'Q' or Leica D-LUX5 or what?

slackercruster · 07-10-2012, 06:08 PM

Olympus E-PL3? Is it worth the $$ premium over the EPL1?

I will probably go for the EPL1 with 12mm lens.

Anything from Sony this small with high IQ?

The EPL1 gets great reviews.

twitch · 07-10-2012, 06:13 PM

AF is much faster on the EPL3 vs EPL1, plus better video, AF during video, faster FPS etc.

The only small lens for sony is a 16mm prime that has pretty mixed reviews. However micro 4/3's has quite a few small lenses of excellent quality. 12mm is meant to be awesome, but the 14mm is prob 80% of the IQ at a fraction of the price ($170 vs $800)

Docrwm · 07-10-2012, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

Olympus E-PL3? Is it worth the $$ premium over the EPL1?

I will probably go for the EPL1 with 12mm lens.

Anything from Sony this small with high IQ?

The EPL1 gets great reviews.

I've seen the EPL1 as low as $149 BNIB at Amazon. Do you mean the 12-42 zoom or the 12mm prime? The difference in price is just a wee bit.

As Twitch said, the 14mm is a pretty nice lens. We've got it on the GF2 and its a solid performer.

Clicker · 07-10-2012, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

Seems like the reviews these 2 cams get are not that great. I love my K-01, but would like a smaller cam for pocket. What is out there is anyhting that fits the bill for a high IQ pocket cam? (Preferably with interchange lenses.)

Thanks

Nikon's V1 system, i ruled out the Pentax Q here because of no built-in finder also the V1 is a 1" sensor.

"Pocketable" neither of the above nor anything currently with interchangeable lens ...this would still go to P&S territory and currently to the Sony RX100 with it's 1" sensor or older yet still fairly hailed Canon s95/100, Pentax LX5 or current panasonic ~~TS20~~ ZS20/TZ30?

See Christine Tham's post HERE

Last edited by Clicker; 07-10-2012 at 07:20 PM.

slackercruster · 07-10-2012, 06:51 PM

Is the 1 inch sensor better than the micro 4/3?

Clicker · 07-10-2012, 07:04 PM

If you go by the camp "bigger is better" then yes but only in absolutes...why i say that, the digital darkroom can do some amazing things BUT if you want pocketable still the P&S is the "best" option but it's close.

source:Cambridge Colors

pinholecam · 07-10-2012, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

Seems like the reviews these 2 cams get are not that great. I love my K-01, but would like a smaller cam for pocket. What is out there is anyhting that fits the bill for a high IQ pocket cam? (Preferably with interchange lenses.)

Thanks

It depends on what you call high IQ and what is considered small.

Most real small cameras will be using pns sized sensors which enthusiast here like to frown upon, though for most viewing purposes, I see no reason why they won't suffice.
I'd consider a Q for the unique tele/macro options with an adapter.
In theory, the part of the cost carries over to the next camera too, since the lenses are usable on it.
In general pns cameras are just not for pixel peeping, so to me, its a moot point comparing IQ between them (and to m4/3 or APS-C)

walternewton · 07-10-2012, 07:21 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Clicker

If you go by the camp "bigger is better" then yes

A 1" sensor is not bigger than micro 4/3! - sensor size terminology is VERY confusing, the only way to make sense of it is to consider actual sensor dimensions.

1" = 12.80 x 9.60mm = 122.88mm^2

micro 4/3 = 17.30 x 13mm = 224.9mm^2 = 1.83X larger

Docrwm · 07-10-2012, 07:22 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by slackercruster

Is the 1 inch sensor better than the micro 4/3?

No. Here is a visual for you. I find this clears it up for me because, as has been said, the terminology of sensor sizes is counter-intuitive.

slackercruster · 07-10-2012, 08:05 PM

4/3 is pretty decent size then...Thanks!

walternewton · 07-10-2012, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

4/3 is pretty decent size then...Thanks!

Sure, but everything is a tradeoff - remember you started out asking about small "pocket" sized cameras!

