Page 2:
Choosing Which Digital Camera To Buy

Trying to decide which digital camera to buy? You've come to the right place!

There are a lot of digital cameras out there. Most of them are about the same, as far as image quality and the kinds of pictures they'll allow you to take. But a few cameras do stand out.

The problem is, most people will only differentiate between cameras using the features that marketing highlights (e.g. number of megapixels) and the features pointed out by the salespeople (which may make some things slightly more convenient). Most people sadly do not take into account equivalent focal lengths (i.e. the field of view), the lens aperture (which determines how fast your shutter speed can be in low light), or how much grain the sensor sees at higher ISOs (even more important for low-light shooting). These are the features that actually impact image quality. And the same is true for video: Many cameras can shoot HD video, but most don't allow you to zoom in and out while recording, which greatly diminishes the results you can get. Very few cameras get this kind of stuff right, especially when it comes to features that improve image quality.

Unfortunately, those very few cameras do not get the attention they deserve from salespeople or from advertising. Salespeople and ads try to sell the cameras that are most profitable (because they just came out and are thus way overpriced) or the cameras that are easiest to sell (because they have lots of megapixels, something that actually makes low-light images much grainer).

Which cameras actually take good pictures? I'll tell you.

Ready? Here we go.

Note: This guide was last updated during November 2011 and thus should be good for the holiday season. As far as I can tell, no new cameras will be released until February 2012.

OVERALL BEST   Especially for outdoors use and trips: Panasonic ZS10 (a.k.a. TZ20) ($218 at Amazon.com)   The focal-length range of the ZS10's lens is a dream come true. First of all, it goes as wide as 24mm, which is just about as wide a lens as you can find, unless you have an SLR. That's is terrific for photographing interiors (the inside of a room, car, etc), taking pictures of buildings or groups of people without having to step back, and capturing a whole panoramic landscape (or the huge crowd at an event, etc) in a single shot. I LOVE having a lens that wide, since you can capture so much of your field of view in each picture. Sure, several cameras out there have this feature... but none zoom all the way to 385mm. That's 16X zoom! Enough to take pictures of athletes, birds, aircraft, boats, wild animals, cars, and other things that are usually pretty far away. Or, alternately, to zoom in to a small object and have it fill the picture. A lens that goes as wide as 24mm, and zooms in all the way to 300mm, in such a small package, is a real feat of engineering. Oh, AND it also shoots HD video, and unlike almost every other camera, it allows you to zoom in and out while recording video. In other words, it's also a camcorder. And for people like me who like to tweak the exposure settings while taking those hard-to-get shots (pictures in low light, long-exposure shots that capture motion, wide-aperture shots to capture depth, etc), the ZS10 offers full manual controls. That was the one thing that this series of camera had been missing for years, and now Panasonic finally included it. You can use this camera as a point-and-shoot (just turn it on, leave it on "Auto", it does all the work for you), or you can grow as a photographer by exploring the consequences of tweaking each exposure setting (you can see the result right away on the screen) and learning more photography techniques.   Especially for indoors and night-time use: Canon S100 ($508 at Amazon.com)   Why do professional photographers use SLRs and not compact cameras? In short, because compact cameras are much noisier/grainier, especially in low light. There are things that manufacturers could do to make compact cameras less noisy: use a bigger sensor (which drives up the price), cram fewer megapixels into the sensor (which hurts sales), use a faster lens that can capture more ligh (also drives up the price), and use a wider (and well stabilized) lens so that you can use slower shutter-speeds without too much blur. Camera manufacturers tend to not do most of these things, because these cameras wouldn't sell: people in general go for the megapixels and the zoom range, and ignore the features that actually increase picture quality in less-than-ideal ligthing. But Panasonic decided to try making a camera optimized for low-light shooting, and released the LX3. It had a really fast, wide, stabilized lens, a large-ish sensor with a low-ish number of megapixels, etc. The LX3 flew off the shelves, because tons of professional photographers realized that it was the only compact digital camera that took good pictures in low light, so it was the only acceptable "SLR substitute" that you could take to dinners, parties, etc, and get good pictures without having to haul the SLR around. Released at $400, soon you couldn't find an LX3 for less than $800, because demand was so high (and because all the people buying it were professional photographers who are used to spending thousands of dollars on cameras and lenses, so we thought it was worth getting such a good and relatively tiny camera for $800). Canon, smart as they are, decided to get in on this action. They designed a camera with specs like the LX3's, but even better! It was called the S90, and it has recently been improved into the S100. I actually bought one for myself, and sold my LX3 - and since then I learned that many top-notch photographers really really love the Canon. (It's always reaffirming when I independently reach the same conclusion as the pros, as has been happening for about 9 years now). At high ISOs, the Canon produces pictures that are much less grainy than the LX3 - and much, much less grainy than any other compact camera. That by itself puts this camera on a class of its own. When compared with the LX3, the Canon's lens is faster, just as wide, and has twice as much zoom. (The LX3 only zooms in to 60mm, which is pretty pathetic. On most digital cameras, this would be less than 2x zoom. The Canon goes to 120mm, i.e. 5x). Most importantly, the good high-ISO capabilities of the Canon, combined with a lens that is much faster and a little wider than most digital cameras, makes it easily the best camera out there for low-light shooting such as at parties and dinners. The Canon is also surprisingly compact; It slips in and out of a pocket much more easily than the Panasonics (which have sharp rectangular corners and a bulky lens that sticks out a lot), and the Canon's overall dimensions are smaller. Also, the S100's interface mimics that of Canon's SLRs quite closely (The designers knew who their target market is!), making it very easy to tweak any of the important settings with the flick of a finger. So if you have an SLR and want a compact camera whose image quality meets your high standards... or if you just want a small camera with great image quality even in low light, without breaking the bank... get an S100. Any professional or semi-professional photographer will tell you that it's the best compact digital camera you can buy. Also worth mentioning is that if you can't find an S100 or sale (since a lot of places are all sold out) or if it's a little too pricey or you, then check out the slightly older version, the S95. Right now it's just $290 at Amazon. Basically the same camera, for 60% of the price!   Which of these two should you get?   The ZS10 is the perfect camera for wandering around during the day, and the S100 is the perfect camera for going out at night. So look back to your digital pictures over the past few months: Were most of them taken outside, or indoors? Outside, get a ZS10. Indoors, get an S100. But you can't go wrong with either, because both of them do the other thing pretty well too: The S100's lens is just as wide as the ZS10's (24mm) and it has a good amount of zoom (5x ain't bad), and its image quality is just superb, so it's better than average as a daytime camera... and the ZS10 has a larger-than-average sensor and a pretty sharp, wide, well-stabilized lens that makes it better than average for low-light shooting. To be honest, I think most people would be happiest with a ZS10, since it's more versatile (basically: because it has more zoom). But if you care about image quality above all else, especially in low light; Get an S100.

