Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Need best lightweight P&S

Reply
Thread Tools

Need best lightweight P&S

 
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2006

I'm looking to "upgrade" a four year old Canon G2 which
is still going strong. Since the G2 was in the $700 range
(in 2002) let's say that's the limiting (street) price.

I have these criteria:

1. Image quality must meet or exceed the G2.
2. Light!!! The G2 is 18 oz. I'd like something half
that weight or less.
3. Good battery life.

Hopefully, tech specs would meet or exceed G2:
* 1/1.8 sensor, 4 Mpix
* f2.0-2.5, 3x optical zoom
* RAW output

I've seen lots of lightweight P&S cameras of 5, 6,
or 8 Mpix. Almost always they have 1/2.5" sensors
which feels to me like a *downgrade* from the G2.

I've done a bunch of prowling around and have
found nothing. Any ideas?

There seems to be a *strong* correlation between
sensor size and camera weight, which is a bit
surprising.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2006
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:52:36 -0400, Raphael Bustin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> I'm looking to "upgrade" a four year old Canon G2 which
> is still going strong. Since the G2 was in the $700 range
> (in 2002) let's say that's the limiting (street) price.
>
> I have these criteria:
>
> 1. Image quality must meet or exceed the G2.
> 2. Light!!! The G2 is 18 oz. I'd like something half
> that weight or less.
> 3. Good battery life.
>
> Hopefully, tech specs would meet or exceed G2:
> * 1/1.8 sensor, 4 Mpix
> * f2.0-2.5, 3x optical zoom
> * RAW output
>
> I've seen lots of lightweight P&S cameras of 5, 6,
> or 8 Mpix. Almost always they have 1/2.5" sensors
> which feels to me like a *downgrade* from the G2.


How about a Panasonic LX1 (or the soon-to-be-released LX2)?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/
8 megapixels on a 1/1.65" sensor, 4x optical zoom. The lens is slower,
though, than your G2 (it's f/2.8-4.9). On the flip side, you do get an
optical image stabilizer. RAW output is supported.

Weight is around 8 ounces, and street price seems to be $450-500.

-dms
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2006

"Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'm looking to "upgrade" a four year old Canon G2 which
> is still going strong. Since the G2 was in the $700 range
> (in 2002) let's say that's the limiting (street) price.
>
> I have these criteria:
>
> 1. Image quality must meet or exceed the G2.


You lose.

> I've seen lots of lightweight P&S cameras of 5, 6,
> or 8 Mpix. Almost always they have 1/2.5" sensors
> which feels to me like a *downgrade* from the G2.


Yep.

> There seems to be a *strong* correlation between
> sensor size and camera weight, which is a bit
> surprising.


There isn't a market for a quality 3 or 4MP P&S camera, so there isn't one.

Get the new 400D + 35/2.0.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2006
Raphael Bustin wrote:
[]
> There seems to be a *strong* correlation between
> sensor size and camera weight, which is a bit
> surprising.
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com


Hardly surprising - camera dimensions will scale with the linear dimension
of the sensor, and mass scales as the cube of the linear dimension (other
things being equal).

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
rafe b
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2006

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:S5iHg.8112$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> Raphael Bustin wrote:
> []
>> There seems to be a *strong* correlation between
>> sensor size and camera weight, which is a bit
>> surprising.
>>
>>
>> rafe b
>> www.terrapinphoto.com

>
> Hardly surprising - camera dimensions will scale with the linear dimension
> of the sensor, and mass scales as the cube of the linear dimension (other
> things being equal).



Ah but the sensor is a tiny piece of silicon weighing less
than a gram in either case:

1/1.8" = 14.11 mm diagonal
1/25 = 10.16 mm diagonal

That's not nearly enough to explain the difference between
an 18-32 oz. camera and a 6-9 oz. camera.

The sensor occupies a tiny portion of the weight or the
volume of the camera. We're talking about a 3 mm
difference in the sensor diagonal.

But empirically -- based on what I'm finding -- you are
correct. The only way to get (say) a 2/3 sensor or larger...
is in a camera that's at least as heavy as the G2.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
rafe b
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2006

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eckah3$aa1$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I'm looking to "upgrade" a four year old Canon G2 which
>> is still going strong. Since the G2 was in the $700 range
>> (in 2002) let's say that's the limiting (street) price.
>>
>> I have these criteria:
>>
>> 1. Image quality must meet or exceed the G2.

>
> You lose.
>
>> I've seen lots of lightweight P&S cameras of 5, 6,
>> or 8 Mpix. Almost always they have 1/2.5" sensors
>> which feels to me like a *downgrade* from the G2.

>
> Yep.
>
>> There seems to be a *strong* correlation between
>> sensor size and camera weight, which is a bit
>> surprising.

>
> There isn't a market for a quality 3 or 4MP P&S camera, so there isn't
> one.


Four Mpix was the minimum. Obviously I'd prefer more.

> Get the new 400D + 35/2.0.



a) 400D? it doesn't seem to exist
b) probably violates both the weight and cost criteria
(if it's a successor to the 350D.)

The idea is a hiking or lightweight travel camera,
one that I could take deep into the backwoods.
That also means to some extent, "expendable."

If weight is removed as a criteria, there are lots of
choices, including 2/3 and even 4/3 sensors.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
Philippe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2006
rafe b wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
> wrote in message news:S5iHg.8112$(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
>>Raphael Bustin wrote:
>>[]
>>
>>>There seems to be a *strong* correlation between
>>>sensor size and camera weight, which is a bit
>>>surprising.
>>>
>>>
>>>rafe b
>>>www.terrapinphoto.com

>>
>>Hardly surprising - camera dimensions will scale with the linear dimension
>>of the sensor, and mass scales as the cube of the linear dimension (other
>>things being equal).

