Downgrading my camera...

SarahElizabeth

SarahElizabeth

Messages
15
Name
Sarah Elizabeth
Edit My Images
No
Currently I own a Nikon D3100 which has been collecting dust in my spare room for a shamefully long time after falling out of love with photography for a while.

I use my smart phone for most of my photography now. Travelling and camping allowed me to find my passion for it again. At the moment I print my images quite small for scrapbooking etc.

Smart phone looks good but when printed the results are hit and miss and require a lot of editing,

My Nikon is too bulky for me when I'm out hiking for the day so im wanting to buy a compact/small bridge to sort of sit inbetween my phone and nikon.

What are peoples recommendations for a lightweight smallish camera that is capable of half decent shots in low light? My budget is under £250. Thanks :)

I've been looking at the Panasonic TZ100 or the TZ90 so far
 
Last edited:
a used olympus omd10-mkii plus lens ( depending on what's with it ) would suit size , performance and budget
 
A TZ100 will give you a lightweight and pocketable camera but it won't cope as well in low light as your D3100. The Sony RX100 is better in low light but more expensive, although you might find a second hand one that comes in under budget.
 
To be honest Im not even comparing any cameras to my D3100. I've accepted a compact one on my budget isnt going to compete and the fact I dont even use my Nikon makes it somewhat obsolete comparison for me.

Nod said:
A TZ100 will give you a lightweight and pocketable camera but it won't cope as well in low light as your D3100. The Sony RX100 is better in low light but more expensive, although you might find a second hand one that comes in under budget.
Click to expand...

Is that the Sony cypershot IV? There''s one currently on ebay for 212. Is it worth the extra £50 for the low light performance or is it not that much of a difference? I hate being a penny pincher but I have to be realistic.

Will look have a look at the olympus :)
 
Last edited:
I picked a used fuji X10 up a good few years ago, small very capable and a manual zoom. Its a great little camera even for its age, you could probably pick up a much newer model used around your budget.
 
Used Canon G7x if you can find one in budget.
 
SarahElizabeth said:
To be honest Im not even comparing any cameras to my D3100. I've accepted a compact one on my budget isnt going to compete and the fact I dont even use my Nikon makes it somewhat obsolete comparison for me.



Is that the Sony cypershot IV? There''s one currently on ebay for 212. Is it worth the extra £50 for the low light performance or is it not that much of a difference? I hate being a penny pincher but I have to be realistic.

Will look have a look at the olympus :)
Click to expand...

No, the TZ100 is a Panasonic and Park have one used listed @£259 ~ if that helps?
 
SarahElizabeth said:
Is that the Sony cypershot IV?
Click to expand...

I think that the latest version is even higher than the IV.

SarahElizabeth said:
Is it worth the extra £50 for the low light performance or is it not that much of a difference? I hate being a penny pincher but I have to be realistic.
Click to expand...

IMO yes. The Sony offers at least an extra stop over the Panasonic and delivers better images across the board.

Foggy's suggestion of a Fuji X is a good one but they're getting a bit old now so finding one in very good condition might not be easy. They also have more protruding lenses than the Sony or Panasonic (when turned off) so might be more susceptible to damage in a bag. (I've still got my X 10 and X 30 but use the Sony since it slips into a shirt pocket. I also have a TZ100 [which also slips into the pocket] but use the Sony because it's better!)
 
There's a TZ100 thread here...

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/panasonic-tz100.653653/

Rather than criticise the high ISO performance I'd say its biggest issue is that the lens is soft at some length, not to the point of it ruining a picture but you'll see it when pixel peeping which I don't think you should be doing with cameras of this type. When looking at photographs as whole pictures I think that performance at any focal length and any ISO is acceptable after just ordinary non expert processing.

I went for the TZ100 for the focal range which is something like 25-250mm and to be honest just to see what 1" cameras were like. I take mine on days out sometimes and also when going on holiday I like to take a quality camera with a fast prime and the TZ100 for wider and longer shots and for when I think the bigger camera is too attention grabbing.
 
I have a TZ90 and I've learnt not to take it above ISO 200. The quality any higher is abysmal.

The RAW files in PS ACR are also bad and I put mine through Fastone for better quality.
 
Harriers9 said:
I have a TZ90 and I've learnt not to take it above ISO 200.
Click to expand...
Worth pointing out that the TZ90 and TZ100 are completely different beasts.
The TZ90 is a superzoom (24-720mm equiv) with a 1/2.3" sensor whilst the TZ100 is 25-250mm equiv and a 1" sensor, so what's that? 3x larger sensor in the TZ100. It does seem to do a remarkably good job for something that small.
 
Used Fuji X-E2 with a kit zoom lens for circa 250 on camera jungle. Stretch by a bit and you can get it with the 27mm pancake.
 
Enjoy it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top