Crazy for Compact Cameras

08/17/2025

Compact hybrid cameras and Fujifilm are nearly synonymous with young “creatives” these days, and the Fujifilm X-M5 seems to be the perfect model for them. “Almost perfect: is the better phrase. I’ll never poo-poo Fujifilm rangefinder-style cameras. The camera maker earned its reputation for handling, image quality, and style. Its X-M5 model is the smallest in its X line family, uses an APS-C sensor, shoots open-gate video, and is fitted with the XF mount. Good so far. And it offers far more and better capabilities than any smartphone camera. I can see the draw for new, proper camera users. But is it worth the hype?

The short answer is “yes” if you aim to elevate your image proposition beyond that of your smartphone-using competitors, but you can’t afford to spend more than a grand. I won’t say that the images and video from the X-M5 are anything less than what we expect from Fuji. What you don’t get in the model is a viewfinder, In-Body Image Stabilization (IBIS), and auto-focus on par with other cameras. You must ask, is your money better spent elsewhere?

For the same cost, you can get a used, nicely spec’d Sony a6600. It has a similar sensor size and nearly the same resolution, IBIS, and superior auto-focusing, plus access to a far greater number of lenses. Also, for a bit less, you can get a used Olympus OM-D EM1 MkIII, with much more stills capability, a high resolution electronic viewfinder, superior IBIS, in a smaller body, albeit with a smaller sensor and slightly less resolution. The Olympus also accepts dozens of Micro Four-Thirds (MFT) lenses. There are several more similarly priced or cheaper alternatives. My point is that while the X-M5 makes a solid case for the new hybrid shooting creative. I know the Fujifilm branding is compelling. But there are many alternatives vying for your dollars. It’s not an easy choice. Educate yourself and study the field. Don’t let hype be the first priority in your decision.

The Fujifilm X-M5 is just one choice in a highly competitive field. Choose wisely.

08/04/2025

Instant print photography made a modest comeback when the curious and creatives discovered the little Polaroid and Fujifilm cameras, which appeared a while back. Now, the reincarnation of the most famous instant print camera is underway.

I used to sell cameras in the early 1980s. The Polaroid SX-70 was always a big seller and one that folks just wanted to handle. I shot hundreds of photos with our demo model. As a budding photographer back then, I never had a desire for one. And back in those days, the instant print cameras were regarded as we regard them today - a novelty with little real practicality.

I don't see much of a future for this model but it would be fun to see one again. Would you consider getting one?

One of the most famous cameras ever made, the Polaroid SX-70, is coming back from the grave

07/09/2025

When is a full-frame camera considered "compact"?

When we think of small cameras, we envision devices with limited capabilities and small sensors, but they're wonderful to bring along on hikes, bike rides, and during extended travel.

Yet, I recall schlepping my big boy, full-frame DSLR on more than a few hikes, bike rides, and, especially, when I've been on long travel trips. As a photo tour operator, I carried several pounds of gear, including at least two full-frame bodies. With all of that, I could demonstrate techniques that my smaller kits wouldn't allow. Also, I had no excuse not to bring back technically perfect, if not heart-stopping, images.

Today, I no longer require the ultimate in camera capability that full-frame cameras can deliver. That doesn't mean I don't squeeze out the last bit of image quality from my other cameras. Heck, the last award-winning photo I shot was with a point-and-shoot. Despite all the articles that you can do with a smaller sensor, everything you can do with a larger sensor, when it comes to ultimate performance, big is better. There I said it. I submit to the car-lover adage: There's no replacement for displacement. And there's no substitute for a full-frame sensor. It's optical physics. Technology can do a lot to mimic the ability of a full-frame sensor but the result is manipulative legerdemain.

One thing that technology CAN do is help reduce the package size around the sensor. No company has done more to put small form in their camera design imperative than Sony has. For example, when comparing the size of Sony's APS-C a6### camera bodies to those produced by Olympus and Panasonic, which feature smaller micro four-thirds sensor bodies, Sony's models are often smaller.

A few years ago, Sony introduced the A7C, a full-frame model in a compact, rangefinder-style form, which quickly gained fans. Today the camera has evolved into two branches whose most significant difference is resolution and image processor. The least expensive of which boasts a 33-megapixel sensor - not too shabby. It's the one I would buy if I were to buy one. But I won't. Not because my level of lust for it has waned in any way, but because I don't *need* it. Perhaps if I were to do photo tours full-time, I'd have one or two, but I couldn't justify the cost and the expense of the lenses I'd have to buy.

However, if you get the full-frame bug and truly NEED to move into that realm, I recommend the less expensive Sony 7CII over the 7CR. And remember, if you choose to go that route, don't cheap out on lenses.

