January, 2021

Recommending a camera to people in the age of ever improving cellphones is kinda rough, especially since it really depends on what you are looking to do.  This is more of an explanation of what I use and why.

Before I begin:

1) do not buy a DSLR.  Their day is done. If you are looking for a system camera, mirrorless is the way to go

2) except for a few very specialized circumstances (underwater or action cam or ultralight travel or you are a crazy camera geek like me), do not buy an all-in-one camera or point and shoot camera

For general purpose picture and video taking, your best bet is to get a smartphone with the best camera available.  For years, I used Google Pixel phones, but a few months ago, after Google screwed up with Pixel5  I said screw it and got the new iPhone 12 Pro Max.  I despise everything about iOS, but it takes excellent picture an videos.  It also has good battery life and a superb screen.  I care more about that then about the rest of this phone put together.  It is expensive, but it is still cheaper than a camera that would give you appreciably better image and video quality.

I happened to have one of those too, so let’s go over that next.  For years, I stuck with the Micro-4/3 mount since it have me a good compromise of image quality and portability.  I was willing to sacrifice some low light performance to get that.  Well, after years of gross mismanagement by Olympus, I finally called it quits (for the most part) and switched systems.

I still have a couple of Micro-4/3 cameras, both are now discontinued, so I will not go into any detail on them.  One is a Z-cam E1 that I have set up to take “through the scope” videos.  Another is an old Panasonic GX-1 that I am using to teach my daughter to take pictures.  I sold off all of my lenses, keeping only four of the more compact ones:

Panasonic Lumix 15mm F/1.7 (excellent image quality and color)

Panasonic 14mm F/2.5 pancake (super compact and unfortunately discontinued)

Panasonic Lumix 12-32mm F/3.5-5.6 (strangely good collapsible kit lens)

Olympus Zuiko 45mm F/1.8 (90mm equivalent fast prime for portraits and telephoto use)

In terms of stills image quality, I do not think Micro-4/3 system is overall viable any more.  High end cell phones got too close and offer much better workflow.  One exception to that is telephoto.  You can get really impressive telephoto reach with a much smaller optic than you would otherwise be able to do with a larger sensor camera system.  I do not do a ton of telephoto, so I switched to a different system in order to get something that is more of a step up from my cell phone.

Micro-4/3 is a perfectly viable video system, however, and Panasonic makes a couple of excellent video-centric mirrorless cameras.

Once you go to larger image sensor size, there are three categories to choose from: APS-C, FullFrame (same size as old 35mm film) and medium frame.  The larger the image sensor, the larger the lenses.  Also, the larger the image sensor the more heat the sensor generates when filming video.

For me, both stills an video are important and, having used larger systems before, I was not comfortable with hernia inducing lenses.  Also, I do not have unlimited budget.  If I wanted ultimate image quality, I would probably just bite the bullet and ump to medium frame.  However, my camera has to be a general purpose system that does everything well.

I ended up going with an APS-C sensor system from Fuji.  More specifically, Fuji X-T4 that is probably the best hybrid still/video camera at the moment.  My brother has a few Fuji lenses including the 100-400mm telephoto that I occasionally use to look for bullet holes or to take pictures of the moon.  That saved me a ton of money.

The lenses I use the most are the 16-80mm F/4 that is my general purpose lens and 23mm F/2.  Both have very respectable optical quality and are weather resistant, just like the camera body.  I plan to acquire a 90mm F/2 at some point for portraits and low light telephoto, but that is largely it.  I try to keep the number of lenses I own to a minimum.  I want them to be reasonably compact AND weather resistant.

Finally, the camera I really wanted is a fixed lens Leica Q2.  I used to own the original Q and I took the best pictures of my life with that camera.  I finally sold it because it was not weather proof and with a fixed 28mm lens I needed a few more pixels to crop.  Q2 resolves nearly every complaint I had with the original Q, while keeping that spectacular lens and user interface.  I worked hard to convince myself to pony up the cash for a Q2, but could not make the leap.  I’ve played with it and it is glorious.  Maybe some day.

