Advice on style of camera please

[DrPips]

Hi, I currently have a Canon 30d which I’ve obviously had for donkeys years. I haven’t actually used it for ages though, I think mainly because it’s too bulky. I’ve taken some pictures that I’m really pleased with though and are hung up.

In July I’m going out to Kenya for the second time and as part of that trip I’ll be doing a couple of safaris, so I’d obviously like to take a camera. My question really is should I get another smaller, lighter dslr, or look at one of the other styles? Mirrorless? Compact? I’m not really sure if the difference to be honest.

I don’t mind having to have a couple of lenses, but obviously if there’s no real benefit then I’d rather not. I like having control over shutter speed, aperture etc, so want a *proper* camera, not just a point and shoot.

I also have a good selection of filters, so a camera with the ability to attach filters would be a bonus.

I’d be looking to spend whatever I can trade my stuff in for (probably £300-400 including lenses and accessories) plus maybe the same again and would consider second hand. Apart from the safari, it would mainly be for landscape.

Thanks in advance,
Dom

 

[4wd]

You won't be able to find a compact/less bulky camera that accepts your filters.
The newer mirrorless cameras are physically smaller but the lenses are just as big, perhaps you could look at high end compacts with good zoom such as Sony RX100vii
MPB have at least one around £800 used.
Several other similar options probably cheaper too - Panasonic maybe?

 

[GreenNinja67]

For your budget I'd go with an Olympus EM1 MK2 with the 75-300mm zoom.

It'll give you up to 600mm EFL and with the good light you'll be getting you can even stop down a little to improve quality.

You'd even have enough left over to get the very good 14-42mm kit zoom lens.

 

[woof woof]

Hi, I currently have a Canon 30d which I’ve obviously had for donkeys years....

I also have a good selection of filters, so a camera with the ability to attach filters would be a bonus.

I’d be looking to spend whatever I can trade my stuff in for (probably £300-400 including lenses and accessories) plus maybe the same again and would consider second hand. Apart from the safari, it would mainly be for landscape.

Thanks in advance,
Dom

I had a Canon 20D which was very similar to the 30D and if you are looking for something smaller and lighter for around £300-400 I'd say it is possible but you're going to have to buy used kit and even then if it's possible or not will depend on what lenses or zoom range you want.

I have several Micro Four Thirds cameras and all give better image quality than my old APS-C Canon 20D but that price range could be a problem depending on the lenses you want.

So I think the first question is what lenses do you use on your 30D or what lenses do you think you want?

 

[woof woof]

You won't be able to find a compact/less bulky camera that accepts your filters.
The newer mirrorless cameras are physically smaller but the lenses are just as big, perhaps you could look at high end compacts with good zoom such as Sony RX100vii
MPB have at least one around £800 used.
Several other similar options probably cheaper too - Panasonic maybe?

I don't think this is necessarily accurate.

Firstly I don't see any reason why the filters wont be useable but it all depends really. If they have a larger diameter than the new kits lens thread then step up rings can be used to adapt the filters to the smaller lens. The only issue I see is if the op buys new lenses with a larger diameter than the filters.

Secondly lens size. It all depends really doesn't it? Any recent Micro Four Thirds camera will better the old 30D's image quality in a potentially smaller body (for example a Panasonic GX80 is much smaller than a 30D) and the lenses can be a fraction of the size of APS-C DSLR lenses depending on which lenses you choose.

 

[welshwizard645]

3 thoughts:

What lenses do you have? Maybe an optical upgrade is better than the camera.

The only filter I think is necessary in Kenya is a polariser.

Wouldn't describe the 30d as bulky

 

[Sangoma]

3 thoughts:

What lenses do you have? Maybe an optical upgrade is better than the camera.

The only filter I think is necessary in Kenya is a polariser.

Wouldn't describe the 30d as bulky

And possibly a skylight, the light is very blue for most of the day.

As for camera, I would suggest a Panasonic M43 with the 100-300 lens, along with the 12-60 kit lens.

