Part of Mark Verber's
Photography Pages
October 2007
Before getting into the details about what camera might be best, I would like to note that a better camera won't necessarily get you more compelling images. Many of the most compelling images in the history of photography have been taken with what would now be considered primitive or even junky cameras. While I don't completely agree with everything in Ken Rockwell's Your Camera Doesn't Matter, I would agree that people often have overly optimistic expectations that a "better" camera will give them better images. High impact images comes from the photographer's vision/eye, willingness to be patience, knowledge, technique, and luck. The first step in getting better images is committing to learn and practice. That said, an appropriate camera does make is significantly easier to capture those high impact images and can enhance the quality of the images as well. It you have even a semi-decent camera already, the best investment you could make would be to purchase a tripod.
Most of the cameras I suggest are digital rather than film. I have written up some thoughts about why why digital cameras rule.
The most significant factor to settle is the ease of carry. Small cameras will almost always under perform compared to larger and heavier camera. Yet, any camera is better than no camera. If a camera is too big or heavy for you to bother with, then it's unlikely to get used and you are guaranteed to miss capturing images you want. I recommend people who purchase a single camera to settle something that they would be willing to carry into all the situations they would like images from. I can't tell you how many people I have seen purchase a largish camera "for better quality images" who them never take pictures because the camera is too much of a hassle. Serious photographers typically have multiple cameras because some events are all about best quality image capture while other events are more focused on the experience, but there might be some images that will be captured along the way.
Sub-compact cameras easily fit into a small clutch purse or into a pocket without making a bulge. Pretty much every manufacturers makes at least one sub-compact camera. Don't expect anything better than basic snapshots from these cameras unless you are taking picture outside on a bright sunny day. If you take pictures indoors, expect that you will have to use a flash which will often wash out your subject. The Canon PowerShot SD (Digital IXUS) line tends to offer the best image quality in the ultra-compact and the Casio Exlim tends to lead the field in terms of features and diminutive size. No camera in this class provide reasonable creative control over exposure, it's point and pray. The Sony W300 looks interesting.
Cameras that doesn't required something "extra" to be carried. This is a camera that fits into a purse, a book-bag, a briefcase, etc. For many men, this means a camera which is small enough to be stuffed into a coat pocket. This is the most popular size camera. I will note however, that some people over estimate how big a camera they are willing to carry in real life. I have watch several people (mostly men) purchase compact cameras never to use them more than once or twice because they were "too much trouble" to carry around. Many eventually switched to sub compact cameras. Every serious photographer I know has at least one compact size camera because there are days that you just don't want to carry a larger camera. Much like sub-compact cameras, you shouldn't expect good image quality in anything but daylight.
There is way to much attention focus on the number of mega-pixels (MP) cameras have... more isn't necessarily any better. 3MP is enough for basic snapshots or sharing things on the web, 8MP is good enough for a good size print. Beyond 8MP there is no advantage to more pixels unless you are doing 10x14" or bigger prints. Nearly all compact cameras have very small sensors which have mediocre performance. If two sensors are the same size (which they are today in most compact cameras), and both have an adequate number of MP, the camera with the small number of MP will likely capture better quality imagines because it will be less susceptible to noise and likely be more sensitive to light.
Low Cost: There are lots of decent choices. I tend to like the low end of Canon's PowerShot line. They tend to be pretty decent cameras, do color accurately, and can use replacement AA batteries which is useful when you can't use a charger. It's worth noting that most manufacturers "budget" cameras use exactly the same sensors as the "prosumer" cameras. The main difference are bells and whistles than most people don't use.
Rugged Environment: Pentex Optio W line such as the W30 or Olympus WS line such as 770WS which are splash proof and more shock resistant than many other compact cameras. Many manufacturers also make fully waterproof cases for some of their cameras... though the cases are often almost as expensive as the cameras are.
Low Light: Often times it is useful to take pictures indoors using the available light without a flash. As of today, there are no compact sized digital cameras which have good low light performance. The best I have found at the Fuji F20 and F31fd. Fuji took the unusual step of not joining the mega-pixel race, and instead choose a sensor that had higher quality pixels. That means that image quality is pretty good up to ASA 400 rather than the 100 or 200 of most compact cameras. Low light performance of high speed modern film is still significantly better than any of the small sensors on the market today. If you want a compact camera for low / available light photography, you might want to consider one of the high end luxury P&S or a compact rangefinders that were extremely popular in the 1950-1970s that have excellent, wide aperture lens.
