Digital compact camera - for snaps & concerts

Hi Richard, fair bit of choice here.

My personal experience...I have a Canon S95 and a Lumix LX3, both of which are now updated to the S110 and LX7 respectively. Both are grown up cameras with full control and a range of useful bits added on.

I find the Canon to be an excellent camera, capable of terrific images and truly pocketable in that it goes in my jeans pocket and is unobtrusive. The Lumix is also teriific with a Leica lens, the LX3/7 is slightly larger and when switched off, the lens housing still pokes out some more than the Canon so it is not as compact.  However it has a very fast lens at f1.4(!) so may be very useful for the gigs. Both can be got within your budget if you look around.

Thanks Jamie, I will do some research.

I have a Leica D-Lux 5 which is a re-badged version of the Lumix equivalent.  They are great cameras.  There's a new kid on the block however, which I'd definitely want to check out before parting with my cash - the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100.  Bit of a mouthful but in theory its sensor combined with Zeiss lens should be a winner.

Peter

Also Sony have a new DSC WX300 that looks interesting.

Weird that for Hi-Fi I would want a home dem, not even look at the tech spec, buy from a specialist and be prepared to pay a premium for the service and relationship.

Whereas for a camera I would go on a recommendation, the spec and whether it looks and feals good then search out the cheapest source!

I guess  it is because a camera is a commodity to me where as Hi-Fi and music is a key part of my life!

Richard

Hmmm... not sure I'd agree with you there. My camera, the Leica M9, has terrible specs. In theory it should be rubbish, especially compared to the Canon and Nikons at the same price point. However, its qualities cannot (like a decent bit of hi-fi) be quanified as a series of specifications. Anyone who buys a camera on specs alone is an idiot, just as anyone who invests in hi-fi kit on purely on lab measurements and paper specifications is an idiot.

A really good camera dealer (RG Lewis, Richard Caplan, etc) will also lend you gear to evaluate it. Most people serious about cameras would rather pay a premium and buy from a good dealer, with all the service and after-sales service that implies.

A camera is most definitely not a commodity!

I'd go with Jamie's recommendation of the Panny LX7. Great camera for the money. Make sure you try before you buy though

Hi Kevin,

Yeah, all I was meaning is that to me it is a bit of a commodity and I should really follow my Hi-Fi approach and go to a specialist for consultation and try it before I buy it.

A bit like my brother who also is a music fan with an LP12 but is a graphic artist and angler where photography is just as, if not more, important to him that Hi-Fi........he uses high spec Nixon kit.

Also, I know from my brother that the quality of the lens is paramount a bit like the source in Hi-Fi...garbage in garbage out I assume.

I have no excuse but I will follow up on the recommendations I receive, so thanks out there!

Respect and all the  best,

Richard

The Sony has been a very popular choice for a while and many swear by it, it does indeed seem to produce good images. It is outside price range though, even HK dealers are above £400.

I wanted to hold one in my hand (wasn't buying, just interested) and it's still a bit clunky and doesn't sit well in my hands. But that's just me. I just couldn't see why it was so much more expensive than the Canon or Lumix/Leica, just sales demand for the bigger sensor I guess.

The Sony's main selling point is that it has a 20+megapixel sensor which combined with a physically larger sensor than normal for a compact, and a decent lens should result in near dslr quality images.  And certainly a step up from the likes of the D-Lux/ Lumix currently on offer.  I have noticed in recent years that some compact cameras have been marketed with greater and greater mega pixel counts on the same tiny sensor size, the feedback indicating that they offer no real advantage in image quality, just larger file sizes!

I'm not sure if the reality matches the theory, but if I were in the market for a new compact camera I'd certainly look further into the Sony, budget excepted in the hope that they may have moved the game on with this model.  For now I'm happy to stick with my D-Lux (and iphone 5) for snap shots.

Peter

I have a Fujifilm X10, which is really nice, intuitive to use, looks good and it's made from metal.

If you want to spend a bit more then try the RX100. I went looking for a small compact camera to replace my Canon S90 which went everywhere with me when I didn't want DSLR bulk. I had a Fuji X10 for a couple of months and that was a great camera but ultimately wasn't as small as I wanted so I took a punt on an RX100. What a fantastic little camera. Great IQ, intuitive with easy to get to menus and it fits in my pocket. Very pleased indeed.

Don't do it. Don't be one of "those guys" who is blocking my view/distracting me by holding up a camera or phone in front of me at concerts. Seriously. Better photos than you can take will be on the inter-webs within minutes of the concert ending anyway.

(My crusade against this is obnoxious behavior is of course mean spirited and pointless; and my only effective course of action is to cease going to concerts where people do this.)

Hi Winkincanada,

I try my best not to be one of "those guys" by being as discrete as possible, only taking a few shots, not blocking people's vision and enjoyment and always respectful to the rest of the audience and the artist.

If i am not standing I try to get a seat at the front row of the circle which is ideal.

But at the end of the day I go for the music, artist and atmosphere and taking a snap is only secondary.

Anyway, I try my best.

All the best, enjoy and kind regards,

Richard

Everybody (well, most) tries to be considerate and just take a few snaps. But the aggregate result is cameras and phones held up continually throughout the concert. It just pisses me off.

Taking photos at concerts [with the implication of using flash] is totally an unacceptable  act.

Nothing worse if you are trying to perform.

Farmer

That's why it's better to use the force............ (off flash) setting.

My wife is enormously fed up of me bordering on hysterical when I get agitated with all the flashes going off at stadiums...'What's the fkn point?!!?!?!?!' I say...Back of someone's head indeed...

A few out of budget options given in replies...Yes the Sony is neat and the Fuji's very good again, my X100 is about to be replaced with an 'S' and the new X20 is getting good write ups, but more expensive than budget given. Still think an LX7 with 1.4 lens (so, good in the dark/no flash) is best option in/around budget IMO (couple of major import firms has them for around £250).

So, have you bought anything yet? Out of budget options pulling you..?

Hi Jamie,

I bought a Panasonic Lumix TZ-40 in the end, after going to a local family owned retailer.

Nice handling, picture quality, zoom capability etc.

Better not cause any further controversy by saying whether I used it at my last gig (without flash or holding it above my head of course!).

All the best,

Richard

Hmm.. I got a panasonic once. Never again. Nice for really pale people I guess - gives a tanned effect.

Interesting, mine seems to be OK in that respect and I am just using the default point and shoot option at present with zoom, no flash, in a range of light conditions.

I am no "photo head" but it seems to do what I want, although it is not water proof so I better keep away from those high waves in Scarborough!

Richard