 

MOST CONVENIENT: Smallest and easiest to use   Casio EX-ZS10 ($95 at Amazon.com)   Casio has been making the best, easiest to use, and smallest super-compact digital cameras for several years now. These cameras have so few buttons (they do everything for you) that a trained monkey could probably use one. They're so tiny, they fit easily into a shirt pocket. Image quality in good lighting (i.e. outside during the day, indoors using the flash) is just fine. The lens has 5x zoom, which is quite a bit for a camera this tiny, and it zooms out all the way to 26mm, allowing for an exceptionally wide field of view on the screen (perfect for group shots, landscapes, and interiors). The only problems come when you try to take a picture of something indoors, and it's too far away to illuminate with the flash (or you don't want to use the flash, for whatever reason). This is rare enough that, for most people, a Casio would be an ideal camera: Tiny, super easy to use, and with pretty good image quality (good enough for a computer desktop wallpaper and for modest enlargements). Of course, if you want to tweak the exposure settings and do other "fancy" things, on this camera you can't do it directly, but it has so many scene modes that you can probably find the option you're looking for: Taking macro shots of small objects, short-exposure shots that freeze the action, long-exposure shots to emphasize motion blur... are all possible if you simply choose the right mode from the menu. But most people won't care about that. They just want to point, and shoot! And not carry a bulky gadget around. This camera is perfect for that. I have bought my mother two of these (got the second one when the first one broke after years of faithful service), and I can't think of a better endorsement than that! By the way, there is a newer version of this camera, the ZS15, but the only difference is that it has a touchscreen, and this causes it to cost almost twice as much. Don't waste your money!

