News Reviews Features Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Forums Galleries Challenges

266

High-end pocketable compacts roundup (2013)

Published Nov 26, 2013 | Andy Westlake, Eugene Lee, Richard Butler

Buy on Amazon.com From $272.83

3 Previous

4 Fujifilm XQ1

5 Next

Fujifilm XQ1

Read preview

12MP 2/3" X-Trans CMOS II sensor | 25-100mm equiv. F1.8-4.9 lens | Built-in Wi-Fi

What we like:

Extremely fast focusing
Attractive out-of-camera images
E-Fn controls work well

What we don't:

Lens is slow at telephoto
Small rear buttons
Clickless lens dial

The Fujifilm XQ1 is a small camera which hides plenty of features inside its unassuming metal shell. Most importantly it has Fujifilm's 2/3" X-Trans CMOS II sensor, which incorporates phase detection for fast autofocus, and is larger than those found in most other cameras in this class (aside from Sony's RX100 and RX100 II).

"The XQ1 is strikingly fast, even in low light."

The XQ1 is strikingly fast, even in low light, but its tiny rear buttons and clickless lens control dial make it a rather unengaging camera to shoot with – changing settings can sometimes feel like a battle against the camera.

The lens is pretty good at the long end, but relatively weak at wide angle, where images don’t stand up too well to close examination. But in typical Fujifilm fashion, the JPEG color rendition is lovely, white balance generally well-judged (although tending towards the cool side), and high ISO image quality is pretty impressive. The in-camera RAW converter also lets you tweak your photos after they're shot – unusual in this class of camera.

Overall, if you tend to look at your pictures rather than the pixels they’re made up from, you’ll probably be more than happy with the results the XQ1 delivers.

Studio Test Scene | Specifications Compared | Aperture Comparison

Tags: camera, roundup

Previous page 3 Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100

Next page 5 Nikon Coolpix P330

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Gear in this story

Fujifilm XQ1

I own it

I want it

I had it

Discuss in the forums

Shop now

15 customer reviews

Black In stock Usually ships in 24 hours	$307.88 »
Silver In stock Usually ships in 24 hours	$272.83 »

Comments

Total comments: 266

2 years now. I hope all manufacturer read the review and user comments. and try to improve the products.
Good luck all

0 upvotes

Looks like others besides just DPReview are recognizing the Sony RX100 III as the Best Compact Pocket Camera.

http://cameras.reviewed.com/content/sony-cybershot-rx100-iii-digital-camera-review

1 upvote

This is everything I wanted for my next purchase to replace my Nikon P330, but the only thing missing is GPS built-in. Now I'm waiting for the Nikon Cool pix A II with larger sensor and hopefully will comes will zoom Len & GPS built-in. And that will be my only camera I need to bring for travel.

1 upvote

I chose the Canon G7X as the camera for my travel needs. Went to Montego Bay and whipped out my 7D with 17-55 and the woman in the marketplace went bananas when I tried to capture her colorful image, she was probably thinking I would have sold her image to some magazine in America. I learned from that experience and said if Canon ever make a G7X I will be the first to get one and I did. It is well equipped with reach, sensor performance, size and features. As we all should know that life itself is a compromise, if you gain here you will lose there. As a compromise, I am positive the G7X was my correct choice.

0 upvotes

I have used most of these. They are all great.
If it really comes down to IQ there really is nothing to touch the RX1.
In terms of full camera functionality the X100T is hard to beat.
The Ricoh GR is sharp, small and great, but 28mm is not my thing

Out of all of them I chose the RX1. Its solidly built, great handling, super subtle and not only is the IQ awesome its actually better or equal to any FF camera with any 35mm I have used, including the Leica 35mm FLE. Truly studio quality in you pocket!

1 upvote

I would pick the G7 X. Never want to use EVF so paying for one doesn't make sense to me. Faster lens is useful however.

2 upvotes

So many on the forums for this category have praised CameraLabs so you should all appreciate this:

http://www.cameralabs.com/buyers_guide/compacts/best_compact_digital_camera.shtml

"Gordon's favourite compact camera right now: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 III"

1 upvote

Should update the article to include lx100 . We're not trying to sell sony's product here, are we?

0 upvotes

How do people keep missing the fact that the LX100 isn't pocketable, while the RX100s are, just...

The LX100 won the enthusiast compact round up, as it should, but the LX100 is not pocketable.

3 upvotes

Lassoni No, we are just trying to at least get them in the right category though.

2 upvotes

Why isn't the ricoh GR in this roundup?

It seems like a really poor choice to leave a dpreview GOLD award winning high end pocket camera out of the "High End Pocketable" roundup.

Even if you plan on putting it in a "Big sensor Roundup" (or whatever) it still belongs here also as folks looking for a pocketable camera won't necessarily go looking for it among huge clunkers such as the LX100 in your big sensor roundup.

0 upvotes

Ricoh didn't have enough money to bribe the reviewers.

2 upvotes

The DPR staff have mentioned many times in the comments those cameras will get their own roundup solely for fixed lens. How many times...

3 upvotes

Sarcasm. Look it up.

0 upvotes

Death89 How many times? Plenty
Some just don't read all the words I guess.

0 upvotes

I didn't mean it a you HeyItsJoel. Apologies for any offence caused, there was a bit of a delay between me writing and submitting the comment.

0 upvotes

Still waiting for a tough camera with RAW files and as long a reach as possible.

0 upvotes

Long reach is the problem. Can't really seal a camera with a collapsing zoom, and zooms get slower as they zoom for more reach.

There's the Nikon 1 AWS--has raw, manual control. (Not really pocketable.)

There's a hack for getting Canon jpeg only cameras to shoot raw.

1 upvote

Slow tele zoom is a compromise I am willing to live with. The LF1 is slow at the tele end, but then you mostly use that outdoors in daylight anyway. Fast at the wide end is useful for indoor shots.

