 |
| Murraya Panasonic LX10 gets in close but only at the wide end of the zoom |
The rise and rise of smartphones has seen a steep decline in sales of traditional point and shoot small compact cameras. The smartphone has become the preferred point and shoot photographic device for millions of people around the world.
Which leads me to the question: is there a future for the advanced, enthusiast oriented compact camera ?
I think there is for the following reasons:
* A dedicated camera can have a zoom lens ranging from 3x to 60x. It is much more difficult to incorporate a zoom lens into a smartphone although various makers are trying to find ways around this restriction for instance by having two camera modules one with a wide angle lens and the other with a longer lens.
* Camera reviewers often point out that a camera can have better picture quality than a smartphone. This is true enough but when the smartphone makes pictures which are good enough for most users the fact that some other device might make better pictures becomes irrelevant.
* I think the most enduring reason a person might choose to make pictures with a camera lies with the nature of the user experience.
The user experience with a smartphone is utilitarian. The person taking a photo does not know or care about aspects of the process which involve exposure, focussing, aperture, shutter speed and ISO sensitivity. The 21st Century point and shoot device is the modern reincarnation of the Kodak Box Brownie from 100 years ago…..”You press the shutter, we do the rest”.
That is absolutely fine for most people but some individuals want to have more control over the photographic process. They actually want to know what aperture, shutter speed, ISO setting and exposure compensation the camera is set to use. They want to nominate the exact part of the subject which will be rendered sharply in focus. They want to tell the camera to use single or continuous autofocus and sometimes focus manually. They want to utilise a range of options for video capture.
The elements of this control are holding, viewing and operating.
The user needs to be able to hold the device securely to keep it steady for sharp results.
The monitor needs to show a clear view of the subject with easily visible camera data. This view needs to be replicated in an eye level viewfinder so the user can hold the camera steady and operate it effectively in bright sunlight or in low light or at the long end of a zoom.
The camera needs to encourage the user to monitor and adjust all primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters in Capture Phase of use and to smoothly alter settings for focus, drive, color and others in Prepare Phase of use.
My view is that every camera including the smallest should enable the user to quickly and smoothly exercise a high level of control over the picture taking process.
Some history of advanced compact cameras
In the year 2000 Canon introduced the G1, a chunky compact camera designed to appeal as a backup for users accustomed to operating a DSLR with a full set of controls.
In so doing Canon created a new category of ‘prosumer’ fixed zoom lens small camera.
Over the next ten years Canon dominated this category with ten more models in the G series.
During this period Canon stuck fairly close to the formula which made the G series so successful:
* The cameras were small but not tiny. Early versions had a box volume (width x height x depth powered down) of 500-600 cubic centimeters but later versions trimmed down to around 400 c.c.
* They had a handle allowing the user to get a decent hold on the device.
* They had a comprehensive set of controls to exercise the capabilities of expert and enthusiast photographers.
* They had a good quality zoom lens and decent picture quality.
My history with Canon G cams started with the G7 followed by the G9, G10, G12 and last the G16 in 2013.
So I gained considerable familiarity with the line and generally enjoyed using these cameras, with the notable exception of the atrocious optical viewfinder which showed only 60% of the actual picture area, with parallax error to make matters worse.
Then in 2012 Sony changed the compact camera world forever with the RX100. This was a triumph of technology and marketing for Sony.
The ‘one inch’ sensor had an area 2.5 times larger than the ‘1/1.7 inch’ sensor in the Canon G cams and their Nikon equivalents.
It was also a new and advanced design which had a higher DXO Mark score that the larger Micro Four Thirds sensors and even several APS-C sensors.
Somehow Sony managed to package this larger and much better sensor into a body smaller than any other advanced prosumer style compact of the day.
The original RX100 has a box volume of only 213 c.c. The latest mark 4 and 5 versions have grown a bit having acquired more features but are still very small with a box volume of 252 c.c.
Sony’s marketing achievement was to persuade consumers to pay considerably more money for this diminutive model than the larger Canon G and similar Nikon products of the time.
This was quite something as until the arrival of the RX100, camera makers had carefully nurtured the idea that ‘bigger is better’, easily seen in Canon and Nikon’s DSLR offerings.
It was game over for the traditional prosumer style compact with the ‘1/1.7 inch’ sensor.
Soon Canon and Panasonic produced their own range of fixed lens cameras based on the Sony ‘One inch’ sensor and Nikon is about to join the group with the 3 model DL series after a delay of almost a year from their initial announcement.
Has the ‘one inch’ sensor brought wonderful benefits to the world of compact cameras ?
My answer to this is partly yes, partly no.
The ‘yes’ is the improved picture quality enabled by the larger sensor. Picture quality of the latest models is so good that I now have little interest in cameras using a larger sensor size.
For some people the pocketable size of these cameras may also be a compelling attraction.
But there are two problems with these new cameras:
The first is the lens lottery.
I have now seen many reports on review sites, particularly Digital Photography Review and on user forums, of inconsistent lens quality with Sony, Canon and Panasonic compacts using the ‘One inch’ sensor. It would seem to be a challenge for designers to produce compact collapsible lenses of very small size but which still cover the large (for a compact) sensor.
My own experience is:
* Two copies of the Panasonic TZ110 (ZS100) each with lens quality which varied substantially but also inconsistently (meaning sharpness changed unpredictably from shot to shot) with focal length and aperture. However some users are reporting consistently high image quality with this model across the focal length and aperture range.
* One Sony RX100(4) with a near perfect lens, well centred and sharp at all apertures and focal lengths. But others have reported considerable unsharpness on one side of the frame depending on the focal length.
* One Panasonic LX10 which had inconsistent lens quality out of the box but which is improving after about 3000 exposures. I will post more about this soon, including discussion about the idea that a lens might benefit from a ‘running in’ period.
You pays your money and takes your chances. This is not at all satisfactory to me or many other users.
The second is poor ergonomics leading to an unsatisfying user experience.
It seems to me that the designers of these little compacts have taken the general shape and layout of a larger camera and scaled it down. But this is unsatisfactory for the obvious reason that the hands which use the device remain stubbornly the same size.
I will expound on this in the next post with reference to the Panasonic LX10 and Sony RX100(4).