New compact cameras - announcement roundup

Hardware
81

I’ve had a dye-sub portable printer, which was utterly terrible (Canon QX10). Printing was extremely slow, the battery exhausted after just a couple of prints (and took ages to recharge), and it broke, twice, before even finishing a single cartridge. A piece of junk and an embarrassing waste of money. Print quality was OK, though, and it printed on sticky-back paper.

I still have a bigger 4x6in dye-sub printer (Canon CP1300), which isn’t exactly portable, but is small enough to transport, if that makes sense. Print quality is as OK as the above piece of junk, it’s as slow, and the app (the only option for printing) no longer works except for one particular phone that still runs an old version. Still, this has been with us for many years, has proven reliable, and has served us well. I once brought this to an event I was photographing, and the hosts were delighted.

I also own an instax square printer, which works well. It’s compact, portable, fast. Print quality is mediocre, but has some analog charm. The only downside really is that you can’t cut the prints. I once brought this on a group camping trip, which produced some cherished artifacts for everybody.

A colleague recently showed me their ZINK printer, which seems to combine the better print quality of the dye-subs with the robustness and speed of the instax. If I were to buy a mobile printer today, that’s what I’d buy.

Although truth be told, even my very modest six-ink office inkjet printer (Epson XP8500) utterly obliterates any of these in terms of print quality, versatility (different paper stocks and sizes!), cost, and speed.

My photo printer (Canon Pro200) is a different beast altogether. But now we’re also very much beyond reason for most people in terms of size and price.

1 Like
82

Yes, agreed, I think we all get irked when something we like is removed or not added. Maybe it’s personality differences, but I think there are different expectations based on how people view themselves with regard to target markets. I realized a long time ago that I am usually not in the target market for much. I’ve never really been a mass-market kind of person, and I’ve certainly never been someone with lots of disposable income to spend frivolously. So when my dream camera fails to materialize, it’s no surprise and I generally accept it. For others, they are either used to being in the target market or they feel they should be regardless.

This recent article tries to make the argument that camera prices are not actually more expensive than they were 20 years ago. While I get their point about inflation, there is no mention of wage increases, or lack of, so I’m not sure it’s a fair comparison. My feeling is that people are finding products more expensive these days because their income has not kept up with inflation.

I fully agree here. I wanted to get my daughters trying out non-phone photography, and I was really struggling to find something suitable. The options seemed to be close to $1000 or sub $100 for something really basic. I like the fact that you can get the Camp Snap Camera and some decent Instax cameras, but there needs to be more options in the $200 to $500 range that are comparable to a smartphone in terms of quality. In this respect, I do think the X-Half is overpriced for what you get. Pentax/Ricoh should get back into this segment imo.

1 Like
83

If you’re looking for a bargain, DSLRs are probably where it’s at. Or perhaps first generation MFT.

1 Like
84

Hit the used market.

2 Likes
85

I was going to recommend an X-E2/3 with a cheap viltrox or sigma but then remembered they too were impacted by the Fuji crazyness and are wayyyy over priced. Sad days.

86

It’s really hard to find something reasonable in that $100-400 range where I am. It is possible, but it’s going to be old. The used market is pretty crazy where I am, and MPB/KEH places make no sense when you factor in shipping and exchange rates.

87

@europlatus you might keep an eye on https://reddit.com/r/photomarket and the electronic bay.

1 Like
88

We briefly owed a Canon EOS M50 and kit lens. I think it’s a nice camera, but then my kid said they’d prefer a DSLR. The Canon is small, and quite cheap, being a dead system

89

ooooooooooooook boys and girls

Currently watching the petapixel video ( i was first typing dpreview video)

that “film mode” is such a fun idea for e.g. a photo walk with friends. challenge your photography skills with a “fixed” film :slight_smile:

It feels like a good way to stretch your skills next time you go out to take photos.

3 Likes
90

They’re going for about $600 to $1000 here in Canada, which is fairly pricey for a dead system. Shame they discontinued it because I liked how compact it was.

