# Compact System Cameras



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

So, having got a hard-won backdated payrise I thought I'd treat myself to a decent (for certain values of 'decent') camera. I initially thought I'd get an entry-level DSLR - but tbh that way seems like a serious money pit. Plus, they're big and heavy. All I want is to be able to take good quality photos of my family and friends, holidays - and ideally some well-focused shots of flowers (with lovely blurry backgrounds) once I start my floristry night class. Yes floristry. Hush now.

So - my research indicates that one of these new-fangled compact system cameras would meet my needs. My budget is 'as little as possible', and I've narrowed it down to two that currently come in at the £300 mark. The Sony NEX-C3, and the Panasonic Lumix GF3. Both are nice and small but the reviews at whatdigitalcamera seem to shade in favour of the Sony. And it's got a very pleasing retro look to it - but i'm concerned that the flash has to be attached on the top (not a proper hotshoe either) which will be a faff. Also the reviews say the options menu is unintuitive. The Lumix is slightly less stylish, buthas touchscreen controls which seems helpful - i like the directness of 'touch a point on the screen and that's where it will focus'. Plus the flash is built in.

So, of the two - which is better, in your opinions? or is there something else i should be looking at? and lastly - anyone know any reliable places or discounts to get them cheaper?


----------



## badseed (Dec 28, 2011)

Some of the newer compacts are fantastic and would be perfect for your needs.
I just bought my wife a Nikon P300 for xmas and it is a fantastic little camera. f1.8!!!

I have heard very good things about the Panasonic and the Sony but I think there is a Canon at the same level which is supposed to be beter.
dpreview.com is a good place to look and you can do side by side comparisons.

I buy my camera stuff from Hong Kong usually here (They are good guys) - http://www.citiwideonline.com/au/
But the shipping to the UK might negate any price benefits.
Good luck.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

i should explain - i don't know what stuff like f1.8 means.

can you tell me the difference (in simple terms) between an 'advanced compact' like your wife's, and a compact system camera? other than about a hundred quid? cos i don't especially want to spend the extra, but surely the pics from a CSC have potential to be a fair bit better...


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

that dpreview site is really hard to navigate. Can't search reviews by type of camera, it seems. also, seems heabily biased in favour of dslr. so reviews of CSCs i can find seem to just say - 'look! it's not a dslr - awful!'.  :/ maybe i've just been unlucky so far.

badseed, can you remember what the Canon model is? All i can find on google is that they haven't done one yet, and might launch one in 2012.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 28, 2011)

Bear in mind that a good photographer can get great results with anything, so I think you need to ask yourself first if you want to learn what all the f1.8 stuff means and how to use it, or are you more wanting the camera to do run on auto and do it for you?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 28, 2011)

Compact system cameras generally have bigger (getting on for DSLR size) sensors, which all other things being equal means better quality pictures.

They also have interchangeable lenses, which is useful if you plan to buy lenses for specialised tasks.

You might want to buy a portrait lens for those flowers with blurry backgrounds (called 'bokeh' by poncy photographer types) although typically a DSLR would be a better choice there (I'd go Nikon for the most choice in bargain classic SLR lenses) If what you want is professional-looking pictures of entire florist compositions, then the ideal outfit (short of actual pro kit like medium format digital) would be a DSLR, a portrait (focal length around 85-105mm on a DSLR (different on a CSC) and an f-number less than or equal to f2.8) lens plus about £100 worth of tripod. If you want to get inside flowers and peer at their genitalia, then a macro lens would be the tool of choice and compact cameras are a viable possibility, but it sounds like what you want is more 'portraits of floral arrangements' for which the kit I described is far more effective.

Compact cameras are not as good at producing attractive out of focus backgrounds as bigger cameras such as DSLRs or even CSCs, due to the physics of putting teeny-tiny lenses in teeny-tiny cameras. Lenses with very low f-numbers can only help so much.

To do professional-looking flower photography you absolutely need a decent tripod, possibly a remote trigger (but you can use the timer if your camera has one) and possibly some form of external flash system (on-camera flash is not ideal for this stuff)

Compact system cameras are a sort of compromise between DSLRs and compacts, the idea being to have an interchangeable lens camera that's *almost* as good as a DSLR but a whole lot more portable.

It's not the tool of choice for flower photography, but can probably do a decent job on a tripod with the right sort of lens. I'd expect a CSC to do a better job than a compact, all other things being equal, especially if you seek attractive 'bokeh' ...

If attractively blurred flower photography is "nice to have" and what you mainly want is decent quality pictures from a reasonably compact camera, then CSC is a good choice.