 

MOST CAPABLE, MOST VERSATILE, BEST IMAGE QUALITY   Panasonic FZ47 ($274 at Amazon.com)   I recently found myself wanting to buy an ultrazoom camera. Something that would come as close as possible to taking pictures like an SLR with a long lens on it, but be much smaller, and cheaper. I did a bunch of research, and three cameras came to the forefront: Canon's SX40 ($379), Nikon's P500 ($499), and Panasonic's FZ150 ($499). The Canon zooms in to 840mm equivalent, basically more zoom than any other camera out there - and more zoom than even my SLRs. The Nikon has almost as much zoom (pretty much the only other camera that comes close), but zooms out to 22mm, which is pretty much the widest field of view of any camera you can buy (other than cameras with interchangeable lenses... and a wide-angle lens that can give you an even wider field of view than 22mm will cost around a thousand dollars). And the Panasonic, while not zooming in QUITE as close nor zooming out QUITE as wide, still has a lot of zoom, and still gives an exceptionally wide field of view when you zoom out (24mm to 600mm), and - most importantly - it takes sharper pictures that capture more detail. For example, check out the photo to the right, taken by the amazing folks at DC Resource. They took the exact same picture with the Canon, the Nikon, and the Panasonic. Which is sharpest? Well... How much detail do you really capture of, say, the building on the lower left? Well, if you blow up that area of the image, this is what you get with the Canon, this is what you get with the Nikon, and this is what you get with the Panasonic: The Panasonic captures a lot more detail. Its Leica lens is just that much sharper. But then, I found out about the Panasonic's "little sister", the FZ47. It's got the same great lens and the same sensor, so it should take the same pictures. It only costs about 75% as much, though. What can the big FZ150 do that the smaller and cheaper FZ47 can't do? According to the specs that Panasonic released: The FZ150 can shoot 12 shots per second (the FZ47 can do 4, which is plenty), shoot videos in slow-motion (you can always slow them down later on your computer...), shoot videos in 1080p (the FZ47 can "only" do 1080i, which is already amazing, and better than DVD quality), bring the ISO all the way up to 3200 (the FZ47 can do 1600... not that you'd ever use 1600 or 3200 ISO in a camera with a sensor this small), plus the FZ150 has a remote control and a swiveling LCD display. All of these features sounded perfectly useless to me. So I ended up buying an FZ47. It's a great camera. It takes sharp pictures, focuses quickly and accurately, has a ton of zoom, you can zoom all the way out and get a nice wide-angle field of view... and it's much smaller and cheaper than an SLR and a bunch of lenses. I stand by my decision, and I heartily recommend the Panasonic FZ47. Nine years ago, Panasonic released the FZ1, the first digital camera with 12x zoom and image stabilization. There was nothing else like it available at the time, and it blew photographers away. I got one, and enjoyed it thoroughly. I'm happy to report that Panasonic is still ahead when it comes to making ultrazoom cameras that take sharp pictures!

 

SHOCK-PROOF AND WATER-PROOF   The best deal: Panasonic TS10 ($157 at Amazon.com) If you want to take a camera when you go snowboarding, kayaking, snorkeling, or to some other environment where gear really needs to be rugged... then get this camera. Few others will survive harsh environments with water, dust, bumps, or freezing temperatures. It's also a small camera with good image quality, easy to use, and with 4x zoom, so you can use it during normal everyday photography as well, not just while conquering the elements. It's a pretty fantastic little camera, hard to beat for the price.             The really nice one: Sony TX10 ($259 at Amazon.com) The main reason why I would recommend this camera over the Panasonic is that it has a wider lens. The 25mm lens on the Sony gives you a much wider field of view. So whether you're snowboarding, diving, or hiking/canoeing your way to a beautiful panorama, this camera's wide field of view will allow you to capture more of it. (Or you can just zoom in and have a more normal, narrower field of view if you want). It also records 1080 HD video, at 60 frames per second, so if you're into video, this is a GREAT camera to take along in your adventures. It also does all kinds of fancy things to ensure the highest image quality, such as in-camera HDR (bringing out the details in bright areas that are usually washed out as white, and the details in dark areas often lost to black shadows) and taking six pictures in extremely quick successions and saving the sharpest one. And the massive 3-inch screen on the back means you get a clear view of what the camera sees, and if you wish you can control the camera via the touchscreen like an iPhone instead of trying to hit the little buttons. If you're going to be out in the elements a lot and you want the best camera to capture that, no expenses spared, then get this camera.

