Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Photography
Reload this Page >

What is your camera of choice while traveling?

What is your camera of choice while traveling?

Old Oct 14, 2011, 4:54 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: *G, M+ Platinum
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
The Pentax uses a smaller sensor than all of the mirrorless cameras, of course they are smaller yet. Not sure what your point is.
I actually meant the "real" Pentax d* pancakes, not that Q crap they just put out, sorry for the confusion.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06...0mmf24lens.asp

Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
(Also, a zoom pancake is like saying a giant dwarf. Until the mirrorless camera manufacturers started abusing the term, there were very few pancake lenses in the world and they were always primes.)
See link provided above. Panasonic has indeed created a pancake zoom, and, yes, it rewrites the rules of the image quality vs size equations.

Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
If you can't find where these cameras fit for you, don't buy it, no one is making you. I've only been stating (defending feels like the more appropriate word though) how I have found that this will fit into my current uses. Not sure why you have issue with the fact that someone else might have found a different solution.
I'm sorry you felt this, and perhaps all conversations, were exclusively about YOU. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I stated this solution makes sense for YOU and people LIKE YOU (those who have a full stable of Nikon glass and want a smaller body that will AF). I will even say there are so many people like you that it justifies the creation of this camera by itself. My point was that for EVERYONE ELSE, I don't see where this camera system makes sense.

Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
In the end, I highly doubt you or anyone else will be able to tell if I shot photos with this camera or another of the mirrorless cameras. Like I said, if I want to get really critical with the image quality down to the pixel peeping level, I'll just whip out my D700 and shoot 14-bit uncompressed NEF files using my heavy pro glass though.
Well, if we're going to go down this road, I would argue that for 90+% of the people, in their output of choice (on screen or 5x7 or smaller print) you would be hard pressed to see the image quality difference between your D700 and pro glass and a decent compact (Canon S95, Olympus XZ1, Lumix LX5, etc). At 8x10 in less than optimal conditions (low light) the gap will widen, and bigger prints or bad conditions, certainly you will be able to tell, but that's going to be a tiny minority of the time.

Originally Posted by S.Marsh
I gave the G3 a serious consideration, but it still lacks native 1080/24P. If Vitaly hacks the G3 to boost bit-rates and record progressive frames at 25P (close enough to 24P), then I'll most definitely make the move to downsize.
It does 1920x1080 at 30fps sensor output in NTSC regions and 1920x1080 at 25 fps in PAL regions. I'm no video expert, but it seems to me that 24 fps (despite being the film standard) is a downgrade here. It would also seem that this would be an easy thing for Vitaly to do in the hack - I can guarantee you they are not using different hardware for the NTSC/PAL regions.

Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
Seriously, what is the issue with you and ~tc~?!? Why are you two so hurt that I might actually be able to make this camera work?!?
I would ask what is the your issue getting so butt hurt about our discussion of the new camera? Are you not quite so confident it will meet your needs after all? I simply asked why you chose it, and you provided a logical answer. From there, we moved on to discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of this new "system".

But, yes, I think micro 43 crushes it in just about every way that is important to me. Compact size, image quality in low light, and lens selection. The Nikon 1 has awesome frame rate specs, but 5 fps in full res/20 fps @ 4MP from my G3 is good enough for me. Hell, 3fps from my "old" GF1 was good enough for me!
~tc~ is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2011, 12:23 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MCI
Programs: DL
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by ~tc~
I actually meant the "real" Pentax d* pancakes, not that Q crap they just put out, sorry for the confusion.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06...0mmf24lens.asp
Ok, the Nikon 1 pancake is smaller than that at 55.5x22mm vs 63x26mm. Still not sure what your point is. Of course, the Nikon 45mm 2.8P is a mere 62x17mm and was designed to cover 35mm/full frame. Actually, out of the three, the Pentax is the heaviest too. (And it is designed to Pentax's digital sensor size.) If you knew your lenses to brag about, you would have mentioned the Pentax 40mm instead which is 15mm in length but it is still 63mm in diameter. Although, it is still designed only to cover the Pentax digital sensor. Yup, it is thinner (but not smaller in diameter) than the pancake for the 1 series but it is only 2mm thinner and larger around than a lens designed for a larger sensor.


