I’ve been trying to evaluate some smaller cameras, suitable for carrying around when the ‘monster’ can’t be carried, or I just want to feel a little lighter when out walking.
Trouble is, I’ve got used to the game of shooting low light and high ISO with minimal degradation thanks to the sensor a big camera uses.
And, while the same CAN be had with smaller cameras, at the moment that option comes with a silly price tag, easily twice the price of a dSLR and lens that it might come close to (as regards analysing the image at the pixel level).
I asked for a recommendation while in Glasgow’s last real camera shop – the answer presented came with price ticket of £529 attached.
I was running around with a really silly small compact, but it suffered an accident, and I’m not sure if the focussing works properly – the pic quality is not good enough to be certain if it’s the focus now being ‘off’, or the unreasonable demands I’m making. The trouble is, I just accepted what it did before it took its short ‘flight’, but since that incident have started looking (too) closely at the results.
I usually ditch test shots, but this pair collected as I noticed the lit view of the Shawfield footbridge (I usually don’t see this as I arrive head-on) came out with some surprise lighting, as the camera(s) saw light in the sky that was not perceived by the naked eye.
Shawfield Footbridge
And…
Shawfield Footbridge
I’m not interested in fuelling arguments about camera makes or similar, so am deliberately not giving any data regarding the pics.
Suffice to say both received the same processing, but not applied with the intent of matching them or making them look the same, exactly the same tweaks were applied to each simply to wake up shadow detail.
I only wish I had also had my ‘silly wee compact’ in my pocket – I’d really like to know how it would have stacked up against two fairly respectable big name boxes with huge sensors compared to its tiny effort. A tiny effort which I might add has surprised me in the past!
Secret Scotland 