Topic: New camera for travelling (Read 4283 times)

linda.will95 · « **on:** February 05, 2016, 04:28:47 am »

Hello,

I'm looking for a new compact camera for my travelling days. I don't like to carry a lot with me, I like to keep things simple.

I've done a little bit of research and came up with three alternatives.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100
Fujifilm X100T
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV

Right now I'm inclining towards the LX100. It has great optics, fast AF, 4K seems pretty tempting.
I know the X100T is a classic that won't go out of date. I love its low profile, but it's not exactly budget-friendly. And the other downside is that I'm into action pictures and the focusing on this one is not exactly the fastest on the market.

Which one do you think would best suit my needs?

Thanks.

Ken Bennett · « **Reply #1 on:** February 05, 2016, 07:06:15 am »

I have an X100t (well, I did until my lovely wife used it once). I also have a Sony RX100iii. Never handled that Panasonic.

The Sony is smaller, lighter, has a good zoom lens with a useful range, a decently large sensor, excellent autofocus, and easily slips into my pocket. The pop-up EVF actually works pretty well. However, the menu system isn't great, the user interface can be maddening, and it's so small I keep pressing buttons and changing settings inadvertently.

The Fuji is larger, heavier, has a single focal length lens, an odd hybrid viewfinder, its own quirky menu system, and (gasp!) a crop sensor. It won't fit in my pocket, the lens is very soft wide open at macro distances (otherwise very sharp at all apertures), and it's expensive.

The Sony sits in the locker most of the time.

linda.will95 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2016, 07:33:09 am »

I like the Sony, but can you tell me anything about noise rendering? I've heard it leaves a lot to be desired, particularly at high ISO values.

The Fuji is great, is fast, has a smart buttons layout, magnificent lenses, hybrid viewfinder. But financially speaking, there's a big difference between this one and the rest.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #3 on:** February 05, 2016, 10:29:33 am »

I have used Canon DSLRs for years (10D, 5D, and 5DII), but for a trip to France last May I decided I didn't want to have to carry a bunch of lenses, so I went looking for something smaller but that produced good images.

My local camera shop owner suggested I look at the Sony RX10, which is the big brother of the RX100, and he let me take it out of the store for a couple of hours to try it out with my own memory card in it. I was blown away by the sharpness throughout the range of the Zeiss lens, so I bought it and I've been very happy with it. In fact, since returning home I still haven't used my Canon 5DII, which feels so much heavier and awkward.

The specs on the RX10 are very similar to the RX100, except for the following:
The RX10 Zeiss lens is 24 to 240mm (35mm equivalent) while the RX100 is 24 to 70mm,
The RX10 is thus much longer, even with the lens collapsed, and
The RX10 weighs a bit more than twice as much as the RX100, and
The RX10 costs about $300 more than the RX100.

I find the menus on the Sony much less confusing than those on my Canons, and the weight is comfortable for me to carry for hours.
The RX100 also has a Zeiss lens, which is probably excellent if you don't need anything longer than 70mm (35mm equivalent).
If you feel you want more at the tele lens and are willing to pay money and weight for it, I'd suggest checking out the RX10II. But with the similarity of specs all the way down between the RX10 and RX100, I would expect the RX100II to be a winner.

I hope this helps a bit.

Robert DeCandido PhD · « **Reply #4 on:** February 05, 2016, 10:43:11 am »

since no one has mentioned it here at LL, Sony just unveiled a new SLR camera, the A6300:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2267317144/hands-on-with-sonys-a6300-and-g-master-lenses

looks great for 4K video...but it will sell for $1000 USD at release.
--
On the other hand, now might be the best time to find an A6000 (new about $400-$500 and used in mint shape about $200-$300) - image quality is wonder for an ASPC (crop factor) sensor. I have one and for IQ to 800 and sometimes 1600 iso, it is wonderful.

sdwilsonsct · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2016, 11:37:51 am »

Quote from: linda.will95 on February 05, 2016, 07:33:09 am

I like the Sony, but can you tell me anything about noise rendering? I've heard it leaves a lot to be desired, particularly at high ISO values.