If you have some more exotic camera requirements, something else might be a better fit.  I used to develop image sensors and cameras, so this is sort of my field of expertise.  If you have specific requirements, let me know and I will do what I can to help.

I glanced at the photography announcements and noticed that Leica has introduced a silver version of Leica Q.   It is just a styling change.  Aside from the cosmetics, the camera is the same.

As some of you may recall, I used Leica Q for about a year and took some of the best pictures I have ever taken with it.  More importantly, from the standpoint of user interfaces, Leica Q is the best camera I have ever used.  It also came with the best lens I have ever used.  The optical quality of that lens was just stunning.  The image sensor was a step behind the best of Sony, but very serviceable.  The lens, however, was beyond reproach.

Still, after using it for a year, I sold it.  Primary reason for that was that with my kids doing more sports, I need some more telephoto reach.  I do not need a whole lot, but I do need some.  Hence, the Q with its spectacular 28mm F/1.7 lens headed toward Ebay.

Since then, I have been looking at getting another camera, this time with an interchangeable lens and a full frame sensor.  I am picky about image quality, so the cameras I am considering are the new Nikon D850 and Sony A7R III.  Nikon has decent handling.  Sony still has ways to go.  However, the user interface on both of them is, to me, just atrocious.   It is full of long nested menus and a veritable army of re-programmable external buttons that are only used when I press them by accident.  Leica Q gave me all the control I needed with a couple of dials and a couple of buttons.   The only camera company that does something similar to Leica Q in terms of user interfaces is Fuji, so I am always keeping my eye on them as well.

While I am experiencing this “paralysis by analysis”, I decided to step back and hypothesize a little: “if I could go to a camera manufacturer and ask them for the ideal camera for my purposes, what would I ask for?”

The answer is not as obvious as it would seem up front, especially if I try to put my usual techno-snobbery aside.  While I find cameras interesting from a technology standpoint, from a photography standpoint, what I care about are image quality, responsiveness, user interface and portability.

In terms of image quality, while it can get tricky in some challenging conditions, I have to admit that I my standards are getting a little relaxed.  However, if I am dropping some serious coin for a standalone camera, it better be able to take high quality images in any lighting condition.  If I can see it with the naked eye, the camera has to be able to capture it with good detail and natural tones no mater how dark it is.

Responsiveness is quite good on most modern cameras, so it is difficult to make a choice based on this.  I consider autofocus speed and accuracy a part of the responsiveness which complicates things a bit.  However, for the range of cameras I am looking at, it is likely a wash.

User interface is where things start getting tricky since I consider most traditional camera user interfaces sub-optimal.  We are spoiled by how good the UI is on our phones and tablets.  Traditional camera companies have sorta figured out where to put the dials and buttons, but the rest of the UI is difficult for them (and it seems that Japanese camera companies are really behind the curve as far as software is concerned).  Weirdly, Leica is the only one that is embracing modern user interfaces for cameras.  Outside of that, I like how Olympus, Nikon and Pentax position their dials and shape their grips.  Canon does it a bit differently and it does not work with my hands.  Newer Panasonic cameras seem to be mimicking the way Canon does this, so they do not work for me either.  Fuji embraces the classic approach with several rotary dials and it is the most natural user interface for me outside of what Leica offers.

Portability is where things get even trickier.  I am really spoiled by always having my  phone with me and by how good, comparatively speaking, the camera in my Pixel phone is.  Since I sold my Leica Q, I have been experimenting with using an external lenses from Moment and I have to admit that in decent lighting you can get very reasonable image quality at a couple of additional focal lengths.  I mostly use the telephoto lens for portraits,

,

but I am generally very impressed with what can be done with the tiny camera module in the cellphone and a couple of easily pocketable Moment lenses.  I will freely admit, that the image quality is nowhere near a proper full frame camera, but my cell phone is always with me and add-on lenses help with composition.

With that in mind, what kind of a camera would I want to have in an ideal world?  Well, I would like to have the image quality of a full frame DSLR in my cell phone, but it does not look like I am going to get it just yet.

