Pocket Camera
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 30 December 2018
Dropped the Leica D-Lux 4 a few days ago. It still takes pictures, but the screen is disengaged so I have no idea what I am pointing the camera towards. Time for a replacement !
My initial thought was a Leica Typ 109 but they seem to be on the way out and my recollection is they were a bit larger than the D-Lux 4. I really would like whatever I get, to be easily carried in a pocket. The D-Lux 4 was perfect.
I notice that Sony do a range of compact cameras eg Cyber-Shot RX100 IV. But on closer inspection there seems to be a wide variety of RX100 IV models.
So, Leica, or Cyber-Shot. And if Cyber Shot RX100, which version ?
Don. I have been looking at the Sony options for a compact unit with flexibility.
they have a new model, released a couple of months ago, the HX99 which is very compact and has a 24mm - 720mm zoom.
i have just ordered one, due in next couple of days.
might be worth a look at to see if it suits your needs
I used to have a Sony RX100 Mk 3, but was often frustrated by the 70 MM. maximum focal length. The Mk 6 is a lot more expensive but with the much longer maximum focal length (200 MM) it is considerably more versatile. Its optical viewfinder is also much improved over that on previous models which was rather fiddly in use. It is expensive but, in comparison with recent Panasonic Lumix models, it seems to be very well constructed from high quality materials. Some reviews note that the control buttons and switches are rather small and fiddly. However, as I was used to the earlier model, I have not found this to be a problem. I traded in my Mk 3 for the Mk 6 which eased the financial pain, a little.
michael17 posted:I’d have a look at the Fujifilm xe-3. Great quality, intuitive and high quality lenses.
Excellent camera (I still have an xe-1) but not exactly a pocket camera - you need a huge pocket for the standard zoom...
For easy use I have the Sony HX80 (which is the HX90 without the lens ring). Brilliant little camera for outdoor shots (bit dim in poor light e.g. cathedral interiors). Great advantage is the pull-out viewfinder which is a real boon, as well as the flip-up screen. Dead cheap too.
At the moment, I am now thinking along the lines of the Leica D-Lux 7, providing it will easily fit into a pocket.
If not, the more up-range Sony’s might get the once-over. But I need to rationalise their various advantages.
I have usually assumed that the quality of my Leica, even with its limited optical zoom, allowed me to “crop” the digital image to effectively “zoom” post camera. Hence no need for a 25mm to 200mm zoom. Is this true ?
Manythanks, Don
Don, some shots of my LX3 (same as your D-Lux 4) and my D-Lux 109 for comparison...
Don Atkinson posted:At the moment, I am now thinking along the lines of the Leica D-Lux 7, providing it will easily fit into a pocket.
If not, the more up-range Sony’s might get the once-over. But I need to rationalise their various advantages.
I have usually assumed that the quality of my Leica, even with its limited optical zoom, allowed me to “crop” the digital image to effectively “zoom” post camera. Hence no need for a 25mm to 200mm zoom. Is this true ?
Manythanks, Don
A lot of people are using their legs as zooms, it’s just what you want. Obviously the 200mm is an advantage as it enables you to be more flexible and take shots you couldn’t take otherwise, the camera is small so doesn’t intrude. However it comes also with the price of letting less light in....., it’s not easy as it’s Apple and Pears. Just follow your gut...
Here’s a shot using the extended ‘digital zoom’ (150mm equiv) from the 109.
G
I'd highly recommend the Sony RX100. I looked in detail at all the different makes and options and eventually settled on the Mk III. One inch sensor, RAW format, fast f1.8 to 2.8 lens, 24mm to 70mm equiv zoom and superb quality images. I leave it by the front door and chuck it in my pocket whenever I go out. Great for low light, street, small gigs, landscapes, travel etc. I didn't go for the later models with extended zoom range because of the cost and slower lens. If I want a longer zoom I take the Nikon D750 and an appropriate lens.
I agree that the RX 100 has a great deal going for it, both the Mk 3 and Mk 6. For me the longer zoom range and the improved, less fiddly viewfinder were significant improvements in the newer model. The 1 stop faster lens in the Mk 3 was not important to me as I seldom photograph in low light and normally want to control depth of field by stopping the lens down to f5.6 or f8 where possible. The compact size of the RX 100, whichever model you might choose, means that I carry it with me more or less wherever I go. It's certainly a lot easier than carrying my Nikon D810 and a big lens!
Jamie. Many thanks for those comparative photos. That was very kind and very helpful.
I felt that my D-Lux 4 was "just" pocketable. The Typ 109 looks a lot larger, all round.
This confirms my need to really get around to going up to London to see them "in the flesh" so to speak.
Cheers, Don
GraemeH posted:
Here’s a shot using the extended ‘digital zoom’ (150mm equiv) from the 109.
G
Now, that is a very good photo G.
It makes me really hope that a Typ 109/D-Lux 7 really will fit in a pocket !
Madhatter posted:I'd highly recommend the Sony RX100. I looked in detail at all the different makes and options and eventually settled on the Mk III. One inch sensor, RAW format, fast f1.8 to 2.8 lens, 24mm to 70mm equiv zoom and superb quality images. I leave it by the front door and chuck it in my pocket whenever I go out. Great for low light, street, small gigs, landscapes, travel etc. I didn't go for the later models with extended zoom range because of the cost and slower lens. If I want a longer zoom I take the Nikon D750 and an appropriate lens.
Yep. The D-Lux 4 used to live by our front door and it got swept into my pocket every time I went out.
I do miss it !
Bert Schurink posted:Don Atkinson posted:At the moment, I am now thinking along the lines of the Leica D-Lux 7, providing it will easily fit into a pocket.
If not, the more up-range Sony’s might get the once-over. But I need to rationalise their various advantages.
I have usually assumed that the quality of my Leica, even with its limited optical zoom, allowed me to “crop” the digital image to effectively “zoom” post camera. Hence no need for a 25mm to 200mm zoom. Is this true ?
Manythanks, Don
A lot of people are using their legs as zooms, it’s just what you want. Obviously the 200mm is an advantage as it enables you to be more flexible and take shots you couldn’t take otherwise, the camera is small so doesn’t intrude. However it comes also with the price of letting less light in....., it’s not easy as it’s Apple and Pears. Just follow your gut...
Yes Bert,
I have always considered that a good quality lens/digital-engine capable of very close cropping, would be a better solution than a mediocre lens with a large range zoom.
I am hoping those with this sort of expertise can confirm/advise.
AndrewG posted:I agree that the RX 100 has a great deal going for it, both the Mk 3 and Mk 6. For me the longer zoom range and the improved, less fiddly viewfinder were significant improvements in the newer model. The 1 stop faster lens in the Mk 3 was not important to me as I seldom photograph in low light and normally want to control depth of field by stopping the lens down to f5.6 or f8 where possible. The compact size of the RX 100, whichever model you might choose, means that I carry it with me more or less wherever I go. It's certainly a lot easier than carrying my Nikon D810 and a big lens!
Seems as if the Sony RX100 range can compete with the Leicas ?