The G9 would be a first choice, with a GX9 as second choice. The GX9 is considerably lighter and less bulky, and is very comfortable to use with the 100-300.

That will give you a very capable package with a 35mm eq length of 600mm

The 100-400 lens would be the best, but just the lens will be well out of your budget

 

[Kell]

If you want an all in one (with full control) then the Sony RX10 (mark 3) should be in your reach.

I have the mark 4, and I think it's a great all-in-one travel camera that isn't horrendously big. Feels lighter in the hand than my 5D with any decent lens, though it's still hardly pocketable. probably would be about the size of the 30D - which wouldn't (to me) be described as bulky for a DSLR.

It is only a 1" sensor, but offers a FF equivalent 24-600mm lens. with a claimed f/2.4-4.0 throughout the range.

i.e MPB for £699

Other makes are available. There's a whole thread dedicated to these types of bridge cameras - HERE - which might be worth scrolling through to see which images you like and which cameras they came from.

One other alternative is to pick up the cheap-ish 70-300 EF lens to use for safari, on your 30D. It's fairly light and small-ish for travel.

I took one of these to use with my 600D (or 80D can't remember what I had at the time) the first time I went to SA, and the reach was fine. Depending on the type of drives you do, in some instances it was too much of a zoom. As the trucks went right up the lions' feeding places.

This is the lens I'm on about -

From about £200 on MPB - though I sold mine for £150 on eBay.

I've not had or used a 30D, but I did have a 20D for about a year or so, bought for £50 and sold for £50. I really liked it and would have kept it if space would have allowed. I thought it took much 'cleaner' images than my 600D or 80D. I wouldn't completely discount an older model.

I don't know what lenses you currently have, but a perfect selection would be the zoom above, cmobine with a general lens (the 18-55 kit lens for example) and a wide for landscapes.

I loved my 10-22mm in conjunction with my 80D. Though I did also use it with the 20D.

Probably ended up being my favourite lens.

To conclude, I did sell the 80D and all the EF-S lenses to fund the Sony though as the 80D got no use once I got a 5D. So then I had a 'proper' camera and an all-in-one.

 

[DrPips]

Thanks for all the replies!

Ok, so I currently have a 50mm prime lens, the efs 15-85 and the Tamron 70-300. The filters I have and use are Lee filter ND grads, the ones that fit to the front of the lens with something that screws into the end of the lens.

My total budget would be £700 if selling everything, about £400 if keeping everything.

I called a branch of LCE yesterday and they recommended the Canon SX 70 or the R50

 

[woof woof]

Thanks for all the replies!

Ok, so I currently have a 50mm prime lens, the efs 15-85 and the Tamron 70-300. The filters I have and use are Lee filter ND grads, the ones that fit to the front of the lens with something that screws into the end of the lens.

My total budget would be £700 if selling everything, about £400 if keeping everything.

I called a branch of LCE yesterday and they recommended the Canon SX 70 or the R50

If this is a square filter system with a holder you'll need to see the adapter size or if you don't know that you'll need to note the filter thread size of the lens it screws on to. You may then be able to buy a step up ring to adapt it to any new lens.

If looking at Micro Four Thirds...

A 25mm lens on Micro Four Thirds will give a full frame equivalent field of view of 50mm whereas your 50mm gives a full frame equivalent field of view of 80mm. Alternatively you could go for a 45mm Micro Four Thirds lens giving a full frame equivalent field of view of 90mm. There are many 14-42 or 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 lenses available for Micro Four Thirds and there's a 45-150mm lens too but that would be shorter than your 70-300mm so you might wish to go for a 100-300mm.

 

[DrPips]

If this is a square filter system with a holder you'll need to see the adapter size or if you don't know that you'll need to note the filter thread size of the lens it screws on to. You may then be able to buy a step up ring to adapt it to any new lens.

If looking at Micro Four Thirds...

