Travel / Go anywhere without changing lenses (small)

S

stevebuk

Messages
920
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I appreciate threads like this come up quite often, but I hope you don't mind my version of a theme! I've enjoyed travel and landscape photography for a number of years, but the last 5 or so, I've done less and found myself leaving my gear at home more often than not. Or leaving in my room on vacation and just carrying my phone or a fixed lens compact, like my GRiiiX or sometimes Leica Q, but that still feels a bit big to just take in case..

I have a GRiiiX, Leica Q and a Fuji X-T30 with a variety of lenses but I honestly never use it, but have kept just in case.

I have a planned trip for Northern Macedonia and am looking forward to a bit of hiking and street wandering so want to travel light with my camera and was planning on taking the GRiiiX and the Q. GriiiX for most days out but the Q for street and maybe some landscapes etc. However, I feel I am missing reach with only 40mm and 26/27 of the Q.

So ideally I'd like something with more reach, but don't want to to the fuji and lenses. I used to have an RX100iii and liked it but was not happy with low light. I sold it for the GRiiX. I love that but the AF is not too nippy and of course no reach.

The reviews of the RX100vii look pretty good but I've also seen people saying that it is no better than a modern iPhone 14. It is quite expensive if that is the case.

What do you all do for holidays and days out? I thought maybe sell a couple of lenses, get an rx100vii and with the Q and Griiix I have all bases covered with quite small stuff to carry....

All thoughts welcome!

Thanks.
 
I take a full Fuji kit on holiday and also take an older RX100 (a iii IIRC) for when I want to travel very light with a proper camera in a shirt pocket. Very tempted to upgrade the Sony for a later model with more reach.
 
As a genuine “stick it in a pocket” if you’re going one up on your phone, I think the RX100 series is hard to beat. I have the Mk6, and I’m seriously impressed with the shots I can get with this Lovely camera. If just viewing on small screen size (phone/tablet), I’d agree a decent current phone will be fine - I have an iPhone 13 Pro and it’s superb, but if I’m going on a somewhere where I want decent images and configurability but want to travel light, especially on trips abroad, the RX100vi is the first thing I pack. Tiny but powerful.
And one of its regular criticisms, its small, slippery size, I find a non issue when used with its wrist strap.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
I take a full Fuji kit on holiday and also take an older RX100 (a iii IIRC) for when I want to travel very light with a proper camera in a shirt pocket. Very tempted to upgrade the Sony for a later model with more reach.
Click to expand...

Confession time - I've just ordered a Mk vi from Amazon. Don't need the extra bells and whistles that the vii offers so saved the few hundred quid!
 
As an example, a few days ago I took my a9 + 200-600 up the coast to photograph the Gannets.
Rather than faff around changing lenses, I took my RX100vii and took some landscape/environmental shots.
It's an amazing wee thing and capable of really good quality images.
 
:plus1:

The only reason I'm upgrading is for the extra reach. I reckon that for our next holiday, I'll try leaving the Fuji kit behind - I think I've got enough of Crete's scenery on "film" by now so just want something capable of very good snaps. Pretty sure I'm the limiting factor!!!
 
Another vote for the RX100. I have a Mk ii and find it good in pocket when not wanting to take DSLR.
 
Panasonic TZ100. 1" sensor, 25-250mm zoom, the ability to shoot raw, all the controls and modes you'd want and crucially for me a built in evf that doesn't need to be popped up and down.

The only thing that doesn't really fit the brief is low light ability but you're only going to get that with bigger sensors and/or wider apertures.

And IMVHO any 1" sensor camera or maybe even smaller sensor cameras are going to blow any phone camera out of sight when you start looking for issues.
 
woof woof said:
Panasonic TZ100. 1" sensor, 25-250mm zoom, the ability to shoot raw, all the controls and modes you'd want and crucially for me a built in evf that doesn't need to be popped up and down.
.
Click to expand...

…and it's cheaper than the RX100 series (at least the later ones). Haven’t used on in anger, but played with one in a shop and was 50/50 between it and the RXvi before plumping for the latter.

I like the TZ series. Had a TZ30 which took absolutely fabulous images, and still have a TZ60 which is ok, but images not quite on a par with the TZ30 I had.
 
Sony HX90 or Panasonic TZ series, if you really want to combine reach plus pocketability.

An APS format camera with Tamron's 16~300mm if you are chasing the quality chimera - but good luck getting it in your pocket.

Personally, I've always found the obsession with image quality a snare and a delusion. If the image catches the viewer's attention, it's good enough and if they barely glance at it before passing on, then it;s not good enough.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Sony HX90 or Panasonic TZ series, if you really want to combine reach plus pocketability.

An APS format camera with Tamron's 16~300mm if you are chasing the quality chimera - but good luck getting it in your pocket.

Personally, I've always found the obsession with image quality a snare and a delusion. If the image catches the viewer's attention, it's good enough and if they barely glance at it before passing on, then it;s not good enough.
Click to expand...

IQ is not a delusion it's a measure that we're going to be disappointed with or accept and the thing is that most people reading this want more from their "photography" than a technically poor result, otherwise they'd be using smartphones or compacts from 2003. Most people reading this want a decent final end product and something better than a technically poor picture no matter what it's of and yes image quality can ruin a travel or landscape picture unless awful is what you like and clearly there are people who are perfectly happy with awful, noisy, over sharpened, muddy pictures.
 
woof woof said:
IQ is not a delusion it's a measure that we're going to be disappointed with or accept and the thing is that most people reading this want more from their "photography" than a technically poor result, otherwise they'd be using smartphones or compacts from 2003. Most people reading this want a decent final end product and something better than a technically poor picture no matter what it's of and yes image quality can ruin a travel or landscape picture unless awful is what you like and clearly there are people who are perfectly happy with awful, noisy, over sharpened, muddy pictures.
Click to expand...
What we want though is not necessarily what we need :)
 
woof woof said:
Panasonic TZ100. 1" sensor, 25-250mm zoom, the ability to shoot raw, all the controls and modes you'd want and crucially for me a built in evf that doesn't need to be popped up and down.

