Digital camera!?

[walpurgis]

Pixel count actually means very little these days. Anything over 6mp is perfectly adequate for the average domestic shot. In fact, when I'm after some decent pics, I dig out my ancient 8mp Kodak P880 as it has an excellent Schneider lens and the photo quality is very good.

[Sherwood]

Pixel count actually means very little these days. Anything over 6mp is perfectly adequate for the average domestic shot. In fact, when I'm after some decent pics, I dig out my ancient 8mp Kodak P880 as it has an excellent Schneider lens and the photo quality is very good.

I agree with you up a point. You will not notice the difference in pixels when printing out a photo at A4 size. However, the quality of the Panasonic's Leica lens really shines through when photos or movies are played back on my 4k HDR TV.

4k resolution is greater than 8mp

[walpurgis]

I know what the Leica branded Lumix lenses are like and they are good. I've had several of their better compacts, the first being a DMC-FX150 the best part of twenty years ago. That's not to say other make lenses are inferior though.

[Sherwood]

I know what the Leica branded Lumix lenses are like and they are good. I've had several of their better compacts, the first being a DMC-FX150 the best part of twenty years ago. That's not to say other make lenses are inferior though.

Careful, there is at least one person who might not agree with you.

[steve-z]

One thing we need to know before recommending anything is the amount of money that you have to spend ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Stryder5]

Pixel count actually means very little these days. Anything over 6mp is perfectly adequate for the average domestic shot. In fact, when I'm after some decent pics, I dig out my ancient 8mp Kodak P880 as it has an excellent Schneider lens and the photo quality is very good.

What's an average domestic shot?

If I take a photograph I expect to be able to print it at A3 if I want, and may want a portion enlarging to A4 so pixel count is important, more so sensor size, and shooting in RAW if I don't want to discard large amounts of detail.

It's horses for courses though, I use a Sigma DP1 for most stills, but my GoPro still staggers me quality wise on both stills and movies. Both have their limitations that I recognize though, fixed focal length, but with their quality resolution I can generally get what I want with manipulation.

Gary

[struth]

Reason I changed from the Sony was my canon had wifi which makes life easy getting the pics off it, especially if only a few. No cables needed

Think the Sony had a better sensor but the canon is a nice lens

[mad-moon]

But the G16 is bloody enormous for a compact and not pocketable.

Also, I've had several Lumix compacts and they've all have short battery life.

I currently carry a Canon Ixus 100 IS for everyday point & shoot snaps. It's perfect, the size of a credit card and the battery lasts ages.

I agree...but the OP hasn't mentioned anything about camera size Geoff....the lumix I have has an excellent battery life...not being a compact....I have a couple of slrs too...which i can highly recommend, but they may be a bit advanced for the OP....the lumix is an FZ38..old by todays standard but takes a good picture 12.1 megapixel and 18 x zoom...I don't have a G16.. but my pal does....and It's a small camera..with a big punch...and slr quality images...

[IMG]DIGITAL by alan moon, on Flickr[/IMG]

[dave2010]

Depends what the requirements are.

Size, battery life, battery type, weight, detachable lenses (or not), telephoto, wide angle, low light performance, price, video (yes/no, HD, 4k), post to websites (yes/no?), speed (for action photography), response time (similar to speed - but some can take multiple frames - sometimes even a shortish delay is too long for action shots), ease of use, viewfinder, tiltable or rotatable screens, sound recording, in camera editing, GPS. RAW formats. Close up - macro, super macro capabilities. Mirrorless cameras, 4/3 frame cameras. Mechanical vs electonic shutters.

There are many variables.

I have several cameras, all good in their ways, but also with some not so good points. My Canon bridge camera SX1-IS was good for safari - now getting old and almost falling apart. Not as good as a DSLR, but often more practical. We also have a Panasonic bridge camera with a Leica lens - some lovely shots from that. The newer Panasonic TX100 is very good, and has post focus, but unfortunately in that mode it takes short movies, and the field of view changes. Also to export shots that either has to be done in the camera, or software such as Blender is needed to generate multiple shots to be stacked within photo editing software such as Photoshop or Affinity Photo to do the focus merge. That model also does very good 4k video. I have older cameras, such as a Fuji 602 - that takes lovely shots, but by modern standards it's horrendously slow. Even earlier is an Agfa 1280 which by today's standards is poor, but it has a nice tiltable screen, so taking ceiling shots is easier. I have a Fuji compact with GPS. In bright sunlight it's impossible to see the screen, so shots can be missed. GPS works, but runs the battery down completely each day. We have a couple of Canon Ixus cameras - these are nice and easy to use. They are very portable. One is better for very wide angle shots, the other more "normal". Neither is good for long distance telephoto work. An older Canon "compact" is chunky, but has an optical viewfinder. Optical viewfinders are hard to find nowadays.

Almost all cameras now use SDHC or XDHC cards, though some cameras may still use CF, and some work with more than one card or card type.

Most new consumer cameras will shoot RAW as well as JPEG. This is worth having if one knows how to,use it, and has the appropriate software. There is however one camera I know of which is otherwise very good for telephoto work (e.g bird photography) which only shoots JPEG. It's probably not that important for most people, but if you think RAW is going to help then check it's available.

Serious photographers will often prefer a DSLR, but they are heavier, and with expensive bodies and lenses it's quite easy to spend £10k. Travel with such kit adds weight and expense, and the risk of theft.

[Barry]

Pixel count actually means very little these days. Anything over 6mp is perfectly adequate for the average domestic shot. In fact, when I'm after some decent pics, I dig out my ancient 8mp Kodak P880 as it has an excellent Schneider lens and the photo quality is very good.

Agree The size of the sensor is more important - just as roll fim cameras were/are capable of better results than 35mm film cameras: there is less enlarging to do to make a large print.

(That said, I'm saving up for a Leica M10 (with a 36 x 24mm² sized sensor), with which I can use my Leica prime focus lenses.)