 

BEST CAMERAS ON A BUDGET   Fuji S2950 ($165 at Amazon.com) Like the Panasonic FZ100 and the Canon SX30-IS, this camera has a ridiculous amount of zoom, great image quality, and all the controls you'll find in an SLR. You can use it on "auto" mode and just point and shoot, or gradually have a try at different manual options to figure out what each of them does. It's powered by AA batteries, so you're sure to be able to find some more if the battery runs out in the middle of the day (which you can't do if your camera uses up its rechargeable batteries). Face detection and other fancy features will ensure that your pictures are well-focused. It can record HD video, has image stabilization... All in all, a really good super-zoom camera. It's cheaper now, only because the 18x zoom cameras have been superceded by the new 24x and 35x zoom ones. But only a year ago, it was among the best digicams you could buy.           Panasonic ZS8 ($149 at Amazon.com) See how the Panasonic ZS10 at the top of the page is just about my favorite camera? Well, this is the same thing, except it doesn't have a GPS, can't shoot 1080i video (only 720P), and can't shoot in 3D (which is a total gimmick anyways). Same super-wide lens, same amazing 16x zoom, same 14 megapixels. So if you want to get an amazing Panasonic and pay only two-thirds of the price, then get this camera.           Canon A2200 ($79 at Amazon.com) Above, I talk about a Casio camera that costs less than $100, is dead easy to use, and is literally the thinnest digital camera you can buy. Well, if you can't affor that Casio, then here is Canon's slightly thicker (but still amazingly thin) competitor. Overall a very similar camera, a little less zoom but overall better image quality, and for only 80% of the price.

 

