Best bang for buck point and shoot?

[Rob587]

The image quality difference in this comparison has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the better performing camera is a DSLR. The difference is primarily the result of the sensor size difference and possibly somewhat the difference in the optical quality of the lenses.

You can get a substantially more compact camera which the same "larger" sized sensor in a much more compact camera by choosing either one of the "mirrorless" interchangeable lens cameras from Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, Fuji... or one of the premium fixed lens offering that use the APS-c size sensor (e.g. Fuji Finepix X100S, ...). Even the better cameras with slightly smaller sensors (e.g. Sony RX100) perform excentlly.

It's probably personal preference, but sample images on the Canon S120 look better to me than the Rx100 III.

 

[kenoh]

It's probably personal preference, but sample images on the Canon S120 look better to me than the Rx100 III.

Each to their own...

liking the watch site BTW, you are again amongst friends on here on that front...

 

[LiveM]

Great! lol Now I'm getting sucked in to the DSLR after looking at this image comparison. http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/s120/vs/canon/t5/image-quality

Ignore micro comparisons like that. They have nothing to do with real photos. The Leica X Vario or Samsung NX500 will make those images look pathetic in a pointless comparison but what counts is the joy of shooting and the look and feel of the resulting photos.

Cameras are like audio gear and computers. The smaller you go, the more sacrifices are made but the less you will spend, plus the more you will use it. There are premium brands that have both big and small models and high-performing second tier brands to consider as well.

 

[fathergll]

The X Vario is $800 less used from B&H. Leica C is a lot less again, and then there are the D-Lux models. A used model will fetch a similar amount resold in the future, so the real cost could be much less than a Sony.

The problem is the OP is asking for 'best bang for buck'. Leica doesn't fit that by definition. Why recommend the D-Lux over a Panasonic Lumix LX100 which is far cheaper...far cheaper.
[doublepost=1452096076][/doublepost]

After looking at a bunch of sample test shots, I seem to prefer the quality/look of what the Canons produce. Again, I'm not a pro, but the G7 or even the S110 seem to have a more cinematic quality compared to the RX100s. Am I crazy, or do the Canons tend to produce a more DSLR like photo? Even the macros look good to me with background blur.

Right now, I think I'm between a Canon S110, G7 or maybe even a Canon EOS Rebel T5 (even though its a DSLR its light, small, and $399).

Canon's tend to produce warmer files straight out of the camera which is why you like the files more.

I would stay away from a DSLR and focus on a compact that does macro photography well since that would your initial requirement.

 

[Rob587]

Each to their own...

liking the watch site BTW, you are again amongst friends on here on that front...

Thanks! I'm going to start going to tech conferences and asking people if I can take pics of their watches. Hence the need for the camera.

The problem is the OP is asking for 'best bang for buck'. Leica doesn't fit that by definition. Why recommend the D-Lux over a Panasonic Lumix LX100 which is far cheaper...far cheaper.
[doublepost=1452096076][/doublepost]

Canon's tend to produce warmer files straight out of the camera which is why you like the files more.

I would stay away from a DSLR and focus on a compact that does macro photography well since that would your initial requirement.

Makes sense. I think the S120 is going to be the best bet. I'll share some samples with you guys when I get it. Thanks for all of the help!

 

[andiwm2003]

if you are looking for best bang for bucks then you should look at high end point and shoots that are phased out or replaced by a new model. I got a Olympus XZ2 at Amazon for $150 a year ago when the model was discontinued. I guess there are other similar deals out there.

 

[Rob587]

if you are looking for best bang for bucks then you should look at high end point and shoots that are phased out or replaced by a new model. I got a Olympus XZ2 at Amazon for $150 a year ago when the model was discontinued. I guess there are other similar deals out there.

Thanks for the advice! That's kind of what I'm looking to do. How do you feel the XZ2 does in low light?

 

[Ish]

I'm sure the answer changes often, so I'm asking here.

I mainly photograph watches, but also occasional pics of the family, landscapes etc. I just want something that can take incredible photos easily. I'm tired of the average images my iPhone 6+ takes.

I love the quality I see from people who use DSLRs, but I'm assuming there are some point and shoots capable of comparable quality these days, right? I just want easy. Also, compact is nice for traveling.

After looking at a bunch of sample test shots, I seem to prefer the quality/look of what the Canons produce. Again, I'm not a pro, but the G7 or even the S110 seem to have a more cinematic quality compared to the RX100s. Am I crazy, or do the Canons tend to produce a more DSLR like photo? Even the macros look good to me with background blur.