Maybe you can fit a smaller 4/3 camera body+lens in a coat pocket...but something like, say, an S95/S100 (with smaller sensor, of course) is much more compact and can easily fit in a jeans or shirt pocket - which is "better" just depends on what your priorities are.

twitch · 07-10-2012, 08:31 PM - **1 Like**

Here's a good comparison photo between a GF3 (m4/3s), Nikon J1 (1 inch sensor), RX100 (1 inch sensor) and S100. The S100 is very easily jeans pockable, the RX100 looks possibly jeans pocketable, the other 2 are not.

slackercruster · 07-10-2012, 08:53 PM

baggy shorts pocket

Docrwm · 07-10-2012, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by twitch

Here's a good comparison photo between a GF3 (m4/3s), Nikon J1 (1 inch sensor), RX100 (1 inch sensor) and S100. The S100 is very easily jeans pockable, the RX100 looks possibly jeans pocketable, the other 2 are not.

Which is precisely why my wife wants me to get rid of the GF2 I got her and get her a "proper compact camera".

Wired · 07-10-2012, 09:51 PM - **1 Like**

I have used the LX2 and i own the Q. Ive never used a 5 though i have used the nikon 1, sony nex5n, and epl3.

I prefer the Q over all of them. The sony and the oly had better IQ there is no question there. And the sony and nikon had some fun shooting modes (love nikons slow motion movie mode).

But the Q wins for me because i honestly do not see why everyone thinks the IQ is so bad. Just look at the share shots with the Q thread and tell me honestly that there isnt a whole lot of awesome in there.

I did two 8x11 prints on metallic paper. Both of flowers. When i went and picked them up the shop keep was chattig with another client that he couldnt believe someone bought the Q because its a stupid camera.

I pulled out the prints and told him one was the Q and the other was my K5. Asked him which one came fron which camera. He studied for a few minutes and picked the wrong one as the Q image.

The interface and shooting experience of the Q is also a huge attraction. I find myself thinking differently versus other cameras and i just feel like im having more fun with it.

The size is nearly pocketable... But what i ended up doing is throw a keychain carabiner on it and just hook it to my belt. Hardly notice its there.

07-10-2012, 07:21 PM - 1 Like	#23
walternewton Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 34	Originally posted by Clicker If you go by the camp "bigger is better" then yes A 1" sensor is not bigger than micro 4/3! - sensor size terminology is VERY confusing, the only way to make sense of it is to consider actual sensor dimensions. 1" = 12.80 x 9.60mm = 122.88mm^2 micro 4/3 = 17.30 x 13mm = 224.9mm^2 = 1.83X larger Last edited by walternewton; 07-10-2012 at 07:31 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Leica X2 and Leica V-Lux 40	jpzk	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	9	05-11-2012 06:21 PM
leica camera help????	jantjuh	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	5	09-30-2011 12:49 AM

07-10-2012, 06:08 PM	#16
slackercruster Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NE, USA Posts: 1,302 Original Poster	Olympus E-PL3? Is it worth the $$ premium over the EPL1? I will probably go for the EPL1 with 12mm lens. Anything from Sony this small with high IQ? The EPL1 gets great reviews.

07-10-2012, 06:13 PM	#17
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	AF is much faster on the EPL3 vs EPL1, plus better video, AF during video, faster FPS etc. The only small lens for sony is a 16mm prime that has pretty mixed reviews. However micro 4/3's has quite a few small lenses of excellent quality. 12mm is meant to be awesome, but the 14mm is prob 80% of the IQ at a fraction of the price ($170 vs $800)

07-10-2012, 06:16 PM	#18
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by slackercruster Olympus E-PL3? Is it worth the $$ premium over the EPL1? I will probably go for the EPL1 with 12mm lens. Anything from Sony this small with high IQ? The EPL1 gets great reviews. I've seen the EPL1 as low as $149 BNIB at Amazon. Do you mean the 12-42 zoom or the 12mm prime? The difference in price is just a wee bit. As Twitch said, the 14mm is a pretty nice lens. We've got it on the GF2 and its a solid performer.

07-10-2012, 06:38 PM	#19
Clicker Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,241	Originally posted by slackercruster Seems like the reviews these 2 cams get are not that great. I love my K-01, but would like a smaller cam for pocket. What is out there is anyhting that fits the bill for a high IQ pocket cam? (Preferably with interchange lenses.) Thanks Nikon's V1 system, i ruled out the Pentax Q here because of no built-in finder also the V1 is a 1" sensor. "Pocketable" neither of the above nor anything currently with interchangeable lens ...this would still go to P&S territory and currently to the Sony RX100 with it's 1" sensor or older yet still fairly hailed Canon s95/100, Pentax LX5 or current panasonic ~~TS20~~ ZS20/TZ30? See Christine Tham's post HERE Last edited by Clicker; 07-10-2012 at 07:20 PM.