SLRs   I'm not going to recommend an SLR here. Picking the right SLR for you is a process that should take into account all kinds of things, such as what SLRs your friends have (you'll want to be able to ask for tips and for troubleshooting help, borrow lenses, etc), what kind of photography you want to pursue the most (Birds? Landscapes? Sports? Night-time long exposures? Portraits?), and of course on the line of products available at any time from different manufacturers. (As I write this, Canon's latest offerings are a lot less appealing than Nikon's... but the opposite was true a few years ago and the pendulum will probably swing again as Nikon gets complacent and Canon works hard to re-take the lead). Really, the best thing you can do is talk to people who have the cameras you are considering, and ask them why they chose their camera. Each will give the reasons that are most compelling to them. From all those reasons, you must pick which reasons seem the most compelling to you (and which camera is optimized for those considerations). But I can say a few things that will help you figure out what's right for you. So here are my tips for choosing and buying an SLR. The thing that people ask me the most is whether it's worth buying a camera that's not in the entry-level line. Why do people buy the 50D, when a Digital Rebel costs less than half as much and has similar specs? And why does anyone at all spend $4000 on a camera? I will list four reasons. If you are buying your first SLR, you will see why an entry-level camera is almost certainly all you need (and also why, for certain kinds of photography, the more expensive ones are worth it). - One reason is reliability and durability. A more expensive camera is made to last a lot longer. Its internal mechanisms take a loooooong time to wear out. Its case is resistant against bumps and drops, and sealed to keep out splashes of water. In other words, if you're going to keep your camera in a padded bag, not take it out in the rain, and only take some dozens of pictures per weekend, then an entry-level camera is fine. But if you're out trying to capture action in the real world, where things are dirty and wet, from platforms that move and hit bumps, and you'll be shooting thousands of pictures a day for several days a week... you want a more expensive camera. - One other reason is the burst rate. More expensive cameras can take more pictures per second when you hold your finger down. Now, for the vast majority of photography, you really don't need 10 shots per second. Three is just fine. So, again, unless you really want to rapid-fire that shutter so that you can be 100% certain that one of those pictures captures a critical moment, you don't need a more expensive camera. - Another reason is the interface. More expensive cameras tend to have a button for each setting that a photographer wants to change, and multiple click-wheels. So anything about the camera can be changed with a quick flick of your fingers. Professional photographers don't want to dig through menus. Beginners, on the other hand, are intimidated and confused by too many buttons. Because of this difference, entry-level cameras hide the more advanced features by burying them in menus, and only have buttons for the more important and commonly-used features. So, again, if you're a beginner, you're probably ok with an entry-level camera. But if you're a pro, and don't want to take the camera away from your face as you adjust for changing conditions, you'll want a button for everything. - The main reason is autofocus. This is why I shoot with 1D-series cameras and not Digital Rebels. If Digital Rebels could focus like a 1D, I would switch right over. For the most part, the cheaper cameras have pretty much the same sensor as the more expensive cameras. So put the same lens on them, and use the same settings, and you'll get the same shot, right? Well, only if the lens is focused the same. And more expensive cameras focus more quickly, and more accurately, than cheaper cameras. The very same lens will take sharper pictures on a 1D or 7D than it will on a 5D or Digital Rebel. This is especially true for fast moving subjects, when the autofocus will struggle to continually adjust and keep up. When you're shooting things that move at the speed of sound, you want the best autofocus that money can buy! Another question that people ask is whether it's worth spending money on the glass (i.e. nice lenses) or on the body (i.e. the camera itself). The answer, in general, is: more so on the glass. You'll probably get a new camera body every few years at the most, since better ones are always coming out and old ones get worn out. But a piece of good glass will last you a lifetime. Also, while the cost of a body drops significantly when it's used (like a car*), the cost of a used lens can easily be 95% the cost of a new one. So for your first SLR, buy a cheap camera body... but don't be afraid to splurge on a nice zoom lens (or a nice wide lens, or a nice fast lens), because 1] you'll keep it forever, and 2] if you DON'T keep it forever, you can sell it and get all your money back. (Which nice lenses should you start out with? Most of the manufacturers make stabilized 18-200 or 18-250 lenses. I'd recommend you get one of those. Tamron's 18-250 is a LOT of fun. (You can get it for your Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or Sony camera). If you have a Nikon camera, you can get this really great Nikon 18-200. If you have a Canon, there's this stabilized Canon 18-200. There's also an 18-270 available for Nikon and Canon cameras; that's 15x zoom!!! Sure, these lenses cost a few times what most other starter zoom lenses cost... but like I keep saying, That's one area that's worth splurging on). * This fact (the prices of used SLR bodies drop fast) reminds me of a great tip: Buy used camera bodies! They're much cheaper than new ones. And like I said above, nicer cameras are very durable, so if you buy a camera that's a couple years old, it will probably work like new. I have owned six SLRs, and all but one were bought used. Save yourself some hundreds of dollars by buying a used body, and put that saved money towards a nice lens or two. Three good tips for buying used SLR bodies are: - Use KEH.com. The company inspects and rates every piece of used gear that's for sale on their website, so you can trust what they say about the condition of every item. Prices are reasonable. Service is good. Can't beat that! - Use eBay. Look for people selling their own gear. It's easy to spot eBay listings that say things like "I'm selling my granpa's camera, I don't even know how it works, but here it is. It says '5D' on it", or "Our store lists eBay items on behalf of sellers; We are not in a position to thoroughly test every item or to ensure that it works perfectly". Avoid those! Instead, look for the ones that say "I am finally selling my beloved 40D. It has always been kept in a padded bag, and never dropped. Here are some of my favorite pictures that I have taken with it. The time has come to upgrade to something better". Of course, only buy from someone who has positive feedback, ideally 100%! - Be one generation behind. I bought my 10D as the 20D was coming out, my 1Dmk2 as the 1Dmk3 was coming out, and my 5Dmk1 as the 5Dmk2 was coming out. When a new camera comes out, many photographers sell their perfectly good gear to upgrade to the latest and greatest. (even though the latest is often not actually the greatest). The time when a new SLR is coming out is the best time to buy a used one of the previous model. It's easy to find them for sale online, in like-new condition. Then again, I firmly believe that Canon's 1Dmk2 can focus more accurately than any other camera out there (including the 1Dmk3 and 1Dmk4), and that the 5Dmk1 can take shots that are wider and less noisy than any camera out there (including the 5Dmk2)... So given that I use two 5-year-old cameras, you may wish to take my SLR advice with a grain of salt ;] On the other hand, I will recognize that the latest Nikons are fantastic pieces of engineering. If I were to start from scratch (or if I lost all my Canon cameras and lenses in an accident or something), I would probably replace my Canon 5D with a Nikon D700 and my 1Dmk2 with a D3. I don't think Canon makes anything that can really compete with the latest Nikons. (As for how they compete in the entry-level market, or how Sony compares... I have no idea. I've stopped following entry-level SLRs a while ago, and never did care much for manufacturers that were not Canon or Nikon since the other manufacturers have VERY limited selection when it comes to long telephoto lenses). Also, a big part of why I stick with my current cameras (other than the fact that all of Canon's newer cameras take pictures with a lot of grain and noise, since they try to cram too many megapixels onto those sensors, for the sake of marketing) is that over the past couple of years I have been doing less and less photography, so it's no longer worth it for me to sink thousands of dollars into yet another upgrade. But my Canons will only last so long, and the day when they break beyond economical repair, I guess I'll have to do all the decision-making I describe above. We'll see.

