p.2 #1 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
The smallest camera with really decent IQ is going to be an E-M10mIV with the absolutely tiny 14-42 kit lens. But the handling is kinda trash and the firmware is quite limited compared to higher-end Oly bodies. The Panasonic GX bodies with the 12-32 will be a close second. As long as you don't push the high ISO like it's FF, the 20MP m43 sensor is much closer to DX than 1" in performance. As to the E-M1 vs a Z, you can't really understate just how compact & light the 12-40 and 12-45 are. The 12-40 is basically the same size & weight as Nikon's old 16-85 VR (I have both, guesstimating on weight) when the lenses are at their shortest. And it's f2.8, focuses to 0.2m and is arguably the best f2.8 normal zoom optically in any crop system. The 12-45/4 is noticeably smaller..... OM Digital is expected to launch a full set of f4 zooms over the next year or two.
The Z50 is a great choice all-around. The Z DX 16-50 is tiny and quite good and the Z50 is both reasonably small and has reasonably good handling. Z zooms tend to be quite reasonably sized, but the native primes are universally larger & heavier than average (but also optically top tier).
Fuji's 15-45 or 27 pancake deliver a reasonably small and quite good package, especially on the X-E4 which is pretty small.
Sony's APS-C bodies should deliver a good option, but the small lens options are filled with fail. The E 16-50 is average at best, as is the 16/2.8 and the 20/2.8, while good, is overly expensive.
Canon's bodies are small, but you really need to pair with the 22/2 for a really small package. Luckily that's quite a good little lens.
I personally shoot the E-M1.2 and Fuji X-T2 these days (latter for manual focus primes). The E-M1.2 + 12-40 pro is my go-to zoom setup.
The Z7II is a bit heavier than the Z7 though I believe the dimensions match.
Wow. Totally not what I expected: for all intents and purposes, the Z7 and EM1-M3 are the same size and weight except for the Nikon being a little taller. And from the Z7 to the Z7-II, you add a hair over 4 ounces (+20%). That's amazing... and really makes me rethink some things.
Maybe what I need to do is trade my D850 for a Z7-II, add a Z50 two-lens DX kit, and gradually start my transition to the Z line. Hmm...
mawz wrote:
As to the E-M1 vs a Z, you can't really understate just how compact & light the 12-40 and 12-45 are. The 12-40 is basically the same size & weight as Nikon's old 16-85 VR (I have both, guesstimating on weight) when the lenses are at their shortest. And it's f2.8, focuses to 0.2m and is arguably the best f2.8 normal zoom optically in any crop system.
You are completely right that the 12-40/2.8 Pro is a joy and deserves high praise. I still have the 12-40 Pro I bought with my old EM1-M1 along with some other lenses, so that would make it easier/cheaper to set up an EM1-M3 kit right now... but the Nikon Z50 two-lens kit is already cheaper than an EM1-M3 body alone, and I can sell off all my Oly kit, and again starting a Nikon F-to-Z transition sounds really attractive.
I'm going to have to think about this in greater depth to be sure, but right now I'm strongly leaning toward the LX100-II as my P&S, getting the Z50 two-lens kit for my ultra-portable "proper camera", but also trading my D850 for a Z7-II to start my Z transition.
I'm a competent shooter and craftsman with my photography, but I'm not particularly talented or gifted... and working with two similar cameras with the same layout, controls, and quirks makes it much easier for me to produce quality work. And even though my photography is "only" a hobby, I do try hard to produce high-quality stuff.
p.2 #3 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
Any further comments and/or conversation is always welcome and appreciated, but right now I'd like to take a moment to give thanks for everyone's input and advice, whether I follow it or not. This thread has really helped me figure out my options; and unless I've missed something, has pretty much helped me make a decision.
The fact that my end result is nowhere near what I was thinking when I started the thread proves the value of the conversation. Thank you.
p.2 #4 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
I had the Fuji X-E3 and 35 1.4 lens and liked it, but sold the pair as I didn’t like the handling of the camera. Fantastic lens though and the camera took great photos and had good AF. Currently, I use the Panasonic LX100 II as a small and light carry around. Works pretty good and can be fun to shoot with. I enjoy it much more than the RX100s I’ve tried. It’s not as much fun as the Fuji X100T I had, but I needed more reach. I almost went with the Z50 but didn’t want two DX bodies and wasn’t ready to sell the D500. Good luck in your search!
p.2 #6 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
mawz wrote:
The smallest camera with really decent IQ is going to be an E-M10mIV with the absolutely tiny 14-42 kit lens. But the handling is kinda trash and the firmware is quite limited compared to higher-end Oly bodies. The Panasonic GX bodies with the 12-32 will be a close second. As long as you don't push the high ISO like it's FF, the 20MP m43 sensor is much closer to DX than 1" in performance. As to the E-M1 vs a Z, you can't really understate just how compact & light the 12-40 and 12-45 are. The 12-40 is basically the same size & weight as Nikon's old 16-85 VR (I have both, guesstimating on weight) when the lenses are at their shortest. And it's f2.8, focuses to 0.2m and is arguably the best f2.8 normal zoom optically in any crop system. The 12-45/4 is noticeably smaller..... OM Digital is expected to launch a full set of f4 zooms over the next year or two.
