• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Reliable/reputable digital photography sites?

Fahzz

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
445
Likes
459
Location
Outside Providence
Looking to buy a good compact zoom point and shoot camera. Considering Sony RX 100 VII, but looking for other options. Are there any websites that you can recommend for research? Thanks.
 

CrustyToad

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
196
+1 for dpreview.com

And opticalllimits.com for lenses

Cameralabs used to be also a good resource (not sure how it fares nowadays) but dpreview is by far on the top
 

imateacup

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2021
Messages
18
Likes
5
Looking to buy a good compact zoom point and shoot camera. Considering Sony RX 100 VII, but looking for other options. Are there any websites that you can recommend for research? Thanks.

The problem with RX100 is sample variation -


Basically, fast zooms are the worst case for QC. Add in a very low price and you get quite a few dogs. The trick is to buy from a seller with decent returns and check for decentering -


Whichever compact Canon are selling for the same price will probably as good but different - you normally get more dynamic range on a Sony but better colour science on a Canon. I'd still check for decentering! If you want the most image quality from a compact at the cost of convenience then a fixed focal length model will be better - eg a Fuji X100 or Ricoh GR10. But you probably don't.

I wouldn't trust dpreview with anything important. My preferred site for reviews is Ming Thein's blog. If anyone is very serious about the tech then I'd check the articles at lensrentals. Eg

 
Last edited:

imateacup

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2021
Messages
18
Likes
5
Probably not helpful for the OP, but for others finding this thread:
  • For lenses: opticallimits.com
  • For sensor ratings: dxomark.com

dxomark's tests are crude and stupid to the point of being harmful - they encourage manufacturers to optimize for the test at the expense of real world image quality. They favour sensors that are very good at resolving high contrast detail, but this comes at the cost of often reducing the ability to resolve low contrast detail. This is one of the reasons that digital can look inferior to film in some conditions - film has more a gentle curve as it loses low contrast definition while digital has a sharp cut off. This can be especially bad for faces - an digital sensor optimised too heavily to test well can be much better at resolving high contrast features like acne than at picking up subtle healthy variation. You can also get a weird effect where people seem to flat cutouts...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 617

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
dxomark's tests are crude and stupid to the point of being harmful - they encourage manufacturers to optimize for the test at the expense of real world image quality. They favour sensors that are very good at resolving high contrast detail, but this comes at the cost of often reducing the ability to resolve low contrast detail. This is one of the reasons that digital can look inferior to film in some conditions - film has more a gentle curve as it loses low contrast definition while digital has a sharp cut off. This can be especially bad for faces - an digital sensor optimised too heavily to test well can be much better at resolving high contrast features like acne than at picking up subtle healthy variation. You can also get a weird effect where people seem to flat cutouts...
You sure you're talking about raw sensor quality? Using a raw converter like darktable I can use any curve I like (even create my own ones) and can simulate either low contrast analog film curves (Agfa), high contrast film curves (Fuji Velvia), or brutal high contrast cheap digicam curves when creating JPGs. The more SNR the sensor offers the more freedom I have in designing such curves.
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,508
dxomark's tests are crude and stupid to the point of being harmful - they encourage manufacturers to optimize for the test at the expense of real world image quality. They favour sensors that are very good at resolving high contrast detail, but this comes at the cost of often reducing the ability to resolve low contrast detail. This is one of the reasons that digital can look inferior to film in some conditions - film has more a gentle curve as it loses low contrast definition while digital has a sharp cut off. This can be especially bad for faces - an digital sensor optimised too heavily to test well can be much better at resolving high contrast features like acne than at picking up subtle healthy variation. You can also get a weird effect where people seem to flat cutouts...
What!?

