crush-proof, and has a built-in GPS function which will geotag your photos (nice!). It's very compact at only 1.1 inches thick and 170 grams. A great snorkeling camera, it would be the prefect pocket-cam, and it shoots 14 megapixel images and has an interesting interval recording function, which will allow you to shoot multiple photos of yourself, while diving (nice!). The interval shooting feature is good to make great time-lapse videos too (with a good video editing program). This is the only camera I've mentioned here that can shoot movies underwater (in fact, it is the only camera here I would take under water! lol). Of course, the Nikon P7000 is in the same price range, as is the new Nikon P500. Both cameras are worth a look. The P7000 is very compact, so it is probably pocket-able, though it is 360 grams and 1.8 inches thick, so it would be a real pocket-filler. Both the Nikons do interval shooting (nice!). The P500 has an amazing 22.5-810mm lens and a fold-out (horizontal orientation only) rear view screen with a viewfinder (EVF), similar to the Fuji HS20 (my preferred camera between the two, even though the zoom range is not as good as the Nikon P500). The Nikon P500 does not shoot RAW! (hmmm . . .)
-
There are a myriad of choices under $400. Good luck with that.
-
If I were you, I would consider a second body, if you are taking multiple lenses anyway. (i.e. if you were shooting with a Nikon D90 you might consider a D5000 or D3100 body as your back-up/second camera, unless all your lenses are old D lenses - in that case I would suggest possibly getting a D7000 to go with you D90 (making your D90 your back-up/second body), if it's in your budget and won't put you over your weight/size limit). If you're looking for a pocket camera for every-day use that can act as an "emergency back-up only" camera when you're carrying your DSLR, I would seriously consider the Pentax Optio, since it offers you features that make it a perfect addition to your hobby/craft, and since it makes a great emergency back-up AND a great all-weather every-day pocket camera, you might find yourself getting photos you never imagined shooting. Of course, there are other all-weather, water-proof and shock-proof options, such as the Lumix DMC-TS3 with it's GPS, Compass, Altimeter, Barometer (wow!), or the Sony DSC-TX10 which shoots 16 megapixels with a 25-100mm f3.5 lens. The Sony shoots 1080i60 video too! (And it only costs $329).

 

After another more detailed look at that Sony TX10, maybe I'll get that thing. It's super small (only .71 inches thick) and light, and it does all sorts of stuff! It doesn't shoot RAW, but none of the water-proof cameras do. One thing that's really nice about it is the cover for the lens, which will protect it from other stuff in my pocket. It looks like a GREAT pocket camera. I've never had a pocket camera, and I'm thinking maybe it's about time.

 

Mick you should check the need for RAW. I shot a D5000 for a while, and the RAW mode did not improve my shots much, when I was comparing shots taken with Active D-Lighting mode turned on. Most new cameras these days have similar functionality. Just about any point-and-shoot you would get in the $300-$500 range would give you improved dynamic range compared to older cameras from the time of your TS1. Take a good look at that new TS3, and if you can handle a 16 megapixel Sony, I suggest it (though I do not have experience with it). From my experience with my own Sony R1, reviews, and what I've seen coming out of other point-and-shoot cameras lately, I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.
-
If you go for a pocket-able point-and-shoot with a larger sensor, keep this in mind. Cropping a wide-angle shot significantly (like to the equivalent of a 50mm lens) will result in a VERY small image (like 4 megapixels or less). You would do MUCH better to get a camera with a zoom lens if you shoot at a variety of focal lengths now. If you find yourself "always" shooting at the widest angle your camera will shoot, then you might consider one of the Sigma point-and-shoots. Otherwise, pick something with at least a 28-70mm (equiv.) zoom. I'm planning to get a Sony A55 with a Sony 16-105mm lens as my main camera (until I can afford a Sigma SD1 with a couple of lenses), a Fuji HS20 as my back-up travel camera, and that Sony TX10 (for my emergency backup, underwater, and pocket camera).

 

The Sigma DP series has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread. I own one (DP1s) among many other cameras (Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus) and while I dearly love the thing, I'd never recommend it for a solo backup or primary camera; it's just too quirky and unreliable. When properly set up and used, it's capable of stunning images, which is why I love it so much, but I've also done my share of cursing at it. I use it mostly as a THIRD backup - I'll carry a D200, an Olympus Pen as my small camera, and then throw the DP1s in the bag as well.
Like Scott, I'm going to take a serious look when the Sigma SD1 comes out, but the DP series cameras are just not a good idea for primary/reliable backup cameras.