And I even once shot the LF1 at an indoor concert from the other side of the largish hall (hold over 12000 people). RAW really helps get out more even from these small sensors.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3262748529/photos/2997920/p1000568

This should give an idea of how far I was away from the stage (bit closer due to sitting further below):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oberhausen_Arena_-_or_-_K%C3%B6nig_Pilsener_Arena-_Persian_New_Year_Concert_March_2014_Nowruz.JPG#mediaviewer/File:Oberhausen_Arena_-_or_-_K%C3%B6nig_Pilsener_Arena-_Persian_New_Year_Concert_March_2014_Nowruz.JPG

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Timur Born:

Okay a slow, when zoomed, lens; still basically impossible to seal a collapsing zoom for use in the water (barring the introduction of force field technology.)

So the zoom has to be in some form of solid and sealed tube.

Not sure why you need a water sealed zoom for shooting a rock concert, but I guess it could be outdoors in the rain.

0 upvotes

I had a film camera with zoom that pentax said was waterproof, even in whitewater and upside down in a kayak. They said just don't zoom it in and out underwater (wet is ok) because it would suck water right into the camera. It had an EVF , screen doesn't work for me with contacts in and needed bifocals.

0 upvotes

larryr:

That sounds like a splash proof camera.

Generally tough cameras are waterproof underwater.

0 upvotes

I don't need waterproof, but I need better sealed than what non tough cameras are offering. My LF1 is a dust magnet and both the lens and sensor are full of speckles (visible at tele), especially from wearing it inside pockets (taking "pocket camera" literally). Other than pockets: think beach, playgrounds and ugly weather.

The concert shots were a demonstration that a slow tele can still be better than any of those smartphone cams that need you to stand in the front-row and still get bad photos from. And a LF1 type camera usually still gets into the venue when you're just wearing it in a jeans pocket (not taken serious enough).

They are offering cameras that fit into pockets, but which don't survive the same treatment. Quite silly. So "pocket tough" with longish tele would already please me.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Timur Born:

There is the sealed Nikon 1 AWS, though it doesn't have enough sealed lenses yet.

Right, of course an LF1 will be better than a smart phone, it shoots raw and has a bigger sensor than most smart phones and there's exactly one jpeg only smartphone with an optical zoom.

0 upvotes

Well it was in between, it could be submerged , even in a rapid (upside down in a kayak, carabined to my life jacket), just in or out zoomed, allot more than splash proof. The Olympus was splash proof, when I told their rep. what I wanted if for he told me to get the Pentax. I think you could take pictures underwater with (not too deep) just could not change zoom, had to do that above water.

Of course one could put a digital in a waterproof case I did that with a FUJI but it made the camera very big, and those custom solid cases are expensive. I dropped my camera soon afterwards so did not get to use it that much.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

To add to earlier post: my shirt pocket used to be home to my IXUS 300HS, a small camera looking like a smartphone. Now I often carry my smartphone there. So even physically, smartphones are driving some camera's out. Of course smartphones tend to grow from 4"to 5" and larger screen models, which only just fit in trouser pockets, so maybe this trend will not continue?

1 upvote

I find more and more that while taking your smartphone with you is a given, taking a camera along with you is far from being an automatic action. So as a longtime amateur photographer I find me taking lots of shots with my MOTO G, even when realising that this model is a fine model as processing and HD-screen go, but not for taking pictures in low light. But it's always in the pocket and this is what counts. I wonder how fast and to what extend smartphones will drive consumertype digital camera's out. Advanced smaller ones my be the last ones to go? SLR is a different story, but I see them lying unused in family circles with the -in this case expensive- smartphone in action for pictures and video's

0 upvotes

Sure, smartphones are often the camera at hand.

But all of these pocketable cameras shoot raw, have optical zooms, and have manual exposure controls.

So the point you're making applies only if you shoot jpeg and auto everything.

0 upvotes

Yes you are completely right on the JPEG issue, but most camera's only provide HDR-functions on the JPEG setting, while smartphones offer HDR as included standard in the camera app. Another one: I always improve my normal HQ pictures in Adobe Lightroom, a capable but expensive software package. Pictures taken via smartphones can be improved automatically by Google, adapted by myself in Instagram or Camera 360 app etc.. all for free or almost nothing. I still will buy my next advanced small camera, but maybe it is the last one for me. Carryng around 3 kilograms of SLR + lenses like I did years ago is gone forever for me as modern consumer..

0 upvotes

Donth:

There's a huge difference between an improved jpeg and having the raw file.

There are also many steps between a pocketable raw shooting camera and a DSLR+lens.

I don't use Instagram and have no idea what Camera 360 is.

I'm familiar with ACR, CaptureOne, and AfterShot, also Rawtherapee. Oh, and PhotoShop CS6, and Elements.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

RAW is superior to JPEG, but that is not what I'm debating. It is that smartphones are like wristwatches, you always carry them with you. And smartphone software whether Apple or Android come with lots of camera apps, photo improvement included. Since the phone is often or even constantly connected to the internet all kind of cloud storage and processing functions are at your fingertips. So next to carrying another device, the software is also much cheaper and easier to use. Camera 360 is one of the most capable camera app (but also featurerich, so more complicated to use than Instagram or Picasa). What smartphones still miss still zoomlenses, but NOKIA used to compensate this by digital zooming on high Mpx sensors. Microsoft is killing this development now they absorbed them to promote Windows phone sale

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Donthuis:

Changing the while balance of jpeg in next to impossible to do well, no matter the smartphone software.

1 upvote

In what category would you include a Leica or a Hasselblad Stellar?

0 upvotes

Just to clarify for you:

You've confused a rebadged Sony with a camera company which makes lenses, cameras and also sells some rebadged Panasonic with that camera company's lens design.

