TR Forums

RX100's is pretty awesome. Same system as on my a99. Nex's are lens-based.

I came up from S90 and S95. Not sure if the S110 has improved on the focus speed, but my RX-100 II focuses much faster than the Canon S'es that I have. If you don't want to miss a shot this may be a requirement. The RX-100 II starts up fast but shuts down slow, which I have adapted.

However, unless you get the wife to at least slow down and at least pause a bit to compose and take shots, I don't believe there is any IS system that can help. For yet another bad car analogy, car manuals all warn you that whatever driver aids system will not defeat the laws of physics! Even with the fast focus speed of the RX-100, I still miss my shots and can get blurry pictures if my hands shake. May be get her a video camera and then just take pictures out of the frames.

Sadly, I will have to say at this point, the most urgent upgrade is the photographer.

EVIL (I love using this acronym ) cameras do have small enough bodies, but once you put a zoom lens on, IMO it becomes not as compact as the compact P&S. You need to look into your requirements to see if you are ok with such.

anotherengineer wrote:

Indeed, so the search continues, probably a good deal will win out. I am still going to push a point and shoot for the time, it just makes life easier.

So Canon S110, Sony Nex 3/5, rx100 nice, but $$, watch for sales.

What's the best system for image stabilization?

They are all really good, IMO.

The Pentax MX-1 recently was down to $199(!) but is back up to $249, still a great price.

The now-discontinued Fuji X10 is bulky, and probably expensive new, but is reputed to have the best SOOC jpegs. It has the largest sensor short of the Sony RX100 - 2/3".

The Panasonic LX7 is generally between $250-300. The low-light ISO performance lags a bit behind the rest of the competition, but the LX7 makes up for that with the fastest lens in the segment. I had one for a while and regret selling it. If you enjoy shooting wide, it goes to a 24mm equivalent; I don't think any other camera in it's class matches it.

Also, on a purely frivolous note, when you turn the camera on yourself and look at that large lens with "Leica" printed next it it, it's just oooooooooh

It's looking like you've rescinded the 10x zoom requirement?

Yeats wrote:

It's looking like you've rescinded the 10x zoom requirement?

I say the real requirement is to take sharp pictures while the arm and wrists swing in a headache-inducing manner where no IS system will be able to help.

Flying Fox wrote:

Yeats wrote:

It's looking like you've rescinded the 10x zoom requirement?

I say the real requirement is to take sharp pictures while the arm and wrists swing in a headache-inducing manner where no IS system will be able to help.

I think there's a Casio that does 1000 fps, albeit at some real tiny rez... maybe that'll work!

Flying Fox wrote:

Yeats wrote:

It's looking like you've rescinded the 10x zoom requirement?

I say the real requirement is to take sharp pictures while the arm and wrists swing in a headache-inducing manner where no IS system will be able to help.

Ya the current panasonic I have now has it, but it is more of a want than a need.

So about stabilization, I see there is optical, digital, (lens, sensor) etc., which one tends to give the best results? Or is the better question which maker's stabilization works really well?

anotherengineer wrote:

So about stabilization, I see there is optical, digital, (lens, sensor) etc., which one tends to give the best results? Or is the better question which maker's stabilization works really well?

In the past, optical image stabilization has been generally accepted to be a bit more effective than sensor-based stabilization. My own experience with compact cameras matches this, and my personal (limited) opinion is that Canon and Panasonic have the best. Olympus has, over the last couple of years, developed "5-axis" stabilization built into the body (so it is "sensor-based") and that has received glowing reviews.

All that said, IMO the worst IS is actually not far behind the best IS, so I wouldn't put too much weight into which flavor of IS the camera has.

Here's the thing, though... the camera needs a fraction of a second to activate whatever kind of IS it has, and if the photographer is moving, it won't work well.

The Fuji XF1 you mentioned in teh OP has the same sensor as the X10 I mentioned a couple posts back. The drawback to the XF1 is that while the lens is fast - f/1.8 - at wide angle, it's very slow - f/4.9 - zoomed out.

Here's a review of the XF1, and he gives some brief comparisons with other "premium compact" cameras:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/13/fuji-finepix-xf1/

For a point and shoot, sensor-based tends to be the best. The lenses for an in-lens solutions just aren't of a high enough quality (in my experience, there may be outliers).

For anything with an interchangeable lens, its a bit of a draw. With on-sensor (in-body image stabilization (IBIS)), every lens you put on your body, as long as it is "chipped" to provide the aperture setting, will now have image stabilization. This is increasingly important with fast glass, as it is very difficult to get image stabilization in a lens on something at f/2.8 or faster. In fact, I don't think there are any lenses that have image stabilization faster than f/2.8.

In mid-range focal lengths (up to ~150mm in my experience) its a draw. Lens based or IBIS work equally well.