The Z50 is a great choice all-around. The Z DX 16-50 is tiny and quite good and the Z50 is both reasonably small and has reasonably good handling. Z zooms tend to be quite reasonably sized, but the native primes are universally larger & heavier than average (but also optically top tier).
Fuji's 15-45 or 27 pancake deliver a reasonably small and quite good package, especially on the X-E4 which is pretty small.
Sony's APS-C bodies should deliver a good option, but the small lens options are filled with fail. The E 16-50 is average at best, as is the 16/2.8 and the 20/2.8, while good, is overly expensive.
Canon's bodies are small, but you really need to pair with the 22/2 for a really small package. Luckily that's quite a good little lens.
I personally shoot the E-M1.2 and Fuji X-T2 these days (latter for manual focus primes). The E-M1.2 + 12-40 pro is my go-to zoom setup. ...Show more →
As far as I got to know that Fuji 15-45mm is not very good in absolute photographical terms.
It seems the Nikon 16-50 DX Z is a better lens.
For the Nikon : it seems we will get two pancake options for FX which could be used with great success on the Z50 as well soon.
A 28mm and a 40mm lens.
Let´s see how these will be and look like ...
Feb 22, 2021 at 07:07 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
I know this is the Nikon board, but I think it is worth considering the Sony A7C. It only weighs just over 500g and is quite small and has a very good 24MP FF sensor (basically the same on as the Z6/Z6 II). The EVF is small, but otherwise it has nice features including very good AF. Lots of very nice small FF lenses are available for it too. If you like AF the new Sigma I series lenses are a great choice to keep it small and if you like MF Voigtlander makes a lot of very nice lenses for it as well. If you can live with f/2.8 the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 plus this camera gives you a very strong one lens solution that weighs less than 620g and is very compact.
p.2 #10 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
nikonos6 wrote:
As far as I got to know that Fuji 15-45mm is not very good in absolute photographical terms.
It seems the Nikon 16-50 DX Z is a better lens.
For the Nikon : it seems we will get two pancake options for FX which could be used with great success on the Z50 as well soon.
A 28mm and a 40mm lens.
Let´s see how these will be and look like ...
You’re the first I’ve heard complain about the 15-45’s overall performance, the usual complaint is that it’s not as good as the 16-50 at the long end, but the xc 16-50 is extremely good (better optically than the XF 18-55 in my experience). I’d say the Z 16-50 is better, but don’t expect night & day differences in performance
p.2 #11 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I know this is the Nikon board, but I think it is worth considering the Sony A7C. It only weighs just over 500g and is quite small and has a very good 24MP FF sensor (basically the same on as the Z6/Z6 II). The EVF is small, but otherwise it has nice features including very good AF. Lots of very nice small FF lenses are available for it too. If you like AF the new Sigma I series lenses are a great choice to keep it small and if you like MF Voigtlander makes a lot of very nice lenses for it as well. If you can live with f/2.8 the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 plus this camera gives you a very strong one lens solution that weighs less than 620g and is very compact. ...Show more →
The downside is the body ergonomics are pretty lousy compared to many of the other options being discussed. That's something that all the A6xxx bodies suffer from, and the A7c inherits it from the APS-C bodies. Not terrible for sure, but not exactly awesome handling. And the EVF is bottom of the barrel (on par with an OM-D E-M10 or Fuji X-T100 which can be had for 1/3-1/4 the price) on a body that costs significantly more than a Z5 or EOS RP.
The plus side is the 28-60 is surprisingly good (less useful range than the Nikkor 24-50 IMHO, but comparable optically) and the Samyang f2.8 primes in particular are tiny, inexpensive, generally quite decent and FE-only.
p.2 #12 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
Just wanted to point out that the OP has specifically excluded Sony cameras because of past bad experiences with durability. So, best to focus on other brands in our recommendations.
p.2 #13 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
nikonos6 wrote:
As far as I got to know that Fuji 15-45mm is not very good in absolute photographical terms.
It seems the Nikon 16-50 DX Z is a better lens.
For the Nikon : it seems we will get two pancake options for FX which could be used with great success on the Z50 as well soon.
A 28mm and a 40mm lens.
Let´s see how these will be and look like ...
