Hunting for an Ultra compact Eva Wiggleh
Hi, I shoot with a Canon 30D, but I want something that fits in my pocket when I'm not willing to lug that thing around for happy snaps and such. I would really like something with a wide angle lens. And if there's any ultra compact camera that actually performs well at night that would be awesome, but I doubt it yet exists. Though it'd just be a "happy snap" camera, basic options for manual adjustments would be nice ISO, Shutter, etc..


Was thinking about the Panasonic FX01 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmcfx01.asp

Price range - $200-$300. Would be willing to spend up to $400 for some a other amazingly awesome feature you point out is available in another camera you recommend.


Halp
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:06:01 15:02:51Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width500Image Height607
>> Eva Wiggleh
peas?
Pansonic FX01? Yay or nay?
What's better around the same price range w/ wide angle?
>> ac
You know, given the tiny sensors and corresponding ability to use tiny slivers of glass, it seems like it should be possible for some company to release a cheap digicam that can do f/1.0.

Anyone know why they don't? Am I misunderstanding something fundamental about optics, or is it just that people who know what "f/1.0" means aren't buying cameras with tiny sensors?
>> Eva Wiggleh
go'rn! seriously, what's a good compact digital?
>> ac
>>38282
Me, I always recommend the Canon PowerShot A6x0 series. I've got an A95 (which was the precursor to that) and love it. It's what first got me into photography in a serious way.
>> Anonymous
>>38231
Probably because f/1.0 on cheap glass like that would be unusable.

I'd stick with Canon for the ultra compact. Since it's just something for snapshots I'd get one of the fixed zoom ones and buy it used. Something like the SD30.
>> ac
>>38297
Yeah, but couldn't they use slightly more expensive glass? Canon's 50mm f/1.8 costs under $100. A good quality f/1.0 that needs to project a much, much smaller image than that seems like it should cost much less than $100 to manufacture.
>> Anonymous
>>38298
well, with these tiny sensors there will be less resolving power, so the image quality wouldn't be what someone would really want anyway
>> ac
>>38299
Won't be SLR quality, obviously, but those tiny sensors can do some amazing things. And the quality of the sensor won't be affected by a bigger lens, so that's not really an argument.

I just think there's a market for a P&S camera with an extremely-low-light capable lens. Especially since the tiny sensor also means that they have really deep depth of field but can't run at high ISO without noise.

(And it'd be even better if it was set up with an f/1.0 and a movable IR filter so you could use it for night shots. And, you know, seeing through women's cotton clothing, if you're a pervert. Like me.)