S95 vs Micro 4/3

Want to get a small camera. Will be a semi gift for sis-in-law in that she will use it for an upcoming vacation and probably borrow it all the time.

The geek in me wants a 4/3 system like the Panasonic GF2 but I am wondering if I will regret the extra size and then EXTRA size when I attach a zoom.

It will not be a pocket camera as it will likely live in either a case or a purse but how does one weigh the difference in picture quality from the larger sensor compared to the larger size?

Also if an additional factor is our last compact camera was purchased in 2003 so it is unlikely it will be upgraded soon. The M 4/3 seems to be more future proof.

I've had the S90, GF1 and E-PL1. The only reason I would choose the S90 over either of those is if pocketability was my main concern (or budget). Performance-wise I don't think there is any competition. I think the m4/3s cams with kit zoom will outperform the S90/95, and if you go with 20/1.7 or 25/1.4 or 16/2.8 you will really see a major difference. And while zooms can be awkwardly large on the smaller m4/3s bodies you at least have the option if you want the reach. The Oly 40-150 is a nice, cheap lens, and fairly compact. Other bigger, better and more expensive options are out there.

It is also cool to use vintage MF lenses with m4/3 cams. Since you are not a serial upgrader I think the m4/3s option is especially nice as you can do mini-upgrades with lenses if you want or need to.

The GF2 can be had for $499 with the 14mm lens right now, and might get cheaper because......Today the GF3 was released for retail (and is already available on Ebay from Hong Kong).

It's $699 with the small pancake lens, and is the smallest interchangable camera ever. Super small.

But with zoom lens: Not super small. They're all that way.

Have you considered the Sony Nex series? Just as small as the EPL's and the GFs, but with an even larger sensor (aps-c, same size as the Canon 7D, T-series, etc.). Something to think about.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #12822485
The GF2 can be had for $499 with the 14mm lens right now, and might get cheaper because......Today the GF3 was released for retail (and is already available on Ebay from Hong Kong).

That is the reason I am looking at the GF2. Where are they 499? Amazon is still 554 with the 14mm lens. How do you feel about the tradeoff in picture quality for size/weight difference?

mpix345 wrote in post #12822432
The only reason I would choose the S90 over either of those is if pocketability was my main concern (or budget). Performance-wise I don't think there is any competition.

So if this would mostly be carried in a case or bag you would choose the M4/3 despite the weight difference?


What about ease of use for a novice? Do you think she will just mostly be mad about not having a zoom ( or having to carry another zoom lens)? I have seen some pretty great pics taken with the S95.

FredM wrote in post #12822662
So if this would mostly be carried in a case or bag you would choose the M4/3 despite the weight difference?


What about ease of use for a novice? Do you think she will just mostly be mad about not having a zoom ( or having to carry another zoom lens)? I have seen some pretty great pics taken with the S95.

If carrying camera in your pocket is not the goal then I would choose m4/3 without hesitation.

If ease of use is a big factor I would look hard at Oly over Panasonic. Not that the Pannys are hard to use, but the Oly E-PL1/2 are super user friendly, and produce awesome JPEGs straight from camera. The Pannys are a bit more like the S95 where you may want to shoot RAW and add some processing to get most from images.

It's hard to judge what is best for your sister. My wife, for example, would almost choose to never take another photo rather than hassle with even the most simple Oly m4/3 cam. I just recently got her to move off the Easy mode on her Sony P&S...

It's really all about how involved the user wants to get with the process. Frankly I don't even think the s95 is necessarily appropriate for someone who is a pure P&S type shooter. It is really a photographer's P&S.

As an owner of a GH-1 and other DSLRs I often find myself not wanting to carry them around unless I'm shooting for a specific purpose, and many times I wished I had them when I left them at home. I have a couple of small p&s cameras and just ordered an S95 as my everyday camera, I'm amazed at the quality of the pics posted here!

I lost the link to where the Gf2 was 499 with the 14mm lens.

But the gf2 will always be slower than a dslr. Shutter lag is always present on every single point and shoot in the world. It's a matter of the shutter having to be open, then close, then open, and then close, then open again, all with one push of the button.

With a DSLR the shutter is closed. When you push the button it opens and closes. Done.

I bought the Samsung NX100 last week. So far, I am liking it. I also have the G9 and G11. I wanted to try the larger sensor, small camera models. I got the NX100 on sale for $350 locally. Here's a comparison between the GF1, E-PL1, NX100, and NEX5.

http://bythom.com/comp​actmirrorless.htm

Dennis

Unless your sister in law specifically wants a camera with interchangeable lenses, or already owns a dslr or something and is into photography, I would never buy someone else an interchangeable lens camera. There's just a whole bunch of hassle for non-photo people that they usually really hate or refuse to deal with:
1. Carrying an extra lens - a lot of people don't like the extra hassle of having to carry an extra lens with the camera.
2. Changing lenses - a lot of people strongly dislike having to change lenses, and they don't like having to learn which lens to use when. Of course I could be wrong and your sister in law has some sort of serious interest in photography - but most people just find it annoying and can't be bothered to do it, so she'll only ever have one lens on it.
3. And If you don't change the lens on the m43rds camera, it has worse low light performance than the s95 as the aperture difference of the kit zoom is bigger than the high iso improvement in the m43rds sensor. m43rds is definitely better than the s95 for low light with the f1.7 pancake lens - yes - but without it I've seen several comparisons that have shown that it's worse.
4. And then they feel like they're "supposed to" learn about it and they resent you for it, not something you usually want to have happen with a gift.

