SummitPost.org

FortMental wrote:... you could get full-sensor resolution and performance in a P&S sized body.

In what model? For climbing and outdoor use, I consider true 'P&S' cameras to be small - not just 'non-DSLR' cams like bridge cameras. The 4/3 cams are not that small and the Pana you show in the hand only has the non-zoom pancake lens, so that is not a useful comparison to most good P&S cams. With a more versatile lens it is considerably bulkier, not remotely comparable even to a big P&S like an LX5 or G12. The only remotely full-size sensor in a remotely P&S body seems to be the Sigma DP2 and that had enough reported problems that it does not seem worth it. The G2, G10 and all those cams are really nice and no doubt give great images, but personally I think they're still too big to take climbing. Hiking? Well that's a whole different story. Or not. Whatever. Delicate snowflakes etc

There is simply no comparing a large-sensor image to a P&S sized image. It's as simple as that. Even when looking at images on a computer screen, the difference in the level of detail is astounding.

I don't think it's as simple as that*. Enlarged to print big there is a difference that is not visible on screen, sure, but on screen you'd have to be pixel-peeping to notice the difference in a lot of shots. I have folders of images with the same scenes taken at the same time with a Sony P200 and a Canon 350D and on screen there is no notable difference.

I don't use my 350D any more because it is far too big to take on anything that is remotely 'climbing'. I don't know many climbers that do actually climb with a DSLR. I know several who get many magazine features using their LX3s and G10/11/12s.



* Translation: You are wrong, responsible for the slow but inexorable demise of SP and almost certainly mentioned in WikiLeaks as responsible for the deaths of many children.

DSLR's, I think come in to their own in low light, high fps, designated focusing etc but for shots taken in daylight of landscapes..yeah some P+S do a great job. I just wish I could attach a polarizing filter more easily to my LX-3.

ncst wrote:

Kai wrote:Canon S95 Small, good image quality
Lumix LX5 Not quite as small, great image quality, faster lens.

Thanks for all the input. I've been reading some reviews and I might get the Lumix LX5 in the end. Albanberg, I see you took it with you high up in the Andes, so I guess
it handles the cold pretty well.

I currently have a Lumix. I got some weird green lines criss cross over my display earlier this year summittingCotopaxi, although they disappeared some days later. It seemed to me it was rather the display than the battery that got affected by the cold. But I was glad it didn't give in.

I had an LX3 for years. Loved it. I recently replaced it with an LX5.

The LX5 retains all of the features I loved about the LX3, and makes it even better. The ergonomics are better, particularly when wearing gloves. The zoom goes a bit further. It's really a terrific camera.

The best camera case solution I have found (after using a lot of different cases) is the Optech Micro neoprene case. Fits the LX5 perfectly. Provides protection, but doesn't increase the bulk very much. I can still fit the camera and case in my chest pocket of my Houdini jacket.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00290 ... ss_product

All of the P&S cameras listed in various posts above are perfectly capable of producing great images in the hands of a capable user. A great many of the published images we see in outdoor magazines and gear catalogs these days are shot with P&S cameras (Canon G7/9/11/12, Panasonic LX3/LX5, Etc.).

FortMental wrote:It's a misconception to think that a P&S can do much of what a DSLR can do. A P&S will excel at only ONE thing: fitting into your shirt pocket. Sure, that's a huge plus, but not the main selling point, unless you're James Bond.

I have both a Point and Shoot (LX5) and a Micro 4/3 system (Olymputs Pen 2) I'm not James Bond, but I've found that I take a lot more pictures with my camera if it is in my pocket. If it's in my pack, I pass up opportunities to take pictures. The Olympus is smaller than a DSLR for sure, but it's not really pocketable. I have to keep in the pack, or in a case attached to my pack. I really like the Olympus, and I take it backpacking, but I don't take it climbing. As for image quality, if I were making poster size enlargements, the larger sensor might make a huge difference, but I don't make enlargements bigger than 11x14. On my computer monitor, (1900x1200) I also don't see much difference between the LX5 and the Olympus, in spite of the difference in sensor size. (Yes, there is a difference, but just looking at the photos, I can't really tell.)

What I have found really makes a difference in image quality is what ISO I shoot at. Image quality of either camera degrades noticeably in lower light conditions. Stabilization, and a lens with a large aperture are key here.

For a while, I owned and used a Sigma DP1. It's a P&S with a large sensor. It had the advantages of a large sensor and a small size, but at the end of the day, the LX5 is a better all around camera for my purposes.

hatidua wrote:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Wow.

In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.

Kai wrote:

FortMental wrote:It's a misconception to think that a P&S can do much of what a DSLR can do. A P&S will excel at only ONE thing: fitting into your shirt pocket. Sure, that's a huge plus, but not the main selling point, unless you're James Bond.

I have both a Point and Shoot (LX5) and a Micro 4/3 system (Olymputs Pen 2) I'm not James Bond, but I've found that I take a lot more pictures with my camera if it is in my pocket. If it's in my pack, I pass up opportunities to take pictures. The Olympus is smaller than a DSLR for sure, but it's not really pocketable. I have to keep in the pack, or in a case attached to my pack. I really like the Olympus, and I take it backpacking, but I don't take it climbing. As for image quality, if I were making poster size enlargements, the larger sensor might make a huge difference, but I don't make enlargements bigger than 11x14. On my computer monitor, (1900x1200) I also don't see much difference between the LX5 and the Olympus, in spite of the difference in sensor size. (Yes, there is a difference, but just looking at the photos, I can't really tell.)

What I have found really makes a difference in image quality is what ISO I shoot at. Image quality of either camera degrades noticeably in lower light conditions. Stabilization, and a lens with a large aperture are key here.

For a while, I owned and used a Sigma DP1. It's a P&S with a large sensor. It had the advantages of a large sensor and a small size, but at the end of the day, the LX5 is a better all around camera for my purposes.

Kai, up front, I was provided one of these to evaluate by the company but you may be interested in looking at the cotton carrier system for climbing with a dSLR up to grade AD. http://cottoncarrier.com/

FortMental wrote:It's getting harder and harder to find cameras that run off AA batteries. Build yourself an external battery pack that runs the camera off AA batteries....or get a pro to do it for you. One of these days I'll get around to putting a page together showing how to do it....it's really not that hard.

This is true, but you can still find a few. I just got a Canon Powershot A1100 IS on Amazon.com. It is 12.1 MP, has an optical viewfinder, and runs off AA batteries. I had the A1000 for several years which was only 10 MP but had all the same features and loved it for it's compactness and good images. If you aren't looking to get pictures published in magazines, but have good photos of your climbs...it works just fine.