Hasselblad has nothing to do with the lens design of the Stellar. Hasselblad does NOT make lenses, and really doesn't even make MF bodies anymore (this last was news to me).

1 upvote

The LF1 and S1x0 are the only ones fitting comfortably into jeans trousers pockets. And the LF1 offers the longest tele reach, which is among the most useful features for outdoor photography (where slow aperture often doesn't matter anyway). I even once shoot an indoor concert with it and was lucky and happy to bring so much reach in combination with a viewfinder (other audience not disturbed).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

You forgot Hasselblad!

0 upvotes

You mean the Stellar? Its an RX100 with an exorbitant price tag, no need for it to be a separate entry.

0 upvotes

Timmbits - Think you left the word Pocketable out which is in the actual title.

2014 High-end Pocketable Compact Roundup

Seems the article is correct in relation to the title and vice versa.

2 upvotes

@DPR, with a title like that "High End Compact Roundup"...

one would expect an Actual Roundup of High-End compacts.

But no... 3 out of 6 have a tiny sensor, 1 has a very small sensor, of which none are "high end"... only 2 out of 6 is a failing mark in everyone's book.

Who composes your article titles? Someone who used to work in a paparazzi sensationalism newsroom?

A more apt title would have been simply "Xmas gift ideas" I know it sounds disappointing... but so is the roundup.

PS: " large sensors (compared to those in smartphones)" seriously, anything larger than a smartphone sensor is a "large sensor"? When did this new standard come about?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Some need to learn to read better...this is strictly a 'pocketable' category.

What composes their article titles?

Or do you mean' how do I learn to actually READ the titles, before I comment, and thus discredit myself ' , lol.

Small sensors are needed for such smallish camera's, in case you didn't know.

Gee....thanks for making me feel smart, after reading your comments :)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

These are pants pocketable compacts, not jacket pocketable, which big sensor but physically tiny cameras are you thinking of?

0 upvotes

@anayv
"Small sensors are needed for such smallish camera's, in case you didn't know."

I guess that's why the RX100 has a 1" sensor, Fuji has a 2/3" sensor...
the specs are right there for you to check, before shooting off your mouth with trash-talk.

With advancements in lens design, and makers going higher-end with bigger sensors to differentiate their products from smartphones, even a 1/1.7" is outdated now for a higher end product.

the title says "high end". a tiny sensor camera is not "high end"
period.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting

1 upvote

i agree Timmbits, not sure why peeps need to get an attitude with it. I see this a lot in the camera world. stupid

1 upvote

Cameras in this group today have the making of a sales revenue advantage over the competition during Black Friday and Cyber Monday for Christmas gifts. I still find it hard to believe DPR columns and reviews are fair practices for other manufacturers and the general public, who believe they are being recommended the best products. Truth in advertising is important.

1 upvote

Ricoh GR will be covered in a separate Roundup as noted below since its a fixed focal length.

2 upvotes

with the new compacts, is the GR still relevant?

(wait, I'll read the reviews to find out)

0 upvotes

Yes,

It still has better image quality then all included in this round-up.
Also some nice features that will help out in streetphotography.
Like that nice hyperfocal shooting.

The GR has never been a allrounder. but it still serves it's niche very well.

0 upvotes

Interesting to read all comments here? Especially regarding the Sony RX100 3?
I also read comments why not Richo GR is mentioned?
I have a dream though, a Sony RX100 with a new house in line with GR which has the best grip among P&S cameras. I should know as having one. 28mm equivalent and need for zoom? Not necessary I think? Cropping works and we must walk close to the target för a minor background blur.
A dream of course for GR? An electronic viewfinder in par with Sony RX100.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Yes, published in 2013 and updated this year with the latest cameras.

And the top pick of the RX100 III being the best pocket camera is accurate based on consumers, other publications, and the current market. Amazing for 3 years now Sony continues to dominate the top spot.

5 upvotes

This "high-end" marketing ploy smells bad. Same with the DSLR review posted for "Black Friday" selling days. Some of the best small cameras made are not included. What is this! If you don't pay for the shelf space, you don't get mentioned? I thought that practice was frowned upon. Why should MSRPrice have major importance in reviews of cameras made and priced for everyone? I've been a member long enough to notice the transition from quality reviews to reviews designed to bring the best advertising dollars and sales to Amazon. I remember when DPReviews were respected for honest comparison of features, quality, and performance, equally presented for all equipment manufacturers, but judged on merit.

Four professional let their names be included in the heading of this review, which reads it was published November 26, 2013, for supposedly 2014 cameras? Come on guys, stand together within DPR to stop this marketing nonsense, or start your own camera equipment review website.

3 upvotes

Theses aren't really reviews.

This is of course a shopping guide.

Whatever you may wish to add to the list, these are some of the best pocketable digital cameras available at the end of 2014.

1 upvote

Sony wins either way since their sensors are in all of the top compacts.

1 upvote

Not in the top enthusiast compact.
That one is home made by Panasonic.

0 upvotes

As a DxO believer, I noticed that Canon G7X has a higher DxO Overall Score than Sony RX100 III (71 vs 67).
It is not a big difference in practical terms, but still an accomplishment, IMO.

1 upvote

Till now everyone should know that every company in the world can process image from Sony sensors better than Sony themselves.

3 upvotes

dxomark scores are based on raw, not on imaging processor. And given the difference is less than 5 points, that means the difference is less than 1/3 stops, as 5 points equal 1/3 stop according to their site,. That means the difference is within margin of error.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting

1 upvote

RAWs are processed too. Signal that Sony-made sensor outputs is analog. To begin with: it needs to be converted to digital (A/D converters are selected by camera manufacturers), than it gets processed by image processor (quite clear in Nikon where darks never got full gauss curve like a natural signal does), and finally it can be compressed (usually losslessly, but some cameras use lossy compression) into the actual file you can use.