And when you need heart-stopping images, you might have to consider heart-stopping prices. Even as both models are on sale.

Sony's compact full-frame twins shake up the company's lineup. Where do they fit, what do they add and which might be right for you?

07/04/2025

Recently, I posted about a camera being "fun." If you've been shooting for a while and have had a bunch of cameras in your hand, you know what I'm talking about. For me, and I'm sure for some of you, smaller cameras are in your "fun camera" list.

In the case of Chris here. It doesn't have the best resolution, its EVF is stinky, and it doesn't have IBIS. But what it does have is what folks look for in all cameras: great image quality, and it is fun to use.

Every time I see a Lumix GM5 for sale, which is rare, I stop to check its price. I'll buy one one day. The model carries a high price because user love them and don't want to give them up. Is the GM5 a camera I would recommend for a novice as their first choice? No. I recommend a simpler camera with an IBIS.

In the past three years, I've culled my camera collection from 19 models to a few, limiting my choices to two formats: APS-C and one-inch. Yet, I still have three Micro-Four-Thirds, MFT, models that I just can't sell. Like the Lumix GM-5, my MFT cameras are highly performing, fit nicely, and never seem to let me down. Yet, my APS-C cameras have a few more features that are worth the slightly larger size. My two one-inch cameras are point-and-shoots, the Canon GX7 Mk II and the Sony RX100 MkVII (mentioned in this video). Those tiny models shoot images far above their competitors and both make great grab-and-go cameras that continue to amaze me with their competence.

If you've already use a point-and-shoot but want a bit more performance, more features, and the ability to interchange lenses, make a small but powerful step up to MFT. Avoid the newer models from Panasonic Lumix and Olympus because, frankly, they've become bloated in size and weight and consider the older DLSR or rangefinder styles. Don't fret going to the 16 megapixel sensors. I've found that it was impossible to tell the difference between the images shot with them and those shot with 24-megapixel cameras.

In fact, I'll trade you my Olympus EM1 MkII for a GM5.

For the best deals on pre-owned camera gear, check out KEH! They're PetaPixel's Official Pre-owned Camera Gear Partner: https://bit.ly/3JubxUP—While many gre...

07/01/2025

Honey, I shrunk the DSLR.

Some cameras are just plain fun and this is one of them. Resembling a full-size DSLR that spent too much time in the dryer, the Olympus Stylus 1 was a pleasure to carry and shoot. If the style and size didn't suit you, the specs did. A long zoom, constant aperture, and a decent sensor resolution meant the camera served as a top choice for travel, and adventures on the trail.

Check out the size comparison of the Stylus 1 and other cameras models.

The zoom and compact size of the Olympus Stylus 1 are still the modern brand's best features

06/30/2025

It looks retro, small, and fun. But is it worthwhile?

Fuji is doing what at least one film camera maker did back in the 1960s and 1970s: Make a camera with a half-frame sensor (film plane) size. Of COURSE I owned one back then. The half-frame Olympus Pen-F was s small, fixed-lens, half-frame camera with a fixed prime lens. It could shoot 72 images on a 36-frame roll. Instead of the long side parallel to the roll, to squeeze in all those images, it shot the images "sideways." Of course, you simply rotated the camera to get the format you wanted, portrait or landscape. While I shot with mostly print film, I also photographed a bunch on slide film. The processed slides were set in standard size cards but with much smaller frames.

To be fair, half frame digital cameras already exist as APS-C cams. Not truly half, but a bit smaller in total sensor area. Regardless, just as cropped sensor cameras are disparaged by some today, so were the smaller-framed cameras of yore criticized.

Still, APS-C cameras are my choice today for most of my shooting as I have completely dismissed full-frame cameras. I'm not all saying smaller sensors can replace a full-frame one, but I no longer demand the ultimate quality of full-frame like I did when I shot professionally.

Thank you Fujifilm for being bold enough to introduce a novel (for the day) camera but with so many other choices that can do the same if not more and are far more supported, I'm not recommending this.

I think the X Half might be the most playful camera Fujifilm has ever made

06/27/2025

Like photography, many hobbies and professions involve tools. Cameras are our tools and we can get overly impressed and obsessed with their technical specs rather than their other, and perhaps more important, aspects.

When I began snow skiing in earnest, I totally wanted to wear the brand and model ski boot that my favorite racer wore. The boot was expensive but I bought a pair that I wore for less than a month. While it was my "size," it never felt right. Hot spots were irritating and it flexed in the wrong spot. I tried many other pairs afterward and found a pair that fit me perfectly and performed exactly as I wanted. Plus it was cheaper. My point is that a camera that doesn't fit your hand and feels great in use probably works against you.