If we ever get there, computational imaging will be how it happens and the first harbinger of that is a camera called Light L16.  It has a cellphone form factor and it takes pictures via 16 cell phone style camera modules of varying focal lengths, from 28mm to 150mm.  Those images are fused together in software.  I will not go into too much detail, but fundamentally, they get to have a cellphone formfactor by using a bunch of small imagers instead of one large one.  Stitching all this data together is not straightforward, but the results are promising.  It took all my willpower to abstain from pre-ordering one, but I am still on the fence.  On one hand, I do not like to be an early adopter.  On the other hand, it is already lookign kinda decent and will likely get much better with firmware.  Most critically, carrying this device with you is kinda like having a second smartphone.  That means I can have it with me almost all the time.

As far as traditional cameras go, I would really like to see something like “Leica Q Duo” with a more modern image sensor and dual focal length lens.  With the amount of cropping you can do with today’s 40+ megapixel sensors, I am do not really need a continuous zoom lens with all its complexity.  A lens with a built in doubler would be perfectly sufficient and would probably be much easier to optimize, since there are only two focal lengths to worry about.  For example, if I could get a camera with the user interface and overall image quality of Leica Q, except with a lens that switches between 28mm f/1.7 and 56mm f/2.5, I would be overjoyed and it would be sufficient for almost everything I do.

I do not think I am going to see something like that out any time soon, so I will occupy myself with keeping tabs on how Light L16 does in the field.  Perhaps, computational imaging has truly arrived.

In the modern market, most cameras introduced are pretty decent.  There is a major paradigm shift going on, where traditional fixed lens digital still cameras have been effectively displaced by new categories of photographic devices, most notably cell phones.  All the different compact digital cameras that use fairly small sensors are effectively obsolete, with a couple of exceptions.  The only non-interchangeable lens market segment that is doing all right is the so-called “enthusiast compact camera” that use a pretty large (1″ format) image sensor and as such offer significantly better image quality that any currently available cell phone.

I wrote about these camera fairly extensively earlier this year and while there are a few new entrants to this market, the situation has not changed much.

Here, I will offer some brief recommendations and a little bit of my decision making process for a variety of imaging devices:

Cell phones

For all practical purposes, if image quality is important, you need a flagship smartphone.  We are down to two operating systems: Apple and Android.  In terms of pure image quality, top end Android phones are a little better, but the iPhone is not far behind and is excellent in terms of usability.  I use Android and I have recently switched to Google Pixel.  Prior to that, I was using Google Nexus 6P.  However, I have had my hands on just about every flagship smartphone out there.  Google Pixel is pretty much the only option with a top notch smartphone camera in a not supersized body.  It also has the best autofocus I have seen on a phone to date.  Samsung phones do well in online reviews.  I have had a bunch of them and I swear Samsung must be buying those reviews.  In terms of pure image quality, Samsung Galaxy phones are good, but in terms of usability, Google Pixel runs circles around them.

Compact Point and Shoot Cameras

First, let’s get it out there: traditional inexpensive point and shoot cameras are simply not worth buying unless for some reason you can not use a smartphone.  The exceptions are:

1. You need something waterproof/shockproof for swimming, skiing, etc.  In terms of image quality, you are better off putting a proper camera into a waterproof case, but that gets bulky.  If you need a small camera that does this consider Olympus Tough series.  Honestly, if it were me, I would be more likely to look at one of the action cams because for this type of use, video is important.  GoPro effectively created the action cam category, and the new Hero5 Black is pretty impressive.  That is the way I would go, since for this kind of a camera telephoto lens is not necessary (for my use).
2. You are looking for significantly better image quality that you cell phone in a form factor that is still reasonably pocketable.  Then, you need one of the enthusiast compact cameras I mentioned earlier.  Sony is up to the fifth generation of their RX100 (Mark V), and if you can swing the price tag, it is not a bad way to go.  I think Sony has royally crewed up the interface though, so if super fast video modes do not tickle you, save some money and get the Panasonic LX10.  Its UI has its own gremlins, but it is much better that Sony’s.  Also, while Sony’s autofocus looks awesome  on paper and does great in reviews, every time I use it, I get fewer keepers than with Panasonic.  Basic image quality for still between the two is about the same.  Sony has slightly better 4K video, but both are good.  Now, if all you do is street photography and you never do video, I strongly recommend you take a look at Ricoh GR II with its much larger APS-C sensor and fixed 28mm equivalent lens.  In blows all the 1″ sensor cameras out of the water in terms of image quality in an almost as compact body.  It is a more limiting configuration though, but an excellent UI for photographers.