I'm (impatiently) waiting for the 28 and 40 Z's. While we don't have specs, I'm suspecting that they don't have IS which would be a strike against using them on the Z50.
p.2 #14 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
mawz wrote:
You’re the first I’ve heard complain about the 15-45’s overall performance, the usual complaint is that it’s not as good as the 16-50 at the long end, but the xc 16-50 is extremely good (better optically than the XF 18-55 in my experience). I’d say the Z 16-50 is better, but don’t expect night & day differences in performance
I've had success with the Fuji 15-45, and actually prefer it to the Fuji 16-50II that I had for a while. At the wide end it's biting sharp through the mid-frame, with a bit of softness at the extreme edges and corners. Mid-range the edges sharpen up but the center is a bit less sharp, and at 45 the edges soften back up and the center is now perhaps less sharp than I'd ideally want, but nothing one would notice on a print less than 24" wide. Contrast to the 16-50 that I owned, that had edge/corner issues that protruded further into the frame than on the 15-45, and seemed to have more field curvature and was fussier to focus.
The Nikon Z 16-50 certainly looks to have intriguing performance for being much more of a true pancake zoom, but the Z50 just feels half-baked by comparison to similar Fuji bodies.
p.2 #15 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
Z7 and Z7ii are great for size and weight for the body, but full frame lens sizes climb the size and weight scale quickly. A Z50 with the kit zooms seem like a decent solution.
I use FX, m43, and 1" sensors P&S, and the cell phone. They all have work enough well depending on the scenarios, knowing that there are IQ and size / weight tradeoffs most of the time. At normal screen viewing sizes, the best pictures from each sensor size can be hard to distinguish other than perhaps depth of field considerations.
I do find the 1" sensors to be a good enough step above the phone IQ to be worth carrying, not to mention the optical zoom. If money were no object I'm sure I'd get some single focal length cameras as well, but that's for another day.
p.2 #16 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
I thought I'd posted here but it seems not to have occurred. Depending on how compact is compact, the recommendation of a low-end DX DSLR makes a lot of sense. I toured all over the world for a few years with a D3200. The kit lens, while pretty cheaply made, worked well. I had a 55-300 zoom in addition, which was pretty marginal in some ways, but gave a decent result. Very portable, with good image quality, and cheap enough that it would not have been a tragedy if I lost it. For the last few years I've been using a D7100, which is probably out of the range for smallness, especially with better lenses, but is still quite portable, decently inexpensive these days, and provides very good images.
p.2 #17 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
M. Currie wrote:
I thought I'd posted here but it seems not to have occurred. Depending on how compact is compact, the recommendation of a low-end DX DSLR makes a lot of sense. I toured all over the world for a few years with a D3200. The kit lens, while pretty cheaply made, worked well. I had a 55-300 zoom in addition, which was pretty marginal in some ways, but gave a decent result. Very portable, with good image quality, and cheap enough that it would not have been a tragedy if I lost it. For the last few years I've been using a D7100, which is probably out of the range for smallness, especially with better lenses, but is still quite portable, decently inexpensive these days, and provides very good images. ...Show more →
I think you might be surprised at how much larger that kit is than even a midsized mirrorless. A Z50 with the kit lens in the retracted position is in fact just about the same size as a D3500 with no lens mounted and the 50-250 is noticeably smaller than the 55-300 (especially in terms of size when mounted on the body, because Z mount is 28.5mm shorter in register than F mount).
A kit like an E-M10 with the 14-42 EZ and 40-150R pair will be on par with D3500+18-55 alone in size. And that setup will cost about the same if you go with the cheaper E-M10III rather than the newer E-M10IV.
I've done the D3200 based light carry kit and it is a great option for a DSLR-based kit, but it's been a few years since it was really competitive compared to what you can do with mirrorless in terms of small carry.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
1bwana1 wrote:
Just wanted to point out that the OP has specifically excluded Sony cameras because of past bad experiences with durability. So, best to focus on other brands in our recommendations.
p.2 #19 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
....
No particular budget... what's the best way, in your opinion, to fill this particular need? One-camera solutions, or P&S plus another solution, are both viable. I'm still keeping my D850 and phone, too.
I think the best way is to upgrade your phone more often, whose cameras beat P&S easily. The following are some random "low light" phone photos from my 3 year old Huawei P20 Pro:
p.2 #20 · Help: Most-portable camera recommendations?
I struggled with this very dilemma, I looked a long time for the perfect solution. The point and shoot 1" sensors are too small for the IQ I was looking for. But, anything bigger meant the camera and lens combination is not smaller enough than my Sony a series cameras with one of the smaller lenses like the ZA 35mm 2.8.
I upgraded my smart phone to the Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra. It is actually a very good camera. It actually has 5 cameras inside with various focal lengths and resolutions. Lots of advanced shooting options, and computational photography features. If just shooting for sharing digital images the IQ is plenty good enough. It is always with me, so no burden.
I hate to say it, but capabilities like it has is why the point and shoot market is going away. They are not enough better, and not convenient.