If you're not likely to exploit the flexibility of having interchangeable lenses (by actually buying more than one) though, you might want to consider a higher-end compact.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

edit - @bees

i'm willing to learn a bit. but i don't want to become so into it that i *need* to spend more and more money.

to illustrate: what it seems to me that i can do with the Lumix, which seems really fab and is massively persuasive, is that i can - in a certain mode - tap on the screen where i want it to focus, and it will focus there. Things like that seem to me to be between learning all he lingo on one hand, and just setting it on auto on the other.

when you say a great photographer can get great results with anything - does that mean I can focus on something specific with a standard point and shoot? If so - why does anyone have anything else?


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2011)

There's loads of good options around this price range. If you can give me a day or two, I can serve up a more detailed comparison. I had a Micro Four Thirds camera but didn't really get on with it.

For the record, most standard compacts can take macro shots of flowers and serve up a blurry background (but only close up).

e.g. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1810033413/photos/1538553/flower-lx5-2


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> edit - @bees
> 
> i'm willing to learn a bit. but i don't want to become so into it that i *need* to spend more and more money.
> 
> ...


a great photographer gets good results because of their knowledge of composition and how cameras work. for example, two people can take pictures at a wedding but only one person's might be memorable despite them both taking pictures of the same still group of people. if i were you i would go for something like a traditional camera - something like a lumix tz8 or tz18, both of which i've got excellent results with, both of which have more features than i've ever used, and both of which will do pretty much anything you want to do while you learn about taking good pictures, about what works and what doesn't. i've had a dslr for some years now, but it's a bit big and bulky - and it's only now that i feel confident enough that i'm progressing beyond what i was doing with a little lumix.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Compact system cameras generally have bigger (getting on for DSLR size) sensors, which all other things being equal means better quality pictures.
> 
> They also have interchangeable lenses, which is useful if you plan to buy lenses for specialised tasks.
> 
> ...


Thanks - I guess, that's kind of what i was expecting, though i'm no closer to a decision - DSLR would be better but i can't afford to go there, CSC is a reasonable compromise...  and it's entirely possible i might never buy another lens, you're right!  (though i might. at the moment the flower thing is a whim, but it might be more serious later).

so now what i'm wondering is, is there no other benefit to a CSC over an advanced compact, than the interchangable lens capability?


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

editor said:


> There's loads of good options around this price range. If you can give me a day or two, I can serve up a more detailed comparison. I had a Micro Four Thirds camera but didn't really get on with it.
> 
> For the record, most standard compacts can take macro shots of flowers and serve up a blurry background (but only close up).
> 
> e.g. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1810033413/photos/1538553/flower-lx5-2


ooh, that would be great.  I'm not going to buy it till next week when i'm back at work and can have it delivered, so i can wait a few days.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 28, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> Thanks - I guess, that's kind of what i was expecting, though i'm no closer to a decision - DSLR would be better but i can't afford to go there, CSC is a reasonable compromise... and it's entirely possible i might never buy another lens, you're right!  (though i might. at the moment the flower thing is a whim, but it might be more serious later).
> 
> so now what i'm wondering is, is there no other benefit to a CSC over an advanced compact, than the interchangable lens capability?



Bigger sensors=better quality, especially in low light and CSCs have a bit more flexibility with respect to creating attractive blur effects, because they're physically bigger.

See e.g. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm and
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2011)

The ones with interchangeable lens usually have a far bigger/better sensor and can do the blurred background thing better - although how useful that is depends on what kind of photogrpahy you're into.

In many cases, you may never notice the difference if you're not shooting in low light/blowing up images to A3 size.

I got rid of my Lumix GF1 because I found I was using my LX5 much more often and I preferred its smaller size.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Bigger sensors=better quality, especially in low light and CSCs have a bit more flexibility with respect to creating attractive blur effects, simply because they're bigger.


Thanks - and thanks all.  You're all  being incredibly helpful - if allso broadening what i thought was a fairly narrow choice with every post! ~


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> ooh, that would be great. I'm not going to buy it till next week when i'm back at work and can have it delivered, so i can wait a few days.


If you end up popping over on NYE, you're welcome to have a play on the various cameras I have.

*my usefulness in this matter dependent on whether I'm still capable of focussing


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

heh!


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

another csc option i'm now considering is the samsung nx11. haven't even _started_ looking at advanced compacts yet...


----------



## craigxcraig (Dec 28, 2011)

My wife bought me the Lumix GF3 for Chrimbo (after the demise of my LX3,) and at the moment the jury is still out. My LX3 was a much nicer camera, easier to use and I feel, more functionality - though it might be that I had the LX3 for about 3 years whereas I've only had the GF3 for a couple of days. (I wish my wife had seen Ed's recommendation in an earlier thread for the LX5!)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2011)

editor said:


> The ones with interchangeable lens usually have a far bigger/better sensor and can do the blurred background thing better - although how useful that is depends on what kind of photogrpahy you're into.
> 
> In many cases, you may never notice the difference if you're not shooting in low light/blowing up images to A3 size.
> 
> I got rid of my Lumix GF1 because I found I was using my LX5 much more often and I preferred its smaller size.