Right now, I think I'm between a Canon S110, G7 or maybe even a Canon EOS Rebel T5 (even though its a DSLR its light, small, and $399).

How pocketable do you want it to be and what sort of budget are you looking at? I used to use Canon DSLRs and liked the look I got, but they were too heavy and I moved over to the Fuji X mirrorless range. The ones I use are small, but not Sony RX100 small and not quite pocketable, unless you're talking generous coat pockets, but the IQ is fantastic and they have the same sized sensors (APS-C) that you find in DSLRs that aren't full frame. I'm thinking a lightly used Fuji X100S might fit what you're looking for. Worth a look anyway!

EDIT: Wrote this before I noticed there was a second page! I believe the closest you can focus on this is about 10cm

 

[mtbdudex]

I'm sure the answer changes often, so I'm asking here.

I mainly photograph watches, but also occasional pics of the family, landscapes etc. I just want something that can take incredible photos easily. I'm tired of the average images my iPhone 6+ takes.

I love the quality I see from people who use DSLRs, but I'm assuming there are some point and shoots capable of comparable quality these days, right? I just want easy. Also, compact is nice for traveling.

It's not the gear......
Suggestions:
a) Join a local photography group, learn about photography 1st hand from others
b) take a course at local college on photography, interact with people 1:1, learn from others first hand
c) read this book, learn the basics, "Understanding Exposure, 3rd Edition: How to Shoot Great Photographs with Any Camera"
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Edition-Photographs/dp/0817439390

Understanding Exposure has demystified the complex concepts of exposure for countless photographers. Now updated with current technologies, more than one hundred new images, and an all-new chapter, this new edition will inspire you more than ever to free yourself from “auto” and create the pictures you truly want.

In his trademark easy-to-understand style, author Bryan Peterson explains the relationship between aperture and shutter speed, including how to achieve successful exposures in seemingly difficult situations. You’ll learn:

• Which aperture gives you the greatest contrast and sharpness, and when to use it
• Which apertures guarantee the background remains an out-of-focus tone
• Which one aperture—when combined with the right lens—creates an area of sharpness from three feet to infinity
• How to creatively use shutter speed to either freeze an action or imply motion
• Where to take a meter reading when shooting a sunset, snow, or a city at dusk

With new information on white balance, flash, HDR, and more, this updated classic will inspire you to stop guessing and take control of your settings for better photos anytime, anywhere, and with any camera.

 

[MacRy]

I'd recommend a used Fuji X100S. Fabulous little cameras and more than capable of outstanding image quality. I own an X100T which has them same sensor/lens combo and I'm happy with the watch shots I've taken with it:

 

[kenoh]

I'd recommend a used Fuji X100S. Fabulous little cameras and more than capable of outstanding image quality. I own an X100T which has them same sensor/lens combo and I'm happy with the watch shots I've taken with it:

Oh my! That Smiths (Empire?) is gorgeous! me likey!

 

[MacRy]

Oh my! That Smiths (Empire?) is gorgeous! me likey!

It is a beaut. It's a PRS-36 from Timefactors.

 

[kenoh]

It is a beaut. It's a PRS-36 from Timefactors.

Ah! he is putting Smiths dials on his in house watches! Very nice! Eddie does a great job. I had a Speedbird, one of the first ones he did and it was great. My dad wears it now.

 

[Crazy Badger]

I'm a Canon DSLR user so might be a little bias with this, but I picked up a new Canon EOS M about 12 months ago for less than £200 and genuinely don't think you could get a better camera for the money.

You are basically getting a 650d in a mirrorless body with a 18-55 lens (which is pretty good) and a small detachable flash. For another £75 you can buy a very good 22mm f2.0 lens that makes the whole thing completely pocketable and take anywhere. It's weakness is the AF speed, but once you've accepted this and know what it can do its and incredible bit of kit for the money.

If you already have Canon glass, the cheap adapter makes this a no brainer as a second body and undoubtedly one of the best photography purchased I've ever made

 

[Rob587]

I'm a Canon DSLR user so might be a little bias with this, but I picked up a new Canon EOS M about 12 months ago for less than £200 and genuinely don't think you could get a better camera for the money.