This page is all about compact cameras. That doesn't mean that the smallest cameras work for everyone. I admit that I appreciate little cameras but I'm the first to say I won't use certain ones often. Some of the best-fitting cameras I've used are fairly bulky bridge cameras and professional-level DSLRs. It's not that I have big hands - it's all about how a camera seems to mold into my grip.

I've shot with Leica's rangefinders. Regardless of their legendary status and competence, they're not for me. They have no comfortable place in my hands. I wouldn't use one regularly even if I did own one. On the other hand (see what I did there?), I will grab my old, 12-megapixel Lumix FZ300 when I don't know what I'll photograph simply because it feels so good in my hand.

When I talk to professional shooters, few discuss their camera specifications. Instead, they speak of their camera's comfort and ease of handling. You should handle many models before buying and see if extra mega-pixels, features, or price is worth it over a less than comfortable handling tool.

Photographers need to talk about feel, not just megapixels

06/18/2025

Recently, I posted an article about a compact camera costing way over a thousand dollars. I'm guilty of fawning over the latest and greatest models. At the same time, I still am impressed with cameras that punch way above their class. For instance, I shot this with a camera I bought used for $13.

06/17/2025

If it seems that I'm biased toward a few of the many compact cameras available today, it's because I am. There, I said it. Having used several small cameras in all types of situations, I sold and given away most of them. Granted, all had their merits but it's impractical to have too many cameras. (Actually not but I wrote that because my wife might be reading this.)

For the record, and if you follow this page you might be tired of me mentioning this, I still believe that the Sony RX100 Mk VII is the most competent, most-smartly-featured, compact all around body/lens camera available today. For travel, you can't beat it. Having said that, I believe that its immediate predecessor, the Mk VI is the better value. It has the essential features of its successor but is less expensive. And only available in the used market.

As with the other, alternate cameras mentioned in this article - and you'd be happy with each of them - their previous generation models are worthy and cheaper. Get used to any of them and you'll be hard pressed to consider any other.

How I found the perfect fit: My Top Picks

06/14/2025

I always double-take when I see Fujifilm cameras. I want to hold them in my hand. I want to spend time with one. But while the Fujifilm X100VI is the darling of the "creative" set and I have no doubt of its capabilities, it's still, after all, a fixed-lens camera.

I'm more drawn to the Fuji's interchangeable X-E line of bodies. Not as pretty but pretty enough, the ability to use a variety of focal lengths is a must for me. Not too guilty of an admission, when I was a pro, zoom lenses were my go to lenses. My primes stayed in "like new" condition for years. As I watched each succeeding X-E line of bodies come and go, I was mostly dejected. I nearly bought the third edition. The following X-E4 body design and abilities could have been phoned in. I was losing faith in Fuji. Then, here comes the X-E5 which goes a long way to redeeming my interest in Fuji. If not for its high price, I would recommend this guy.

I took the Fujifilm X-E5 out on the streets of Valencia to see what it’s capable of – and it looks like a return to form for the X-E line

06/11/2025

When it comes to photographing in the harshest environments, a rugged camera is your only choice. The one I continue to recommend is the Olympus TG-7. It's the sharpest and most capable model in the TG line. The TG-7 has nearly replaced his other cameras for at least one shooter.

The OM System Tough TG-7's durable design meant I could take it where I couldn't take my mirrorless

05/29/2025

It's 2005 again.

While camera makers have backed away from the megapixel race, some insist that more pixels are better regarding theoretical resolution. Do you agree?

The original pro and consumer cameras had as few as few-hundred thousand pixels. Pros began shooting digitally in earnest when cameras increased their pixel count to 3 megapixels. By 2010, 10 megapixel cameras were available and were delivering excellent photos. In the last ten or so years, it's common to see a 48 megapixel or more sensor in cameras. Have you seen photos today that show 12 times more detail than those from a few years back? It really takes more than jamming pixels unto a sensor to improve final image quality.

During my pro days, a 36-megapixel camera served me well, along with lenses that cost thousands of dollars. The files allowed my clients to crop mercilessly without losing print and Internet-viewed detail. Clients never asked for or needed greater image resolution. Without the meticulous design and extreme precision in the assembly of my lenses, which cost thousands, I would never have been able to take advantage of the sensor.

There are already phone camera makers in Asia selling super-high-count pixel sensors. The images from those cameras are no different from those from the 12 megapixel cameras found today. However, makers still cater to buyers who measure a camera using one index—pixel count.

Today, most of the quality of phone cameras' images is determined not by their sensor or even their lens but by the phone's image processing within the software algorithms.

I wouldn't be too impressed by the pixel count of any camera - phone or not - until I see the final image. You don't judge a clothes dryer by its buttons, how fast it spins, or its paint color. And you shouldn't judge a camera simply by how many pixel its sensor has.

And it might also be larger than rival Samsung sensors