The other thing is that most system compacts have hotshoes*, whereas only some advanced compacts do. Doesn't seem like no hotshoe would be a deal-breaker for spangles, but it might for someone else.

*For spangles' benefit, in case she doesn't know, a hotshoe lets you use an independent flashgun in addition to or instead of the camera's built-in flash.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2011)

i'd twigged the hotshoe thing earlier. for now i'd only need a built in flash but if i do invest in a CSC, partly it might be because it has potential to develop, and a decent flash might be part of that. Hence adding the samsung nx11 to my shortlist.
frustratingly, dpreview haven't written anything about the samsung. (Having dug a bit deeper i can see why badseed recommended the site. they're very *thorough*, aren't they?)


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2011)

You may find that the LX5 will do almost everything you want, and they can be picked up quite cheap now too. 

I've taken some fabulous photos on mine : it's still my favourite compact (although if I had the dosh I'd be looking long and hard at the Fujifilm X100 and X10 cameras which look lush).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> i'd twigged the hotshoe thing earlier. for now i'd only need a built in flash but if i do invest in a CSC, partly it might be because it has potential to develop, and a decent flash might be part of that. Hence adding the samsung nx11 to my shortlist.
> frustratingly, dpreview haven't written anything about the samsung. (Having dug a bit deeper i can see why badseed recommended the site. they're very *thorough*, aren't they?)



I read some reviews of the NX11's predecessor, the NX10 (the NX11 is basically an updating of the NX10) a while back which had good things to say about it, and although the choice of lenses is currently small, it covers all any non-specialising amateur photographer would need, and the range is likely to expand. It looks like a good choice if you're willing to commit to that system.

And yeah, dpreview is very thorough. I was reading a review for the Pentax K-x DSLR last week (I'm considering saving my pennies for a dslr, and the Pentax will let me use manual lenses that I use for my 35mm SLRs) and it was 24 looonnggggg pages!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2011)

editor said:


> You may find that the LX5 will do almost everything you want, and they can be picked up quite cheap now too.
> 
> I've taken some fabulous photos on mine : it's still my favourite compact (although if I had the dosh I'd be looking long and hard at the Fujifilm X100 and X10 cameras which look lush).



My older brother is currently fantasising about an X10. He's all "it looks just like the 35mm compact I had in the '70s!".


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 3, 2012)

anything more on this? editor?

my current shortlist seems to be:

Lumix GF3
Sony NEX-C3
Samsung NX11
Lumix LX5


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2012)

Let's do a  quick stock check of your requirements.

In order, what are the most important to you:

Ultra small form factor
Interchangeable lens
Lens covering a decent range from fairly wide to modest telephoto
Super wide angle lens
Hefty telephoto lens
Simple auto operation
Manual operation
Need to blow up photos to mahoosive proprortions
Big battery life


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 3, 2012)

of that list:

manual operation
simple auto operation
lens covering a decent range from fairly wide to modest telephoto
need to blow up photos to mahoosive proportions
big battery life
interchangable lens
ultra small form factor
super wide angle lens
hefty telephoto lens

but also important:

sharpness of photo
attractive design
ease of menu navigation etc


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2012)

All of the cameras in that list will produce sharp pictures capable of being blown up up to A3.

Out of curiosity, why is manual operation so important to you? I grew up with manual cameras, but most new cameras make such a grand job of getting the exposure right, that often a quick bit of +/- exposure comp is all that is needed.  In fact most of my photos are shot in Auto/Program with most adjustments being ISO speed, exp comp and aperture.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 3, 2012)

i want to be able to tell the camera where to focus.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> i want to be able to tell the camera where to focus.


For really precise, fast focussing, you won't get better than a SLR with a proper optical viewfinder but compacts will let you select a focus point and then 'lock it,' so it's generally not a problem to get the thing you want in focus. For really critical focussing, I'd always go for an optical viewfinder rather then the LCD ones that come with compact system cameras.

Just to give you some idea of the kind of quality you can expect from a modern compact, have a look at these pics taken on my LX5, http://www.urban75.org/blog/cardiff-bay-photos-around-the-old-tiger-bay-and-cardiff-docks/.


----------



## craigxcraig (Jan 4, 2012)

really nice clear photos Ed, do you use a tripod or a steady hand?


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2012)

craigxcraig said:


> really nice clear photos Ed, do you use a tripod or a steady hand?