Bridge style non-interchangeable lens camera

The market is full of fancy looking cameras with what looks like incredibly long zoom lenses (83x, etc).  Ignore them.  I am talking about models like Nikon P900 and similar.  They look nice on paper.  When you first get it, you will have a lot of fun playing with that crazy zoom range.  Then, as you look at the pictures you will put the camera away and barely ever use it again.  In order to get that crazy zoom range, they use small image sensors, similar to what is in your cell phone,  but with complicated and not very bright lenses.  Stick with bridge cameras that are built around a much larger 1″ sensor.  Canon, Sony and Panasonic make such cameras.  Nikon announced a few, but can’t quite get them to market.  Canon, in my opinion, bungled this category up a bit in terms of video, so that leaves us with Sony and Panasonic.  For the money, Panasonic FZ1000 is the one to go.  If you are really interested in pro quality video, consider Panasonic FZ2500.  If the longest possible zoom is a big deal for you, spend the extra cash for Sony RX1o Mark III.

System Cameras

This includes both mirrorless and DSLR cameras.  Anything with interchangeable lenses qualifies.   Before I delve into it a bit more, you have to decide what is important for you.  If video is important, you should forget about DSLRs.  All DSLRs right now have video features and the way they are implemented is almost looks like they were trying to make sure noone uses them.

Honestly, in the modern camera market DSLRs have two things going for them: long battery life and target tracking (i.e. sports photography).  They will continue having a notable edge in battery life for a while, but target tracking gap is going to be negligible within a generation.

There is, however, a quirk in the market.  Before I get to it, let’s talk about sensor size.  There are three sensor sizes in use for cameras that most of us can sorta afford (I am staying from the medium frame discussion for now):

• Full frame or 35mm or FX (in Nikon-speak) is the largest and the best for low light and high ISO performance
• APS-C or DX is about half the area and low light performance is about a stop worse
• Micro 4/3 is a bit smaller than APS-C and low light performance is about 3/4 of  stop worse than APS-C

High ISO image quality is important for very low light situations and for action photography where you often need to bump up the ISO in order to use very fast shutter speeds.  The only mirrorless system that uses a full frame sensor is Sony A7.  It has great technology and excellent image quality.  Unfortunately, it also has pretty terrible user experience.  Best I can tell, their UI is not designed for humans.  Performance is generally sluggish and battery life is about 60% of what Sony claims.  If you are a landscape photographer, Sony A7R II should be on your shortlist.  Outside of that, if you need a full frame sensor, a DSLR is probably still a better way to go for at least a couple more years.  For allround performance for the money, Nikon D750 is worth looking at.  It is not a new design, so you can find a good deal on it and the AF system is surprisingly competent.  If you do not have legacy lenses from a competing system, and you do not do action photography much, consider Pentax K-1.  This is the most image quality for the money you will get.  Personally, for the things I do, there is an advantage to Canon lenses (I will explain why later), so I would take a long hard look at the new Canon 5D Mark IV.  It is, however, a lot more money.  Also, since Canon seems hell bent on protecting their video camera business, 4K video implementation in the new 5D is fundamentally idiotic (I am being rather mild here; you should hear what real videographers have to say about it).

If you are not compelled to get a full frame sensor, for the most part I would suggest you stay away from DSLRs and stick with a mirrorless camera system.

The only reason to get a DSLR with a crop sensor is if you are looking for good tracking autofocus (i.e. sports) and the best one for the is Nikon D500.  It is not cheap, but it has an absolutely spectacular AF system.  It is also waterproof and, importantly for me, it shoots 4K video.  That is pretty much the only crop sensor DSLR out there that I might consider buying.  If you do not do sports, go mirrorless.