Originally Posted by ~tc~
See link provided above. Panasonic has indeed created a pancake zoom, and, yes, it rewrites the rules of the image quality vs size equations.
Like I had said, saying pancake zoom or zoom pancake is like saying giant dwarf. It runs counter to the very definition of what a pancake lens is which is a thin prime lens. They are supposed to be the thinnest lens you can put on a given body. A zoom will never be that lens. And as for the rewriting of the rules of IQ vs size equations, no, that hasn't been done. They still have to bow down to the rules of physics of light. All lens manufacturers do. Nothing astounding was done with the optics at all. Use their same methods in a 1 series and the lens would be even smaller. Use those methods in an APS-C or FF camera and the lens would be bigger.


Originally Posted by ~tc~
I'm sorry you felt this, and perhaps all conversations, were exclusively about YOU. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I stated this solution makes sense for YOU and people LIKE YOU (those who have a full stable of Nikon glass and want a smaller body that will AF). I will even say there are so many people like you that it justifies the creation of this camera by itself. My point was that for EVERYONE ELSE, I don't see where this camera system makes sense.
How nice of you to speak for everyone else. I'm sure they are glad that you have made their mind up for them and know each of them well enough to speak for them. You do know everyone else, right? Otherwise, what was the point of your statement.

Originally Posted by ~tc~
Well, if we're going to go down this road, I would argue that for 90+% of the people, in their output of choice (on screen or 5x7 or smaller print) you would be hard pressed to see the image quality difference between your D700 and pro glass and a decent compact (Canon S95, Olympus XZ1, Lumix LX5, etc). At 8x10 in less than optimal conditions (low light) the gap will widen, and bigger prints or bad conditions, certainly you will be able to tell, but that's going to be a tiny minority of the time.
Thing is you are the one that wanted to nitpick on IQ of the 1 cameras vs the other mirrorless cameras and try to make a big deal out of it. I was saying that most people probably couldn't tell. Even at 16x20, I don't think most people will know the difference. In the real scheme of things, you're discussing a piddling match between the two formats. If it helps you sleep at night, go for it but I suspect the number of people betting on that fight are pretty small.

Originally Posted by ~tc~
I would ask what is the your issue getting so butt hurt about our discussion of the new camera? Are you not quite so confident it will meet your needs after all? I simply asked why you chose it, and you provided a logical answer. From there, we moved on to discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of this new "system".

But, yes, I think micro 43 crushes it in just about every way that is important to me. Compact size, image quality in low light, and lens selection. The Nikon 1 has awesome frame rate specs, but 5 fps in full res/20 fps @ 4MP from my G3 is good enough for me. Hell, 3fps from my "old" GF1 was good enough for me!
You try to act like it is just a passing curiosity or "conversation" yet your language here and the comment you didn't answer about (you know, the eye rolling you decided to do over the Nikon vs Sony or Panasonic, that's your issue, not mine) points to your true intentions which appear actually quite trollish. Yeah, we get it. You bought a 4/3 system but you do not speak for everyone else. You can only speak for yourself.

And it is hard to respect your opinion when you're quick to dismiss anything else without having firsthand experience with it. Like I said, I'm willing to try it out and see what is actually what before passing final judgement. (As to your question about my confidence, it's a pre-order, I can cancel it but I haven't. ) You on the other hand have already passed judgement without any experience with the system at all, just guesses based on other guesses.
chimphappyhour is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2011, 5:40 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
Actually, yes I can have it both ways. I get to see the actual file I shot while the viewer won't. All they get to see is what I did with that file.

Seriously, what is the issue with you and ~tc~?!? Why are you two so hurt that I might actually be able to make this camera work?!?
What is the issue with me? To say that shows your motivated reasoning. I have made only two (now three) posts in this thread. The primary focus was the sensor size to which you made a response that viewers would probably not be able to tell the difference between the J1 and another mirrorless camera but would between a P&S and a J1. So my second post was solely to point out that if you believe a sensor 1/3 the size would not be as good (J1 v. P&S), then you can't use the same logic to say that another sensor 1/3 the size would be as good (J1 v. NEX).

I have actually held and used the J1. I get it why Nikon users would be drawn to the system since they can use their other lenses. (But when they do so, that takes away from the otherwise compact size.)

On the other hand, I don't understand why Nikon went with such a small sensor when, for example, Sony has one three times as large in a camera body about the same size.

