Reliability is a key requirement for professional kit, yet many working photographers have been won over by the smaller dimensions of a new generation of compact-sized cameras, despite their inferior build quality, or the absence of key features such as an optical viewfinder.

Olympus, in particular, has enjoyed runaway success with its retro-styled EP cameras designed to the Micro Four Thirds standard, proving the hunch that professionals are looking for an alternative to the heavyweight, top-of-range models so far designed to their specifications.

It and a handful of other manufacturers have taken the “small is beautiful” concept beyond the standard, mega-zoom compact, luring pros and serious enthusiasts towards better built, ergonomically designed cameras capable of extraordinary (relative to sensor size and lens design) image quality.

These tend to be more expensive and, in some cases, when all the extra accessories are added in, match the price levels one might expect to pay for a mid-range DSLR or a mint-condition, second-hand Leica M6 film camera. And while my own Leicas are not about to be shelved, they go some way towards the increasing imperative towards greater discretion – especially when you’re shooting in the street.

The cameras selected for this overview meet most of my criteria for quality, even though individually they may not meet all these requirements in the best possible way. In each case, one or more aspects of operational function may not have impressed where, for example, image quality has been very high. In the race to produce the ideal compact camera, it’s the little things that count and these sometimes appear rushed through in the design process. Perfection, as ever, seems elusive.

Quality matters

For one or two of the models listed here, there can be a slight gain for larger print sizes obtained from raw files, but for run-of-the-mill half- to full-page reproduction, Fine or Large Quality JPEGs are more than adequate.

But as with every camera, a little user know-how goes a long way. In some respects, digital cameras are more sensitive to poor technique, and they need good support to obtain the sharpest images a sensor and the often-superior accompanying glass is capable of resolving. Sloppy shutter release action, slow shutter times, high wind or ground vibration all affect the outcome.

When optimum light conditions are combined with low ISO sensitivity and low noise correction settings, apparent image quality from small 1/1.7 inch to 2/3 inch image sensors roughly equates to the quality obtained from fine-grain 35mm film when that is scanned to an equivalent default sensor resolution for similar print enlargement sizes.

However, once image sizes are upscaled beyond nominal whole page formats (A4 at 300ppi), the digital image obtained from some small sensors begins to show unpleasant artifacts and the aesthetic can be distinctly different from the film version.

Neither does an increase in photosite sensor size or pixel number per chip make much difference to print image quality at this level. Indeed, there are instances where image quality is adversely affected by increasing the pixel count on small sensors.

Image integrity often struggles beyond the equivalent of three-quarter-page repro, and reaching my double-page-spread benchmark has really only been satisfactorily accomplished when employing compact cameras equipped with Four Thirds or larger sensors.

This size can obtain a 5-10 percent higher apparent reproduced image quality level than 35mm fine-grained film, while the APS (or DX) sensor peaks 10-20 percent below similar apparent image qualities obtained from medium format film.

It is also not only pixel pitch or sensor size that affects apparent image quality. Lens aperture diffraction affects accurate delineation of fine image detail. The smaller the sensor, the larger the lens aperture needs to be relative to the smaller optimum lens aperture used in conjunction with larger sensors. As a rough rule of thumb, the optimum aperture for any lens matched to the smallest sensors is three to four times greater than that for lenses used with large sensors.

Where f/8-11 might be the optimum for lenses used with APS (DX) or full frame before diffraction degrades fine detail, it will be half this number for Four Thirds, and four times as great for the smallest sensor. In practice, this means the optimum working aperture for the 6mm lens used on the Ricoh GR III is between f/2.8 and f/3.

Panasonic DMC LX3

The Panasonic DMC LX3 is a tough little aluminium-bodied camera that has the same 10-megapixel resolution as its LX2 predecessor, but uses a slightly smaller CCD sensor of 1/1.63 inch. (The Leica D-Lux 4 is a rebadged LX3 with different firmware and operating menu layouts.)

