ptrjong From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (1 year 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3943 times:
Do you have any suggestions for a decent quality compact, but not too tiny camera for use when I'm travelling light? Aviation photography is not the main purpose but it should be suitable for shooting through wire fences.
ptrjong From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3912 times:
Thanks for that Colin.
I think interchangeable objectives kind of beat my objective, at least for my upcoming hiking trip. On the other hand, the flexibility might be useful later.
Therefore: Without wanting to rake up an old disucssion, the 75-150 gives you more or less the same focal range as an old SLR with a 300? And does it actually produce reasonable pictures of stationary objects @ 150 mm?
I'm not very technical, but I gather I should be looking for a crop factor as small as possible for picture quality?
kukkudrill From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3862 times:
Quoting ptrjong (Reply 2): Without wanting to rake up an old disucssion, the 75-150 gives you more or less the same focal range as an old SLR with a 300?
Correct - with an old SLR or a current full frame DSLR.
Quoting ptrjong (Reply 2): I'm not very technical, but I gather I should be looking for a crop factor as small as possible for picture quality?
The bigger the sensor the better the quality, but that's keeping the megapixel count constant. What really matters is the pixel density on the sensor, not sensor size as such. As you know, image resolution varies widely - there are now compacts with a 16MP resolution. So a camera with slightly bigger sensor might actually have a higher pixel density than one with a smaller sensor.
Needless to say, the best thing to do would be to check out full-size image samples from your favoured models on dpreview or elsewhere and examine them for yourself. Comparing pixel density only gets you so far.
ckw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3818 times:
Quoting kukkudrill (Reply 3): What really matters is the pixel density on the sensor, not sensor size as such
If all else is equal - but it seldom is. No single measurement can really give you the full picture. Pixel sites can vary in size, so you need to look at BOTH pixel density and sensor size. And of course there are all kinds of issues relating to how the image is processed in camera.
Ultimately you will probably have to compromise between quality, convenience and of course price.
I've owned a few digicams, and while initially I enjoyed using them, in retrospect I've always regreted using them as the quality is simply not in the same league. I have not yet seen a small sensor camera which did not 'mush' fine detail (for example foliage or grass), esp when compared to large sensor models.
geocan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3810 times:
Can concur with the Happy Clicker about the Canon G Series.
Even with my high rejection rate I managed to get a few photos taken with a G7 through the screeners.
Although I have not yet had my hands on one, the new Canon G1X seems a good buy.
It has a sensor almost the size of a APS-C, RAW capable, a reasonable 4 times zoom starting at SLR equivalent 28mm and it still is pocketable (albeit with a large pocket).
JakTrax From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3724 times:
I go through spells of exploring the compact option but thus far have always shied away from it as my faith in them just isn't strong enough.
I did, however, go down the micro 4/3 road just after Christmas with an Olympus E-PL1, but was extremely disappointed. I was expecting something pretty close to my DSLR but it just didn't happen - high noise, soft images, lack of detail and no proper viewfinder, amongst other cons.
I may at some point give the Canon G series a whirl but like you it's only viable if it's cost effective. Spending nearly as much as another DSLR costs defeats the object for me as I only require something smaller when I need to be discreet or poke the lens through a fence.
ptrjong From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
I just bought the Samsung EX1. At least it's obviously well built. I really like its feel.
This is mainly for holiday and family stuff, maybe I didn't stress that enough. I don't demand much of it aviation photography-wise. The shooting through fences thing is a bit of an afterthought. You know Schiphol East a bit, sometimes aircraft are quite close and then it's easier to shoot through the fence than over it.
If it could do anything on a mini tripod in a dark hangar or museum that would be a bonus.