You are basically getting a 650d in a mirrorless body with a 18-55 lens (which is pretty good) and a small detachable flash. For another £75 you can buy a very good 22mm f2.0 lens that makes the whole thing completely pocketable and take anywhere. It's weakness is the AF speed, but once you've accepted this and know what it can do its and incredible bit of kit for the money.

If you already have Canon glass, the cheap adapter makes this a no brainer as a second body and undoubtedly one of the best photography purchased I've ever made

Looks nice! How does it compare to the s120?

 

[monokakata]

Thanks! I'm going to start going to tech conferences and asking people if I can take pics of their watches. Hence the need for the camera.

If I'm reading this right, you're intending to approach people and ask to photograph their watches?

I think this is going to be difficult, and not for social/personal reasons.

If the watch stays on the wrist, as I'm guessing it will, then you're going to have difficulties with exposure and focus, not to mention framing. If you want to get in there closely, then DOF will be an issue, but focus perhaps even more -- because the person isn't likely to hold his or her wrist rock-steadily. If the camera can focus-track quickly, maybe you'll be OK. But a tilt in relation to the camera will hurt your shot.

Light -- probably mostly artificial, which is fixable, but is also probably low, which works against what you want to do.

What I'd recommend, and maybe you've done this already, is spending some time with cooperative friends who will play the part of those tech conference people. Don't tell them what to do, except in the most general way.

See what the issues are when you try to do what you're planning to do. Make a list of what's difficult and what's not, and why.

Then you can move on to working out which camera will give you the best shot at it.

 

[MacRy]

Ah! he is putting Smiths dials on his in house watches! Very nice! Eddie does a great job. I had a Speedbird, one of the first ones he did and it was great. My dad wears it now.

Those Speedbirds are nice. The only issue with the Smiths is the logo..... remind you of anything?

Here's a shot of the movement.

 

[kenoh]

Those Speedbirds are nice. The only issue with the Smiths is the logo..... remind you of anything?

Here's a shot of the movement.

lol they wont mind, hasnt got 5 coronets...

 

[MacRy]

lol they wont mind, hasnt got 5 coronets...

I wasn't thinking of Rolex. I was thinking more that it bears a strong resemblance to certain female anatomy (once you see it you can't unsee it )

 

[kenoh]

I wasn't thinking of Rolex. I was thinking more that it bears a strong resemblance to certain female anatomy (once you see it you can't unsee it )

I was thinking what the hell is he on... then I saw it.... now I cannot un-see it... genius!

 

[Apple fanboy]

I wasn't thinking of Rolex. I was thinking more that it bears a strong resemblance to certain female anatomy (once you see it you can't unsee it )

I have no idea what you are on about!

I was thinking what the hell is he on... then I saw it.... now I cannot un-see it... genius!

Or you!

 

[MacRy]

I have no idea what you are on about!


Or you!

You are so pure of mind AFB Take a good long look at the Smiths logo and tell me that it doesn't look like something other than a crown.

 

[Apple fanboy]

You are so pure of mind AFB Take a good long look at the Smiths logo and tell me that it doesn't look like something other than a crown.

I think you spend to long looking at watches online! You can get help for that sort of thing.

 

[dwig]

I'm a Canon DSLR user so might be a little bias with this, but I picked up a new Canon EOS M about 12 months ago for less than £200 and genuinely don't think you could get a better camera for the money. ...

The Canon EOS M falls into the "ugly duckling" category where you'll often find some of the best-bang-for-the-buck cameras. The "M" was a total miss by marketing standards (think Ford Edsel) but is actually a very good performer (think Edsel again). When it hit the market it was somewhat of a day-late-and-dollar-short in terms of the price vs. features balance. When it flopped, Canon cut the prices to reposition the camera against other manufacture's lesser models (perhaps just to sell them off...). At the current low prices they are a great value in many ways.

 

[LiveM]

The problem is the OP is asking for 'best bang for buck'. Leica doesn't fit that by definition. Why recommend the D-Lux over a Panasonic Lumix LX100 which is far cheaper...far cheaper.
[doublepost=1452096076][/doublepost]

Try selling a Lumix versus a D-Lux and you will see that the Leitz will have cost you no more than the Panasonic. And don't forget that it comes with Lightroom and is a better camera. That's bang for your buck; a used LX100 is currently less than a new one ny about the same amount as is the case with the Leica, but when it is superceded the LX100 it will have dropped the greater amount since it does not have the same lasting appeal and there is lower supply and therefore altermatives for your used Leica.