"Serious" Photographers: The camera manufacturers pitch "prosumer" cameras... but I typically recommend people to avoid the "prosumer" class all together. They image quality is typically little better than budget cameras, the controls controls are typically difficult to use so it's too tempting to leave the camera in one of the "creative" models. What would I recommend for serious photographers? If you don't have a DSLR, get one, carry and use it. The cheaper DSLR are cost competitive with prosumer cameras and will get much higher quality images and find it easier to take control of it. Already have a DSLR or rangefinder and looking for a small, carry anywhere camera. Hmm... I would minimally want:
Ricoh has made a number of interesting cameras, but keeps using a mediocre sensors. Maybe the Ricoh Digital GR2 will make it... but I doubt it. There have been hopes that long delayed Sigma DP1 might be a step closer to this longed for camera but it's more than a year late to market. You might look at Mike Johnston's "recommended" point and shoots for some other ideas. What I really is a decisive moment digital camera. Unfortunately, no one makes this.
Compact Super Zooms, sometimes call all-in-ones, sometimes called SLR-like, are a popular style of camera. They typically have an electronic viewfinder with a huge zoom range with the lens. These cameras typically cost less than a DSLR kit, weight around 1lb and are approx 2/3 the size and weight of a compact DSLR that has a small lens, and significantly smaller and lighter than a DSLR with lens which covers a similar range. I think the the Canons 5IS (versatile, great movie mode), Panasonic FZ18 (reasonable fast auto focus in shorter lengths) are the two nicest cameras in this category.
I don't like compact super zooms. Why? First, they all have small sensors which means that you can't shoot them at anything faster than ASA 100 without a lot of noise. If you use them zoomed out, you really need to be in bright light or you will see suffer from camera shake. Even at ASA 100 I have found the image quality to not match any decent DSLR. While they are lighter and more compact than a DSLR, they are big enough that you have to consciously think about taking one with you, and you need to hang it around your neck or put it in a good size bag. In other words, it's not much less hassle than a DSLR.
If you are carrying a rangefinder or a SLR, you made a conscious decision that you want to take pictures. The "small" camera bag typically weight at least 2lbs and has at least camera body and two lens. Serious outing could easily be 20lbs of gear in a large backpack. Most people don't have this devotion. Some people are willing to bring to carry a few pounds of camera gear whenever they are focused on capturing images such as when they go on a trip or to some special event. Why? Because this class of camera captures much high quality images, and greatly increases the odds that you will capture image you hope to get. Why?
Sensor Quality: The sensor in digital SLRs and rangefinders are typically has more than four times the area of the smaller cameras. This means that they can operate in significantly less light. They also are less prone to noise so night time images work much better.
Fast Action: All of the consumer grade digital cameras have what is often described as long shutter lag times (which is really auto-focus, exposure setting lag). With some of the digital point & shoot cameras, from the time you press the button, to the time the camera records the image is more than one second. When taking action shots, this is an eternity. I have lost many images with a camera that has a mere .5 sec shutter lap. The higher quality consumer grade cameras do permit you to set focus and exposure manually. Once these are set, shutter lag can be acceptable, but you have lost the P&S ease of use. Using any of the current consumer grade digital cameras in manual mode is significantly more difficult than using a fully manual Leica. See a nice table listing many digital P&S shutter lag times. I don't know if these number of fully accurate, but they are a useful general guidelines. For some content, shutter lag times of the Canon XTi DSLR are .105 sec, classic film SLR is about .06 sec, and a Leica M rangefinder with a mechanical shutter is .018 sec.
Narrow Depth of Field: If you regularly rely on a narrow depth of field to through the background out of focus, you will have trouble with any of the consumer P&S since they have small sensors (e.g. given the same field of view and aperture setting, the depth of field will be significantly greater than 35mm).
DSLR? Any of the DSLRs from major manufacturers are decent. If you already has lens in some system, select a DSLR which can use those lens. If you don't have lens, or your lens can be used by any of the digital bodies, then I typically recommend Canon or Nikon Digital SLRs. I really like the compact bodies made by Olympus, but the lens selection is still pretty limited.
Rangefinder? Not as versatile as a DSLR, but some people really like using them. They are particularly well suited to candid portraits, street photography, travel, and available light photography. A rangefinder system will typically be smaller and lighter than an equivalent DSLR system. Unfortunately, rangefinders tend to be significantly more expensive than equivalent DSLR.
absolute image quality is king. If a fork-lift is required, so be it. Typically the camera is one of the smaller /lighter tems. Tripods, lighting, etc are often involved. View cameras, medium format, etc.
Realize there are a number of factors which need to be traded off against each other. The camera which is right for one of these reviewer might be different than what is right for you. I will not that some people I think there are five major factors which will dictate what camera you should buy.