[Dane]

My top priority is speed...I want it to slide out of my harness-compressed pocket easily, have it power up and autofocus in an instant, have imperceptible shutter lag, and stuff it back in my pocket as it's powering down. No fuss, no waiting, minimal distraction. Oh, and I want to be able to do that left-handed for when I'm on belay. I won't be taking the time to make adjustments for photographic conditions so will be relying heavily on the quality of the camera's automatic settings (is there any way to compare between cameras?) Nice glass and sharp, hi-res captures...but who doesn't like that in a camera? I've really liked the 28mm equiv. "wide" lenses on past P+Ss. Shock resistance is probably smart. I sweat like a fountain so water resistance would be good too... But again, top priority is speed. Budget is up to $500, but for that price it better be a damn nice P+S. I appreciate any advice or reccomendations!

[boot up]

you need a tough camera.

[Ski]

Dane, a couple months ago I was asking a similar question. I picked up a little Nikon "Coolpix L28" at Office Depot. Camera, nice little Lowe case, and a 16gb card came to $138.94 including tax. It's not the FG-20 with the 50mm lens you see in my avatar, but it works, it's pretty fast, and it seems to take fairly decent pictures: all those in my last two trip reports are hand-held shots. No idea about weather resistance, and I've managed so far not to drop it so I can't speak to shock resistance. So far, so good. As far as its "zoom" capability, it looks like I'd do far better with a tripod. This snowshoe hare was about 30 feet away when I grabbed the camera and snapped this Thursday afternoon in gloomy light:

hand-held-unedited-fuzzy_bunny_Ashenbrenner_091213

If I'd have had the Nikon FG-20 on a tripod and dialed in the aperture settings, I'd probably have gotten better here:

hand-held_upper_queets_trail_under_canopy_unedited_091113

The camera came with a software package that allows me to tweak images, but so far I haven't even opened up the application so I have no idea what I might be able to do with images like that. Doubtless there are others here with more expertise than myself. bk

[Dane]

I've owned a couple waterproof Optios and liked them...but I'm pretty good at taking care of electronics in the backcountry. "rugged" cameras are more expensive for lower image quality...haven't ruled it out but would like to prioritize image quality over ruggedness this time around.

[mike]

Got my wife an LX5 last christmas on closeout. Great little camera. The LX7 sound pretty good. Goes to 24mm equiv wide too.

[joker]

I have an LX3 and have been very happy with it, and the LX5 and LX7 look like a nice series of upgrades from there. I like having the RAW option - just get the exposure right while in the field and mess with adjustments later at home (I'm willing to take the time at home, though it does lead to getting backlogged on photo processing and then catching up in batches). The Sony RX100 looks like a very nice camera too. The LX# cameras go a big wider (24mm vs 28mm for the Sony) and also have a wider maximum aperture. These strike me as being among the nicer image quality yielding P&S cameras w/in your healthy budget (the Rx100 II looks like an even nicer camera than the RX100 but it will blow your budget). I have not overly babied my LX3 and it's been going strong for a few years now. I also often wear it around my neck and I tend to sweat a lot, and this has not trashed the camera (though it's not like there's a steady stream dripping directly onto it - more of it being up against my sweaty shirt).

[Jim Dockery]

As Joker says, the Sony RX 100 has gotten unequivocal rave reviews for picture quality due to the large sensor - the new II version is a bit better in low light, adds a flip screen and wifi, but it's even more $$. The original is still for sale and can be found around the top of your budget. Not sure how instantaneous it is, but if you push the on button as you are pulling it out of the case it should be ready by the time it is up in position. Make sure to get the $14 grip if you go with one, they are slippery little cameras for one handed belaying.

[ericande]

I second this, that camera is terrific. It will still focus and react slower than an SLR but it's pretty incredible for a P&S.

[joker]

I've seen a positive review of the LX7 with regards to speed-to-focus, which is key to shutter lag. But I've not seen any calibrated measurements to benchmark across cameras, so this came across as a somewhat subjective statement in the review.

[joker]

[mike]

Damn fine camera but don't forget...

[joker]

Indeed, and as noted above the RX100 II is above his budget (and adding the electronic viewfinder blows the budget even more). But the RX100 just squeeks in w/in budget (as noted above) and the LX7 is well within budget (though the optional electronic viewfinder accessory would lift the cost just a tad above budget).

[Dane]

thanks guys I'm leaning towards the LX7....the price is right and it has a faster, wider lens than the RX100. It even sounds like the faster lens allows one to use a lower ISO for a given shutter speed vs the RX100, making it competitive in terms of low-light noise despite the smaller sensor (I don't plan on a whole lot of low-light shooting though). I don't get as excited about parsing camera specs as I do about most other outdoor gear, though, so my "leaning" is more a matter of gut feeling. The slimmer design and larger sensor on the RX100 are definitely nice features. I'm not exactly clear on when the higher resolution becomes a major factor. I don't plan on much post-processing (though I want to try shooting in RAW) and I don't intend to display my shots on anything larger than a computer monitor or perhaps a medium-size print. So what would I be giving up if I went for the LX7 with a smaller sensor and faster lens?

[boot up]

[mike]

Personally the 24mm equiv wide is a must have. Too bad the RX100 doesn't go there or I'd be all over it.