Beginner Travel camera advice - Compact but good outdoors

B

bobincheshire

Messages
5
Name
bob
Edit My Images
No
Hi

New member here hoping that people will be happy to give me the benefit of their experience.

I am going travelling and I usually take my (now 8 year old) DSLR to take photos of my trip. I'm not a serious photographer, I like that it's mainly point and click but gives good quality pictures that I can enlarge or just enjoy. I don't massively use all the features but I have adjusted shutter speed on a few occasions - eg low light - to get a decent picture. I'm mainly in the countryside so most of my pictures are outdoors/landscape.

It's quite bulky to carry around all the time and it looks as though there are now small but decent cameras that will fit my needs.

"Bridge cameras" look bulky - I don't think I'd be saving much bulk vs my DSLR. I'm ruling these out

The "compact system cameras" eg Sony Alpha 5000 look like they have decent functions and lenses. At £250 upwards I'm in 2 minds whether to buy now or in a couple of years time. But they look like exactly what I should be swapping my DSLR to at some point. Does that sound right - are these kind of cameras good? Is the smaller sensor an issue? Do they give proper depth of field? I definitely wouldn't want to spend the £500 that some are. £250 would be ok but I'd want it to last a long time and give me the photos I want.

I see all these compact zooms but I worry that they are using high digital zooms instead of using proper lenses. Is this the case? Is it a problem for taking decent outdoors/landscape shots?
Could a standard compact type camera around £100 work for me? It's more what I'd like to spend right now but I wonder that by the time I've bought a decent-ish one for £170 ish, I might as well just get on with it and spend £250 on something like the above and use it for years (if that could be the case with them).

I know I'm being a bit rambly and not very precise and I apologise. I hope you can see what I'm getting at and offer some helpful advice based on your experience.

Many thanks

Bob
 
Last edited:
Compact system cameras can have micro four thirds, APS-C or indeed "full frame" sensors and I don't think that sensor size is something you should worry about as even the smaller than APS-C micro four thirds cameras will probably and indeed possibly quite easily better an 8 year old APS-C DSLR for image quality. I wouldn't worry about depth of field either as there isn't (IMO) any significant difference between the smaller MFT and APS-C formats and indeed some of these camera systems have very good lenses that are better wide open than older DSLR lenses.

I'm not sure that I'd be happy with a compact camera, I have a couple and I don't really rate them that much for image quality so in your place I'd look at Micro Four Thirds and APS-C compact system cameras but I don't know what you'd get for your budget. Maybe you could take a look at what's up for sale at a few dealers and come back and ask about specific body and lens combinations in your price range?
 
Last edited:
@woof woof makes a good point about compact camera quality but the better ones are actually very good. The best of the bunch, at the moment, are the Panasonic TZ70 and the Sony HX90, which both offer very good optical 30X zooms. The Panasonic offers slightly better quality at the telephoto end, while the Sony is more flexible, having a tilting screen and some other advantages. From personal experience, they're both as good as a casual user would want and capable of producing very acceptable prints up to A4 or even A3 size.

This is a shot from the Panasonic TZ40 (a previous model to the TZ70) with the zoom at its full 30X extension...

25880042994_63d4fa396b_b.jpg


This is from the Sony HX90, again at full zoom...

26459377476_72722f6b80_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Agree about the better compacts and I'd add the 1" cameras too but I do worry about the cost of these better compact-ish cameras. It may actually be possible to get a cheaper CSC that'll give better image quality.

My compact Panny LF1 has the same sensor as the top end LX7 but IMO it can't really compete with the likes of MFT or APS-C for image quality.
 
woof woof said:
...It may actually be possible to get a cheaper CSC that'll give better image quality.

My compact Panny LF1 has the same sensor as the top end LX7 but IMO it can't really compete with the likes of MFT or APS-C for image quality.
Click to expand...

I quite agree about technical quality and there's still a trade off between size, convenience and quality.

I carry the Sony everywhere, because I can at least get something, if I haven't got a bigger camera to hand. My MFT cameras give better quality but don't slip in a pocket. Carrying my full frame cameras requires even more effort for the benefit of rather more quality. At the end of the day, you have to make the best choice for your particular needs...

20718023832_0fa2b24955_b.jpg
 
This is good info and advice. Thank you.

I suspect (realistically to get good image quality) I should be comparing the better compacts (eg TX70-good tip- thanks) with the entry compact system eg Sony A5000 and seeing how they measure up with quality and features. I suspect the ability to change lenses of the Sony isn't necessary for me. I've only ever used the kit lenses with the 2 (D)SLRs I've had - so a compact could be an option if, for what I need, a good one of those will work for me as well/better than an entry compact system.