The only thing that doesn't really fit the brief is low light ability but you're only going to get that with bigger sensors and/or wider apertures.

And IMVHO any 1" sensor camera or maybe even smaller sensor cameras are going to blow any phone camera out of sight when you start looking for issues.
Click to expand...

I have a TZ100 and the RX beats it into a cocked hat. The only way in which the Panny wins is the VF issue but once up, the VF on the Sony is nicer than the Panny's to use.
 
Marino said:
What we want though is not necessarily what we need :)
Click to expand...
Wise words! :naughty:

The obsession with technical quality often appears to be satisfied at the cost of interesting images.
 
Last edited:
Marino said:
What we want though is not necessarily what we need :)
Click to expand...

Obviously but I'd imagine most people reading this are aspirational in some way.

What you need is rather simple to define and can be deduced by the subject and it's environment and the conditions at the time and of course the end product you want to achieve.

For eg if you want an A3 print of scene X with a shutter speed of 1/125 and an aperture of f8 in whatever lighting conditions exist to meet your quality standards, assuming you have at least some standards, at your preferred viewing distance that's one thing and these things will dictate the kit you'll need to use to produce the goods. If you don't have kit able to produce the goods you may well aspire to. That's the want bit and the want thing comes at both ends. I want X result so I want Y kit.

If all you want is an end product produced by a tiny sensor and a tiny lens helped by an avalanche of software but which looks lovely on a 6" oblong screen then a smart phone and it's camera will do nicely.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Wise words! :naughty:

The obsession with technical quality often appears to be satisfied at the cost of interesting images.
Click to expand...

At least you walk the walk Andrew. I've seen many pictures from you which are technically awful to the point that the technical awfulness does IMO get in the way. Quality of final image certainly means nothing to you judging by some of the pictures you post and I do salute you for just not caring. As for what's interesting, that's a personal thing but really technically bad images have to be really interesting or significant to someone otherwise what's left? An ordinary image with bad technical quality and that's probably the worst of all scenarios.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
woof woof said:
At least you walk the walk Andrew. I'd seen many pictures from you which are technically awful to the point that the technical awfulness does IMO get in the way. Quality of final image certainly means nothing to you judging by some of the pictures you post and I do salute you for just not caring. As for what's interesting, that's a personal thing but really technically bad images have to be really interesting or significant to someone otherwise what's left? An ordinary image with bad technical quality and that's probably the worst of all scenarios.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
We don't know why another person took a photo, and if it serves the purpose it was taken for, then why does it matter what some one else thinks of it?

I have seen may technically good photos (on here as well) that I think are less interesting than a black swan on a moonless night, but to the person who takes them, they have some meaning, even if few others can see it.

Five or six years ago, I printed out 200 photos, put them face down in a pile, and asked people to turn them over, and put them face down in one of three piles, bad, OK or good, without spending any time studying them.
Despite the different people having different views and knowledge of photography and art, most of them ended up in the same pile every time.

The overriding reason for choices was composition, poor colour/contrast/exposure, blur and other "faults" came a distant second..

One amusing result was that a professional photographer, always on about how good he was, and how terrible amateurs were, ended up with most of his photos in the bad pile by most people.

When I look at a photo and think it is terrible, I look at some of mine and can usually find something that some one else would find terrible, so feel it could so easily be pots and kettles, or stones and glass houses.
 
Sangoma said:
Yes and no.
We don't know why another person took a photo, and if it serves the purpose it was taken for, then why does it matter what some one else thinks of it?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, not in the picture takers private world or the wider world but this is a photography forum where people care enough about pictures and or gear to have some aspiration on one or both fronts.

This is all interesting but it is taking the OP's post off at a tangent.
 
Thanks everyone. I’ll look at what I can move on and look at getting gold of an RX100vi or vii. Appreciated.
 
Nod said:
I have a TZ100 and the RX beats it into a cocked hat. The only way in which the Panny wins is the VF issue but once up, the VF on the Sony is nicer than the Panny's to use.
Click to expand...


And that has been sorted in the later models (at least, it has in the M6!) The VF pops up and out when the button/latch is operated and a press down on the top of the VF automatically retracts the bit that pops out. I have mine set to switch the camera on when it pops up and off when pushed down but that can be over-ridden by using the on/off button.
 
Nod said:
Confession time - I've just ordered a Mk vi from Amazon. Don't need the extra bells and whistles that the vii offers so saved the few hundred quid!
Click to expand...
I was so impressed with the reviews here, I’ve just ordered a vi from John Lewis Nod ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I did go in to JL but found the sales staff absolutely useless and their stock of camera kit to be a few Fuji Instax models.
 
I just went online Nod, and it was one of the cheapest I found :)
 
Nod said:
I have a TZ100 and the RX beats it into a cocked hat. The only way in which the Panny wins is the VF issue but once up, the VF on the Sony is nicer than the Panny's to use.
Click to expand...

The VF was the deciding issue for me. I just can't be bothered popping one up and down or having it pop up and down automatically. Plus the Panny has a much longer zoom which has to be considered against the RX's wider aperture. Each to their own but I wouldn't use a RX with that pop up VF if it was free and I'm serious about that :D
 
Last edited:
Your loss!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top