Anyone switched to really small cameras?

Of course, "really small" is subjective.

To me m43 aren't small enough. I'm after small cameras which could be in the pouch and in the pocket.
Cameras which have better than mobile phone image quality.

I knew about Ricoh GR. Perhaps too much about it to pay 1K USD for GR III.
I got old GRD III instead.

Anyone switched to one inch sensor cameras recently?
Not for everything, but for hikes, bikes rides and just for every day snaps camera?

I have a Canon G7X, I'm really pleased with it. Definitely better than using a mobile phone and it will fit into a pocket. Can be a bit heavy especially in a loose pocket but worthwhile IMO. I'm away at work and never packed it. I am not allowed DSLRs where I work and regret not bringing it with me

Heya,

I think the latest phones have really come so far that small form cameras in my view are just not exciting. They're using the same sensors now, and the phones have massive advantages in GUI and versatility.

I did go from large 1D class bodies to smaller Fuji mirrorless APS-C bodies. Smaller would indeed be welcome, but I'm afraid smaller than this and I'd rather just have an excellent smart phone camera with the latest bells & whistles for stabilization, auto HDR, video, etc.

Very best,

kf095 wrote in post #19256217
Of course, "really small" is subjective.

To me m43 aren't small enough. I'm after small cameras which could be in the pouch and in the pocket.
Cameras which have better than mobile phone image quality.

I knew about Ricoh GR. Perhaps too much about it to pay 1K USD for GR III.
I got old GRD III instead.

Anyone switched to one inch sensor cameras recently?
Not for everything, but for hikes, bikes rides and just for every day snaps camera?

I used to use 645 professionally along with 4x5 monorail; I had abandoned 135 format generally for pro level work, it had become my 'travel camera' only....IOW I was engaged in work that would stand up to critical scrutiny, by private clients and by commercial customers.
But today, I normally shoot the 'serious stuff' today (retired, hobbist shooting) with an APS-C dSLR (7DII); I have a FF dSLR (5D) for use of my 24mm shift lens for architectural work. When I do not wish to be burdened with the bulk and weight of a dSLR kit, I put a Canon Powershot S110 in my pocket. Heavy all day hiking or speinding the day riding amusement park rides are two examples of when the dSLR kit stays locked up in the hotel. It is 12MPixel, (4000x3000) with a small sensor, 1/1.7" (7.44 x 5.58 mm)

This photo is shot with Powershot S110, resized and cropped to 15000x5400 pixels and printed to 20" x 60" canvas, hanging in my home

MalVeauX wrote in post #19256230
Heya,

I think the latest phones have really come so far that small form cameras in my view are just not exciting. They're using the same sensors now, and the phones have massive advantages in GUI and versatility.

I did go from large 1D class bodies to smaller Fuji mirrorless APS-C bodies. Smaller would indeed be welcome, but I'm afraid smaller than this and I'd rather just have an excellent smart phone camera with the latest bells & whistles for stabilization, auto HDR, video, etc.

Very best,

Mobile phone pictures might looks OK on regular screen, but once 1:1 is clicked, IQ is not as good as on one inch sensor.
I have weird tendency to check images at 1:1 view.

The only one inch sensor current phone camera I'm aware of is from Sharp (Japanese market). They say it might be rebranded as Leica. With 50% added price and not existing service . The rest are much smaller sensor mobile phone cameras.
To me phones have terrible GUI on cameras and handling I'm not finding good. I'm using mobile phones for FB and for work pictures (notes), but even Apple Pro current one still have tiny sensor without resolution on pixels level.

Not to mention spare batteries. Phones have none now.

Not to mention phones been needed to update more and more often. Not just because they can't hold charge anymore, but because of constant changes in mobile signal and processing.

While my GRD III is 2009 model and I paid for it 160 usd used few weeks ago. It is 1/1.7 sensor, but still beats my current phone, which I acquired two years ago.

I have the Sony RX100 MkI and an Olympus XZ10, the 1inch Sony is very good for very low light, it also has a bounceble flash that is very handy indoors, paired with a small slave I have a studio in my pocket. The Olympus takes very good pics in low to better light and has many creative options. The cameras are old but they do the job.

Ever see the Pentax auto 110? The interchangeable lenses are about the size of darkroom enlarger lenses. Shoots 110 film cartridges.

With image quality worse than from mobile phone cameras released in 2004.
https://www.photrio.co​m …era-image-quality.180063/

I really don't enjoy taking photos with my phone but it's nice that you can get a decent photo with a modern day phone. For the past year I've really enjoyed my Fuji X100F. I don't even bother shooting RAW, the built in film simulations are great and a lot of fun.

I also like my G7X but it's honestly a bit too small but it's great too.

Coming out of the pandemic and places opening back up I been looking for a beer garden camera. Something more discrete than a full ILC kit.