On a technical level -
1. In good light with a kit lens, resolution-wise, it's difficult to tell the difference between an s95 pic and a dslr pic. If you resize them to screen size it's pretty much impossible.
2. In low the m43rds has the advantage only if you put on the prime lens.
3. The autofocus lag on current m43rds cameras (we'll see on the announced Olympus) is still only slightly better than the s95 and not as good as an entry level dslr

I guess I'm just saying that I think for someone who's not a photo buff that I think the small advantage of m43rds are completely outweighed by the additional hassle and inconvenience.

Is your sister in law prepared to invest the price of a new camera for lenses. I know if I bought my sister a camera and told her to just go spend more on lenses she wouldnt bother. I also know that if i bought her a camera with one focal length (ie. 14mm lens) she would think I cheaped out no matter what I told her.

If its for you buy what you want. If your buying it as a gift think of what the gift reciever would want.

ps. I have an s95. Great camera. Prints brilliantly to A4, probably even larger.

played with nex3 with 18-55 and it isn't small, isn't light, but makes nice pics - if sis in law isn't into photography the s90/95 rocks but the 100hs or 300hs canon elphs could be better with the 8 frames/sec - they make great kids or pets playing/sports pics within a compact camera body - this is 1dmkIII type frame rate and can give the magic moment when a teeball or soccer ball is hit, etc

ymmv

I bought a SONY NEX3 for a friend. He told me to use it and test it for a bit since I live in Wi and he`s from Illinois. Taxes here are cheaper than there... So I got to play with the kit lens 18-55 and the 16mm prime they have in the bundle.

First thing I noticed using a raw file (Light room 3 needs to be upgraded to current version in order for the sony raw file to be imported to Lr3) is that the picture is flat. It does not have that "pop " appeal to it. I`m 100% sure both kit lens are the culprit. I used to have a 5d classic with L lenses and sold them all after a year. (What I`m trying to say is I`m not a pro , but not a novice either).

I bought the Canon S95 and was amazed how this tiny camera could produce great pics. Specially, if you add LR3 PP into it. I returned the S95 anticipating the Sony NEX C3 this August. Since my friend does not want to wait anymore, he asked me to buy a nex 3 for him.

All I can say is, If you are planning on buying a NEX3 (Kit lens is not as good as you might think). Third party lens is the way to go for NEX system right now. That if you prefer focusing manually. Focusing static subject using Nex is a piece of cake. When you focus manually on the Nex system, it automatically zoom in the subject and will be able to see easily if the subject is well focused...
I bet the Canon 50mm 1.8 will produce a sharper picture when attached to NEX/Canon adapter.

So save your money from buying the 16mm Sony lens....

PaulRivers wrote in post #12845011
Unless your sister in law specifically wants a camera with interchangeable lenses, or already owns a dslr or something and is into photography, I would never buy someone else an interchangeable lens camera. There's just a whole bunch of hassle for non-photo people that they usually really hate or refuse to deal with:
1. Carrying an extra lens - a lot of people don't like the extra hassle of having to carry an extra lens with the camera.
2. Changing lenses - a lot of people strongly dislike having to change lenses, and they don't like having to learn which lens to use when. Of course I could be wrong and your sister in law has some sort of serious interest in photography - but most people just find it annoying and can't be bothered to do it, so she'll only ever have one lens on it.
3. And If you don't change the lens on the m43rds camera, it has worse low light performance than the s95 as the aperture difference of the kit zoom is bigger than the high iso improvement in the m43rds sensor. m43rds is definitely better than the s95 for low light with the f1.7 pancake lens - yes - but without it I've seen several comparisons that have shown that it's worse.
4. And then they feel like they're "supposed to" learn about it and they resent you for it, not something you usually want to have happen with a gift.

On a technical level -
1. In good light with a kit lens, resolution-wise, it's difficult to tell the difference between an s95 pic and a dslr pic. If you resize them to screen size it's pretty much impossible.
2. In low the m43rds has the advantage only if you put on the prime lens.
3. The autofocus lag on current m43rds cameras (we'll see on the announced Olympus) is still only slightly better than the s95 and not as good as an entry level dslr

I guess I'm just saying that I think for someone who's not a photo buff that I think the small advantage of m43rds are completely outweighed by the additional hassle and inconvenience.

I think you're absolutely right.

2x markphils comments. in lieu of D7000 when impractical, i pack a S95 in my pocket.