Thanks. They're all hand held.


----------



## craigxcraig (Jan 4, 2012)

editor said:


> Thanks. They're all hand held.



Not sure if been suggested before but has there been talk of a meet-up/walk to take phots ask questions in the pub following said walk?


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2012)

I invited Spanglechick over to my place so I could show her my various cameras to see what she thought of them.

That would have been late on NYE though, and seeing I would have barely be able to talk, she wisely declined.


----------



## craigxcraig (Jan 4, 2012)

if ever theres another meet-up (pub etc) I'd be keen to come along and gain some knowledge - for a pint of two of course!!


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 4, 2012)

thanks ed. will think on a bit more.


----------



## craigxcraig (Jan 4, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> thanks ed. will think on a bit more.



if it helps, I've got the GF3 and its nowhere near as good as my old LX3 - the 3 I ofund much easier to use from a manual setting pov (even if I didn't quite understand all I was doing) and it felt a lot sturdier in my hands. The GF3 is good so far though does feel a little plasticy/too light in my hand and I hate the touch screen functionality.

If I had the choice I would go for the LX5 though I am biased towards Lumix after using the 3.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 4, 2012)

cool thanks.

the touch screen is the big thing that sways me towards the gf3... what is it about it you don't like?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> cool thanks.
> 
> the touch screen is the big thing that sways me towards the gf3... what is it about it you don't like?



For what it's worth, I don't fancy those touch screens either. I just can't see how they're going to be any use in practice because generally you want to be much more precise when focus or exposure locking, than is feasible given the size of a finger relative to the screen.

For me the obvious example would be focusing on someone's eye but not say their eyelash, when taking a portrait using very shallow depth of field.

Does that seem feasible with a touch screen to you?

I have giant ape hands so maybe that's why I'm sceptical, but even with small hands I don't see it working too well. I could be wrong though.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> the touch screen is the big thing that sways me towards the gf3... what is it about it you don't like?


Focussing via an LCD touch screen is never going to be as precise or as fast as with a SLR's optical viewfinder. I think they're a bit gimmicky, to be honest.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 4, 2012)

right - that probably riles out the GF3, then.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> right - that probably riles out the GF3, then.


If I had my LX5 nicked and needed another compact camera to replace it, I think I'd still get the LX5.

I have 2 SLRs for 'pro' jobs but find myself reaching for the LX5 for most jobs because it's so small and takes such great pics. If I had to take wedding pics, or band shots, then it would always be the SLRs.

Even when I had the Lumix GF1 (Micro Four Thirds model), I still preferred the LX5 for many jobs.

The only other camera I regularly use is the small Ricoh GRD which I always take to Offline. If the GRD IV wasn't so expensive, I'd upgrade it in a shot.


----------



## craigxcraig (Jan 4, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> cool thanks.
> 
> the touch screen is the big thing that sways me towards the gf3... what is it about it you don't like?



I find that I'm having to touch the screen two or three times to get the desired (its nowhere near as good as an iphone iykwim) result and I imagine (purely my opinion) that at somepoint it will stop working, no idea why I think that. Guess I like functioning buttons and things that move. Also the GF3 feels too light and like I said above, too plasticy - I got three plus years out of my LX3 (treated really badly) I don't imagine the longevity of the GF3.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2012)

I had a go on the Sony NEX5 today and have to say it's a lovely camera. Plus points: great LCD screen, fast as fuck, feels really solid. Minus points: that tiny body/chunky lens combo feels weird, the tilting LCD doesn't tilt too much, the touchscreen seemed pretty pointless and there's not many manual controls about.

With a fixed, wide angle 'pancake' lens, this could be a fantastic street shooting camera, but right now all my attention has gone thisaway.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 6, 2012)

Have just ordered myself an LX5. Everyone seems to love them, so who would I be to buck the trend?


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> Have just ordered myself an LX5. Everyone seems to love them, so who would I be to buck the trend?


Horay! It's a great camera.

If you're in any doubt about whether you bought the right camera, check out this article from the British Journal of Photography:


> *Four of the best compact cameras*
> While micro cameras are getting all the headlines, with their raw file and video capture abilities plus their interchangeable lenses, compacts still have their place as truly pocketable snap cameras. Kevin Carter reviews four of the best...
> 
> While there are limitations with each of the cameras here, to my mind, the Lumix LX5 comes the closest to the ideal mix of image quality, versatility and portability. It is not only the physically smallest on test here, the Leica-branded Vario-Summicron is also an excellent performer, and the quality of the files, especially at ISO 400 and 800, leave me in no doubt that the Lumix would be the one of the four I would choose.



http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/test/2024966/compact-cameras


----------