Image appearance differences between the two using the same modes are apparent, a consequence of the lower default colour, tone, contrast, noise and sharpness levels set on the Leica.

The difference in apparent image quality the smaller sensor makes when compared with other models in the class is slight, however. Panasonic’s aggressive signal processing is manifest in a more clinical digital look with less apparent noise, but there’s more blotchiness to small detail areas on JPEG files. The small detail of raw captures converted to TIFFs is excellent.

The LX3 has a fixed Leica-designed 2.5x DC Vario-Summicron f/2-2.8 ASPH zoom lens of 5.1-12.8mm (equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-60mm). It’s a full stop faster than the lens of the earlier model with a wider focal length exhibiting less barrel distortion than the LX2 with camera firmware removing residual effects. The camera’s mega-optical-image-stabiliser system is also more refined, producing a smoother appearance to fine details.

A three-inch rear screen squeezes clock-arrayed and independent buttons together with a mini joystick control together. The latter is not the easiest device to use and patience is needed to learn its quirks as it operates shutter and aperture settings. Hand-holding is improved by the new frontal body finger grip, which I think is essential on pocket-sized, compact devices. Unfortunately, Leica stylists don’t agree; the D-Lux 4 is flush fronted.

One further addition to this model is an accessory shoe enabling the mounting of optional optical viewfinders or Panasonic’s FL360 or FL500 external flash units, while a new wide conversion lens can be fitted with a special adapter mount.

Ricoh GR III

The first eight-megapixel Ricoh GR camera, launched in 2006, was based on the design of an earlier compact, the legendary GR-1 fixed focal length lens film model. The GRD’s excellent 28mm (35mm equivalent) f/2.4 lens and miniature CCD sensor combination proved very capable, fitting neatly and ergonomically into a tough magnesium outer shell. Version two, with a 10.1-megapixel sensor, was launched in 2007.

It has now been replaced by the GR III with a marginally increased body shell size of the same material, a new CCD sensor and new lens with a two-stop increase in maximum aperture to f/1.9. The lens cell configuration also changed from six elements in five groups on the GR II to eight in six on the new model.

The sensor in the GR III measures approx 7.6 x 5.7mm, with a pixel density of 23MP/cm². Apparent image quality from files shot in Fine JPEG mode with noise control turned off is very good. They are different in appearance but perhaps marginally better than raw files obtained from the Panasonic LX3, and easily enlarge to A3 at 300ppi, with edges of sharply defined small objects in the frame a little diffused.

Electrical and chroma noise is well suppressed by a new engine at ISO sensitivities from 64 to 400. Above this, up to ISO 1600, grainy effects become apparent. The 10-megapixel effective spec also allows reasonable scope for image cropping.

In my opinion, no other digital compact fits the hand (or pocket) quite so comfortably. By increasing the LCD screen size from 2.7 to three inch and upping its resolution to 920,000 dots, Ricoh’s engineers needed a larger body shell to maintain the ergonomic scaling of operating controls on the back panel. The 1.6mm and 1.8mm increase in body length and height, plus a hike of 20g in weight, make for even better balance and control.

A problem for some users, however, may be the constraints imposed by the GR III’s fixed focal length wide-angle lens, although a short tele and wide conversion lens are available. Ricoh’s GX 200 sports a versatile 5.1-15.3mm (35mm film equivalent 24-72mm) f/2.5-4.4 zoom lens of 11 elements in seven groups. Following on from the first GX 100, the 200 uses a 1/1.7-inch primary colour CCD delivering 12.4 megapixels.

JPEG image quality is good, marginally smoother toned and sharper than similar files obtained from the GR II, though less well detailed than from the III. The GX 200 is similarly styled and sized to its fixed focal length siblings, replicating GR functionality and offering an optional variable-angle electronic viewfinder.

Canon Power Shot G11

The 10-megapixel Canon Power Shot G11 is styled like a miniature rangefinder camera with conventional (and stiff!) dial controls on the top plate and dioptre-adjusted built-in optical viewfinder. I found the dioptre needed resetting each time the camera’s 6.1-30.5mm (28-140mm equivalent) f/2.8-4.5 lens was zoomed.