I'll read up on both the above and see if I can understand what the differences mean. If the smaller and cheaper option will take good outdoors images then it's probably a go-er. Hopefully it doesn't look too much like a 'mum camera'!
 
Here's a slightly different take on it. I think the biggest differences between these different types of camera, for most of us relatively undemanding users, are in the viewfinders rather than the sensors.

Optical DSLR viewfinder - brilliant.
Rear LCD screen - useless as soon as the sun comes out.
Electronic viewfinder - variable. The best can be very good indeed, but if there's any perceptible lag as the camera or subject moves, you might find it very difficult indeed after being used to a DSLR.

YMMV.
 
Compact cameras have improved beyond all recognition in the past few years. That said - personally, I wouldn't go away with one and would take my SLR, but I am one of those people that carries a stupid amount of kit whenever I go on a shoot.

I bought my wife a compact panasonic camera last year and the quality for the tiny size is staggering. Pretty much any compact camera from any manufacturer will give you decent images these days if you know how to use it.

However, I would look at the Canon 100d if you want a compact SLR, or perhaps the EOS M series cameras. I have never owned one, but I also gather the powershot G series cameras are excellent.

Sorry this is all Canon, but I don't use other brands so I am not qualified to comment on them.
 
I have a DSLR system. It's very capable but I only take it with me when I'm specifically planning on taking photos. I sometimes chuck it in a sling bag but even a 5d3 + 35mm F2 lens is a bit of a lump if I'm just going down the pub.

So I have been looking for a camera that I would be happy taking anywhere. I've had superzoom compacts before, and while I am always initially impressed it didn't take long for the general dissatisfaction to seep in. Superzooms need a small sensor to remain compact, so you have to work much harder to protect the highlights (The cat photo above is a prime example). Then the lack of controls. I still ended up taking my DSLR. That was until I picked up a mirrorless system, suddenly a small camera with a lot of capability that I could take places.

Foolishly I sold most of it a couple of years ago, hence why I'm looking again now to rebuild.

My vote goes mirrorless with a couple of small lenses. It's compact, lightweight and easy to take with you, but still delivers the top image quality.
 
My walking arround camera is the panasonic TZ35 (they are up to TZ80 now, though you can still get the 70 some places) - good resolution, good lenses and compact enough to fit in a pouch on my belt - the lens isd 28-300 EQFoV so its not super long but their are enough MP to do some cropping in post if necessary - has a very nice macro function offer close focus to 1cm too
 
bobincheshire said:
This is good info and advice. Thank you.

I suspect (realistically to get good image quality) I should be comparing the better compacts (eg TX70-good tip- thanks) with the entry compact system eg Sony A5000 and seeing how they measure up with quality and features.
Click to expand...

I think that the smaller sensor compact cameras can actually give you very nice pictures but with perhaps a few caveats... - They'll perhaps struggle with higher dynamic range scenes and you may find that the highlights blow a lot easier than with a MFT or APS-C camera, the higher ISO performance isn't going to match that of cameras with larger sensors, the pictures may look very nice as whole images when viewed normally but if you are tempted to pixel peep things may not look very good and the camera may well be slower in operation and they may take longer to meter and focus.

But a compact camera can be smaller than an interchangeable lens camera especially when you include a similar focal range zoom on the interchangeable lens camera and of course you need to balance the drawbacks against the convenience of having a small camera with you... as Sejanus demonstrates.

I think that there is still a place for quality compacts despite the rise in ability of mobile phone cameras and IMO they fit in somewhere between mobile phones and the larger sensor cameras. I tend to use my Panasonic LF1 when I'm out with other people and don't want to be the geek with the big camera as sometimes even micro four thirds can be too big but when I do this I accept that the picture I'm going to get are probably going to be better than those I'd get from my phone but not as good as I'd get from my Micro Four Thirds cameras.

I don't know how much really good compacts cost and when looking at them I think I'd be tempted to compare them against a really small compact system camera like the Panasonic GM5 when fitted with a compact lens. The interchangeable lens option is probably going to cost more and wont fit in a shirt or trouser pocket but might give better image quality.

Compact v small MFT camera size comparison here...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#588,570.397,ha,f

http://camerasize.com/compact/#588,570.397,ha,t
 
Last edited:
i run the A7rII but have also run the following

RX100MK3
FZ1000
EM5II
and i now own the Lumix TZ100

if i was going smaller unit and interchangeable, id go back to the EM5II or the EM1 its very sharp and never let me down
However the FZ1000 is a fantastic bridge Camera and the only reason i got rid of it was in the PX for the sony A7rII i needed the extra 400 they offered me. Hence why i have now bought the TZ100 or ZS100 its the same as the FZ1000 but pocket friendly, IQ wise it was very hard to tell the diff between the FZ1000 and EM5II the TZ100 doesn't have the best lens but its as good right up to 200mm then its kinda falls off quality at the long end....

if i was going for anything id go TZ/ZS100 for pocket Fz1000 for that chunky dslr feel or for Lens the EM1.....
 