A 25mm lens on Micro Four Thirds will give a full frame equivalent field of view of 50mm whereas your 50mm gives a full frame equivalent field of view of 80mm. Alternatively you could go for a 45mm Micro Four Thirds lens giving a full frame equivalent field of view of 90mm. There are many 14-42 or 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 lenses available for Micro Four Thirds and there's a 45-150mm lens too but that would be shorter than your 70-300mm so you might wish to go for a 100-300mm.

Just to make sure I’m correct, most of the cameras people have recommended to me are either micro 4/3 which are mirror less, you can change lenses etc, or bridge cameras which often have really impressive zooms. Is that correct?

 

[Kell]

On a side note, I think you might struggle to get £300-£400 for your kit - especially if trading it.

 

[woof woof]

Just to make sure I’m correct, most of the cameras people have recommended to me are either micro 4/3 which are mirror less, you can change lenses etc, or bridge cameras which often have really impressive zooms. Is that correct?

Most Micro Four Thirds cameras are interchangeable lens cameras, yes. So you can fit prime lenses or zooms in the usual way, just like your 30D. Bridge cameras have a fixed zoom lens. Some of them have tiny compact camera sized sensors but some also have 1" sensors. These are smaller than Micro Four Thirds sensors, the 1" designation dating back to vacuum tubes... I think. 1" sensor cameras generally give better image quality than the compact camera sized sensor bridge cameras but usually can not quite match the image quality you get from Micro Four Thirds.

At the moment I have three MFT cameras all of which IMO give better image quality than my old 20D. I also have a 1" sensor compact camera with a 25-250mm equivalent zoom lens. Recent MFT cameras are either 16 or 20mp. Some prefer the 20mp cameras but I have to say that I have both and I don't think there's that much difference between them.

This camera size comparison site might help you.

There's no 20 or 30D on it so I picked the 40D with a 50mm f1.8 (I don't know if it's the exact one you have) and compared it to a Panasonic GX80 with an Olympus 25mm f1.8. I have that camera and lens. You can make your own comparisons.

Compact Camera Meter

Compare unlimited number of cameras with lenses, see how compact or bulky a camera is and sort by height, width, depth and weight.

camerasize.com

 

[DrPips]

On a side note, I think you might struggle to get £300-£400 for your kit - especially if trading it.

You may well be right, but I have some other bits and bobs I’m selling too, like some other filters (mist set?) a 105mm circ pol, universal lens hood etc etc

 

[Kell]

Just to make sure I’m correct, most of the cameras people have recommended to me are either micro 4/3 which are mirror less, you can change lenses etc, or bridge cameras which often have really impressive zooms. Is that correct?

It certainly looks that way.

Mostly on your budget TBH, but also as you said you fancied something less bulky.

Essentially, if you want something less bulky, you'd need to go mirrorless and possibly step down a bit in terms of sensor size. The prosumer XXD range wasn't the smallest Canon DSLR. I think the 1000D might be a little smaller, but not sure it really offers anything more than a good copy of a 30D.... and to be honest, while my 80D was noticeably smaller than my 5D, it didn't really make it any more portable once a lens was on it.

Personally, I've not investigated any of the micro four-thirds cameras so I've no idea about cost or image iQ. But everything about them is smaller and lighter.

Something truly pocketable like a Canon G series (Sony RX100 etc) might not have the reach you want if you're going on safari. There was, I think, a mega zoom version of the Sony, but it was at the expensive of a faster, shorter lens. My G5 X has a FF equivalent of 24-100 and f/1.8-2-8. And while I genuinely love it, I certainly wouldn't take it on safari. But it makes a great little city camera.

I don't know anything about any of the current Canon mirrorless DSLRs, but even SH, I feel like your budget would take most of them out of scope.

A quick google suggests a Canon R100 would be a possible, but I know nothing about them. Entry level, might be a bit too simplistic.

The R50 appears to be available for £600+ SH and is noticeably smaller.



However, you'd still need to to add more money to get any lenses. You couldn't even use a EF-RF converter to re-use your current lenses as you're using EF-S lenses. Technically, you can, but you shouldn't - see HERE

Personally, I don't think you're really missing anything lens-wise with your current rig.