I take quite a few landscapes in the backcountry, but I don't have a 10mm lens to equal a 18mm on a 1.5x crop camera. In processing I can crop, but I can't expand (well, I guess I can in Photoshop, but it is quite difficult). So that means my other Nikon glass doesn't become as useful on the J1.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2011, 7:12 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MCI
Programs: DL
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by ND Sol
What is the issue with me? To say that shows your motivated reasoning. I have made only two (now three) posts in this thread. The primary focus was the sensor size to which you made a response that viewers would probably not be able to tell the difference between the J1 and another mirrorless camera but would between a P&S and a J1. So my second post was solely to point out that if you believe a sensor 1/3 the size would not be as good (J1 v. P&S), then you can't use the same logic to say that another sensor 1/3 the size would be as good (J1 v. NEX).

I have actually held and used the J1. I get it why Nikon users would be drawn to the system since they can use their other lenses. (But when they do so, that takes away from the otherwise compact size.)

On the other hand, I don't understand why Nikon went with such a small sensor when, for example, Sony has one three times as large in a camera body about the same size.

I take quite a few landscapes in the backcountry, but I don't have a 10mm lens to equal a 18mm on a 1.5x crop camera. In processing I can crop, but I can't expand (well, I guess I can in Photoshop, but it is quite difficult). So that means my other Nikon glass doesn't become as useful on the J1.
The point is, I stated what cameras I use for traveling and also stated what I've picked up to hopefully change that set-up. That's the point of this thread. I can even see the point of someone asking why I chose to do so. Fine. Yet, after I stated my reasoning for doing so, both you and ~tc~ seem to see fit to continue nagging on and on. Seriously, what is your point in doing so? I stated what cameras I use and why I've decided to do so. Why do you feel compelled to keep nagging me on something that you clearly don't understand? You two really have gone beyond the stage of being reasonable.

"The primary focus was the sensor size to which you made a response that viewers would probably not be able to tell the difference between the J1 and another mirrorless camera but would between a P&S and a J1."

That quote from you would be a prime example of how unreasonable you're being and how you're ignoring what I've said. At no point have I said that viewers would be able to tell the difference between a P&S and a J1.

Past posting what you use for a travel camera set-up, all else that you and ~tc~ have done here really is trolling and you two don't seem to know well enough when to stop. End of story. I think the trolling has gone on long enough.
chimphappyhour is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2011, 2:39 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
"The primary focus was the sensor size to which you made a response that viewers would probably not be able to tell the difference between the J1 and another mirrorless camera but would between a P&S and a J1."

That quote from you would be a prime example of how unreasonable you're being and how you're ignoring what I've said. At no point have I said that viewers would be able to tell the difference between a P&S and a J1.
Umm, yes, you did:

Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
Once again, I'll state: All I'm asking of my smaller camera is that it does better than what I've seen from P&Ss so far. (Which the preliminary tests are showing that it will but that's not a surprise since it is a larger sensor.)
And that was just after you stated that you highly doubted that anyone could tell the difference in IQ between the J1 and any other mirrorless camera, which would include those with sensors 3x the size of the J1.

It's not trolling just because you say that it is. It's to illustrate that your reasoning on sensor size has to go in both directions. So one of your two statements doesn't stand up. I'm just not sure which one it is (though I have my thoughts).

Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
Past posting what you use for a travel camera set-up, all else that you and ~tc~ have done here really is trolling and you two don't seem to know well enough when to stop. End of story. I think the trolling has gone on long enough.
If you would have just logically addressed the sensor size issue posts ago that would have been the "End of story". Instead you keep dancing around it, which could lead one to believe that it is you doing the trolling.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2011, 2:48 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MCI
Programs: DL
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by ND Sol
Umm, yes, you did:



And that was just after you stated that you highly doubted that anyone could tell the difference in IQ between the J1 and any other mirrorless camera, which would include those with sensors 3x the size of the J1.

It's not trolling just because you say that it is. It's to illustrate that your reasoning on sensor size has to go in both directions. So one of your two statements doesn't stand up. I'm just not sure which one it is (though I have my thoughts).



