Try the Canon Sd800 or one of teh Powershots ( the 710 IS ? )..
The TZ3 is a nice package with a great lens, but a very noisy sensor - I regard this a crippled camera for that reason, but it may suit your needs..
Have a look at the Fuji F30 and E-900 with a wide angle adapter. Image quality might be better but probably too bulky..
StephenG.
Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..
Splat4 wrote:.
I am after the best picture quality wide anglecompact..
I am guessing that Ricoh GX100, Panasonic LX2/Leica D-LUX 3 are inthe running?Maybe Panasonic TZ3 or Ricoh R6 for greater zoom flexibility at thecost of image quality?.
Depends whether you want convenience or some scope for manual control. The GX100 or LX2/DLUX are the more serious cameras of this bunch and will give good results if you're prepared to work around their issues of relatively poor low light/high ISO performance..
There's the Ricoh GR digital too, which has a fixed 28mm lens (i.e. no zoom)..
The TZ3 is more of a fun camera, but is hardly 'crippled' by it's noise levels as previously suggested. You can always find a way to make that less of an issue. The zoom lens has a great range and it feels nice in the hand..
The Canon A710IS prviously suggested isn't wide angle, though you can get an adapter lens if you want. The SD800IS isn't the best quality and competes with the tiny FX30. Both pretty good for tiny cameras, but not perhaps what you are looking for?.
Androohttp://Androo.smugmug.com..
Image quality is relative. For normal viewing and prints up to 8 X 10 you are unlikely to see much difference. Especially if you are competent with an image editor. Many of the image quality issues are most significant to people who view the image 100% so they can scroll around and be scandalized by minor defects. Raw mode on the LX2 is a definite plus, but wide angle is limited to HD format and the telephoto end is poor for a general purpose camera..
The R6 has purple fringing that can show with some shots even with normal use. If the TZ3 isnt too large for you I think it has an overall better lens and better zoom range. Neither are great for noise at higher ISO, but the TZ3 is especially bad..
Both of my small carry-everywhere digital cameras so far have had manual everything. I do tend to use Av for portraits to blur the background or for action to maximize the shutter speed. But you can do the same thing with portrait or action scene modes, and the flowing water scene mode will give you a smaller effective aperture than you can get with Av in most small cameras. Manual is handy for night shots on a tripod, but most people with only small stabilized cameras dont even invest in a tripod..
Av is handy for non-TTL flash units, but nothing we are discussing will take an external flash except for a flash triggered one. I dont find manual focus to be that great with a LCD as the only method of refining the focus. I still prefer having manual controls, but it isnt that high a priority for a pocket camera IMO. With spot metering and/or EV shift referring to the histogram you can handle most difficult lighting...
Andrew Butterfield wrote:.
The TZ3 is more of a fun camera, but is hardly 'crippled' by itsnoise levels as previously suggested. You can always find a way tomake that less of an issue. The zoom lens has a great range and itfeels nice in the hand..
I had the Canon S3 for awhile. The TZ has no more noise than the well regarded S3. In fact, I prefer the TZ in most cases. You can't beat the 28-280 range...
Slipe wrote:.
Image quality is relative. For normal viewing and prints up to 8 X10 you are unlikely to see much difference. Especially if you arecompetent with an image editor. Many of the image quality issuesare most significant to people who view the image 100% so they canscroll around and be scandalized by minor defects..
Reviews on this site seem to focus on 100% pixel peeping while it is the most accurate way to compare side by side noise, it's hardly noticeable in a 5 x 7 print. Sort of like worrying that your car goes 0-60 in 7.1 seconds not 6.9, the difference is more on paper. What IS noticeable is the TZ can zoom out over twice as far as most! The galleries are a good source for "see for yourself". Here is a sample of what the TZ3 can do because it's small enough to fit into your pocket and has a very capable zoom: http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=23790612..
I also chose the TZ3 after much deliberation. I think that the wide angle combination with the 10x zoom is tremendously useful, especially while traveling, and that the benefits (including the large 3" LCD) greatly outweigh any disadvantages. There is nothing that comes close as of right now...
I think it would help if you could indicate whether you intend to shoot in low-light a lot or simply in good light ( daylight or near it )..
I really feel the TZ3 is not a good choice for low-light. Sensor noise is bad and low-light make this worse. Of course I don't own a TZ3, but all reviews I've read say the same thing, so I think the low-light issue may be important to you in making a decision..
StephenG.
Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..
Thank you everyone for your helpful comments and suggestions. To elaborate on my needs a little further, I am traveling to Europe for an extended holiday. I expect a great deal of my shots will be landscape/architectural in nature (I am aware that the above mentioned cameras are certainly not 'architectural' in the sense that they will all have visible distortion). Thus the requirement for wide angle. Some shots I expect will be indoors, perhaps 25% (and thus likely to be low light)..
The compactness requirement was present because I am concerned about lugging around SLR kit through my travels. Thus far, I am gathering that the TZ3 is probably the best camera for my needs (in low light) although some manual controls would be nice. What would be the TZ3 alternative for low light?.
Thanks again..
What wouldbe the TZ3 alternative for low light?.
There isn't one really, but don't worry too much. In low light, you have to use some tricks. Keep the ISO to it's lowest, and keep the camera steady. Use the histogram to make sure you get a good exposure - if you underexpose, you'll get more noise. For low light architectural shots, get a miniature tripod like a Gorillapod that you can take out and use anytime..
Here's a photo I took in very low light with my Panasonic FX01. This will give you an idea of how terrible the problem is(n't)..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Androohttp://Androo.smugmug.com..
I agree - there's no alternative. The TZ3 is on it's own for zoom range and size at the moment..
For what you're planning to shoot it sounds fine. Don't worry about distortion - this can be corrected with software later if you really need to..
StephenG.
Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..
Agreed: look at the samples in the review. And for landscape and architecture there's always something to jam the camera against - instead of a tripod. (Not something you need to do all the time but a good technique for traveling light. I've had pictures published taken at night with just poor quality yellow/orange lighting spilling out on to the road and illuminating the subject. And I was using my wife's 3 mp P&S pushed hard up against a gate post in place of a tripod.).
Regards, David..
Andrew Butterfield wrote:.
What wouldbe the TZ3 alternative for low light?.
There isn't one really, but don't worry too much. In low light, youhave to use some tricks. Keep the ISO to it's lowest, and keep thecamera steady. Use the histogram to make sure you get a goodexposure - if you underexpose, you'll get more noise. For low lightarchitectural shots, get a miniature tripod like a Gorillapod thatyou can take out and use anytime..
Agree on the small tripod but DON'T get the smallest Gorillapod for the TZ3. It will not hold the camera. (the tripod mount is not centered and the camera is too heavy for it - I and others have tried it)..
Terryhttp://tbanet.zenfolio.com/..