Long ranges (150mm+), lens based image stabilization tends to be better, as it is "custom made" for that focal length. However, with lenses over 300mm, I would never use the image stabilization as I would be on a monopod or tripod.

Now, the real wildcard is when you look at Olympus' IBIS. Its really the class of the world. It has a 5 way image stabilization. Left, right, up, down, and forward/back. Its superb.

There is a lot of talk about how many "stops" the image stabilization is worth. This has really become much less important as bodies are increasingly able to jump into ISO ranges heretofore reserved for professional ($6k or so) bodies. The stops has to do with shutter speed and how low you can take the shutter. With my a99, on a static subject, I can hand hold at 1/8 of a second.

anotherengineer wrote:

Flying Fox wrote:

Yeats wrote:

It's looking like you've rescinded the 10x zoom requirement?

I say the real requirement is to take sharp pictures while the arm and wrists swing in a headache-inducing manner where no IS system will be able to help.

Ya the current panasonic I have now has it, but it is more of a want than a need.

I can't imagine the way you described your wife moves when she takes pictures, you get a lot of sharp ones though, even with IS on.

TheEmrys wrote:

For a point and shoot, sensor-based tends to be the best. The lenses for an in-lens solutions just aren't of a high enough quality (in my experience, there may be outliers).

The best lens in the P&S segment is probably the Panasonic LX7's, and it uses OIS. I haven't used a whole lot of digicams over the last couple years, but the ones I did use that have sensor-based IS were Fuji and Casio, and the OIS of Canon and Panasonic noticeably outperformed them.

For anything with an interchangeable lens, its a bit of a draw. With on-sensor (in-body image stabilization (IBIS)), every lens you put on your body, as long as it is "chipped" to provide the aperture setting, will now have image stabilization. This is increasingly important with fast glass, as it is very difficult to get image stabilization in a lens on something at f/2.8 or faster. In fact, I don't think there are any lenses that have image stabilization faster than f/2.8.

I guess you use Sony, but you don't need a "chipped" lens to take advantage of the IBIS on Pentax. You simply input the focal length. Obviously, this is not so slick with zooms, but I shoot mostly primes, anyway.

Canon and Nikon have 200/2's with IS. It used to be that the added element for OIS would ever-so-slightly degrade sharpness, so if that's still the case that may explain why fast primes tend to not have IS. Wider primes don't need IS as badly, anyway, although IMO it's still useful.

Long ranges (150mm+), lens based image stabilization tends to be better, as it is "custom made" for that focal length. However, with lenses over 300mm, I would never use the image stabilization as I would be on a monopod or tripod.

I've been shooting long lenses for about a decade, and have seldom used a tripod at those focal lengths. Good technique + steady hands + IS = WIN!

Yeats wrote:

TheEmrys wrote:

For a point and shoot, sensor-based tends to be the best. The lenses for an in-lens solutions just aren't of a high enough quality (in my experience, there may be outliers).

The best lens in the P&S segment is probably the Panasonic LX7's, and it uses OIS. I haven't used a whole lot of digicams over the last couple years, but the ones I did use that have sensor-based IS were Fuji and Casio, and the OIS of Canon and Panasonic noticeably outperformed them.

It might be close for the RX100, but not the RX10 or RX1 (I have thought about selling my whole kit to get both of these).

And if you can hand hold 400-500mm lenses and get sharp photos, you are a better man than me. After 5 minutes, things start hurting and the elk get nervous. I'll stick to my tripod and monopods.

As to IBIS vs. in-lens, it will always depend on a lot of factors. Every manufacturer claims x amount of stops, but it comes down to the trade-offs. I love that I can hand-hold an 85/1.4 and have it stabilized. When I get the chance to own a 135/1.8, it will be even more pronounced of a help. I find IBIS works excellently in the Sony's I have shot, as well as the Olympus, which was truly superb. Most of the Canikon shooters I know don't have IS/VR lenses, but the one kit lens I shot isn't exactly a good example being an 18-55mm.

TheEmrys wrote:

It might be close for the RX100, but not the RX10 or RX1 (I have thought about selling my whole kit to get both of these).

The RX1 & RX10 cameras are in a different class, though. I've read many complaints about the RX100's lens being soft-ish - and samples I've seen confirm this - but the sensor and pixel count still sends it to the top of the pack in terms of IQ.

And if you can hand hold 400-500mm lenses and get sharp photos, you are a better man than me. After 5 minutes, things start hurting and the elk get nervous. I'll stick to my tripod and monopods.

I know a wildlife shooter who shoots a Canon 500/4 + 1.4TC handheld. I haven't had such a mighty lens... I had a Sigma 170-500 f/5-6.3 and currently have an MTO 548/8.8 mirror lens which weighs only 2.5 lbs. I could use a Bigma comfortably, and when I'm staking out a critter I'm usually sitting, kneeling or prone. I haven't shot much wildlife over the last couple of years, so my current longest lens is only 200mm!