If you would have just logically addressed the sensor size issue posts ago that would have been the "End of story". Instead you keep dancing around it, which could lead one to believe that it is you doing the trolling.
Ah, I see your issue here. You aren't reading what I'm actually saying. You might want to mull it over a bit more. I am the shooter. I am the one working with the image files. The viewer doesn't see that, they see the end product. Is that clearer? What I see as the person working with the files is very different than what the viewer sees since I prefer to work with RAW files.
chimphappyhour is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2011, 4:15 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North of DFW
Programs: AA PLT, HH Gold, TSA Disparager Gold, going for Platnium
Posts: 1,535
I always have a camera on me, but its one of 5 possibilities: 5dmkII, 7D, and a 50D converted to IR S95 and a G12. Then i have a whole slew of lens(8mm- 400mm) and flashes. What i take depends on the trip and what i need so theres quite a range.
Scubatooth is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2011, 4:51 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: UA
Posts: 132
Man, this is starting to look like a Dpreview thread . . .
S.Marsh is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2011, 7:00 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MCI
Programs: DL
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by S.Marsh
Man, this is starting to look like a Dpreview thread . . .
Glad I'm not the only one thinking that.
chimphappyhour is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2011, 10:40 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Originally Posted by chimphappyhour
Ah, I see your issue here. You aren't reading what I'm actually saying. You might want to mull it over a bit more. I am the shooter. I am the one working with the image files. The viewer doesn't see that, they see the end product. Is that clearer? What I see as the person working with the files is very different than what the viewer sees since I prefer to work with RAW files.
Oh, so you always included another variable into the equation, which would be Photoshop, so that "viewers" wouldn't be able to discern the difference, but you would pre-processing? Can't we agree that all other things being equal, a larger sensor will provide a better IQ, especially when the sensor is 3x larger? That was the only point I have been making.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2011, 6:18 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MCI
Programs: DL
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by ND Sol
Oh, so you always included another variable into the equation, which would be Photoshop, so that "viewers" wouldn't be able to discern the difference, but you would pre-processing? Can't we agree that all other things being equal, a larger sensor will provide a better IQ, especially when the sensor is 3x larger? That was the only point I have been making.
Why? Why are you trying to make that point? No one but you is trying to argue that point. See, that's why I'm saying you're being trollish. And I'm not suddenly introducing the prospect of software. If you had taken any time at all to read my very first post where I state why I've ordered the J1, one of the reasons I give is that the camera has NEF output. Now, why would I shoot in a RAW format? What do you think the next step is? Yes, you are being a all out troll and I definitely agree that the behavior of you and ~tc~ is straight out of dpreview. Like I said, you two are taking this way off topic and for what? There is absolutely no reason for what you two are doing. None. You're just picking fights that aren't there.
chimphappyhour is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2011, 8:45 am
  #42  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 37,486
Moderator request: knock it off.

This thread has turned into the twilight zone, with posters reporting their own posts for trolling - Lets see if we can get this back on topic - PLEASE.
ScottC is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2011, 5:52 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Originally Posted by ScottC
Moderator request: knock it off.

This thread has turned into the twilight zone, with posters reporting their own posts for trolling - Lets see if we can get this back on topic - PLEASE.
I only asked a simple question and get called a troll more than once as a deflection when the poster continues to not answer it. I don't understand why we can't agree that all other things being equal, a larger sensor will provide a better IQ, especially when the sensor is 3x larger. That was the only point I have been making. Otherwise that leaves a false impression with some that might read this thread.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2011, 6:34 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: *G, M+ Platinum
Posts: 619
Comparison photos of the V1 have been added to the dpreview database.

For those looking to upgrade their compact, I would say there's no compelling reason to change unless you need >ISO1600 where it does seem to perform a little better. It is thoroughly outclassed at every ISO by the larger sensored (m43, APSC, etc) compact system cameras and DSLRs.
~tc~ is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2011, 1:49 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 107
Cameras for travel

To try and lighten the mood, and the load!

I'm using SLR's and a variety of lenses everyday for work, so when I'm on a day off or on holiday I take a Canon G11.

The G11 is small enough to slip in the pocket and fit in the hand, so I can take pictures inconspicuously. the image quality is more than adequate for what I want from my 'leisure' pictures. the camera is actually good enough to use in a rehearsal studio to get pictures of a band without disturbing their work.

I find I actually take more pictures with the G11 when I'm on holiday and exploring than I did when using an SLR. It's enjoyable, and a challenge, to try getting the best pictures I can from a small camera.

Other people may enjoy using a SLR and different lenses while traveling, but having a simple, but advanced P&S works well for me. The G11 gives me all the image control I have in SLR's but in a lighter and smaller package.

Ultimately, the most important part of photography is the vision and imagination of the person pressing the shutter, good equipment helps, but is not the defining factor.

Last edited by PDPhoto; Oct 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm Reason: Additional thoughts
PDPhoto is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.