Honestly, with the introduction of Olympus E-M1 Mark II, even sports photography is not really out of reach, but I need to play with that camera a little more to see.  For indoor sports, D500 is still better owing to better high ISO performance.  There are some outstanding issues with D500, but they are mostly peripheral to taking pictures and videos and I hope Nikon will fix them with firmware updates.

Olympus E-M1 Mark II uses a Micro 4/3 size sensor which is a bit smaller than Canon’s APS-C or Nikon’s DX.  All of the Olympus and Panasonic interchangeable lens cameras use Micro-4/3 sensors.

Other mirrorless cameras use APS-C or DX sensors: Fuji X system, Sony A6300 and A6500, Canon EOS M5.

Weirdly, Nikon is not doing anything memorable in the mirrorless space.

All of these are competent cameras.  Sony is the most full featured of them and the one I like the least.  It looks awesome on paper, but it has all of the same Sony problems: sluggish operation, heat issues and battery life issues.  On top of that, Sony decided to not offer lossless raw on their crop sensor cameras, claiming we do not need it.  For those of us who do some postprocessing (and if you do not, system cameras are not for you) this can be an absolute show stopper, since it effects how well you can pull up shadows and generally fix exposure.  I get lossless raw images from my cellphone, but I can’t get them from a Sony A6500.  Basically, if you want to buy a very full featured camera for bragging rights, but do not plan to use any of the features, Sony A6500 is your best choice.  For the rest of us, there are other options.

If you already have a bunch of Canon lenses from your old DSLR, the mirrorless EOS M5 is a pretty good choice.  Canon finally upgraded their sensor fab, so basic image quality from their newest sensors is quite good.  EOS M5 is the only mirrorless camera from Canon with the new sensor.  It does not offer 4K video, but aside from that, I like what I see and it integrates well with all Canon lenses via an adapter.

Fuji X system is now pretty well fleshed out and if you want a mirrorless camera with APS-C sensor, this is a pretty good way to go.  X-T2 now offers competent 4K video and is the best general purpose camera in Fuji’s line-up, while X-Pro2 leans a bit more toward stills.  It sorta comes down to whether you need video and what form factor you like.  X-Pro2 is a rangefinder style camera, while X-T2 is more of a traditional SLR style.  Both are good cameras and they use more or less the same Sony sensor that is in the A6500.  Except, Fuji gets more out of it.

Lastly, we get to Micro-4/3.  This is easily the best fleshed out system in the mirrorless world.  Since it is based on a slightly smaller sensor, its lenses are also a bit smaller, so the overall system is smaller.  The converse is that there is a penalty in low light, although not a huge one.  Traditionally, Panasonic Micro-4/s cameras did better with video and Olympus did better with stills.  The lines are blurring though as far as flagships are concerned.  Newly introduced Olympus E-M1 Mark II is a superb stills camera and a competent video camera.  The upcoming Panasonic GH5 is still likely to be better with video, but stills will be no slouch either.

If you are on a budget, Panasonic generally offers what I believe to be the best price to performance ration in the camera world: G80 for those who like DSLR-style bodeis and GX80 for those who prefer rangefinder style bodies.  Both have excellent stills features and very respectable video options including 4K.  In this price range, I do not like the Olympus offerings, so stick with Panasonic.

As you go a bit higher in price, we have Panasonic GX8 and Olympus Pen-F.  GX8 looked so promising that I bought… and two weeks later returned it.  It is an extremely competent camera, but I could not grab it without inadvertently pressing a bunch of buttons.  Aside from that, I thought it was a very nice design.  I know a lot of people love it and it clearly works for them.  To me, it is a mess of a UI.  Panasonic was trying to make sure there is enough adjustability, so they put in 14 customizable controls instead of leaving some gripping space.

Olympus Pen-F uses the same sensor as GX8 and seems to be a touch better for still image quality, but it is close.  Video features, however, are rather limited.  If you do anything more than a casual video clip occasionally, this is not the camera for you.  Stills performance, however, is excellent as is build quality.  If Olympus made the Pen-F weather resistant, I would already own one warts and all, and I still might buy it.