There's no such thing as RAWs unaffected by processing. It's a myth repeated to new, clueless photographers to make stuff simpler for them. But what actually happens is far more complex. Though I understand some people might still think that RAWs contain raw data from sensor. After all: If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

0 upvotes

Plastek:

How can sensors be analog? They are detecting/counting quantized bits of light with quantized changes to electrons. So theses sensors are not simply a solar cell pushing electrons one direction.

Even a transistorized microphone would be measuring discrete/quantized changes in air pressure, since transistors are quantized and can only read in a discrete manner.

So I don't see how to call the signal from the sensor to the processor "analog".

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Plastek , all modern Sony's sensors (starting with 12 MP CMOS sensor) have built in A/D converter built in in the sensor. Look it up. This is a known fact.

Some cameras may apply raw NR (such as Pentax) that may inflate the scores, but there is not much to do here. There is also color filter that might change the result (a weaker color filter would result in higher DR scores at the expense of color separation, ie some of Nikon cameras). That's about it.

0 upvotes

What about including the Ricoh GR in this line-up? You rated it highly.

2 upvotes

Love my Ricoh GR. A fantastic camera but not a zoom and not released this year sooooo? Some how if it was not released very recently it does not exist. Gotta keep them comsuming.

1 upvote

It's high end compact roundup, so it should include compacts with primes.

0 upvotes

GR has F2.8 fixed lens, but given most of these compacts are F1.8 at wide angle, the larger sensor advantage pretty much disappears. The only thing that is left is that the camera has no zoom and worse video..

0 upvotes

The Olympus XZ10 is better camera for still image quality than the LF1 and the S120. The XZ10 has much better lens than the PanaLeica.

And this Olympus can often be found for $200. It is not good for video.

Shooting raw, for a small pocket camera, it is a very good high ISO camera.

1 upvote

Nice roundup, tho as someone else commented below, I think it'd be wise to put up the earlier RX100 models up for consideration within the article. I assume the mk1 still holds up well against the smaller sensor compacts and instead of having to decide between spending $250-350 vs $700-800 you could very well opt to spend $500 on an RX100 mk1.

There's clearly a big gap in the lineup of these manufacturers, Sony has been milking the RX100 for a couple of years while it had no direct competitor and even creeping the price up, hopefully cameras like the LX100 put a cap on that and future iterations of the G7 X stay competitive. The fact that they still sell older versions at steep discounts show how much wiggle room there is.

It's pretty unusual for anyone to keep making and selling a 3 year old P&S model merely because it has no competition but that's exactly what Sony's gotten away with.

0 upvotes

The first RX100 doesn't have a good lens and it is slow when zoomed. Making the Oly XZ10 usable in many situations the Sony will fail, since the Oly has an astounding, and fast, lens. No, I am not joking about the tiny sensored Olympus XZ10.

The G7X is a direct competitor to the RX100III.

0 upvotes

I know the G7 X is a competitor, I said as much about three lines before I said Sony had gotten away with charging whatever they wanted due to lack of competition...

And the RX100 mk1 is still fast at the wide end, it's not the best compromise I'd wish for at $500, but it is pretty much the ONLY compromise available if you wanna pay more than $300-400 for a P&S but not TWICE as much.

That was my entire point, the gaping price point hole between these models. Surely Sony could build a current RX100 variant with modern features at a lower price point, perhaps without EVF, flippy screen, etc but with the faster lens.

Until now they've had no incentive to do so tho, the RX100, whichever version, was a darling sans direct competitors.

2 upvotes

Impulses:

Ambiguous:

" hopefully cameras like the LX100 put a cap on that and future iterations of the G7 X stay competitive."

Then contradicting the competitive nature of the G7X versus the RX100III:

"It's pretty unusual for anyone to keep making and selling a 3 year old P&S model merely because it has no competition but that's exactly what Sony's gotten away with."

Now, I get that you understand the G7X adds something to the mix--and may be competitive.

I was just making very very clear that there is no question the G7X is a serious competitor, as a stills camera, to the RX100III.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Why dp forget Olympus xz-10
I had a Sony rx100 (broken after 4 months and no assistance!!! Tks Sony). My oly xz-10 now is a good sobstitude of Sony ...sure RX 100 is a very good camera but no go over 35-50 mm ! Indoor shoots at 100mm focal lenght are too noisy becouse must use 6400ISO. Oly with his f2.5 at 112mm let you shoot at 800 ISO
The result is quite the same but you spend 180€ instead of 500€ and xz-10 is really pocketable.i made a lot of comparison with my others cameras ( GX1;- epm-2; xz-1; canon 500d) and the results are impressive. Only with a prime lens You can see real differences
Olympus xz-10 is responsive too, A VERY NICE CAMERA
Grazie Olympus

1 upvote

Puccipaolo:

You are absolutely right, the Olympus XZ10 gets unfairly ignored.

(Perhaps the excuse is that it came out in 2013.)

It certainly has a better lens than the Sony RX100 and RX100II, and a better lens than the Panasonic LF1.

And the XZ10 is very useable at ISO 1600, though not great for video.

In the USA it's often on sale for $200.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I own the LF1 as my backup camera to Nikon DSLRs. I also have a Note 3 phone that takes a photo but isn't anywhere near the quality of the LF1.
What I like about the LF1:
- 7x zoom range to 200mm and it fits in a shirt pocket or hiking shorts pocket.
- decent lens quality. Wide angle and up to 100mm is great. Beyond that is still very good. Consider that most of the other cameras don't even have optical zoom above 120mm.
- exposure is accurate. Amazing how many small cameras often over expose.
- records on raw. It's all I shoot unless it's just party pics in which case jpg is fine.
- Takes great video. I used it to record my dad's 80th birthday and of all the people's videos with phones and other small cameras everyone wanted mine because the video was sharp and the sound was great.