The 7.6 x 5.7mm sensor is the same size as in the earlier G10 (and Ricoh GRIII above) but Canon has dropped the resolution from 14.7 to 10 megapixels by increasing pixel pitch from 1.72μ to 2.08μ, reducing default image size to 3648 x 2736 pixels, while improving light-gathering efficiency.

The Power Shot G series has long been popular with pro photographers, in part I suspect because they look and handle more like a ‘proper’ camera. The G11 is ergonomically well laid out with easy-to-reach controls, though the rear-panel command wheel and integrated menu cluster array is too fiddly. Dials on the top plate adjust ISO, shooting modes and exposure compensation, so once other parameters are set in the menu for general shooting there’s not much need to go back to it.

A useful vari-angle LCD screen adds to camera thickness, but compared to the neat and compact Ricoh GR and GX series, the G11 is big and heavy, weighing in at just over 400g with battery. This notwithstanding, other manufacturers could learn a thing or two from Canon’s approach to function control. Dials work more efficiently than screen-driven adjustments.

A wide choice of small and still smaller sensor compacts in the 8-12-megapixel resolution range, including several models said to be water-, splash- or drop-proof, are also available from Casio, Fujifilm, Olympus, Pentax, Nikon, Samsung and Sony.

We have not yet looked seriously at any of these models, although I have seen a variety of good image output from some of them. It is evident most of the better specified cameras are easily capable of producing imagery meeting A4 repro requirements but fail to impress from an ergonomic perspective.

Sigma DP1s

The Sigma DP1s, with its fixed 16.6mm (28mm in 35mm format) five-group, six-element f/4 lens, uses the Foveon X3 CMOS sensor (20.7 x 13.8mm) housed in a smartly styled black-anodised aluminium body shell, approximately the same size as Ricoh’s GR III.

It’s the same sensor as that used in Sigma’s SD14 digital SLR camera, with an effective resolution of 14.06 megapixels (3x 4.68-megapixel RGB layers) delivering a native file size measuring 2652 x 1768 pixels at a default resolution of 180ppi. This is a very well-made piece of kit, however users may need time to adjust to its slinky feel, none-too-efficient functionality, frustratingly slow autofocus and longish raw write to disc time.

The Foveon sensor collects 100 percent of red, green and blue light at every pixel location, in much the same way colour film does. Resulting images are cleaner, sharper, more detailed (finely resolved) and exhibit a wider tonal range of more nuanced colour than is seen from Bayer-filtered CCD systems. At first glance it might appear the DP1s’ performance is no better than a four-megapixel camera, but even the Fine JPEG files easily upscale beyond A3 without apparent degradation.

The DP2 has a modified button layout on the rear panel, improving ergonomics slightly, but both it and the DP1 need more work. It is essentially identical to the DP1s but fitted with a longer 24.2mm (41mm equivalent) seven-element in six-group f/2.8 lens. If anything, the DP2 lens has a slight edge on overall sharpness compared to the 28mm of the DP1s, but on the page this wouldn’t be noticeable. These models are aimed at pros and serious enthusiasts demanding the highest image quality very small digital cameras can produce.

There’s no doubt in my mind that while Ricoh’s GR III meets most of my benchmarks with room to spare, it is pressed to match the really excellent image quality obtained from these two cameras. But the price is high and a more measured approach to picture taking is required.

Ricoh has now introduced a modular system concept, the GXR, enabling sensor format and lens combinations (called camera units by Ricoh) to be quickly interchanged on the camera body. APS-C and 1/1.7-inch sensor units matched with fixed 50mm equivalent macro and short zoom lenses were announced with the launch and recently reviewed in BJP (03 February).

A tough magnesium-alloy camera body shell in the size and style of the Canon Power Shot G11 with ergonomics of function control copied over from Ricoh’s earlier GR and GX series compacts feels good in the hand.