 

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras   Camera: Panasonic GF3 ($399 at Amazon.com) The Panasonic GF3 is the smallest and just about the cheapest Micro Four Thirds camera you can buy. (The Olympus E-PM1 might be a little cheaper, but I have found its interface to be hard to use; changing the settings is just not intuitive. The Panasonic is much more user-friendly. Also, the Panasonic is far more ergonomic: The flat Olympus could easily slide from your grip as you try to hold it without pressing buttons - and impossible task - but your hands wrap intuitively and securely around the Panasonic's grip-bumps. And it's so small! Look how they practically managed to make the camera smaller than its own lens mount). It has all the features of more expensive cameras, including an autofocus that is quite a bit faster than most other Micro Four Thirds cameras. It also has a touchscreen, making it simple to change all kinds of settings just by moving the symbols on the screen with your finger. And if you want to get this kind of camera and you're on a strict budget, I could point out the previous model, the Panasonic GF2 ($299 on Amazon), which is just a little bigger.             Lens: Olympus 14-150 ($499 at Amazon.com) The kit lens included with most Micro Four Thirds cameras has only 3x zoom (14 to 42mm). That’s fine, but sometimes you want to zoom into the picture a little more, to take a picture of something small or something far away. For this, I would recommend the Olympus 14-150 lens. I spent weeks walking around Europe using this lens, and it served me well. At 14mm, the field of view is nice and wide, you can see a whole panorama... and at 150mm, you can zoom in to the smallest details of ornate architecture and intricate artwork. It’s a really fun lens, and not very expensive for what you get.             Lens: Panasonic 7-14 ($888 at Amazon.com) I know that this lens is too expensive for most people, especially since most people aren’t huge fans of super-wide angle lenses. But I LOVE super-wide angle lenses. And this is one of the best I have ever used. This lens alone made me feel confident about switching to the Micro Four Thirds system. The field of view is extremely wide. If you look at a wide panorama from a vista point, or walk into a big room at a museum, or are standing in the middle of a bustling square with people and vendors and vehicles surrounded by cool buildings... this lens will capture the whole scene with one shot. And, amazingly, it’s as sharp as the best super-wide angle lenses for SLRs (such as the Sigma 12-24mm). It’s a really, really, really amazing lens for capturing any visually-interesting environment, from panoramic views and a building’s rooms to airplane cockpits and cool architecture. I love this lens. If you’re traveling to a new and visually-interesting place, I can’t recommend it highly enough. One of the greatest things about owning a Micro Four Thirds camera is the ability to put this lens onto it. Here are some pictures I have taken with this lens: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.             General Info:   I know I’ve already made my recommendation, but I thought I’d discuss this kind of camera in more detail. They’re still very new, the field is still developing, and there is some very interesting innovation going on. At the very least, I should describe how these cameras get SLR-like image quality in such a compact size, and make the case for why the Micro Four Thirds system is arguably better than its competitors. Let me start with a little bit of history. As you probably know, "SLR" means "Single Lens Reflex". This means that, instead of having a separate viewfinder lens (the little glass window at the top or top-left of many older cameras), there is a single lens: You look through the lens while setting up the shot, and then when you click the shutter button, the light that comes through the lens gets redirected so as to hit the film instead of hitting your eye. This is accomplished by a mirror in front of the film: Most of the time, the mirror is down, thus protecting the film and reflecting the light from the lens into the viewfinder. But when you hit the button, the mirror flips up, the viewfinder goes black, and the film gets to "see out" through the lens. That’s a bit of a simplification (there’s also the shutter mechanism, the autofocus mechanism, a prism in the viewfinder, etc) but it’s basically what an SLR is. Digital SLRs were built to the exact same specs, except that where the film used to go, there is now a digital sensor, which works like a piece of "digital film" that can be re-used over and over. The lens mount is the same (i.e. the lenses from film SLRs can be used on digital SLRs), the mirror and viewfinder setup is the same, etc. Compact digital cameras don’t have a mirror, though. The lens is always projecting light onto