I actually have an old Canon DSLR lying around but it’s so big, even though it’s APS-C. It’s good to see Canon bringing back some Powershots, although they seem very video-centric. I have a bit of an obsession right now with compact cameras, so I eagerly await every announcement in this space. I’m really hoping Sony announce something exciting soon that isn’t just another vlogging hybrid.

91

Wow. We bought it for CHF 300.

92

I don’t understand… shipping with MPB is a few tens of euros, and exchanging money is fairly cheap these days.

A lot of the Panasonic early G’s, up to GX7, are $100–$300 on MPB, which also allows for a pancake zoom below $400.

If small form factor is not a key requirement and/or you want a DSLR with a grip, the Nikon D300 and similar (<$200) are decent for learning photography, and similarly, the budget allows an a kit zoom or (better) a good prime lens.

93

Dpreview has published a sample gallery for the X-Half.

Based on this, I am pleased with the resolution and the noise, even the ISO 6400 shots look decent, which is about how far I would push the sensor. Clearly this is not the camera people will use for large landscape prints… and that is fine. I really like the colors, especially the subdued brown-orange of the Reala Ace.

I would love to see people using cameras like this for daily life & social media, instead of their mobile phones. Simply because most mobile phones have a “candyland on steroids” color mapping by default, oversaturating everything. A lot of thought went into these film simulations so one cannot go wrong with any of them.

3 Likes
94

Another less obvious benefit is the lack of face filters. Some phone manufacturers auto apply beauty filters even to photos taken with the back camera. It’s quite sad

3 Likes
95

MPB and KEH are based in the States. We don’t have any branches in Canada. When I say it doesn’t make much sense to shop from them, it’s because after shipping to Canada from the States and paying in US dollars, the used camera becomes barely cheaper than buying a new one in Canada. The USD to CAD exchange rate has been really bad for us in Canada for some time now. Plus, duties are applied in an attempt to prevent Canadians from buying too cheaply in the US and harming Canadian retailers. Maybe it’s a different situation in the EU.

Obviously, there will be times when a good deal can still be found, but not for the cameras I have researched so far, which admittedly have been in-demand cameras.

1 Like
96

Yes, I was implicitly assuming you would be shipping from the EU. But I don’t know the details of CETA., maybe it is worth a call to your local customs office.

In Hungary there are various Facebook groups for trading camera equipment, I got my last 2 used lenses there.

97

I’m not sure if it’s just the subject matter, but I’m quite unimpressed with that sample gallery - something about the rendering seems very ‘dull’ and the colour palette leaves me cold. Very 2010s digicam to me…:woozy_face:

Am I just hooked on my new ‘usual’ combination of big old sensor, vintage lens and a hefty film sim?

(Current cost of this about half that of the X-Half)

Does anyone else feel spending on the X-Half would be an utter waste of money?

I suppose perhaps I’m viewing this with very entitled eyes as I am in the fortunate position of having the experience of trying quite a few cameras over the last 15 years and also don’t really care two hoots about the fashion side of this…

As has already been said I’m not the target market… But I’m disappointed in that output. I think they could have put a lot more character in some of the film simulations.

98

I’ve never had a portable printer - but love seeing similar reactions when I shoot in monochrome in camera, with a wide aperture 50mm, then wifi the images to my phone and finally message them to the subject.

It’s such a different look to the average phone selfy that it catches people way off guard and they’re usually delighted :grin:

1 Like
99

To me, it’s just the subject matter and composition. I don’t think any/many of them are good photos and that makes me want to judge them more harshly on the camera’s technical performance, which isn’t really “fair”. The shot of the tacos just seems to be out of focus, so what use is that one? There’s motion blur on the one with the woman smiling (image 3). And some of them are just underexposed, which again affects your impression of colour and tonality.

So, I agree with you in that I’m also unimpressed by that gallery, but I’m just not sure it’s the camera’s fault.

Some of the photos do show that it has decent sharpness and dynamic range, so I guess there’s merit in that.

Ultimately, it also proves to me that I would want RAW, because when you don’t get it right in camera, there’s nothing much you can do except for minor adjustments. And with this camera’s sensor, there’s a higher risk of getting the exposure wrong.

2 Likes
100

Might be a political statement. :smiley:

4 Likes