I find this useful:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-iv/14

SZRitter · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2016, 01:44:22 pm »

I haven't used any of these extensively, but....

I spent a while holding the rx100 (latest version as of last summer), and I can't say I was pleased with the ergos. I keep looking for a good camera for backpacking/airline/motorcycling, and it was kind of my go to option until I held it.

Have you also looked at the X70 and Canon G series?

If fast AF is important, you may need to go for one of the larger system cameras like the Sony a6300 or Olympus OM-D E-M1. But I guess, when you say action, what do you mean?

linda.will95 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2016, 03:29:06 am »

Thank you all for the advice provided, you have been quite helpful.

I've also taken into account what SZRitter suggested and looked at the Canon G series. I liked the image quality on the G5 X, but the autofocus system is definitely a deal breaker for me, as well as the battery life. I mean, you would expect Canon to implement a decent battery on such a powerful camera. But maybe it's me and I'm too pretentious.

I decided to go with the RX100II, thanks Eric Myrvaagnes for your help.

I really loved the image quality, it has great AF speed considering it's a compact and it offers multiple customization alternatives. I'm aware that the handling won't be fabulous, but I'm willing to compromise.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2016, 12:41:32 pm »

Good luck with it, Linda.

I hope you get as much satisfaction from it as I get from my RX10.

-Eric

stever · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2016, 06:20:35 pm »

I've been using the RX100 from shortly after release as a backup walk around camera. As a primary camera be sure to get the accessory grip and an external charger with one or two extra batteries.

I took my RX100 cross country skiing today and was again reminded how useless the lcd is in bright light. If it's not too late I'd seriously recommend the RX100iii for it's evf if you expect to be shooting in bright sunlight.

These cameras will pretty much hold their own against 43 and IPSC cameras with kit lenses. Best results from the RX100s are at the wide end with larger apertures - keep in mind that f5.6 is equivalent to f16 in depth of field and diffraction to a full frame camera. Shooting RAW and developing in LR helps to mitigate high ISO and dynamic range limitations of the small sensor

linda.will95 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2016, 05:36:38 am »

Quote from: stever on February 08, 2016, 06:20:35 pm

I've been using the RX100 from shortly after release as a backup walk around camera. As a primary camera be sure to get the accessory grip and an external charger with one or two extra batteries.

I took my RX100 cross country skiing today and was again reminded how useless the lcd is in bright light. If it's not too late I'd seriously recommend the RX100iii for it's evf if you expect to be shooting in bright sunlight.

These cameras will pretty much hold their own against 43 and IPSC cameras with kit lenses. Best results from the RX100s are at the wide end with larger apertures - keep in mind that f5.6 is equivalent to f16 in depth of field and diffraction to a full frame camera. Shooting RAW and developing in LR helps to mitigate high ISO and dynamic range limitations of the small sensor

Thank you, Stever. I haven't made the purchase yet and I'm glad I read your reply. I will be most surely shooting in bright light, so this is another thing I have to consider.

AFairley · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2016, 08:04:33 pm »

Quote from: stever on February 08, 2016, 06:20:35 pm

I've been using the RX100 from shortly after release as a backup walk around camera. As a primary camera be sure to get the accessory grip and an external charger with one or two extra batteries.

I took my RX100 cross country skiing today and was again reminded how useless the lcd is in bright light. If it's not too late I'd seriously recommend the RX100iii for it's evf if you expect to be shooting in bright sunlight.