Film has a characteristic curve in which the highest and lowest tonal values become compressed, whereas digital sensors tend to have a much larger linear region, but they will clip outside of it.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,523
Likes
37,056
I'm not up on the latest offerings, but the Panasonic Lumix series were pretty good in the zoom and shoot category. Not any reason to think the Sony wouldn't be good too.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
I'm not up on the latest offerings, but the Panasonic Lumix series were pretty good in the zoom and shoot category. Not any reason to think the Sony wouldn't be good too.
I think as long as you stick to the major brands image quality is not the problem. Decide on features, usability, price, et. al.
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,508
As an aside, may I suggest not putting such cameras directly into one's pocket? But neoprene (Op Tech) or microfiber (Matin) cases and pouches work wonderfully, and my first-generation RX100 still looks almost new today. I briefly sampled the Mk VII, and was much pleased, though I noticed that 4K video mode is cropped. Main reason I did not buy it is because money was limited, and a choice had to be made: Newer A7-series camera or newer RX100. The A7 won.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
On the Sony RX100 series, it seems to be the go to camera for everyone I know who wants a camera but doesn't want to go all the way to a system camera. I know loads of people with various versions both among professional colleagues, family and friends, and I have honestly never heard a negative opinion about them. Quite the opposite, everyone I know who owns one recommends the family wholeheartedly if you want more than a smartphone camera but don't want an SLR or mirrorless system camera. I have to say, having spent time with my sister-in-laws example it has a wonderfully solid tactile feel and an excellent evf.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
Looking to buy a good compact zoom point and shoot camera. Considering Sony RX 100 VII, but looking for other options. Are there any websites that you can recommend for research? Thanks.
BTW what is your budget, what priorities?

The RX100s are very expensive, and yet still compromised, so they only offer value if they match your priorities and budget.
 
OP
Fahzz

Fahzz

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
445
Likes
459
Location
Outside Providence
That's my concern. They are pricey, and they aren't real good in low light. Ideally I'd like a decent zoom with good low light performance for $700/$800 that is pocket size. All purpose camera that i can carry around and take pictures with while traveling, or going to events, parties, concerts, or just walking around.
 

imateacup

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2021
Messages
18
Likes
5
What!?

Film has a characteristic curve in which the highest and lowest tonal values become compressed, whereas digital sensors tend to have a much larger linear region, but they will clip outside of it.

Ok: you didn't understand what I said. Which is that no sensor has a single curve - you have a range of curves for (at least) different contrast levels. A lot of consumer level sensors over specialize in the high contrast part of the curve at the cost of the lower contrast level. This is why pro cinema cameras and lenses often very different characteristics to consumer stills gear, with eg very low pixel counts relative to sensor size and thin filter stacks. Eg an Alexa 65 has 20 times the sensor area of an RX100 but the same pixel count.

Also: you're making a common mistake re dynamic range. Which is that you think that anything inside dynamic range is captured accurately. No, that's not what it means - it just means the signal isn't clipped. In practice sensor designs often trade maximum DR against the ability to resolves subtle differences inside the range. No. Just because I can fit a range of 0 to 1024 into a sensor pixel A and only 0 to 512 into B doesn't mean that A will tell the difference between 128 and 129 reliably and that B won't.

There are other big issues that dumbed downed sources like dxomark and dpreview don't discuss. Eg highlight pollution -

 

imateacup

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2021
Messages
18
Likes
5
That's my concern. They are pricey, and they aren't real good in low light. Ideally I'd like a decent zoom with good low light performance for $700/$800 that is pocket size. All purpose camera that i can carry around and take pictures with while traveling, or going to events, parties, concerts, or just walking around.

That isn't really a thing. Fast zooms combined with big sensors are heavy and expensive. I'd guess that the G1X comes closest - it has a zoom and an APSC sized sensor. I don't know the price. Again, check the lens when you buy it.

Suggestion: you might be better off with a good phone and a set of first rate accessory lenses. The case for buying a small sensor compact gets worse every year. And you might not need the accessory lenses with some like a Pixel 6 Pro. Obviously this has the advantage of combining cash and space budgets for two items into one. I doubt I'd buy an RX100 class compact right now - and my two phones are a decade old windows mobile and a "dumb" phone.
 
Last edited:

imateacup

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2021
Messages
18
Likes
5
You sure you're talking about raw sensor quality? Using a raw converter like darktable I can use any curve I like
Yes you can. But the curve can't recreate missing data. If the sensor misses low contrast variation and reduces it into flatness, then how on earth will darktable (I prefer rawtherapee) has no way of knowing what was there. How can it??? A curve can fill in gaps between 1 and 11 so you get eg 1 3 6 9 11. But what if the data is 1 2 1 2 1 11?
 
Last edited:

imateacup

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2021
Messages
18
Likes
5
As an aside, may I suggest not putting such cameras directly into one's pocket? But neoprene (Op Tech) or microfiber (Matin) cases and pouches work wonderfully, and my first-generation RX100 still looks almost new today.
More importantly, cameras with collapsible lenses suck in air every time the lens is extended. If they're carried in your pocket there's a chance that the lens will suck in pocket lint that's stuck to them. If this gets on the sensor, you will set it on the image.
 
Top Bottom