The 15-85 always got good reviews for its optics, a 70-300 would give you most of the range you'd need for safari.

So you could keep the lenses and upgrade the body. You could look at something newer in the XXD range to update your current camera. Or possibly a 6D/6Dii if you wanted FF but in a smaller package.

(On a side note... Though I can't comment on IQ of the Tamron. What I would say is that my first Tamron 24-70 F2.8 worked really well on my 600D, but when I upgraded the camera to a newer model, it suddenly started hunting for AF. Some online research suggested that Canon had started designing in little imperfections to their software in later cameras so that non-OEM lenses didn't perform as well as native lenses. In my case, I loved the IQ of the Tamron, but the fact that I coudn't get it to AF without really stabbing the button meant I ended up with tonnes of shots I didn't want as it would not just pre-focus, it would take the shot. It made it almost useless unless you can/have set up back-button focus.)

 

[troutfisher]

Why don't you have a chat with https://lensesforhire.co.uk/about/ and see what it would cost to hire the kit for the duration, you never know

 

[DrPips]

Why don't you have a chat with https://lensesforhire.co.uk/about/ and see what it would cost to hire the kit for the duration, you never know

Thanks for the idea, but I want to start using whatever camera I end up with a bit more anyway.

 

[DrPips]

It certainly looks that way.

Mostly on your budget TBH, but also as you said you fancied something less bulky.

Essentially, if you want something less bulky, you'd need to go mirrorless and possibly step down a bit in terms of sensor size. The prosumer XXD range wasn't the smallest Canon DSLR. I think the 1000D might be a little smaller, but not sure it really offers anything more than a good copy of a 30D.... and to be honest, while my 80D was noticeably smaller than my 5D, it didn't really make it any more portable once a lens was on it.

Personally, I've not investigated any of the micro four-thirds cameras so I've no idea about cost or image iQ. But everything about them is smaller and lighter.

Something truly pocketable like a Canon G series (Sony RX100 etc) might not have the reach you want if you're going on safari. There was, I think, a mega zoom version of the Sony, but it was at the expensive of a faster, shorter lens. My G5 X has a FF equivalent of 24-100 and f/1.8-2-8. And while I genuinely love it, I certainly wouldn't take it on safari. But it makes a great little city camera.

I don't know anything about any of the current Canon mirrorless DSLRs, but even SH, I feel like your budget would take most of them out of scope.

A quick google suggests a Canon R100 would be a possible, but I know nothing about them. Entry level, might be a bit too simplistic.

The R50 appears to be available for £600+ SH and is noticeably smaller.

View attachment 412141

However, you'd still need to to add more money to get any lenses. You couldn't even use a EF-RF converter to re-use your current lenses as you're using EF-S lenses. Technically, you can, but you shouldn't - see HERE

Personally, I don't think you're really missing anything lens-wise with your current rig.

The 15-85 always got good reviews for its optics, a 70-300 would give you most of the range you'd need for safari.

So you could keep the lenses and upgrade the body. You could look at something newer in the XXD range to update your current camera. Or possibly a 6D/6Dii if you wanted FF but in a smaller package.

(On a side note... Though I can't comment on IQ of the Tamron. What I would say is that my first Tamron 24-70 F2.8 worked really well on my 600D, but when I upgraded the camera to a newer model, it suddenly started hunting for AF. Some online research suggested that Canon had started designing in little imperfections to their software in later cameras so that non-OEM lenses didn't perform as well as native lenses. In my case, I loved the IQ of the Tamron, but the fact that I coudn't get it to AF without really stabbing the button meant I ended up with tonnes of shots I didn't want as it would not just pre-focus, it would take the shot. It made it almost useless unless you can/have set up back-button focus.)

Thank you so much for such a detailed reply. I do appreciate it.