@woof woof : I think you've nailed it but I'll add one further touch of confusion.

Looking at the HX90 and the GM5 side by side, there's very little difference in size but the depth of the Panasonic's standard lens makes it that little bit too much to slip into a normal pocket, whereas I drop the Sony into the pocket of whatever I'm wearing, every day...

25900126923_71ddc35b2a_b.jpg


For me, that makes a big difference, just in case something interesting happens. The best camera is useless if it's somewhere else when you need it. Over the years, having a camera with a wide range zoom in my pocket has let me take pictures that I wanted, such as the aircraft that flew over a bus stop in Swindon, while I happened to be standing there...

16268000966_1b98e49a9f_b.jpg
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
Looking at the HX90 and the GM5 side by side, there's very little difference in size but the depth of the Panasonic's standard lens makes it that little bit too much to slip into a normal pocket, whereas I drop the Sony into the pocket of whatever I'm wearing, every day...

For me, that makes a big difference, just in case something interesting happens. The best camera is useless if it's somewhere else when you need it. Over the years, having a camera with a wide range zoom in my pocket has let me take pictures that I wanted,..
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree and I often put my LF1 in my pocket when I'm out and about even if I'm also taking a bigger camera.

Just in case it helps the OP this is the sort of thing I use my compact camera for. Me and my GF were watching these dancers in a shopping centre in Thailand and I wouldn't have felt comfortable shooting with a big camera in a scenario like this so I used my LF1. This is the whole image followed by the crop I saved on my computer and a 100% crop, just for fun. There's a bit of motion blur but as a whole image or rather as the crop I saved it's perfectly ok as a memento of the day :D





 
Last edited:
I have the following Cameras.

Panasonic TZ55 poop image quality and no view finder so I do not use it anymore. A very old Canon Ixus 82 reasonably good image quality does have a view finder but no information in viewfinder, not very good at high ISO, I use it every now and again. The Fuji X10 pretty good image quality, does have a viewfinder with no information to display, I do use it often. Newly purchased entry level DSLR, superb image quality even at very high ISO.

For complete pocketability with a reasonably good image quality, I will stick the old Canon in my trouser pocket. But for sheer enjoyment with all the info in the viewfinder, and for the superb image quality it now has to be my DSLR.

With the 35mm prime on my entry level DSLR, it is not that much bigger and bulkier than my X10 but I get so much more...
 
That's the thing isn't it? Size. You can easily get a camera with a flat lens but is it any good? But a big boy DSLR might take the best pictures but I'm pretty sure I don't need them to be that good

Oh, I don't know what to do anymore.

I was tempted to get a Sony A5000 but it doesn't have a viewfinder. Ive always had a viewfinder - I'm not a 'selfie'/happy slapping/mobile phone person

Panasonic TZ70 - Probably would be ok. Has a viewfinder. Should be touchscreen in this day and age but isn't. Still, not a bargain/compact price. I'd want to know it was going to be used for a long time. In 20 years I've had 1 SLR then a DSLR. If I spend £200 - £300 now I'd want it to see me through a good few years of casual travel photographing the things I get up to - as the others have done

I don't know!
 
Looking at the key things in your post and concentrating on the need for a small camera capable of giving good results...

You were interested in a Sony A5000 but are put off by a couple of things but maybe you could switch your attention to a used Sony Nex 6 or Nex 7? These have a VF (but AFAIK no touch screen) and are reasonably easy to find used and if you shop around maybe you can find one and a kit lens for or under £300?

With a kit lens you'd be limited to the full frame equivalent of 28-70mm (or there abouts...) and apertures of f3.5-5.6 (or there abouts...) but maybe this could be adequate for all but telephoto shooting and very low light shooting? Granted a Nex 6 with lens wont fit in a trouser pocket but it'll fit in a small pouch/bag and will give you DSLR rivalling image quality and even quite respectable results at higher ISO's in a much smaller than DSLR package.

When I go abroad I normally take two cameras, I take a quality camera with a wide aperture prime and a compact camera for use when I want wider or longer shots in good light and for occasional use when my quality camera is too obtrusive or attention grabbing.

