Truckjohn: that's not entirely true. New cameras require more from the glasswork than most older cameras did, unless you're talking about some of the gold-standard lenses of yesteryear. Carl Zeiss, some minolta, some olympus, some pentax, almost all Leica glass is still very much worth the cash outlay and fun to work on adapted cameras today, but new glass can be equally impressive with additional useful features such as fast autofocus and image stabilisation. The technology in the camera has changed dramatically as well. For compacts, I'd wager you're still better off getting a 2 year old 7 or 8 megapixel cam than a current 12 mp cam most of the time, as more pixels pretty much only means more noise in most cases, and hardly anyone prints posters, so you do not need all that res. For DSLRs, each generation improves on the previous one in terms of performance, although often not dramatically. Game-changers come out every 2 or 3 years, and the difference between the big two (Canon and Nikon) is minimal overall; one year one company has the slight edge, the next it's the other. Nikon's had the slight edge for the past year or two, but that only came after playing second-fiddle to Canon for the better part of a decade when it came to DSLRs. I'm glad of it, because it pushes Canon (my chosen format, mostly because I feel their lenses are far better value in the pro series) to do better.
I shoot Canon for DSLR, but my compact is a Panasonic Lumix LX3 (which is the camera Leica bought and wrote some different software for and called a D-LUX, and then charged tons of extra cash for. The innards are the same.) Very limited zoom range, but proper wideangle and a great lens (and four aspect ratios to choose from, which can be a great artistic tool). Fairly easy to operate, works well in low light, only real gripe is the control wheel which moves a little too easily for my liking.
Having said that, were I to buy a new compact-ish today, I'm not positive I'd go for the Lumix again. I really do like the 'out of the box' look Canon can give a little bit more, although the difference isn't anything that a bit of tweaking profiles can't fix. But the S90 is a fantastic proposition: small, elegant body, lovely handling/control options, solid feel, quality screen, pretty darn good glass, good quality sensor. Much more compact than the G series cameras, and a bit more pocketable (as in jeans pocket rather than only coat/shirt pocket) than the LX3 is. Quick S90 overview, including comparison shots for the LX3:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081 ... andson.aspAs my second alternate, bit bigger, bulky-ish, I'd be sorely tempted to get whatever camera succeeds the Olympus PEN; bit bigger than an LX3, swappable lenses, lots of adapters available for old manual focus glass, and a bigger sensor than compacts (though still small in SLR terms). Very attractive little proposition.
At the end of the day I tend to use the LX3 for most shooting around the shop (because I can hide it away safely and it's not too bulky), and the 5DII for any real detail shooting or really 'nice' artsy pictures. I can heartily recommend both cameras in their particular price bracket.
Login
Register
FAQ