What could be better:
- wider aperture at long end of lens.
- chromatic aberration with backlit subjects. Lots of purple fringing that can't be fixed entirely in Lightroom.
- battery life is only good for several hundred photos. I find of I don't use the camera for a couple weeks the battery must be recharged. I wonder if I got a weak battery or if this is normal.

Overall the LF1 has been a good camera. If I can only take one camera and want to travel light it is my choice. With the zoom I won't miss a photo of something far away like wildlife. It works very well from 28mm to 100m ansf includes adequate macro ability. I have yet to see a camera since the LF1 came out that gets good reviews on image quality, has the zoom, sensor size and is pocketable.

0 upvotes

Mine seems to drain the battery over the course of a few weeks as well, which is kinda odd IMO... My last P&S did the same but I knew it was because Sony's GPS implementation wakes it up every once in a while to ping satellites (even turned off) so acquisition doesn't take add long, the LF1 has no GPS tho.

My older Canon P&S could remain off for a month or two and not drain the battery. It's no big deal tho, just turn it off and remove the battery if you don't intend to use it soon, resetting the time is the only annoyance if doing that (well, and not forgetting the battery). For a P&S under $350 I'd still pick the LF1, even if it has some quirks compared to Canon's S line...

What I'd really like to see are slimmer RX100/G7 X models with the same IQ & 1" sensor but without the added bulk of a flippy screen etc, if that lowers the price point of 1" pocket compacts even better.

0 upvotes

I just picked up a used LF-1 a couple days ago, an I was wondering about the battery too - I took maybe 50 test shots (15 day return window, so I gotta know whether it's working right) and the battery meter was already down to 2/3 bars. I'll have to pick up an extra battery on Amazon.
If there is something that's draining the battery when the camera is off, I would hope that Panasonic will find it and issue a firmware update. Good way to kill lithium batteries, drain them to zero and let them sit for a while....

@ TJ Mills
I see the CA at full zoom too, it's kinda weird though - at least in jpegs it is absent from the background lighter areas but is readily apparent in the darker foreground object that's inducing the CA - I think it must be corrected (partially) in the camera; it must be more difficult to correct the CA that bleeds into dark areas though. Have you tested raw to see if it's better/more fixable? I haven't tried it yet, I'm hoping that jpegs will be good enough.

0 upvotes

@ ecm: I primarily shoot raw and can correct for some but not all of the CA. I will have to try jpg to see the difference.
For me the CA is most troubling with backlit tree branches.

0 upvotes

According to DPReview:

"In our opinion the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 Mark III is - at this point in time - the best pocket camera available. The Canon PowerShot G7 X is a strong competitor, but is also Canon’s first crack at pocket cam with a 1” sensor, and it's not quite good enough yet either optically, or in terms of overall performance. With the RX100, RX100 II and now the RX100 III, Sony has had three opportunities to perfect the concept. Specifically, we feel that the RX100 Mark III offers advantages in its superior battery life, added options/features for video shooters, better image quality, and its built-in EVF. "

2 upvotes

This was written before LX100 review.

0 upvotes

No, this article was just updated.

The LX100 does not fit this category, it is not a pocket camera. See the Enthusiast Compact Roundup.

11 upvotes

The LX100 is huge compared to the RX100 and G7X.

0 upvotes

Canon G7X has all competitors beat on what it offers: lens, touchscreen, and more. Clearly the deserved #1 choice.

2 upvotes

Some think IQ is important too rather than paper specs.

4 upvotes

It doesn't have the zoom range for me. That's why I own the LF1.

0 upvotes

Net Mage,

And the G7X has excellent image quality. (Raw).

0 upvotes

there is camera store tv video g7x and rx100 iii comparison. clearly shows why rx100 is on top

2 upvotes

Oleg,

And I've played with both, it's not that clear cut, and the Canon gets more out of the higher ISOs, and doesn't get carried away with compressed raws. And the Canon's lens is sharper, but the Zeiss has better colour, undermined by the raws problem.

The RX100 is a different camera.

In short: The Canon G7X is big deal as still camera, though the mic for audio has trouble, or at least did with the example I shot some video samples with. (A repeated problem with the mic, and there is no clear adjustment to it.)

0 upvotes

The Sony RX100 III comes highly recommended. If you have a pocket, and need a great camera, get it. imho.

6 upvotes

Agree.

"This camera is best suited to anyone looking for a pocket camera with strong image quality, a solid set of features, a fast, versatile zoom lens and a built-in viewfinder."

4 upvotes

What?
Is this really the High-end pocketable compacts meeting?
Why can't I see the Panasonic LX100, then?

0 upvotes

LX100 is compact, but not pocketable. Enthusiasts compact cameras had their own comparison at http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2426905149/updated-enthusiast-compact-camera-roundup

8 upvotes

Thank you @jdob123.
Seems like I had a different definition of pocket.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 26 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

I suppose the large pockets in 'cargo pants' works as part of that pocket definition. . .

0 upvotes

Yea, I put my DSLR there.

0 upvotes

You will never fit the LX100 in regular pants pockets. Its not the same kind of camera.

1 upvote

Best high-end pocketable compact - Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

3 upvotes

And if price is a consideration?

Or you don't want to have to fidget to use the EVF?

0 upvotes

You can forget about EVF - and it's still the best one.

1 upvote

Plastek:

The EVF on the Sony is a pain to deploy and can be deployed wrong.

The Canon G7X has a tiny bit better high ISO performance, but it costs the same, and its video mic isn't great.

So it is way simplified to say that the Sony RX100III is the best if price is no object.

