[rodcy]

Any recommendations. I have a Fufi X20. It has its merits but I think I could do better. Would like something with depth of field control and a viewfinder. Please don't suggest Leica my pockets aren't that deep!

[acoulter]

Any recommendations. I have a Fufi X20. It has its merits but I think I could do better. Would like something with depth of field control and a viewfinder. Please don't suggest Leica my pockets aren't that deep!

Naturally the Ricoh GRI II and III. Fantastic cameras but sans that viewfinder you mentioned, which led me to sell mine. Instead I got the Lumix GM5 with the 20mm 1.7. Beautiful and amazing pocketable kit that offers lens versatility as well as a big sensor, PLUS viewfinder.

[DWS1]

I'm looking for the same thing.

[hjoseph7]

Pentax Q : Pentax Q Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

[BigDave]

Ditto on the Pentax Q. You can even have a small pouch in your pocket for an extra lens or two. Light, good image quality, I use mine when trail biking!

[UncleVanya]

The best compact camera 2020: 10 best compact cameras money can buy in 2020 | TechRadar

Anything on this list would be worth looking further into. I like the Panasonic compacts and while the Sony is nice I haven't warmed to my dad's RX100 mk IV.

[Astro-Baby]

Have a Lumix TZ90 thats tiny, light, takes solid pics and has a VF plus manual control if needed.

[Bengan]

I wanted something really compact and with a viewfinder. It came down to either Sony Cyber-shot RX100 (IV or V) or Canon PowerShot G5X Mark II. I ended up with Canon for two reasons. Touchscreen (among other things, gives me the opportunity to select focus point with my thumb without removing the camera from my eye) and the fact that the viewfinder activates when you hold the camera to eye. I like it.

[ChristianRock]

I think in your place, I would be looking for the Panasonic LX10.

1"sensor, f/1.4 "Leica"-branded lens, really good image quality, 4k video (if you need it). You won't see it in the latest "Top 10" lists because it's a few years old already, but the sensor technology is moving slowly now.

[Wasp]

A small sensor may make a small camera, but that means a large crop factor. With that you get lots of depth of field. The bottom line, a lot of DOF without much control. You make your choices and you pay your money.

[Gray]

I like the Sony RX100 series so much I own two of them. The RX100III with built-in 3-stop ND filter, tilt screen and fast f/1.8-2.8 / 24-70 mm equivalent lens & the RX100VII with tilt touch screen, ultra reliable tracking autofocus, insane burst modes, and 24-200 equivalent lens. Both have a view finder -- the VII's is really crisp -- and built-in tiltable flash. The buttons are customisable and once you've set up the FN menu the way you like, you'll hardly ever have to dig into the menus. I never travel, hike, walk or run without my RX100.

But images speak louder than words Here are some examples - every one of them handheld and taken on the move using the RX100III -



The 20 Mp sensor gives plenty of resolution. This is a panorama of four RX100III images stitched together in Photoshop (the RX100 models have a built in panorama mode which gives excellent results too).
Click the image to open a larger version

[normhead]

If this is going to be a flood the thread with images" thread, I'm in.

Panasonic ZS100 or FZ100
FF equivalent 24 to 250mm.


































The features.
24-250 zoom, 4k video, collapsible front element makes it pocketable in a winter coat, or any jacket with big pockets.

Cons, for top quality work most of the long end is diffraction limited. F2.8 to F3.5 are pretty much your safe settings o avoid diffraction. The lens is 2.8 but by 40mm it's a minimum ƒ4. After that diffraction is noticeable.

So here is the quandary. The ZS1000 has an f2.8 to ƒ4 lens, to make diffraction avoidable, but the lens element is huge and it doesn't fit in your pocket.

This camera is seriously pocketable collapsing to a very small footprint. And used from 24-40mm equivalent, produces images comparable to K-3 images with it's 20 MP sensor.


That's my choice.

My wife loves her Q. (Two opinions for the price of one.)


These and out WG waterproof shock proof are our truly pocketable cameras. The Lumix is the only one capable of producing DSLR quality images. A measured 2600 lw/ph resolution, only 100 lw/ph less than a K-3, rich vibrant colours, and truly pocketable because of the collapsing lens.

---------- Post added 11-25-20 at 12:04 PM ----------

The bottom line, a lot of DOF without much control.

I always laugh at this FF proponent thought. As if superior DoF means less control. The difference is you have to work harder to keep your subject contained in the DoF with a larger sensor. If you want the DoF, you have more control with the smaller sensor. No stopping down to ƒ22 and, setting up your timers, and tripods and then getting a diffraction limited image to get wide depth of field. I don't call that control. Sensor size never affects control. It affects what you have control over. With FF you have control of narrow DoF, but ƒ16 and 22 will be effected by diffraction and lack of light for wide DoF images. With a 1 inch sensor you have great depth of field at ƒ2.8 for low light images with appropriate depth of field. The control is different, but not lacking.

You can do out of focus back grounds with a 1 inch sensor....


By going to ƒ22 you can do wide DoF with an FF sensor.


In both cases, using the sensor against it's strength brings limitations not found when using the preferred sensor for the job to it's strength. The smaller the sensor, the larger the DoF at a larger aperture. So increased shutter speed and the ability to capture images with good DoF in poor light are the control features of small sensor cameras.

Personally, I like the 1 inch sensor as a great compromise. Not so dramatic lack o DoF. Still big enough for 20 MP, a little disappointing in dynamic rage. Capable of images close to a k-3 in resolution. But most important gives my 24mm-250mm and fits in my pocket.

Here's an image 6 feet to infinity (ƒ22 on full frame) taken at ƒ3.2 and 1/400s to freeze the dog and and prevent motion blur. Try and take that with your allegedly "more control" camera. With larger sensors, what you gain on narrow DoF capability and flexibility, you lose on wide DoF capability and flexibility. It's a straight trade, with no winners or losers. You always need the best tool for the job to maximize your results.

[AgentL]

The Panasonic LX100 II might have the best DoF control, since it has a large-aperture zoom lens and an almost M4/3 sensor. The sensor is also true multi-aspect with a dedicated switch for different aspect ratios, which is cool, and it has Fuji-esque manual controls. I had the GX9 for a while, with the same sensor and processing, and it produces very nice files.

[normhead]

The Panasonic LX100 II might have the best DoF control, since it has a large-aperture zoom lens and an almost M4/3 sensor. The sensor is also true multi-aspect with a dedicated switch for different aspect ratios, which is cool, and it has Fuji-esque manual controls. I had the GX9 for a while, with the same sensor and processing, and it produces very nice files.

That looks like a great camera. Personally I refer the 10:1 zoom on the ZS100, because.I want ID images of birds, even if they are diffraction limited, but for a non-bird/wildlife shooter the LX100 looks ideal.

[jpzk]

Great shots you guys!
I wasn't expecting such a show!