The flagships of the Panasonic and Olympus lines are GH5 and E-M1 Mark II respectively.  GH5 is coming out next year.  E-M1 Mark II just came out.  I’ll talk about GH5 when it is here.  The E-M Mark II, however, is a superb camera with incredible speed and image stabilization.  If you are after a flagship, give it a look.

I have written about enthusiast compact cameras a bit earlier on (here).

Since then, I got myself a Leica Q and took it on vacation to Israel.  I like it so far.  Here are a few images:

Montfort castle in Northern Israel

Rosh HaNiqra caves

Sunset near Mikhmoret in central Israel

March 21, 2016

My dayjob involves spending a lot of time with cameras, since the company I work for makes image sensors and our customers are camera makers.  I am extremely fortunate to have a job that crosses over so strongly with one of my major hobbies.  Now, this website is largely dedicated to one of my other major hobbies (guns and sporting optics), but I figured some occasional thoughts on cameras won’t hurt.

As a matter of background, like most reasonably serious hobbyists, I use a system camera (a few of them actually).  My primary set-up is built around the Micro 4/3 system, with two cameras and a considerable array of lenses.  While I have largely traded in my DSLRs in favor of mirrorless cameras, I do have an old Nikon D90 that I pilfered from my brother who is mostly a Nikon shooter.  Aside from the Micro 4/3 (i.e. Olympus and Panasonic) gear, I also have a Samsung NX500 mirrorless camera with a couple of lenses.  It is a surprisingly capable camera system, although I decided to stick with Micro 4/3 on the strength of its wider array of lenses.  Hence, the NX500 is about to head toward Ebay.

As far as cameras go, I am anything but an early adopter, since I tend to buy them toward the end of their product lifecycle,  However, I get to see a lot of cameras as a part of my job, so I tend to be very much up to speed on what is out there. If photography is a serious hobby for you and you like messing with different lenses, camera bodies, filters, flashes, etc, then a system camera is absolutely the way to go for you as it is for me.

For that, my primary camera is Olympus E-M1 and I could not be happier with it.  For me, Micro 4/3 is the “Goldilocks” system, with the image sensor large enough for very good allround performance and a broad range of excellent and reasonably compact lenses.  When I tried the Samsung NX system, I realized that to get the same range as I have with Micro 4/3, my overall kit ended up nearly twice larger and heavier  Now, the larger image sensor of the NX cameras would likely give me better low light performance, but there wasn’t enough of a difference to carry a twice larger pack on my photography excursions.  Now, it I was heavily into low light photography or indoor sports, I would be more willing to compromise on weight and size, but I am not.

A while back, I had a discussion with a coleague of mine about cameras and while he likes taking nice pictures, I think his interest in cameras is somewhat limited.  Now, he is a very technical guy, but he is definitely not a camera geek, like your truly.  For him, a system camera is a singularly inappropriate option.  However, simply taking pictures with a cellphone or a cheap point-and-shoot will not cut it either.  He wants better image quality. Just a few years ago, he would be stuck with buying a DSLR and some sort of a general purpose zoom lens.  That would make for a reasonably capable, but bulky camera.  On top of that, kit zoom lenses are notoriously mediocre in terms of image quality, so he would also end up paying a fair bit if he wanted a better lens.  In principle, that could be a gateway for him to get into photography and acquire more lenses.  However, I have seen this play out before in a very different way.  Most likely, this array of gear would be collecting dust somewhere on the shelf since to drag this whole paraphernalia with you to every family outing takes a fair amount of dedication. Here is where enthusiast compact cameras come in.  They are not a new invention, but due to advances in image sensors and image processors, they have really flourished in recent years.

It first started out with several Japanese manufacturers using slightly larger than typical image sensors and comparatively bright zoom lenses.  Technically, low F/# lenses are difficult to build on a budget and in a compact form factor, especially if you also want them to zoom. I believe the breaking point was the availability of image processors that could be optimized to do real time lens correction.  If you allow some fairly significant distortion to remain, the lens can be smaller and cheaper while maintaining good image quality.  There is some image quality loss toward the outside of the image, due to distortion correction, but it is not all that easy to see and in a small camera is not too significant.