>
>
>
> Ah but the sensor is a tiny piece of silicon weighing less
> than a gram in either case:
>
> 1/1.8" = 14.11 mm diagonal
> 1/25 = 10.16 mm diagonal
>
> That's not nearly enough to explain the difference between
> an 18-32 oz. camera and a 6-9 oz. camera.
>
> The sensor occupies a tiny portion of the weight or the
> volume of the camera. We're talking about a 3 mm
> difference in the sensor diagonal.
>
> But empirically -- based on what I'm finding -- you are
> correct. The only way to get (say) a 2/3 sensor or larger...
> is in a camera that's at least as heavy as the G2.
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
>
>

I dunno.. I *like* my G2 and I find the weight somewhat handy (feels
like you're handling a camera, not a toy..).

Add that to the fact that I likely won't get much better image without
hitting a serious cash jump (you can get a G2 for about $150 right now)
and you get a nice comfort feeling about where I am photographically.


P.
(waiting for Sept when all the 'new' models will come out and drive the
old models into basement $ )

--
I do *NOT* have a short attention sp...(Oooh!! shiny!!)
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2006
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:44:58 +0900, David J. Littleboy, reverting to
troll mode wrote:

>> I have these criteria:
>>
>> 1. Image quality must meet or exceed the G2.

>
> You lose.
> . . .
>
> There isn't a market for a quality 3 or 4MP P&S camera, so there isn't one.


No, it's your answer that's the loser. You simply don't know how
to read. Even Canon's not so recent G6 provides image quality that
far surpasses that of the G2, and it's not a 3 or 4MP camera. But
there's a reason why you answered as you did.


> Get the new 400D + 35/2.0.


You conveniently forgot to consider the request for a camera at
least 1/2 the weight of the G2. That indicates a camera that weighs
9 ounces or less. The 400D is unlikely to weigh less than the 350D,
which even without a lens attached weighs more than double the
desired weight (19 ounces), slightly heavier than the G2.

Canon's new A710 meets the requirements (210g / 7.4 oz minus
batteries) or close to 9 ounces with batteries. The A700 has
excellent battery life, whether alkalines or NiMH batteries are
used. The A710 should do as well or better.

[RB:]
> Hopefully, tech specs would meet or exceed G2:
> * 1/1.8 sensor, 4 Mpix
> * f2.0-2.5, 3x optical zoom
> * RAW output
>
> I've seen lots of lightweight P&S cameras of 5, 6,
> or 8 Mpix. Almost always they have 1/2.5" sensors
> which feels to me like a *downgrade* from the G2.


It may "feel" like a downgrade, but in practice the images should
be much better than those produced by the G2. The G2 may have been
good for its time, but it's completely outclassed by today's P&S
cameras, even by many using smaller sensors. If a 1/1.8" sensor is
a must, Canon's new 8mp A630 and 10mp A640 use 1/1.8" sensors.

The A710 has a 7.1MP 1/2.5" sensor, and an f/2.8 lens with 6x
optical zoom. No RAW output AFAICT. Just the ticket for
conveniently taking high DOF shots! As an added bonus, it's
Canon's first A series camera to use optical image stabilization.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2006
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:32:59 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:52:36 -0400, Raphael Bustin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> I'm looking to "upgrade" a four year old Canon G2 which
>> is still going strong. Since the G2 was in the $700 range
>> (in 2002) let's say that's the limiting (street) price.
>>
>> I have these criteria:
>>
>> 1. Image quality must meet or exceed the G2.
>> 2. Light!!! The G2 is 18 oz. I'd like something half
>> that weight or less.
>> 3. Good battery life.
>>
>> Hopefully, tech specs would meet or exceed G2:
>> * 1/1.8 sensor, 4 Mpix
>> * f2.0-2.5, 3x optical zoom
>> * RAW output
>>
>> I've seen lots of lightweight P&S cameras of 5, 6,
>> or 8 Mpix. Almost always they have 1/2.5" sensors
>> which feels to me like a *downgrade* from the G2.

>
>How about a Panasonic LX1 (or the soon-to-be-released LX2)?
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/
>8 megapixels on a 1/1.65" sensor, 4x optical zoom. The lens is slower,
>though, than your G2 (it's f/2.8-4.9). On the flip side, you do get an
>optical image stabilizer. RAW output is supported.
>
>Weight is around 8 ounces, and street price seems to be $450-500.



The review says it's a noisy beast...


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2006

Raphael Bustin wrote:
> >How about a Panasonic LX1 (or the soon-to-be-released LX2)?
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/


> The review says it's a noisy beast...


Reviews are by measurbators. Here is an example of what you can do
with the LX-1:
http://www.photosafariindia.com/gall...ng/thumbs.html

Buy it, shoot RAW and take great images. My Canon G6 has been for sale
since I got it (and is still available... hint, hint).

Vandit

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which Best Lightweight Browser? MissSamanthaBewleyREMOVE@gmail.com Computer Support 3 11-26-2008 05:55 AM
Best lightweight OS for low spec hardware? Squiggle NZ Computing 57 02-05-2008 08:34 PM
Any interest in lightweight coroutines in Java ala C# 2.0 iterators? Ken Sprague Java 4 10-28-2003 08:03 PM
When I spawn a lightweight process in ASP.NET Does it time out?? MS News ASP .Net 2 07-31-2003 11:53 PM
lightweight XSLT-based page flow: anyone thought of this? SUPER KOOL 223 Java 0 07-29-2003 08:01 PM



Advertisments