0 upvotes

Let's begin with that: EVF on RX100III is so small and uncomfortable that it's borderline useless. ;)

0 upvotes

Right, it's a pain to use is more my problem, not that once setup correctly it is impossible to use. (Hey the tiny EVF on the Panasonic LF1 can be used easily.)

And then still I think the G7X a better still camera.

0 upvotes

Smartphones wins.

4 upvotes

loool

2 upvotes

From your review :
"if you need one (an EVF...), then the LF1 is the camera for you but, if it's just a feature you'd quite like to have, the decision is less clear-cut "

I would have concluded exactly the opposite. If you NEED a viewfinder then you need a large, clear, sharp, easy to use one, so look for another camera. If you just use it occasionally (in bright sun, or to reduce camera shake when required), then this one is OK...

3 upvotes

I hated the LF1 and returned it. Horrible EVF (but do give pana high marks for trying... compacts need them!), lots of hidden deficiencies, waste of money.

4 upvotes

Name two of the hidden deficiencies. (And if they're "hidden", do they still matter?)

1 upvote

Lack of the ability to change Jpeg settings (sharpness contrast nr etc)., the evf I mentioned, and there were others too. It was a frustrating camera and I sent it back. For an enthusiast grade camera, it was a let down. The Jpeg engine was horrible too, be one thing if the Jpegs were good, but they weren't.

Adding on edit: There was no indication from Panasonic that the camera didn't have the ability to make basic adjustment of Jpeg output- that to me is an intentionally hidden deficiency.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

I have an LF1, and use the EVF nearly all the time. It could certainly be improved, but I find it adequate. There are only two choices if you want a camera with a VF which is also pocketable: the LF1 or the RX100-III. The Sony costs much more, and has a much more limited zoom range, but a much better EVF and probably better IQ. You pays your money and you takes your choice!

1 upvote

Yes by all admission it is adequate - it works, I was just surprised at the optics they used in front of it. I think Pana could have and should have done a better job with the EVF. Maybe the LF2 will have a better one.

On paper that was compact I wanted to like, but the lack of control of Jpeg output, the evf, and other issues I found (forget them now) made me move on. We all have different tastes of course and I can see some users liking the LF1 for sure. Wasn't for me.

0 upvotes

What did you end up with instead? The RX100-III didn't exist when I bought my LF1, but even if it had been available I /think/ I'd have concluded that 70mm equiv. wasn't enough reach and gone for the LF1 anyway. It's not so much that I love the LF1, but that everything else is worse (for my own set of requirements, of course).

0 upvotes

The only vendor and model brave enough to offer an EVF, and you guys tear it apart because it doesn't take after EVFs on hugely larger cameras.

Sheez.

0 upvotes

Lolopasstrail- Heavily exaggerating the discussion here. If you read my comments I gave praise to Pana for having the guts to include one, but the simple fact of the matter is that the LF1 is a let down when actually using it.

JPSA- I'm using the Canon G16/Ricoh GR (with QV-2 finder) right now. Always open for changing compacts though so long as they work in real life as good as they promise on paper :).

0 upvotes

Yeah... I looked longingly at the G15 at the time (the G16 hadn't been announced), but decided it was a bit too big for my purposes.

0 upvotes

Caution for anyone buying Lumix LF1. Just bought this having read reviews exhaustively. Tried it in manual mode expecting to see the changes to exposure and shutter speed visible on the LCD e.g. Live View. No change. Searched menu many times, no result. Eventually discovered that the only way to get Live View is to partially depress the shutter button. How mad is that? You make an adjustment, press the shutter button: wrong...make another adjustment..press the shutter button again...and so on. Every other digital camera I have owned for years has immediately shown the effects of manual adjustment on the LCD. One adjustment, shoot! Why on earth has Lumix opted for this clunky approach? I took the camera back. I hope Panasonic can fix this in a firmware update, because it seriously hamstrings its usefulness to anyone who likes to shoot manual. Or am I missing something? Incidentally, not ONE review (and I read them all) pointed this out.

1 upvote

XQ1: Nov 2013 (I just came across one now in a store Sept 2014)

finally, a fujifim dcam (X-model) with FULL-TIME (not part-time) ES-LV (Exposure Simulation Live (Pre)View!!! good for them. (no finepix dcam models have it) not all X-models have FT ES-LV, some being only 'part-time', most none at all.

now fujifilm users can argue LV differences and usefulness of "WYSIWYG" exp sim LV in Full Manual mode ... 13 years after Canon Powershots/Sony Cybershots had Full-Time ES-LV in dcams back in 1999/2000 ...

Canon EOS LV dSLRs had ExpSim LV in 2005 (20Da) onwards, others followed later (offering only in pro or premium/high end produmer models)...

right now, some mfrs still lack ES-LV entirely in the various M capable LV dcams, milcs, dSLRs, etc

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

This "ES-LV" (love the marketing terms) is pretty much standard these days. Nothing to be excited about, really. For example: every single Sony camera with live view got it.

0 upvotes

If the LF1 doesn't and Fuji just added it, it doesn't seem very standard.