These cameras will pretty much hold their own against 43 and IPSC cameras with kit lenses. Best results from the RX100s are at the wide end with larger apertures - keep in mind that f5.6 is equivalent to f16 in depth of field and diffraction to a full frame camera. Shooting RAW and developing in LR helps to mitigate high ISO and dynamic range limitations of the small sensor

Definitely, spend the extra money for the III to get the EVF if you go the RX100 route, they are bear to frame in bright light using the rear LCD even with the LCD boost on. One thing is the APS size sensor cameras will do a lot better at higher ISOs, if you will be taking shots in interiors (churches, etc); RX100 in good daylight will give APS a run for its money, but at ISO 800-1600 and above, only good for web sharing, IMO.

stever · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2016, 10:28:11 pm »

the 43 and APSC cameras will be better at high ISO but will be significantly larger with equivalently fast lenses. in both cases, RAW development makes a big difference. I get good results from the RX100 at 1600 ISO processed in Lightroom comparable to ISO 3200 from micro 43 or APSC. jpeg results are a bit unpredictable because of decisions made by different camera engineers for subjects and lighting.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2016, 11:43:34 pm »

In case you're not in a hurry, Nikon is rumored to announce their high end compact range in a few weeks.

Who knows, they may have decided to release something competitive in this segment for a change.

Cheers,
Bernard

eronald · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2016, 11:57:05 pm »

There are 4 models of the RX100, and the first ones are cheap with very good image quality.

Edmund

Paulo Bizarro · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2016, 04:11:00 am »

I like 35mm focal length, so for me would be the Fuji X100T. Used to have the initial one (X100), these cameras are great.

The RX100IV is just too expensive where I live (about 1000 EUR, which is crazy); my son still uses the RX100 (original one). Too small and fiddly for my handling.

I have never shot with the LX100, but I have tried it in a shop, it is a good one too. You may consider the Leica equivalent (D Lux), which comes with 3 year warranty plus LR, for a little more money.

armand · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2016, 11:18:19 am »

I've used RX100 since it was released. I even had a family trip where it was The Camera (the backup was a compact superzoom). It has good image quality within a reason and it's very versatile. Good movies also.
Ergonomics are not the best and it can be a challenge to quickly change some settings. I shot mostly aperture priority with autoISO so the one that needs some fiddling is the exposure compensation but not much else.

Contrary to the other people I don't have a big problem using the screen outside (I might be younger

). Yes, it's not a very good image but you can see well enough for framing (try not to use polarized sunglasses).

These days I use it when skiing to make few movies/photos of my kids or when I want a better quality than my cell but I'm not willing to carry something that doesn't fit in a jeans pocket.

armand · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2016, 02:55:12 pm »

Here are few RX100 snaps from few days ago during a walk in the park

linda.will95 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 15, 2016, 03:12:26 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier on February 11, 2016, 11:43:34 pm

In case you're not in a hurry, Nikon is rumored to announce their high end compact range in a few weeks.

Who knows, they may have decided to release something competitive in this segment for a change.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hey Bernard,

I was kind of in a hurry, but something totally unforeseen came up and now I have to redirect the budget I had for the camera towards something else. So yeah, I'll be waiting for some Nikon alternatives as well

I'll have the time.

linda.will95 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 15, 2016, 03:22:57 am »

Quote from: armand on February 12, 2016, 11:18:19 am

I've used RX100 since it was released. I even had a family trip where it was The Camera (the backup was a compact superzoom). It has good image quality within a reason and it's very versatile. Good movies also.
Ergonomics are not the best and it can be a challenge to quickly change some settings. I shot mostly aperture priority with autoISO so the one that needs some fiddling is the exposure compensation but not much else.

Contrary to the other people I don't have a big problem using the screen outside (I might be younger ). Yes, it's not a very good image but you can see well enough for framing (try not to use polarized sunglasses).

These days I use it when skiing to make few movies/photos of my kids or when I want a better quality than my cell but I'm not willing to carry something that doesn't fit in a jeans pocket.

I'm glad you too can confirm the quality of the image. How's the image stabilization for stills? I don't mind so much that the menu structure is somehow confusing, it's something I can manage. Right now I have to put off buying a camera due to some unforeseen events, but on the other hand this will give me more time for research.

PS Great snaps, really enjoyed them.

Author Topic: New camera for travelling (Read 4283 times)