Failing that a quality compact (I went for the Panasonic LF1, with a VF, but others are available...) do have manual controls although they are a bit fiddly and a faff on to use and are almost certainly too slow for action shooting but one possible way around this is to stick them in manual and set everything up and shoot like we used to by zone focusing etc... This is how I used to use my Panasonic LXx cameras when I wanted to catch fast action. Here's a ISO 3200 shot from my LF1 which was taken under artificial light so it should be about as bad as it gets but as whole image I don't think it's bad although it wont rival todays DSLR's when pixel peeping. The main issue here is a bit of motion blur but it's not too bad and I'm not too sure that my old Canon 20D could have done any better at ISO 3200. You should be able to get a LF1 or something similar and equally or more capable under budget but as a one camera travel solution I personally would go for a compact system camera and I'd add a f1.8 35 or 50mm equivalent lens.



One last thing. One advantage of compact system cameras is that you can use a modern AF lens for travel and everyday stuff and old cheap manual lenses for specialist occasional use on a limited budget. For example a cheap manual focus 50mm f1.8 or f2.8 macro or even a 135mm f2.8 or f3.5 from the film days could come in very handy and all can be used via a £10 adapter. Personally that's the way I'd go.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the late reply.

I appreciate all the replies here- they have been very useful.

I'm currently away with my DSLR and am being reminded what a pain it is to get it in my bag and to get it out all the time/have the embuggerance of it on my neck. Having to get it out means I've missed some good photos.

Also, where I travel tends to be 'less developed' countries so you don't always want to be drawing too much attention to yourself/possessions especially off the main tourist trail. A smaller camera I can wear in a body pouch and get out and back again quickly is, I think, the way forward for me. With a viewfinder (because I'm old fashioned!) and at least some 'pop out' lens to hopefully give some depth of field. I'm probably looking at a Panasonic TZ 80 when I get back.

Again, many thanks for all the contributions. They have really helped me think things through and understand my options.
 
No, that's appreciated.

When I say the "80", I mean of that ilk:

- Compact and flat - so I can wear on my body rather than in a bag - and wear it discreetly
- Has a viewfinder - I'm not a phone photographer - I like to look through the vf rather than look at the screen while waving the thing round my chest
- Has a pop out lens. I may be talking out of ignorance but I don't want some mobile phone flat lens as I worry its all about the digital zoom and not optical quality
- I don't need an interchangable lens given I've always used the kit lens on my SLRs and wouldn't want to carry them around. They also 'stick out'
- Good quality - I want good pictures and ones that I can blow up if need be. But I'm not a techy - I just want to twist the lens and let the camera do the rest 99% of the time. But, for night and caves etc, I have been known to play with manual modes - so good if they are there.

I think that when I bought my last DSLR it was the right thing to get good point and shoot landscape photos but now the world has moved on and I'm sure i can get better smaller - for me and my needs.

That's what I'll be looking for when I come back.

Btw - as an aside, I've never had any problem asking people to take a picture of me while on holiday. I hand them the SLR and they know to half click to focus then complete the press.
This one, so many people very confused. Even somehow putting their hand over the pop up flash so it can't pop up and the camera crashes. Loads of whipping out phones for even 'proper' photos - way more than I saw 2 years ago on my last long trip abroad. It's the way the world seems to be going for a lot of people.

With my camera being in my bag, I missed seeing someone shoving a llama into a taxi after a day getting tips from tourists taking photos of them. :(
 
If you can live with a fixed 28mm (equivalent) lens then the Ricoh GR is an excellent camera; small, some amazing features and inconspicuous. It has an extremely good APS-C sensor. It's my most used camera. Plus if you want to go wider there is a superb wide angle attachment available.
 
FishyFish said:
The Olympus Stylus 1 seems to get good reviews, It has a built in viewfinder as well as LCD. It was one of the cameras on my list before I decided on my Lumix GX7 (because I didn't want to lose the ability to use other lenses if I needed to).

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/reviews/compact-cameras/olympus-stylus-1-review

Jessops were doing it for £299 recently.
Click to expand...

The Stylus 1 is nice with a decent evf and decent quality

Here are some shots taken with XZ-1 comapct a couple of generations its predecessor


The river Irwell from Brideg st by Alf Branch, on Flickr

London at dusk from the shard crop by Alf Branch, on Flickr

China town backstreet B&W Explored by Alf Branch, on Flickr
 
i'm new to photography and I've just purchased a sony a5000, from my experience thus far it is really good, only draw back there is no mode switch button it's done virtually and the display isn't the best. overall though it's been good for me to learn on.
 
AMG44x said:
i'm new to photography and I've just purchased a sony a5000, from my experience thus far it is really good, only draw back there is no mode switch button it's done virtually and the display isn't the best. overall though it's been good for me to learn on.
Click to expand...
Frankly I could live without a mode dial I do not change mode that often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top