In case you are still in the market, Dell Canada has the Sony NEX 3N kit with the 16-50mm zoom lens on sale for $299 for today only.

KEH has a used RX100 for $399. EX condition.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Sony-Digital-Point-and-Shoots/1/sku-DS054018982670?r=FE

anotherengineer wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

Another thing to think about- sharp images and zooms with very large ratios don't go well together

Thanks for the tips, I usually keep the zoom below 5x when I want to take a decent pic

It doesn't necessarily matter whether you use the extreme zoom or not, many lenses with giant zoom range have relatively crappy quality throughout the range, not just when completely zoomed in. That's one of the reasons that cameras like that Sony RX100 and Canon S110 don't have a 10x range.

Firestarter wrote:

anotherengineer wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

Another thing to think about- sharp images and zooms with very large ratios don't go well together

Thanks for the tips, I usually keep the zoom below 5x when I want to take a decent pic

It doesn't necessarily matter whether you use the extreme zoom or not, many lenses with giant zoom range have relatively crappy quality throughout the range, not just when completely zoomed in. That's one of the reasons that cameras like that Sony RX100 and Canon S110 don't have a 10x range.

I should have expounded a little bit on that post, thanks!

Another question. When you take a JPEG pic with a digital camera, does it take it in 6, 8 or 10-bit color? Do they put that type of info in the specs somewhere?

The standard is 8 bit (per color channel), so nothing special, but nothing different than used anywhere else. If you want better, you'll have to get a camera that outputs RAW files and use a RAW processor like Lightroom or Adobe ACR (with Photoshop), among many others, some free, and usually at least one from the company that made the camera.

XF1 is good for around $200.

Another review for getting it.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/13/fuji-finepix-xf1/

Well researched the Sony alpha Nex 3 and 5 some more. The 5NL is about $600 here in Canada not including the 13% sales tax.

The 3N is on sale for $330, but has the 16-50 and not the 18-55 lens.
http://www.futureshop.ca/en-ca/product/ ... c1c683en02

anotherengineer wrote:

Well researched the Sony alpha Nex 3 and 5 some more. The 5NL is about $600 here in Canada not including the 13% sales tax.

The 3N is on sale for $330, but has the 16-50 and not the 18-55 lens.
http://www.futureshop.ca/en-ca/product/ ... c1c683en02

The Futureshop in Timmins list that it still has the NEX-5R with 18-55mm kit lens for $449 in stock. (Use the Reserve in Store feature in the link to verify).

Not quite as good as the $399 price at which they were clearing it out earlier. But at this point, it's hard to say whether there is enough stock left for Futureshop to drop the price on it again before discontinuing.
(The NEX-5R is basically the same thing as the newer NEX-5TL)

As far as the 18-55mm vs the 16-50mm, the latter is a more compact lens when powered off. Some say that the 16-50mm is not quite as good as the original 18-55mm. But I doubt there is much difference. These NEX cameras rely heavily on in-camera lens correction processing on these cheaper kit lenses, probably making them perform fairly similarly in use. It basically comes down to whether you prefer a manual (18-55mm) or power (16-50mm) zoom...

cynan wrote:

As far as the 18-55mm vs the 16-50mm, the latter is a more compact lens when powered off. Some say that the 16-50mm is not quite as good as the original 18-55mm. But I doubt there is much difference. These NEX cameras rely heavily on in-camera lens correction processing on these cheaper kit lenses, probably making them perform fairly similarly in use. It basically comes down to whether you prefer a manual (18-55mm) or power (16-50mm) zoom...

Wow, I just looked up those lenses at Photozone.de- I had no idea just how good Canon users have it with kits lenses, those Sonys are pretty bad!

Get the kit lens if it's cheap, but plan on getting something actually sharp if you want to take 'nice' pictures with it. Sony's 50/1.8 OSS would be worth saving up for.

Airmantharp wrote:

cynan wrote:

As far as the 18-55mm vs the 16-50mm, the latter is a more compact lens when powered off. Some say that the 16-50mm is not quite as good as the original 18-55mm. But I doubt there is much difference. These NEX cameras rely heavily on in-camera lens correction processing on these cheaper kit lenses, probably making them perform fairly similarly in use. It basically comes down to whether you prefer a manual (18-55mm) or power (16-50mm) zoom...

Wow, I just looked up those lenses at Photozone.de- I had no idea just how good Canon users have it with kits lenses, those Sonys are pretty bad!

Get the kit lens if it's cheap, but plan on getting something actually sharp if you want to take 'nice' pictures with it. Sony's 50/1.8 OSS would be worth saving up for.