the sensor, and then we can see what the sensor sees by looking at the little screen in the back. The old optical viewfinder has been replaced by the electronic viewfinder, which allows us to look through the lens all the time without needing the bulky mirror. Could the mirror be removed from digital SLRs to make them more compact? Not if you want to use lenses made for film cameras. Those lenses were all designed to focus onto a plane (where the film is) that is a certain distance behind the back of the lens, because the mirror and shutter need a certain depth in order to fit in there. So you can’t make the camera any thinner than an old camera, if you wish to use old lenses. Also, the old lenses use a lens mount (the metal ring where the lens attaches to the camera) of a certain size, so you can’t make the camera any smaller than that. The solution is to create a whole new lens mount. First of all, if we get rid of the mirror, then the lens can be designed to sit right in front of the sensor, instead of having to be an inch or so out in front of it. So the camera can be thinner. The lens mount can also be designed with a smaller diameter, so the camera can be smaller. Also, the standard sensor size could be slightly smaller than a piece of film (about 2/3 or 1/2 the size of a piece of film), so the whole thing can be further scaled down by that proportion. The advantages: You get SLR-quality photographs with much smaller gear. The disadvantage: You can’t use your old lenses (except through the use of bulky adapters that cause autofocus ability to be slowed or entirely lost). So you have to start from scratch. Re-invent the camera. Bet on people being willing to switch to a whole new system, leaving behind their beloved Canon and Nikon lenses. Well, a few companies have taken that gamble. They invested on the development of a whole new system of cameras and lenses that are pretty much incompatible with the old interchangeable lens gear, because they’re much smaller. Here endeth the history lesson.   ---------------   If you would like to get one of these cameras, your choices are: Sony NEX Cameras: Sony NEX3 and NEX5 Lenses: 16mm f2.8, 30mm f3.5, 50mm f1.8, 18-55mm, 18-200mm, 55-210 mm. Advantages: These cameras have a smaller lens mount - and thus an overall smaller size - than any other mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera. They also have a bigger sensor than other such cameras, about the same size as the sensor on many SLRs (about 2/3 the size of a frame of film). So, overall, they give you the most image quality for the greatest convenience. Disadvantages: Unfortunately, the selection of lenses is a little limited. The lenses are fine for everyday photography, so if you just want to take pictures of your family and your vacations and whatnot, then they’re fine. But if you want a really long lens to shoot birds or aircraft, or a really fast lens in the 200mm range for photographing people in indoor events, or a really wide lens for panoramas or real-estate photography... then you’re out of luck. Good news: Old Minolta A-mount and Sony Alpha lenses still work on these cameras. Bad news: There’s a crop factor (so you can’t get that wide-angle view even with an old wide-angle camera) and the autofocus will suffer (so if you do use a long lens from an older system, getting a NEX camera to focus the old lens on that bird or athlete or airplane will be challenging). Nikon One Cameras: Nikon V1 and J1 Lenses: 10-30mm (kit lens w camera), 10mm, 10-100mm, and 30-110mm. Advantages: These cameras are made by Nikon, so you can bet that they’re high-quality gear. Also, with an adapter, the cameras can use old Nikon lenses... with the caveat that only the middle 1/3 of the image can be seen by the tiny sensor, so you basically can’t "zoom out" and see the whole field of view (unless you use a fish-eye to begin with). Put on a 35mm wide-angle lens and, when you look through the camera, your field of view looks like you’re using a 105mm telephoto lens. Using a camera with a sensor that small and putting old lenses on it is like looking through a straw. Disadvantages: These have the smallest sensors of any mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera. Not only does this restrict your field of view like I just mentioned, it also means that pictures will be grainier. In other words, the photos will be less SLR-like and more like the pictures taken by a point-and-shoot. Since the sensor size is such a big factor when it comes to image quality, I’m skeptical that these cameras can deliver SLR-quality photos. Finally, the biggest disadvantage: Lens selection is extremely limited. At least for now. One hopes that Nikon and Sigma and other manufacturers will invest in developing more lenses for this system, but that will only happen if sales of these mini-Nikons pick up... and even then, they might not think