I know what you mean about the 80d (for example) it would be such more more convenient to be able to use my current lenses as like you said, I have most bases covered with these. However, I’m worried that I’ll not end up using it as I can’t be bothered lugging the camera around, and potentially extra lenses etc.

I think I’m leaning more towards one of the bridge cameras, but maybe one with a slightly larger sensor like the DX10iii (I’ve absolutely not made up my mind though)

What zoom range would you recommend for safari? Would the 600mm of the DX10 be enough, or should I think more about 1300 of the canon but on a smaller sensor?

Also, and I think the most important question will I notice a difference in quality between my current setup and something like the DX10? I know it’s difficult to say, but one has significantly higher pixel count, one has a larger sensor etc etc. I’m not sure which has the most impact.

Thanks again,
Dom

 

[Nod]

If possible, take a few shots with one of the superzoom bridge cameras before buying and see if the results at the long end are good enough for you. I have a couple and am distinctly underwhelmed by the results! Mind you, they're a few years old now and things might have improved. IMO the huge reach of these cameras is little more than marketing hype.

 

[Kell]

WRT to the zoom range. If you need more than 600mm, then you probably need a better guide... ;-0

The Sony RX10 at full 600mm will expose its worst qualities, the lens will be poorest at this extension, camera shake will be at its worst. From my own (not very scientific) experiments in my back garden, I'd say that my 5d (iii) and a 100-400mm lens at 400mm produces much better images than the Sony RX10 IV at 600mm. I don't think I've got anything good at 600mm.

It's impressive though. Here's three I took not long after I got mine.

24mm
DSC00281 by Kell, on Flickr

160mm
DSC00279 by Kell, on Flickr

600mm
DSC00282 by Kell, on Flickr


For my first safari trip I had a 600D plus a Sigma 18-250. That was a terrible lens, but in terms of the length, it was enough for my Safari. Albeit mine was done on a private reserve, so did have fences.

Just in the fairness of sharing here's a link to the shots I've taken on my Sony:

Sony RX10 IV

Explore this photo album by Kell on Flickr!

flic.kr

Plus the ones I took on the Safari (some of these were taken on the 600d and the Sigma, and some on an old 300d and a Canon 18-135 - which I'd given to my daughter). I'm not posting them here because I think they're good (some are OK) but more because of the focal length for ref.

South Africa

Explore this photo album by Kell on Flickr!

flic.kr

 

[DrPips]

WRT to the zoom range. If you need more than 600mm, then you probably need a better guide... ;-0

The Sony RX10 at full 600mm will expose its worst qualities, the lens will be poorest at this extension, camera shake will be at its worst.

haha; yes I guess so!

Is that not true of all lenses? That the maximum zoom will be the worst quality? So if I need 400mm, I’d be better having 600mm because 400mm with a 600mm lens will be better than 400mm with a 400mm lens?

I’m going to make a spreadsheet. That’s my go to for difficult decisions!

 

[Nod]

It's usually the zoom range that causes... less than optimal image quality, so a single zoom covering 24-600mm is extremely unlikely to give the quality that a 150-600 lens will and that shorter range zoom will be knocked out of the water by a 600mm prime. Mind you, the 600mm prime will not be cheap (and if it is [cheap], it's unlikely to be that good...)

 

[Kell]

Please bear in mind I'm not an expert (or pro) but most lenses will be at their worst at their extremes. With zooms, this will tend to be at the long end.

 

[DrPips]

Ok, I think I’ve narrowed it down to a few options:

If I go with one of the small sensor all in one types, I think I’m looking at either the Panasonic FZ1000ii or the Sony RX10iii. There really doesn’t seem much between them apart from weatherproofing and a slightly faster lens.

The other option is one of the R series cameras from Canon, but I’m only thinking this because of being able to use the current lenses I have, but Kell mentioned I shouldn’t do that. I did read the post Kell linked, but understood about 1 word in 6!

The R series cameras (50 and 100) seem a fair bit smaller than my 30d and much higher spec.