Yeah. They're not great by themselves. But on the NEX cameras (with software correction) they can get some pretty nice results with reasonably consistent sharpness/contrast for their price (as part of the kit, anyway).

I would go with the 35mm 1.8 over that 50mm F1.8, myself. I just picked one up used, in mint shape for $300. I realize focal length is a personal preference, but the wider angle on the 35mm adds a bit more flexibility in composition, IMO. And the 35mm seems to be a bit better with auto focus. And if you want some cheap, yet sharp fast-enough primes, check out the Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8. They go for around $200 each. The 30mm is supposedly particularly good...

The only challenge with the 'auto-correction' is that it makes using RAWs that much more difficult when you need to- you'll probably have to run them through Sony's software to get a high-DR (16-bit) TIFF before putting them into something more useful. As a point-and-shoot option, though, they shouldn't be bad.

I also agree on the focal length- I mentioned the 50mm solution as it'll provide more depth of field control and work as an excellent portrait and light action lens where the kit lenses are usually the worst, but a stabilized 35mm lens wouldn't be bad either!

For mainly good quality point and shoot pics, would the Nex 5T with a pancake lens here

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... _body.html

Worth it over the Nex-3N with the 16-50 lens?
http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/ ... c1c683en02

Airmantharp wrote:

The only challenge with the 'auto-correction' is that it makes using RAWs that much more difficult when you need to- you'll probably have to run them through Sony's software to get a high-DR (16-bit) TIFF before putting them into something more useful. As a point-and-shoot option, though, they shouldn't be bad.

I also agree on the focal length- I mentioned the 50mm solution as it'll provide more depth of field control and work as an excellent portrait and light action lens where the kit lenses are usually the worst, but a stabilized 35mm lens wouldn't be bad either!

I think some of the auto correction on the NEX lenses are hard-coaded into the RAW files as well. (Not sure if you can turn them off).

anotherengineer wrote:

For mainly good quality point and shoot pics, would the Nex 5T with a pancake lens here

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... _body.html

Worth it over the Nex-3N with the 16-50 lens?
http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/ ... c1c683en02

If you don't plan on getting multiple lenses, I'd probably start with the kit zoom. Thus, I'd skip buying the 5T with the 20mm, even at $450 (plus exchange and shipping), unless you were certain that you wanted to do most of your shooting at a 30mm Full Frame equivalent.

Did you check with your local Futureshop to see if they had any of the NEX-5R kits with the 18-55mm left at $449? That way you could start with the kit zoom and then wait and see if/what prime focal lengths you are interested in, without loosing anything in the process. (As the 5TL with 20mm pancake for $450 USD + shipping, plus purchasing the kit zoom separately will approximate the cost of the 5R kit, plust buying $300 worth of lenses afterward.)

Edit: Just to add, from what I've read, the 20mm pancake lens is not optically much better (ie, sharper/contrast-ier), if at all, than the 18-55mm kit lens at that focal length. The benefits are the small size and the somewhat faster aperture (F2.8 vs F3.5).

cynan wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

The only challenge with the 'auto-correction' is that it makes using RAWs that much more difficult when you need to- you'll probably have to run them through Sony's software to get a high-DR (16-bit) TIFF before putting them into something more useful. As a point-and-shoot option, though, they shouldn't be bad.

I also agree on the focal length- I mentioned the 50mm solution as it'll provide more depth of field control and work as an excellent portrait and light action lens where the kit lenses are usually the worst, but a stabilized 35mm lens wouldn't be bad either!

I think some of the auto correction on the NEX lenses are hard-coaded into the RAW files as well. (Not sure if you can turn them off).

I'm assuming that Lightroom/Adobe Camera RAW/Other isn't being used due to budget concerns, but yeah, most serious RAW converters will be able to make the corrections.

Airmantharp wrote:

cynan wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

The only challenge with the 'auto-correction' is that it makes using RAWs that much more difficult when you need to- you'll probably have to run them through Sony's software to get a high-DR (16-bit) TIFF before putting them into something more useful. As a point-and-shoot option, though, they shouldn't be bad.

I also agree on the focal length- I mentioned the 50mm solution as it'll provide more depth of field control and work as an excellent portrait and light action lens where the kit lenses are usually the worst, but a stabilized 35mm lens wouldn't be bad either!

I think some of the auto correction on the NEX lenses are hard-coaded into the RAW files as well. (Not sure if you can turn them off).

I'm assuming that Lightroom/Adobe Camera RAW/Other isn't being used due to budget concerns, but yeah, most serious RAW converters will be able to make the corrections.

I meant that you don't need fancy RAW processing programs to take care of some of the more serious corrections (to some extent) as much of this is already done in camera, even in the RAW files (ie, they're not quite true raw). Based on speculations such as this...