0 upvotes

Re: ES-LV
"every single sony dcam has is" (true: only if it has full M; usually with 0.5EV adjustments; 1/3 EV adjustments came very late)
"every single sony alpha dslr has it" (false: only later alpha models, mid-level models only; not high end alpha dslrs: neither a900/a800 had it)
Nikon: pro body dSLR D3/D4 (yes); DX dSLR, FX dSLR D610 (no); coolpix (none); Series 1 (none)
Olympus dcams (none); 43d (some); m43 (some; later only)
Pany dcams (none; part-time: LX3/5/7); 43d (none); m43 (some; later, but before oly)
Fujifilm dcams (none; some, not all, new X-series); dslr (none)
Pentax dcams (none; part-time, some optios); dSLRs (none), med fmt (none)
kodak (none; obviously)
... hardly standard
Casio dcams (none; some part-time)
Samsung dcams (yes; like sony); haven't yet seen the NX1 yet, but likely, yes.
Ricoh dcams (mostly, no)
those that lack ES-LV, are left with rudimentary autogain LV (for framing/focus; like film cameras, no exposure preview except w/o autogain (auto ev0))

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Re: ES-LV
Sony NEX: some; not all
Sony alpha dSLRs: some; those that did, excluded dof preview (no surprise)
Sony alpha SLTs: yes
Sony dcams (cybershots with full m): obviously, yes
Sony mirrorless: A/RX: like cybershots: yes

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

For those who feel the need to brag on their other camera and how great it is compared to other cameras.that's great for you but next time post it in that "I own it" section of that camera, not the Cannon S120. Try to stay on point because If I thought your camera was the best choice, I would have bought it.
The Cannon S120 is $200 less than the Sony and that's significant to me if not everyone else. The quality of the pictures are better than my HTC One phone camera and much easier to steady for level, well framed shots. The speed ring on the lens is great for quick adjustments. I love the touch screen viewfinder for quick focus fields and the battery life is pretty good but maybe not the best.
This camera is very pocket-able with reasonable weight. I use the Wi-Fi function all the time, allowing me to show my pictures in a larger format on my tablet or Lap top which automatically uploads to Drop Box.
There may be better cameras out there, but for the size and price I'm very content.

2 upvotes

It's Canon, dude.

0 upvotes

Why oh why have viewfinders disappeared from point and shoot cameras? Having to push the camera out at arms length to look at the screen virtually eliminates any possibility of candid photography. I find it far easier to shoot discreetly with a Canon 7D with a bolt on battery grip!

1 upvote

I agree. Viewfinders used to be standard. I purchased a CowboyStudio LCD screen viewfinder (used on 3 inch LCD on Panasonic Lumix ZS-15) for about $30. It attaches magnetically and I take it with me for outdoor photography at the beach and on the boat. It works very well providing a large sun-free viewing area with 2.8 magnification and it rests against your eye and head to steady the camera.

0 upvotes

By shooting at waist level you can make excellent candid photograpy, way better than by putting your camera on your face.
More and more photographers find no real need for a VF and like better a smaller camera without..

0 upvotes

"Why oh why have viewfinders disappeared from point and shoot cameras?" - And why would you frame with a pinhole? Usefulness of viewfinders on such a tiny cameras is marginal. It's extremely uncomfortable to use viewfinder with such a tiny body, they tend to be so small that they're borderline useless, and in case of EVFs: they eat through that tiny battery way too fast.
If you need viewfinder - you'd be MUCH better off with a proper DSLR.

1 upvote

Funny...shooting discreetly with a 7D.....quite big for discrete, no ?
Especially in that this review is for pocketable camera's.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Why? People choose the bigger 100% viewfinder on the back of the camera: the lcd. OVFs on p&s cameras were not TTL and had ~ 75% coverage. Pathetic.

0 upvotes

S120 It can't match the RX100's larger sensor for image quality, but it's a lot less expensive.

Yeah it's an whole 50 bucks more expensive for an sensor about 3 times larger in area.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00EFILNV8?cache=d7be8fba7d6139322a759ddfc7b482c1&pi=SY200_QL40&qid=1409010557&sr=8-1#ref=mp_s_a_1_1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00889ST2G?cache=d7be8fba7d6139322a759ddfc7b482c1&pi=SX200_QL40&qid=1409010643&sr=8-1#ref=mp_s_a_1_1

Take the s120 off it's pathetic value.
The lf1 for instance has a more useful zoom till 200mm
A viewfinder and costs $130 less as the canon and 180 less as the Sony.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00CFCTDMC?cache=d7be8fba7d6139322a759ddfc7b482c1&pi=SX200_QL40&qid=1409010802&sr=8-1#ref=mp_s_a_1_1

3 upvotes

As of right now the LF1 is $150 less than the RX100, that'd be the first 3yr old version of it of course... It's am interesting point tho, Sony has seemingly kept the mk1 AND mk2 around at lower price points ($500, 650, and 800 for the mk3)...

That's rather unusual for Sony and the P&S world in general, just goes to show their profit margins on 1" enthusiast compacts tho. Hopefully competition drives prices down, I'd love to pick up an mk3 for $500 in a year or two. :p

Can't really justify it at $800 tho, not as a backup camera to my M4/3... I'd get the mk1, just not in a hurry to replace my LF1.

0 upvotes

The most convenient camera for a shirt pocket is a smartphone! I have the Nokia Lumina 1020. 34Mpx so can digitally zoom in if required. Picture detail quality can be breathtaking. Colour rendition is lovely too. It's slim with touch screen controls.
Includes manual control options for Flash, White Balance, ISO, Shutter Speed, Exposure Compensation (brightness).
Not to mention text messaging, internet (free at home and cafe WiFi hot spots etc) maps, GPS, sat nav. and apps galore if you want. Only £267 on Amazon UK today.

So a pocketable camera has to offer a much better camera shooting experience and or better image quality than a smartphone to justify carrying it in addition to the phone most people carry with them anyway.
For more serious photography with viewfinders and larger controls etc. I'd choose a larger camera anyway.
I'm my humble opinion the only way the pocketable cameras can survive is to take a leaf out of smart phones' book and include a phone circuit.

1 upvote

I would have to try an example of the latest generation of smartphones before commenting. However, I am certain that wi-fi connectivity, either Eye-Fi or Built-In, is sufficient for me. I do not mind carrying both a phone and a camera. And sometimes all I want to carry is a camera. I realize this is contrary to the predominant trend these days

3 upvotes

"So a pocketable camera has to offer a much better camera shooting experience and or better image quality than a smartphone to justify carrying it in addition to the phone most people carry with them anyway." NEWS FLASH: THEY DO!

