Are there any small cameras comparable (or close enough)...

[iomatic]

...to the performance of a dSLR? I ask because I really don't want to travel with my 5D+24-70; it just begs to be stolen/grab attention.

I guess this would be the criteria, though I'm not certain what order of preference yet:

--small, light, discreet. The D-Lux looks perfect; black is nice, the Panasonic version is probably more frugal.
--FAST startup. With Canon, you can leave it on, and it automatically shuts off, but is still ready to shoot.
--quick shutter response
--quality image rendition
--manual controls. Once I've done tests, I can accurately meter and photograph.
--RAW. I only shoot RAW. I will never shoot JPG.

I know there'll be sacrifices either side of the list, but for normal travel, sights, street, etc. which cameras (even possibly list some new ones listed recently), may come close?

I think that's about it. Any takers?

[flippedgazelle]

Most compact P&S don't shoot RAW - that's simply not the demographic for the market. The Fuji E900 shoots RAW, as did the Canon G6, if you can still find it.

Why won't you shoot jpg? Theoretically, wouldn't you take a camera that shoots fine jpg's over one that shoots mediocre RAW?

[iomatic]

Theoretically, yes, but I much prefer full control of RAW processing. I'm used to it, I'm dare I say, a professional at it, and understand what a lossy JPG format can't do, and how much latitude I have with RAW. Once you go RAW, you won't go back, especially if you have made a living at it.

[flippedgazelle]

I've shot RAW, but certainly far less than you... :D Any photo I choose to edit I convert to .tif.

I guess my point is that suppose there were 2 cameras, one had poor IQ (say, for instance, a noisy imager or a soft lens) but supported RAW, and another one that had very good IQ, but only supported jpg.

A few years ago, it seemed there were more choices with compact cameras supporting RAW, but as that is not a feature that is marketable to the "average" consumer, and also as manufacturers work more on product differentiation, certain features get stripped. A good example of this is the Canon G7. More megapixels, more zoom, no RAW, slower lens than the G6.

If you go to the Reviews & Info page here, you can search by feature, including RAW.

[iomatic]

Yes, thanks, I did in fact, end up there. What I saw that was left for my taste was the Fuji E900, or Leica D-LUX 3. They both suck, though, in comparison to DSLRs. Point and shoots are just not there yet. Soon, though.

Bummer.

[Tom_N]

There are many point-and-shoots that will give you good-looking .JPGs if you are shooting in situations with plenty of light. Many now offer good speed -- maybe not in the same class as a DSLR, but fast enough.

Sacrifices:

--RAW. As the previous poster pointed out, most P&Ss don't support RAW.

--Wide angle. Many P&Ss only go down to about 35-38mm (35mm-equivalent terms). If you want a 28mm-equivalent setting, that's harder to find, though some cameras (like a just-announced Olympus superzoom) do have it.

--Low-light shooting. Most P&Ss either don't support -- or don't fare well -- at high ISO. Couple this with slow lenses, weak flashes, and (usually) lack of support for TTL external flash, and this is a weak point of P&Ss. If you will be taking any pictures in places (museums, churches) that typically do NOT allow flash photography, bring a tripod/monopod on the trip, and pick a camera that lets you force the flash to stay off.

If I was going on a trip like this, and didn't want to lug along a (D)SLR, I think I would pick one of the superzooms. (I define those as the digital P&Ss with a 10x or higher optical zoom range, like the Canon S3 IS or similar Panasonics.) They are larger than the shirt-pocket cameras, but in places like zoos (where you may not be able to get right up to the subject), the zooms make it easier to get more shots.

[Tom_N]

They both suck, though, in comparison to DSLRs. Point and shoots are just not there yet. Soon, though.


Another option: Instead of taking your 5D (at least $2100 to replace) and 24-70 lens (another $1000 to replace), you could buy and take an entry-level DSLR. You'd still need to guard it, but it wouldn't be as big a loss if it was stolen.

A Nikon D50 or a Digital Rebel 350D (XT) with the kit lens would not cost all that much now. It's my impression that the Nikon has the better kit lens -- though the Rebel body would be more useful to you as a backup body.

[Riley]

Leica D-Lux 3, if you can find one, shoots RAW

[mattdm]

So do the Olympus Camedia line. And although there appear to be no new ones with that designation, the SP-550 ultra-ultra zoom (on the front page of this site right now) appears from its feature set -- including RAW mode -- to be a mis-numbered "C" camera.

[Riley]

bit of an unknown yet Matt
although
maybe waiting for post PMA would be a wise thing

[mattdm]

Yeah, I'm just going on the specs -- it's got RAW, full manual controls, customizable buttons, "my mode" saved settings, bulb shutter, etc.

[Riley]

not to mention a huge iso range
i mean what gives there
they cant all be crap
can they ?

[iomatic]

Sounds like on the thread that I had already decided on the D-Lux 3, but I'm leaning more towards it, while bringing along the 5D.

Dnno.

[iomatic]

I'm now debating over the:

Leica D-LUX 3 or Panasonic DMC-LX2K (the Leica more for stealthy all-black, Panasonic for price, obviously).
Fuji F31D. I would really like to shoot RAW though, having done it professionally.
Fuji E900
A Canon G6, if I can find one, or suffer through JPGs with a G7.


Any thoughts and experiences shooting with these, and additionally, and great comparisons would be great. I asked earlier if there was a camera that would satisfy closer-to-SLR performance, but having mulled it for awhile, I think this would be the best criteria:

a) Fast performance
b) RAW
c) Stealthy/compact

I've decided to bring along the 5D and a 50 + 24-70. I would use the p-n-s camera during the day for candids/street, and if there was a really great scene, pull out the 5D. I'm still debating whether to grab a really tiny Gitzo and throw it in a suitcase for those times when I want to venture out at night for some landscapes. From what I've read, most travelers hate packing this kind of gear; when traveling for a shoot, a job is a different story.

So really, I'm debating to myself online whether or not I want to be a tourist or a photographer :)