The rest, as they say, is history.  Japanese companies are masters of optimization and optimize they did.  Multiple combinations of image sensors and lenses were tried by literally every camera maker (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic) until two separate paradigms emerged:

1) 1″ image sensor (16mm diagonal; image sensor sizes are written in an archaic form where 1 inch is not really one inch, but 16mm) with a zoom lens

2) 4/3″ (22.5mm diagonal), APS-C (28mm diagonal) or 35mm (43mm diagonal) with a prime lens

The second category has really become a staple for serious hobbyists who view photography as an art and are willing to put up with a non-zooming lens and, frequently, larger size in exchange for better depth of field control and low light performance of a larger sensor.  Rather than get into it here, I think I’ll do a separate post on these.

For everyone else, the multitude of cameras from the first category offer a significant step up in both image quality and flexibility from what they can get out of their cellphone (notably, modern cell phone cameras are so good that only enthusiast compact cameras described here and long zoom bridge cameras have any future whatsoever).

Here is a list of cameras with 1″ sensor available now that I can think of off the top of my head.  I’ll add links for these to Adorama if you want to look at more detailed specs.  Generally, all of these use some version of a Sony made image sensor with their own lenses and ISPs.  Within this category there is a further split into two distinct camera types based on the lens choice and form factor:

-Pocketable and nearly pocketable cameras with standard zoom lenses (some are only bright at wide angle, and some are bright through the whole range)

• Sony RX100 is not on its 4th iteration (Mark IV).  This is the camer that started it all and is likely the best alround choice if you do a fair bit video in addition to photos.  There is even a collapsible EVF which works reasonably well, although it is not my favourite configuration. 24-70mm equivalent lens is not very long, but it is reasonable for allround photography.
• Canon G7X is on its second iteration and it has the best lens (of the ones I have seen) for photography.  It is a little longer than most others of this type at 24-100m equivalent range and a little brighter as you transition toward telephoto.  However, the video feature set is weaker than that of Sony and some others
• Canon G9X is probably the most compact camera here, but at the expense of low light performance at telephoto.  It is pretty bright wide open.  Video features are similar to G7X: OK, but nothing to write home about.
• Panasonic ZS100 is an interesting beast that marches to the beat of a different drum.  It is about the same size as RX100 and GX7 above, but it integrtes a viewfinder in the top left corner of the camera that does not need to be collapsed anywhere and a 10x zoom lens (25-250mm equivalent).  The aperture is pretty small by the time you get to 2500m at F/5.9, but it is F/2.8 at wide angle.  While I generally prefer larger apertures, 10x zoom in a camera this size is both impressive and very useful.  For general purpose photography, this is a veyr good option and it does very respectable video as well (4K at 30p).  Pansonic invented the whole travelzoom category years ago and this latest entrant is an excellent alround camera for someone who wants a small camera to do it all.
• Canon G5X is sorta like the G7X I mentioned above but on steroids.  It has the same sensor and lens, but in a slightly larger body that offers additional control and an electronic eye level viewfinder.  If you are not looking for anything pocketable, this configuration offers very good user experience.  Just like with G7X, I wish they added 4K video, but for photography I like this camera a lot
• Nikon DL 18-50 has a unique lens for this category.  As the name suggests, the lens spans from freakishly wide 18mm equivalent to a “normal” 50mm equivalent. 18mm equivalent is 90 degrees horizontal.  I bet that this camera will be popular with street shooters and landscape photographers.  This camera is pretty new, but I will make sure I get my hands on it.  It really stands out from the crowd.  Like the other DL lenses, it has excellent hybrid autofocus that promises to be exceptionally snappy and 4K video. The lens offers F/1.8 at wide angle and F/1.8 at normal, so low light performance should be quite respectable
• Nikon DL 24-85 is Nikon’s take on a general purpose enthusiast camera.  It is new, so I have not had a chance to get my hands on one yet, but I have a suspicion that it has a lot of commonality with the latest Nikon 1 cameras which I am well familiar with.  That might make it the one to beat.  Nikon hybrid autofocus that combines phase and contrast detect methods is superb, especially in good light and video features are well rounded out.  The 24-85mm F/1.8 – F/2.8 lens splits the difference between RX100 and GX7 in terms of zoom coverage and offers good video options.  It does not have a built-in viewfinder, like the GX7, but it comes with a hotshoe, so you can add external components to it