I tried a Fuji X20 as a proof of concept. It was wonderful to use. Felt great, like an old rangefinder. Only thing missing was an advance lever. And I kinda wished it had one. Wind it slowly while I think about what I just did and what I'm gonna do next. I understand Fuji has that reputation.

But digitally, it felt dated and the files from the tiny 2/3" sensor seemed fragile in post.

I sold it for what I paid for it and got a used Canon M50. The jury is still out. It's small and it's fun and it's modern. But all I have is an awful kit lens and it needs replacing, but even adequate EF-M lenses are expensive and I'm not sure I'm ready for that commitment to this camera. I'd really just like a fixed-lens zoom.

So I'm still kinda looking. I still like the idea of having a small camera, but I'd like to find something useable in the $500 range used.

drsilver wrote in post #19256560
Coming out of the pandemic and places opening back up I been looking for a beer garden camera. Something more discrete than a full ILC kit.

I tried a Fuji X20 as a proof of concept. It was wonderful to use. Felt great, like an old rangefinder. Only thing missing was an advance lever. And I kinda wished it had one. Wind it slowly while I think about what I just did and what I'm gonna do next. I understand Fuji has that reputation.

But digitally, it felt dated and the files from the tiny 2/3" sensor seemed fragile in post.

I sold it for what I paid for it and got a used Canon M50. The jury is still out. It's small and it's fun and it's modern. But all I have is an awful kit lens and it needs replacing, but even adequate EF-M lenses are expensive and I'm not sure I'm ready for that commitment to this camera. I'd really just like a fixed-lens zoom.

So I'm still kinda looking. I still like the idea of having a small camera, but I'd like to find something useable in the $500 range used.

Try a Fuji X100S or X100T depending on price, used. All the range finder you could want, leaf shutter (dead silent), built in ND, sharp F2 pancake lens, go full manual if you want or use AF, switch between optical view finder with distance measurements for focus or use an EVF or LCD. The RAW files and colors are awesome, and Fuji film sims are excellent. It's as close to a digital range finder you'll find in this price range. A good lens makes a big difference of course. Most of Fuji's lenses are rather good, but an all plastic-fantastic may not have the edge of their latest zooms or a good fixed-focal length prime.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/YP9m​DU

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/235k​XRZ

Fuji X100 series are serious cameras.
I have tried X100V in the store. But... Regular info view in VF was too small to read, with larger font it doesn't have focus scale.

Using raw files even with cameras smaller than phones and with sensors not even 1' allows to get better than mobile phones image quality (on pixels level).

Here is tiny Lumix which I was using once in awhile because of its great size and Leica lens rendering.
But it is JPEG1 only. So, I switched to Ricoh GRD III for still small size and using raw only. It is very good for street pictures.

Now looking for this old Lumix replacement in as small as possible size, with raw and fast zoom.

The main issue with small cameras is that phones are now so good. I honestly found the RX100 III and G7X II to barely beat phones. GR III beats phones at 28mm, but now it has worse versatility because phones have night mode, UWA and short zoom. And it's $900 for f2.8 APS-C. X100 is just big enough that you have to think twice about bringing it everywhere. It's not that much smaller than a regular mirrorless with a small prime. It will only fit in large jacket pockets, never pants.

I've owned all of the above and I think it's time to just settle for the phone when I want to go without a bag. It takes good enough pictures and it's always in my pocket. Never have to decide if it is worth bringing.

It depends where you have settled with image quality and how you are looking at images.
I'm next to one and only who puts reading glasses on and goes close to the print on exhibition. I must be odd person for how I'm looking at digital images as well. I press 1:1.
From my odd POV here is no currently available phones which could deliver "good enough" pictures for what I have mentioned. .

tkbslc wrote in post #19256594
The main issue with small cameras is that phones are now so good. I honestly found the RX100 III and G7X II to barely beat phones. GR III beats phones at 28mm, but now it has worse versatility because phones have night mode, UWA and short zoom. And it's $900 for f2.8 APS-C. X100 is just big enough that you have to think twice about bringing it everywhere. It's not that much smaller than a regular mirrorless with a small prime. It will only fit in large jacket pockets, never pants.

I've owned all of the above and I think it's time to just settle for the phone when I want to go without a bag. It takes good enough pictures and it's always in my pocket. Never have to decide if it is worth bringing.

Phone image quality might seem to be good, but the greatest shortcoming of phones is the severe time lag between press of button and when the shutter actually opens. We took two grandsons to a park with a merry-go-round, and it was very difficult to photograph them as the ride went around and around. You had to press the shutter button when they were at about 90 degrees from where you wanted the picture to be taken! Also, zoom is mostly digital and not optical, although the more recent phones have THREE different lenses to overcome some of the quality reduction of digital zoom!

It seems time for a 'shoot out' to test the quality of smartphone, vs. dSLR vs. my Canon S110