What Makes A Compact Camera Serious?

What Makes A Compact Camera Serious?
Saturday, April 12, 2008

How serious a camera is will depend on its performance, user interface and features. Performance analyses the output of the camera as well as how quick and accurate it is at producing that output. This would entail a detailed look at all aspects related to image quality as well as measuring the speed and accuracy of autofocus, exposure metering and white balance. How fast a camera is ready to take the following shot is also a significant aspect.

Under user interface, one could look at the ergonomics, control layout and menu structure. Is the menu structure logical and consistent? Can frequently used settings be accessed efficiently? Can the photographer customize the user interface to suit his/her needs? Another aspect of the user interface is the quality of the screen and/or viewfinder: is the view good enough for the photographer to be able to decide on a specific composition? In the case of live-view, does the preview image adequately reflect exposure and white balance?

Both of the first two categories, an analysis of a camera’s performance and its user interface, require testing each camera. The results of these tests will help a photographer to decide which camera meets his/her specific needs the best.

A specific camera’s features also determine whether it can be used as a serious photographer’s tool. Since a camera’s features don’t require testing, it is possible to select potentially serious cameras based on their specifications. Any that meet your definition of what entails a serious compact camera could then be evaluated in terms of their performance and user interface.

Looking at the features that a camera offers is one way of reducing the sheer numbers of choices when selecting a compact.

Since we’re dealing with compact cameras here, it is necessary to set a maximum weight and/or size. How compact a camera has to be is a subjective choice. Each individual will set the limit of what he/she deems as compact differently. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll select a maximum weight of approximately 350g. That’s about half the weight of a smaller consumer DSLR with its kit lens. This would mean that the Canon G9’s 364g would form the upper weight limit.

Assuming that a serious photographer wants to be able to override his camera’s automatic mode at least some of the time, then the camera should also have a certain amount of manual control. The most basic of these include manual control over aperture, shutter speed and focus. Without refining the criteria for selecting serious compacts further, the list of candidates is quite long. It includes numerous Canon models like the Powershot A590 IS, A650 IS, G9 and SX100 IS; Nikon’s P5100; Panasonic’s FZ8 and LX2 (plus their Leica counterparts); Ricoh’s GRDII, GX100 and R8; as well as Sigma’s DP1. Numerous cameras like Fuji’s F100fd, Panasonic’s FX500 or Samsung’s NV24 HD aren’t included in this list because they don’t support manual focus, even though they do have control over aperture and shutter.

Requiring that any serious compact can also record images in RAW further reduces the list of possible cameras. The RAW format allows the photographer to circumvent the camera’s own image processing, yielding more control over image quality. Simultaneous recording of both JPEG and RAW files offers the advantage of being able to compose a photo in black and white while being able to fall back on the full colour information contained in the RAW file. Adding the requirement that serious compacts must be able to record RAW files reduces the list of potential candidates dramatically.

There are only 6 current cameras (April 12, 2008) that weigh around 350g or less, have control over aperture and shutter speed, can be focused manually and have the option of recording RAW files:
Canon G9 (364g)
Panasonic LX2/Leica D-LUX 3 (217g)
Panasonic FZ8 (357g)
Ricoh GRDII (200g)
Ricoh GX100 (250g)
Sigma DP1 (270g)
*all weights including batteries

That’s not very many contenders. Of course that’s only one possible definition of what combination of features constitutes a serious compact camera. Removing or loosening any of the criteria can make the list grow considerably. Adding additional requirements, for example, that the lens’ focal range must start at 28mm equivalent or wider, shrinks the list to only 4 contenders.

This list does not preclude any other, by definition “non-serious” digital cameras being used in a serious way. Nor does it evaluate a specific camera’s performance and user interface. It just shows how quickly a potentially huge choice among digital compacts can be whittled down to a half dozen contenders when a photographer is looking for manual control over exposure, focus and image processing.

Posted by Björn Utpott

12 comments:

Dr Hiding Pup said... April 12, 2008 2:42 AM

Of course, photographers looking for a 'serious compact' don't have to buy new cameras, and the list swells up again when you include older models like the Canon G6, Olympus C-5050/5060, Fuji F810 etc.

And, once you start including older models, there's no reason to not include film cameras like the gorgeous Fuji Klasse, the Hexar AF, Olympus XA or even more modest cameras like the Ricoh 500G...