07-10-2012, 06:51 PM	#20
slackercruster Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NE, USA Posts: 1,302 Original Poster	Is the 1 inch sensor better than the micro 4/3?

07-10-2012, 07:04 PM	#21
Clicker Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,241	If you go by the camp "bigger is better" then yes but only in absolutes...why i say that, the digital darkroom can do some amazing things BUT if you want pocketable still the P&S is the "best" option but it's close. source:Cambridge Colors

07-10-2012, 07:05 PM	#22
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	Originally posted by slackercruster Seems like the reviews these 2 cams get are not that great. I love my K-01, but would like a smaller cam for pocket. What is out there is anyhting that fits the bill for a high IQ pocket cam? (Preferably with interchange lenses.) Thanks It depends on what you call high IQ and what is considered small. Most real small cameras will be using pns sized sensors which enthusiast here like to frown upon, though for most viewing purposes, I see no reason why they won't suffice. I'd consider a Q for the unique tele/macro options with an adapter. In theory, the part of the cost carries over to the next camera too, since the lenses are usable on it. In general pns cameras are just not for pixel peeping, so to me, its a moot point comparing IQ between them (and to m4/3 or APS-C)

07-10-2012, 07:22 PM - 1 Like	#24
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by slackercruster Is the 1 inch sensor better than the micro 4/3? No. Here is a visual for you. I find this clears it up for me because, as has been said, the terminology of sensor sizes is counter-intuitive.

07-10-2012, 08:05 PM	#25
slackercruster Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NE, USA Posts: 1,302 Original Poster	4/3 is pretty decent size then...Thanks!

07-10-2012, 08:21 PM	#26
walternewton Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 34	Originally posted by slackercruster 4/3 is pretty decent size then...Thanks! Sure, but everything is a tradeoff - remember you started out asking about small "pocket" sized cameras! Maybe you can fit a smaller 4/3 camera body+lens in a coat pocket...but something like, say, an S95/S100 (with smaller sensor, of course) is much more compact and can easily fit in a jeans or shirt pocket - which is "better" just depends on what your priorities are.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2012, 08:31 PM - 1 Like	#27
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Here's a good comparison photo between a GF3 (m4/3s), Nikon J1 (1 inch sensor), RX100 (1 inch sensor) and S100. The S100 is very easily jeans pockable, the RX100 looks possibly jeans pocketable, the other 2 are not.

07-10-2012, 08:53 PM	#28
slackercruster Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NE, USA Posts: 1,302 Original Poster	baggy shorts pocket

07-10-2012, 09:08 PM	#29
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by twitch Here's a good comparison photo between a GF3 (m4/3s), Nikon J1 (1 inch sensor), RX100 (1 inch sensor) and S100. The S100 is very easily jeans pockable, the RX100 looks possibly jeans pocketable, the other 2 are not. Which is precisely why my wife wants me to get rid of the GF2 I got her and get her a "proper compact camera".

07-10-2012, 09:51 PM - 1 Like	#30
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	I have used the LX2 and i own the Q. Ive never used a 5 though i have used the nikon 1, sony nex5n, and epl3. I prefer the Q over all of them. The sony and the oly had better IQ there is no question there. And the sony and nikon had some fun shooting modes (love nikons slow motion movie mode). But the Q wins for me because i honestly do not see why everyone thinks the IQ is so bad. Just look at the share shots with the Q thread and tell me honestly that there isnt a whole lot of awesome in there. I did two 8x11 prints on metallic paper. Both of flowers. When i went and picked them up the shop keep was chattig with another client that he couldnt believe someone bought the Q because its a stupid camera. I pulled out the prints and told him one was the Q and the other was my K5. Asked him which one came fron which camera. He studied for a few minutes and picked the wrong one as the Q image. The interface and shooting experience of the Q is also a huge attraction. I find myself thinking differently versus other cameras and i just feel like im having more fun with it. The size is nearly pocketable... But what i ended up doing is throw a keychain carabiner on it and just hook it to my belt. Hardly notice its there.