As long as you have a pair of working legs then you don't need a monster zoom lens. Well except for a couple of reasons; a big predator such as a lion, or a massive geographical feature such as a gorge or river.

I think you're confusing 'zoom' with 'telephoto' (you wouldn't be the first). A zoom lens is any lens that has a range of focal lengths; e.g. a 16-35mm lens is a zoom lens but won't help with getting close to those lions you mention :D

A telephoto lens will compress the perspective in a photograph, doing more than just bringing the subject closer. It can be used to make streets look more crowded, for example, by reducing the apparent distance between cars and/or people, and also changes the photograph more subtly by adding a layer of separation between the viewer and the subject, compared to, say, a wide angle lens, which has a more immersive effect.

A good 'monster' zoom lens (e.g. the Sigma 50-500mm) is very useful if you don't want to carry around a bag full of primes, as it will weigh less and allow you to switch focal lengths without having to change lenses for every shot.

I was refering to the TZ7s equivalent zoom range of 25-300mm, which is a fairly impressive, rather than the outright telephotoness. 300mm should be fine on safari, but is often considered to be the minimum.

Yes I know telephotoness isn't a word.

I went to John Lewis today and saw an LX5 on the shelf next to a G12. Two things came to mind. 1) how big the G12 was and 2) how badly I want an LX5

I don't think Canon make out the G series to be small. They are a large compact, really, for photographers who want a serious camera without wanting to make a fashion statement or lug a DSLR and associated gubbins with them.

Oh I know. It wasnt a criticism if the camera by any means. I've just never really been up close with one before.

Brilliant! This is the kinda stuff I need to hear!

Atm, the LX5 seems to have the edge on video and lens F-ness (can you tell I have no idea? ), but the G12 offers a little more reach. Hmmm.....

I have an LX-3. Hardly pocketable, too many switches and dials that would need reseting as soon as you pulled it out so to speak.
Ace camera non the less.

Right guys, come on, help me out FFS! Need to make a decision.

Are all compacts basically just crap for IQ? Even the ones with the bigger sensors LX5/G12/S95 are still way smaller than a "proper" camera. In which case am I not better off just getting a compact zoom, so I have a decent auto mode, nice reach, and pocketability? After all, if most of my photos are taken in good light, a tiny sensor will be less of an issue - right?

OR

Should I really hold out for something with a *slightly* bigger sensor, but a pathetic zoom range, on the premise that it'll offer dramatically better IQ?

I think you're overthinking this.

Any of the top names make good compacts. Decide what features you really need, and which you can live without. Set a budget and make a choice. Get the best compact you can afford.

Any of the recommendations in this list will do the job. It's down to how much you want to spend at the end of the day.

Wouldn't be the first time! Thanks Heather.

So do you really think I should be driven primarily by features? And just assume that the IQ will all be similar? That would make the decision a bit easier....

I'm just stressed because of all the stuff I have to sort out before I leave

Okay, let's break this down a bit...

What features do you think are important?

If I recall, you want to be able to do half-decent landscapes at many times of the day. You may want macro on occasion. You want a decent optical zoom. You want a decent pixel count.

To my mind, you should be looking at the Panasonic Lumix TZ-10.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-pan ... /p10001217

A friend of mine bought the TZ7 version a while back, and the optical quality was outstanding. You can't go wrong with Leica optics, frankly. It's also got a 300mm optical zoom, and a decent wide angle end, image stabilisation, HD movie mode, it's small, light and fairly pocketable. It'd be my first choice if I was in the market.

Here, I set up a comparison page at Warehouse Express for the Canon S95, Nikon Coolpix S8000 and the Panasonic.

To my mind, the Nikon scores on features and price, while the Panasonic and Nikon wipe the floor with the Canon on features - particularly optically. If I were you, I'd narrow down to the Panasonic and Nikon, and decide which best suits budget and requirements.

Enjoy!

(Edited to remove the horlicksed link I didn't check.)

You're pretty much spot on with what I want. And having used a Pana FX38 for work for 6mths, their UI is second nature to me and the Auto is very accurate 9 times out of 10. Although I think compared to the Canon Powershot A95 we also have at work, the colour balance can be a little warm and over vibrant. Whereas the Canon seems more accurate to me.

The only addition to my needs that you haven't mentioned is that I do like a bit of night/low light photography (not that I'm any good at it), but am I right in assuming that no compact will be terribly good at this ?

Provided the camera supports long exposure, I can't see an issue. You'd need "proper" manual control, which I believe the Pana has.

As to colour saturation, well, the Canon S95 supports RAW format, so you can do a lot with post processing in the supplied software. My guess is there would be a setting for the JPEG colour style in the menu system. The Panasonic only handles JPEG, but again, there are presumably picture styles you can set up.

It sort of depends on how much futzing about on the PC you want to do after a shoot. I love the digital darkroom aspect, but others prefer to just get the photo and upload to Flickr/Facebook/whatever.

The more I look, the more I'm leaning toward the Nikon S8000. It's cheap, slim and well-specced, with only a slightly shorter telephoto range.

My braincell has been mulling this over and is now ready to confuse you further.

I think I understand your requirements and to be fair, most of what Heather has said above makes sense. What I can't get to grips with is that you want to shoot in 'Auto' mode, letting the camera decide for you. The best quality comes from prime lenses on a full frame sensor - add in zooms and the quality degrades slightly. Use digital zooms and the quality plummets beyond belief. Add in crop factor and the 'Auto' setting and you may as well use a decent mobile phone camera Specialist night settings can work out expensive.

and you want video as well........ Now I'm overthinking this.

Go with the TZ-10 and enjoy.

Al