[clackers]

Samsung Mini NX is now another option:

Samsung NX Mini Review & Rating | PCMag.com

[Lowell Goudge]

I use and love the Q, but I suppose it depends on what you want in a backup camera. The Q is extremely versatile, has great ergonomics and very good IQ at lower ISOs, but there's no superzoom available for it. If you want a wide range of focal lengths available in your pocket, you might be better off with a small bridge camera.

While there is no "super zoom" as such, let's imagine you bought the Q/PK adaptor, and have a 60-250/4 in your bag

That gives you a 330-1275 mm (full frame equivalent ) lens. Is that "SUPER" enough for you?

[GibbyTheMole]

While there is no "super zoom" as such, let's imagine you bought the Q/PK adaptor, and have a 60-250/4 in your bag

That gives you a 330-1275 mm (full frame equivalent ) lens. Is that "SUPER" enough for you?

What I was talking about was more along the lines of a wide angle to moderately long tele zoom for general walkaround use. (e.g. 18-200mm, 28-300mm)

[ChristianRock]

Has anyone brought up the Olympus E-PM2? Right now with the kit lens (14-42) it costs less than most premium compacts (270 on Amazon) and I'm pretty sure it beats them without even trying

[lesmore49]

I have a Canon G 12 and a Canon 430 EX 11 flash gun. They're good, but my Pentax K-m...at the time it came out was the smallest DSLR around. The K-m is a bit wider, a bit chunkier, but takes much better pics than the G 12 as it has a much bigger sensor. Also interchangeable K mount lenses. With Pancake Limited lenses...really compact.

When you think about it....do you really need a back up camera smaller than a K-m with say 3 pancake Limited lenses...21, 40, 70.

[6BQ5]

Has anyone brought up the Olympus E-PM2? Right now with the kit lens (14-42) it costs less than most premium compacts (270 on Amazon) and I'm pretty sure it beats them without even trying

My father bought one recently to use with his u4/3 lenses. The IQ is great but the controls feel a bit cramped for him if I use DPReview's phrase. He's used to control wheels and the like. The scree is hard for him to see in daylight sun.

[Na Horuk]

I was surprised to find out about the tiny Samsung cameras. Olympus cameras also look very attractive. Micro four thirds is a pretty extensive system, which makes it much more attractive

[wildman]

So I am wondering, what is a good photographer's compact backup camera? Something you can take with yourself when you don't want to lug around a bunch of lenses, but can still take quality photos.

A while back I was asking the same questions.
I have a close friend who was the manager of a large BestBuy store. He allowed me to take out, for a day without first purchasing, any demos he had in the case so long as I agreed to pay for them if lost or damaged.

Anyway after trying about 4 different cameras I realized that what I really needed, was not a smaller camera but a small camera. With most cameras I loose too many shots simply because they not handy and readily available due to size. So I ended up buying something small enough that it was transparent when carrying - slip it into my shirt pocket and forget about it until needed.

Anyway at the time I ended up with a Canon S95. It has worked out well. In fact it's so handy that I always have it with me even when I'm out with the K5 shooting with tripod mounted long glass. I'm sure there are even better choices now.

All I'm saying is keep in mind size and handiness - the camera you have in hand is the best one.

S95 shot I got simply because it just happened to be in my shirt pocket at the right moment...

[clackers]

I was surprised to find out about the tiny Samsung cameras. Olympus cameras also look very attractive. Micro four thirds is a pretty extensive system, which makes it much more attractive

Note, of course, that the Samsungs are APS-C ... plus lots of wireless features if anyone's into that sort of thing.

[ChristianRock]

Note, of course, that the Samsungs are APS-C ... plus lots of wireless features if anyone's into that sort of thing.

I think you are confusing them with the regular NX cameras… the NX Mini is a 1" sensor - same size as Nikon 1 and the Sony RX100. Still bigger than even premium point and shoots (1/1.7") but much smaller than micro 4/3 or APS-C.

[carrrlangas]

Anyway after trying about 4 different cameras I realized that what I really needed, was not a smaller camera but a small camera. With most cameras I loose too many shots simply because they not handy and readily available due to size. So I ended up buying something small enough that it was transparent when carrying - slip it into my shirt pocket and forget about it until needed.

I agree. You need to decide if you want pocketable or not.

And regarding sensor size, I don´t know how relevant it is at small sizes (smaller than say 1" for pocketable and m4/3 for not pocketable)


I´ll be looking for a fuji x20 once the new model is out . I really look forward to the optical viewfinder and manual zoom...

[clackers]

I think you are confusing them with the regular NX cameras… the NX Mini is a 1" sensor - same size as Nikon 1 and the Sony RX100. Still bigger than even premium point and shoots (1/1.7") but much smaller than micro 4/3 or APS-C.

Thanks for the correction, CR!


As people have said ... if only the Q had that sensor ...

[ChristianRock]

If the Q had that sensor, everybody would wish it had a 4/3 sensor. And if it had that, people would wish it was APS-C. If it was APS-C, people would wish it was full frame. That's just the nature of things

But the thing is, it's not all about just the sensor size. From what I've seen - and someone can correct me if I'm wrong - the Fujifilm 2/3" sensor just doesn't perform as well as the Canon 1/1.7" sensor or the one that Olympus and Pentax use for the MX-1 and XZ-2 (Sony?). And then there's the lens factor. In Canon-land, it seems like the G15/G16 delivers much sharper, contrasty pictures than the S110/S120, I assume it's the lens because the sensor is supposedly the same.

Also, there's the issue of pixel density. Most 1/2.3" sensors are now putting out 20MP or even more (even if the "true resolution" remains much lower). This adds noise much sooner to the image at lower ISOs, so the difference in performance between a 1/1.7" 12MP sensor and a 1/2.3" 20MP sensor is much, much bigger than it would appear to be, the 1/1.7" sensor delivering much better quality images even up to ISO 800 and acceptable even beyond that. It's incredible how far technology has come! I wonder what will be possible 5 years from now!

[clackers]

.

Also, there's the issue of pixel density. Most 1/2.3" sensors are now putting out 20MP or even more (even if the "true resolution" remains much lower). This adds noise much sooner to the image at lower ISOs, so the difference in performance between a 1/1.7" 12MP sensor and a 1/2.3" 20MP sensor is much, much bigger than it would appear to be, the 1/1.7" sensor delivering much better quality images even up to ISO 800 and acceptable even beyond that. It's incredible how far technology has come! I wonder what will be possible 5 years from now!

Yeah, which is why I reckon a Q with the 20MP 1" sensor would be interesting ... same as the Sony RX 100 but able to take K-mount glass by adapter.

[ChristianRock]

Yeah, which is why I reckon a Q with the 20MP 1" sensor would be interesting ... same as the Sony RX 100 but able to take K-mount glass by adapter.

But now all of a sudden, all your lenses are wide and you no longer have long teles

For what it is, I think the 1/1.7" is fine. In fact I'm looking to add a camera with that size sensor as our new compact, since it seems like my wife lost our Pentax Optio RZ18...