 

[DrPips]

Ok, I think I’ve narrowed it down to a few options:

If I go with one of the small sensor all in one types, I think I’m looking at either the Panasonic FZ1000ii or the Sony RX10iii. There really doesn’t seem much between them apart from weatherproofing and a slightly faster lens.

The other option is one of the R series cameras from Canon, but I’m only thinking this because of being able to use the current lenses I have, but Kell mentioned I shouldn’t do that. I did read the post Kell linked, but understood about 1 word in 6!

The R series cameras (50 and 100) seem a fair bit smaller than my 30d and much higher spec.

Or the 250d? Quite a bit smaller and lighter and could use my existing lenses without a converter?

 

[Kell]

I can't tell you what to do - only what I'd do in your situation.

I'd be tempted by the R50. you can buy the adapter to use your current lenses.

Apologies for confusing you, especially as the info I gave you was incorrect. To sum-up to the other thread I linked to, an EF-S lens on a full-frame will not fill the sensor. You'll end up with a circular image in the middle of your rectangular sensor. Which is why it's not recommended. You'd have to crop into the image so much, it would be pointless doing it.

HOWEVER...

I'd not really looked at the R50, but having just done so, it's an APS-C sensor. So you should just be able to buy the convertor and use your EF-S lenses with no issues...

It will be a smaller package, much higher resolution and has all sorts of of AF tracking to make the whole safari a bit easier.

While it's more expensive, I think it would be a much better camera than the 250D, plus it's a little more future-proof being mirrorless and 4 years newer.

Here's a link to a direct comparison between the R50 and the 250D (Rebel SL3) - this is a good resource to use as you can change the comparison cameras.

Canon R50 vs Canon SL3 Detailed Comparison

Read our detailed comparison of the Canon EOS R50 vs Canon EOS Rebel SL3 to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose.

cameradecision.com

HTH.

 

[swanseamale47]

I have a Canon 750d. I'd say it's a fair bit lighter and maybe a touch smaller than a 20d (nearest I have is a 30d) but it'll use the same lens and filters you already have and is reasonably priced. It's a lot better sensor and IQ wise and pretty decent at high iso.

 

[DrPips]

I can't tell you what to do - only what I'd do in your situation.

I'd be tempted by the R50. you can buy the adapter to use your current lenses.

Apologies for confusing you, especially as the info I gave you was incorrect. To sum-up to the other thread I linked to, an EF-S lens on a full-frame will not fill the sensor. You'll end up with a circular image in the middle of your rectangular sensor. Which is why it's not recommended. You'd have to crop into the image so much, it would be pointless doing it.

HOWEVER...

I'd not really looked at the R50, but having just done so, it's an APS-C sensor. So you should just be able to buy the convertor and use your EF-S lenses with no issues...

It will be a smaller package, much higher resolution and has all sorts of of AF tracking to make the whole safari a bit easier.

While it's more expensive, I think it would be a much better camera than the 250D, plus it's a little more future-proof being mirrorless and 4 years newer.

Here's a link to a direct comparison between the R50 and the 250D (Rebel SL3) - this is a good resource to use as you can change the comparison cameras.

Canon R50 vs Canon SL3 Detailed Comparison

Read our detailed comparison of the Canon EOS R50 vs Canon EOS Rebel SL3 to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose.

cameradecision.com

HTH.

Thanks Kell,
I’ve been using that site a lot! Really useful.
The auto focus on the R50 seems really clever, I like the idea of the electronic view finder as well. Things have moved on a bit in the last 20 years of making cameras! Who knew?

Think I’m pretty much decided on the R50. If the stuff I’m selling comes good, I might even have enough for the RFS 100-400 lens and get rid of the Tamron. Then I’d have the 15-85 EFS and 100-400 RFS. Fingers crossed.

 

[Dawsie]

I bought a new Sony RX10 iv last year, have only used it 4 times, great camera but I’ve become so used to using my mobile that it never comes out with me now, if anyone is considering buying one and live in South Wales I would be more than happy to loan it out for a day to see what they think of it.