Image quality obtained from both sensors is high. While the assembled unit is relatively small depending on the lens used, it is larger than the other two models. As the system grows, more stowage space will be required.

This isn’t the most cost-effective system on the market, and I am still wondering where it fits in the overall scenario. Much will depend on how rapidly and comprehensively the maker decides to expand the number of lens/sensor units.

Accessories currently include optical and vari-angle electronic viewfinders, but the large back-panel LCD screen data the electronic viewfinder duplicates is fixed. On a camera of this dimension it should have perhaps been articulated.

Leica X1

The Leica X1, from the home of the most famous German 35mm rangefinder film camera, has yet to be reviewed by BJP. It has a fixed focal length Leica Elmarit f/2.8 24mm ASPH lens (35mm equivalent of 36mm) of eight elements in six groups with one aspherical element matched to an APS size primary-color filtered sensor delivering 12.2-megapixel resolution over an ISO range of 100-3200.

The body housing is anodised steel-grey metal, reminiscent in style of the early 1920s Leica standard cameras. Dials on the top plate are much in evidence, and one of them can be used to set shutter times when the camera is used in manual mode. Other operating features are similar to those found on the Leica M8 or M9, offering simple and intuitive user control. The X1’s dimensions are 124 x 32 x 59.5mm, weighing 286g without the battery.

Micro Four Thirds

Again, this is a new system, introduced in 2008. It does away with the conventional pentaprism and reflex mirror box viewing mechanism, replacing it with live viewing straight off a Four Thirds sensor (17.3 x 13.5mm) and therefore, because of its relatively small size (half full 35mm frame) can be designed into a compact shell.

The Panasonic Lumix G1 with Live Mos sensor was the first to be launched. It is approximately one-third the size of a Nikon D3, featuring a built-in electronic viewfinder and handgrip. Controls are well laid out in the familiar Panasonic arrangement and integrated around a fully articulating and usefully sized three-inch TFT LCD screen.

Micro Four Thirds has brought about huge size and weight savings while still enabling excellent image quality to be obtained using a range of very good, newly designed kit and specialist fixed and zoom focal length objectives, all of which may be used on other branded Micro Four Thirds models.

Furthermore, the shorter lens mount to sensor plane distance enables a wide array of older glass to be fitted using camera brand or independent adapters; some results obtained to date using lenses more than half a century old have been eye-opening.

Pansonic’s GH1 with onboard live HD format video recording and stereo sound capability followed the G1. Apart from this feature, it’s the same shape and size as the G1 but more costly.

Next up came the still more compact metal-bodied DMC-GF1, an almost pocketable model styled after the LX3 with a fixed screen and optional EVF or optical viewer. It addresses some of the operational functional issues of earlier models but isn’t quite as feature rich as the GH1 or G1. Image quality from all three models is high and can be tweaked higher by using Leica glass, for example.

The same comments regarding image quality can be applied to the Olympus EP-1 and more recently launched EP-2 cameras. Zuiko kit and fixed focal length lenses do a fine job, but we have seen from extensive reviewing of these Micro Four Thirds models that they can do even better.

Unlike the Panasonic GF1 compact, which at best might be described has having a modernist minimal style, the CMOS sensor EP cameras are based on the design of the late Yoshihisa Maitani’s 1960s Pen F series of half-frame film cameras. From a marketing perspective in this digital age, it was a smart move by Olympus. The models are certainly eye-catchingly cute, and may do rather better in that corner which cares about such things than in the niche pro market.

The EP-2 increases the specification slightly, having the option to fit an electronic viewfinder that the EP-1 doesn’t, and it’s available in an all-black enamel finish. Fully charged battery life is short by comparison with some other compact devices. Contrast AF focus performance in low light is slow and erratic on the EP-1, improved marginally on the EP-2.

These models are well made with steel outer skins, but on size alone are too large with the supplied kit zoom lens collapsed to fit in a normal size jacket pocket. The EP does better with the 17mm f/2.8 prime lens but cargo-sized pockets are needed for an easy fit