-Bridge cameras with the same image sensors and long zoom lenses

• Sony RX10 is on its second iteration and comes with a very well designed 24-200mm equivalent lens that keeps its F/2.8 aperture at all focal lengths.  It is not a small camera and it gives you DSLR style handling with both LCD and eye level view finders. However, both photo and video quality are very good.  If someone came to me and said: “pick one camera for everything you do!”, this would be somewhere around the top of the list.  This is the most expensive camera in this list, but it is also the best rounded both int erms of stills and video
• Canon G3X has a very broad zoom range (24-600mm equivalent) but the aperture drops to F/5.6 at telephoto (starts at F/2.8 wide angle) and it does not have an integrated eye level viewfinder.  This would not be my top choice, but if you do a lot of telephoto, you could do worse.  The one I played with did not have too snappy of an autofocus performance though, so keep that in mind.  Also, like the rest of the Canons here, 4K video is not available
• Panasonic FZ1000 is the one camera among these brdige-style designs that can give the RX100 Mark II a run for its money, partially because it costs a lot less money.  The 25-400 equivalent lens is F/2.8 at wide angle and F/4 at telephoto.  F/4 is still pretty bright and 400mm telphoto is nothing to sneeze at.  The build is not as rock solid as RX10, but still pretty good.  Autofocus performance is very snappy and 4K video is quite good.  RX10 is better at slow motion and in low light, but it is almost twice more expensive
• Nikon DL24-500 is also new like the other two DL lenses and it offers a long lens together with DSLR-style handling (and size).  Like the G3X, the aperture gets a bit small at telephoto (F/5.6), but autofocus promises to be quick and video capabilities are quite good.  It is still not my favourite design here, but I like it more than G3X and I can definitely see how for some it is a top choice

Here is a DPReview chart that shows how the equivalent depth of field compares:

If push comes to shove, you can pick two cameras from this list with a cumulative cost of somewhere between $1500 and $2000 and have every equivalent focal length from 18mm to 600mm covered.

With my micro 4/3 lenses, it takes a few lenses to cover that and they cost more if you go with higher end designs.  My two workforce lenses are Olympus 12-40mm F/2.8 and 40-150mm F/2.8.  They are very nice designs, but they cost $2k together if you find a raging deal.  That is without a camera.  The E-M1 I use can be bought for around $1k now that it has been out for around three years.  That takes from equivalent 24mm to 300mm.  If I want to go beyond that, that will take more lenses and more hassle.  Ultimately, the whole system I have gives me a lot of capability and the lenses will work with many other camera bodies in the future, but had I been starting out now, I do not know if I would be able to resist the simplicity of getting a couple of cameras with integrated lenses.

Since, some of the cameras I mentioned here are very new, it is difficult to make concrete recommendations.  Still, based on what I know now, if I were looking for a general purpose compact camera, I would wait and see how the reviews on Nikon DL24-85 look.

For a larger camera, as good as the other offerings are, I think I would grudgingly pay extra for Sony RX10 Mark II with its remarkable video capabilities and constant F/2.8 lens.

Lastly, in the interest of full disclosure, I do not currently own any of these, but people I know well have purchased RX100, RX10 and G7X at my recommendation and have been extremely happy with them.

Why don’t I own one? Well, I have a fairly complete camera system already, and I am sufficiently dedicated to have a camera with me most of the time.  As far as what it would take to get me to buy one, that is fairly simple: if a company made one of these in a waterproof/rugged form factor (kinda like Olympus Tough on steroids), I would buy one in a heartbeat.  Leica X-U is sorta along those lines and I am considering picking one up, but it is expensive.