Oh, and the Fuji F100fd only offers Program AE mode.

Björn Utpott said... April 12, 2008 4:33 AM

Thanks for spotting that: it looks like the Fuji F100fd doesn't include control over aperture and shutter after all. That's a pity.

Changing the criteria when defining a 'serious compact' will affect which models are on your list of possible cameras. Of course you can include older models. In some cases though, things like screen quality, image processing and responsiveness may have improved significantly in the newer models.

amin said... April 12, 2008 6:56 AM

Hi Björn, it's interesting to go through these sorts of decision making analyses. Of course each photographer looking for a "serious" compact will have his or her own criteria. There are some criteria, such as RAW mode, cut the list precipitously. Another example of such a feature is that of a built-in optical viewfinder, which is something Michael Reichmann, for example, weighs strongly. With that requirement, your list drops to one (G9), and adding wide range to 28mm equivalent drops it to zero! Others don't require RAW for serious work, and that opens the field up quite a bit, as you have pointed out.

I think it's also worth mentioning that some of the most serious compacts, especially for B&W work, are film compacts. I have in mind the limited production Fujifilm Klasse W and S, which come in at around 270 grams. Regards, Amin

Prognathous said... April 12, 2008 7:41 AM

There's one more camera which isn't that far from your requirement list: Olympus SP570.

- TTL Hot-shoe + wireless flash
- Manual control of exposure and focus
- RAW
- 2.7" LCD + EVF
- 26-520mm lens
- 365 gram (excluding 4AA batteries).

Looks pretty serious to me, though maybe a 20x zoom is pushing it. The smaller-than-average sensor is likely to hurt image quality too (at least at anything higher than base ISO).

Still, after a very long period of boring cameras, Olympus have finally stepped up and delivered a promising super-zoom.

Prog.

joost burger said... April 12, 2008 12:03 PM

If you use the CHDK hack, a lot of other canons can be considered

amin said... April 12, 2008 2:02 PM

Prog, you're right. Canon and Nikon have both kept RAW out of their super zooms. This can be explained as a way to avoid competition with DSLRs. Chuck Westfall has, in the past, commented that RAW is unhelpful or adds little with small sensors. I don't buy that argument, and it's good to see Olympus and Panasonic keeping RAW in their compact superzooms.

Joost Burger, that is very true. Am I right that none of those are current production models? Either way, they represent a group of very capable and affordable buys for photographers who use compacts and appreciate RAW.

RAW is such a rare feature these days. At some point, we should have a poll to see what percentage of our readership considers RAW absolutely necessary in a compact.

Björn Utpott said... April 13, 2008 5:37 AM

That would be an interesting discussion and/or poll, Amin. Personally, I tended to use RAW on my compacts only under critical conditions: for example, when I was forced to use anything above base ISO, long exposures and for scenes with high contrast. In short, for the type of conditions that challenge small sensors. I think having RAW is a pretty essential feature in a compact.

Joost, your point is a very good one. It would be interesting to know more about how to implement the Canon CHDK hack. Perhaps it's a way of achieving a reasonably priced yet capable serious compact?

marky said... April 14, 2008 12:19 AM

I don't see the Fuji F700 in the list, it has full manual controls, manual focus, flash output adjustment, RAW to card in 3 seconds, small, lightweight, and inexpensive.

amin said... April 14, 2008 7:18 AM

Marky, yes including older models there are others that would make the list, including the F700. I believe that Björn was including only models in current production. Regards, Amin

Anonymous said... April 14, 2008 1:34 PM

Hi, there is a interesting discussion concerning raw versus jpg over at Ken Rockwell's site:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

My view is that having raw output available as an additional option is quite desirable. Even better though would be if all cameras would produce optimal jpg out of the box (with critical parameters such as internal curves adjustable).

Compare this with film: not everybody likes to develop at
home ;)

Cheers!

Frank Sacriste said... January 15, 2009 1:15 PM

What about CHDK? That gives some seriousness to my little SD1100: RAW, manual exposure and focus control, and many more... I'll join your Flickr group and show you some of my pics...

Frank Sacriste said... January 15, 2009 1:26 PM

I forgot to say that my username is cristiano007. Here's a link to my gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiano007/