3 upvotes

smart phones are getting disgustingly good I must admit. Sister in laws Galaxy takes stunning daylight photos but does stink indoors. Only drawback would be lack of zoom..

1 upvote

Well, you got the point, and it's really amazing so many people get hooked up with Mirrorless when smartphones replace them easily...

1 upvote

Welcome to the club. My MOTO G LTE is by far inferior to your excellent NOKIA, but I still use it much more often than I expected. My present ISXUS 300HS is just as small, but lets me down in low light situations on filming when zooming in, so I will buy another more capable one. Either just as small (Sony RX100III or CANON G7X), or by contrast to my phone slightly larger like the LX100, knowing that I will NOT carry it along very often. Lots of other people may wait for smartphone camera's to come better and better instead. Even people with SLR's I see using smartphones more and more nowadays

0 upvotes

I got a used, boxed, mint condition LF1 from eBay for a mere $170, and you probably can too, if you shop around! I even believe the seller was a little mad it didn't fetch him more. And, I gotta say, given the price, size, and capabilities, I really could not be happier. It's so tiny, yet has generous zoom range, EVF, very solid build. The sensor gives more than average useable range for a compact this small. Images are very sharp. Sure, it has some quirks. Show me a camera that doesn't!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

There are times when outside with the sun to my back that it is essential to being able to frame tan important shot. This is where the EVF is valuable, be it 200K or2MB. I bought it and am delighted.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I'll stick with my Nikon P7000. If I need anything smaller, the Nikon L22 is fine.

0 upvotes

Best fixed lens ultra compact camera with extra wide angle and also zoom. Must have excellent image quality and good in low light conditions, comparable to the Canon S110

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I've been shooting with a Canon S90 (earlier version of S120) for many years. This camera fits very easily in the front pocket of my jeans or shorts and it's small and light enough that I don't even realize that it's there. The lens doesn't stick out much and the corners are rounded so it's very easy to slip in and out of the pocket. You just can't beat this camera for portability. It takes great sharp pictures and focuses close at all focal lengths. I think the RX-100 is too chunky to be carried constantly in my pocket, so the extra pixels don't really matter to me. I can just shoot with my Canon 5D if I'm needing a large file.

3 upvotes

I just bought the LF1 yesterday, to add to my large collection.
I like it a lot. Image quality is very pleasing. WiFi is very convenient. I like the ring as well.

I'm impressed with Panasonic products (I have 2 FZ-200 also).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Pic quality is the most important thing when comparing any cameras. Sony brings the best results in this pocket camera category. This is why I will hand over my old S110 to my daughter. She hates the black colour but will like the small size of Canon.

I will buy Sony's device tomorrow. If it will cost a couple of hundreds more, does it matter to anybody? Price difference is meaningless in these matters. Have one family dinner less in restaurant and you have covered the difference. If one cannot afford a good camera then it is better to be without a camera. Bad quality pics make one sick.

1 upvote

I don't claim to be an expert, but have been around cameras a little so I can understand the basics, so I'd like to ask a question of those with a little more knowledge.

I'd like to know how these camera would compare to some of the best waterproof, shock proofs cameras like the AW120, etc for the average users. By average users I'm meaning vacation pictures in various lighting, some movement, but also used for things like outdoor concert (cheap seats) at nights.

I read all the comments, that the "action" cameras don't take as good of pictures, but there is very little comparison between the groups. In other words, taking a concert picture at night on 120mm, would there really be that much difference between a DSC-RX100 and a AW120 (I know the AW100 are not out yet, just looking for a SWAG).

0 upvotes

Purchased a Panasonic LF1 on Jan. 30, 2014 and can't believe they could pack so many features in such a small package. This is smaller than my Sony DSC W80 but is light years ahead. Will comment once I have had a chance to explore all of the functions available of this camera.

0 upvotes

Should I buy some back up batteries for S120 while I travel?

0 upvotes

I always carry a spare. Ever since I ran out of juice on my G10 while on a wonderful walk around Paris a few years ago. Never felt so silly. I love my S120 by the way.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Yes. I have an S110 and unfortunately, I am always grateful for carrying a spare battery.

0 upvotes

A spare battery is almost mandatory if you are serious about photography, even with a DSLR like the Canon 5D Mk3.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 266

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Work for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2015 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site


Serious zoom: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 II shooting experience Aug 26, 2015	Pocket full of tricks: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV review posted Jul 28, 2015	Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know Jun 18, 2015	Wait for the Q: Leica Q First Impressions Review Jun 10, 2015

131	PART 3 This Week Through YOUR m4/3 2015.10.24
52	Prime lenses?
50	Shutter Shock Gx8 14-140
43	Oly 1.4 teleconverter on new Pana 100-400?
43	Thrilling workshop with Marc Adamus (pics)
42	Justify the expense with SHOTS on Canon 6D (set up) -VS- $600 Nikon D40 (set up) - Unscientific
40	*Weekly Wildlife Thread: Oct. 25th - Oct 31st*
39	OK who is ready to buy the new pentax ff
39	A7- what I wanted, but not what I needed.
38	What MFT Camera and lenses to replace my DSLR setup?
36	Why so limited exposure tools in video?
36	I like the 5DS - I wish it was mirrorless and better dynamic range, but whatchya going to do?
35	New fe lenses
35	PART 4 This Week Through YOUR m4/3 2015.10.24
32	Getting to know Pentax
32	Why are Sony skin colors so off under artificial light?
30	Calculating apertures for m43
28	The $15,000 question: Why did Leica not make an interchangeable Leica Q variant?
27	Why dump your ILCs for a P&S?
26	Who wants to have a shot at this beauty? 36mp image