it’s worth the risk. So the question is, are YOU willing to take the gamble and invest into a camera system that is still in its infancy? I wouldn’t recommend it, especially because the following option is arguably the best: Micro Four Thirds Cameras: A whole lot of them. Here’s a list. My favorites are the Panasonic GF3 and G3, and the Olympus E-PM1 and E-P3. Lenses: A whole lot of them. Here’s the complete list. My favorites are the Panasonic 7-14, the Olympus 14-150, and the Panasonic "X" 14-42. Advantages: These have really caught on. There are a LOT of cameras to choose from, and a LOT of lenses, and a LOT of miscellaneous accessories like viewfinders and flashes, all made by a variety of manufacturers, almost all of them compatible with everything else in the Micro Four Thirds systems. The ecosystem is almost as diverse as Canon and Nikon SLRs and their accessories. There are super wide lenses, super long lenses, prime lenses that are really sharp, 10x zoom lenses that are really handy, lenses that are really fast and that come in a variety of focal lengths... All of them much smaller than the equivalent gear for Canon and Nikon SLRs. Disadvantages: The main one is cost. Most of this gear costs about as much as if it were made for Canon and Nikon SLRs. The cameras range from about $300 to about $900, and the lenses for the most part range from about $200 to about $1000. Also, the image quality is ALMOST the same as with full-size SLRs, but not quite. There are no lenses for the Micro Four Thirds system that are quite as sharp as the really, really sharp lenses for Canon and Nikon. And the sensors in Micro Four Thirds cameras get more grainy/noisy at high ISOs than SLR sensors, which is to be expected due to their small size. When it comes to image quality, Micro Four Thirds cameras are somewhere between compact cameras (like the Canon S100 and Panasonic FZ47 described bove) and SLRs. At a low ISO (250 or below) and with a nicer lens set to f8 or so, a Micro Four Thirds camera can match the image quality of an SLR with an SLR’s kit lens. But raise the ISO or shoot with a wide-open aperture, and results will start to look like a compact camera (like the S100 or FZ47). In most of my photography, I can keep the ISO quite low and keep the aperture at f8. So I have found that my Micro Four Thirds gear produces pictures that are SLR-like, without forcing me to haul any heavy gear around. But, again, by "SLR-like", I mean "700-dollar SLR with a 500-dollar lens", not "4,000-dollar SLR with a 2,500-dollar lens". If you shoot with really expensive gear, then Micro Four Thirds will not quite match its photo quality. But if you shoot with entry-level SLR gear, then I’d recommend you consider replacing it with the much smaller Micro Four Thirds equivalents.   ---------------   Here’s my personal story regarding these cameras: Up until recently, my camera bag consisted of a 7D and 100-400L lens for taking pictures of airplanes, and a 5Dmk1 and a 28-300L and a Sigma 12-24mm for general photography. The 5D and 28-300 and 12-24 produced gorgeous images... but the size and weight of the gear prevented me from taking it places. You can’t really go to a party or a dinner, or explore a new city, and haul all that stuff around. In the summer of 2010, I wanted to take a long trip where I’d visit six European cities. I wanted to walk around those streets and museums and castles, without having to worry about carrying pounds of precious photo gear. And I wanted to be able to hop from one city to another, via planes or trains, carrying only a backpack. (Yes, I did wash my clothes at one point). The 5D and 28-300 would really weigh me down. So I bought an E-P2 and a 7-14mm and a 14-150mm, and took those on the trip. Even while testing them at home, before the trip, I saw that the Micro Four Thirds gear took pictures similar to those produced by the heavier Canon gear, as long as I kept the ISO down and the aperture at f8. I’ve been a convert ever since. When I got back home, I sold the 5D and the 28-300L and the 12-24. Of course, nothing shoots fast-moving targets like a 7D (or 1D) and an L-series 400mm lens, because the autofocus of Micro Four Thirds cameras just isn’t fast enough to keep up with a Blue Angel going almost the speed of sound. Or at least, in the summer of 2010, it wasn’t fast enough. The new Micro Four Thirds cameras (E-P3, GF3, E-PM1) have vastly improved autofocus. I’ll probably get one (I’m thinking of getting the E-PM1, because I have an Onlympus-only viewfinder... but I like using the GF3 a lot more... We'll see) and a long lens (the Panasonic 100-300 looks the most appealing) and take it to an airshow to see how well it does. I’ll update this page when I find out.

Thanks for visiting my guide to the best digital cameras out there. Please tell your friends about this site!

Sincerely,

Bernardo Malfitano
Creator and master