Any recommendations?
Happy to go second hand if required.
The smaller the better.
iPhone?
iPhone?
Exactly what I was thinking. So many people are holding phones, someone actually taking a photo is just not going to be noticed, whereas a camera stands out somewhat. Especially for street photography, it’s easy to be holding a phone in front of you, slightly tilted as if the light’s reflecting off the screen, and be taking photos, especially if you use the volume control as a shutter button, which I often do, more so for landscape photos, because I’m holding the phone in both hands so either my thumb or a finger is on the control.
It’s much more likely to be with you all the time anyway; a top photographer, on being asked what was the best camera, replied ‘the one you’ve got with you’.
Back when I was driving for British Car Auctions, I would have never carried an actual camera, but it was essential that I have my phone, for obvious reasons, and one day after dropping a car off at Bruntingthorpe, I suddenly found myself with a couple of hours to kill, before anyone could pick me up. This allowed me to wander around the aircraft stored there, and grab photos like this one…
A good modern phone with good cameras will be ideal for most situations, unless you want a zoom with a very wide range, say up to 10-12x.
I’m using an iPhone at the moment, but I want more optical zoom options.
@CountZero great picture; might need a nudge to straighten it though.
What about an Om-systems tg6 or 7.
I used them at work. Good macro facility, can work underwater. Gets and overall decent write up in the photography world. They're robust as at work mine takes a beating.
And I definitely notice the difference between phone sensors (pixel 8pro) and my own camera (R6 MK1, obviously) and the work camera. But we're getting into pixel peeping and printing photos.
Sony RX100 VII - 1" sensor, Zeiss 24-200 F2.8-F4.5 lens.
I think they put a big zoom on from V onwards if you want a cheaper s/h model
I have the IV, but that's only 24-70 I think, but does have an F1.7 Zeiss and built in ND filter
What about an Om-systems tg6 or 7.
I used them at work. Good macro facility, can work underwater. Gets and overall decent write up in the photography world. They're robust as at work mine takes a beating.
Good shout, mine also slips nicely into my cycling jersey back pocket.
Yeah i think I'd be looking at Sony. The A6400 is slightly bigger than the RX100, but has a bigger sensor. So it depends where you want to draw your line of compromise!
RX100 VII is the one I'm looking at, I really want a longer optical zoom for distant landscapes, in a small enough package that I take it on bike rides as a matter of course.
If it was available in OPs budget, though, I'd have bought it by now. 2nd hand prices start at about £800.
I had a Sony RX100 a while back - the last one with the smaller zoom. Image quality was excellent although it started to suffer a bit at the telephoto end. If you are looking at one of these be sure to check the reviews for whichever version appeals and specifically the quality at full zoom.
I was in a similar position recently - considering a quality compact camera more for when I didn't want to bring one of the mirrorless setups out but the phone wasn't enough. Budget similar to yours. Then my phone failed so I picked up the latest iphone pro to cover both scenarios. So far so good - the three optical lenses are not as good as a proper zoom but produce very good results.
Would I still like a decent compact camera? Yes. Has the new phone removed all the justification I had? Also, yes.
hah!
My phone is a Pixel 7a which is pretty mediocre on the camera front. For Xmas I'll be getting a nice little pancake prime lens for my Fuji XT2 to make it more of a coat pocket option. I kind of enjoy the lack of a zoom for some reason. Makes me think about the composition a bit more
Thats just a snapshot of a guppy. Its fine, but if you want to get a better photo without resorting to photoshop they phones quicjly become a pain in the arse.
For example i* would open the aperture quite wide either on a lense or a thumb wheel and increase the shutterspeed to compensate so the the visual distraction under the wings can be placed out of focus to better define the aircraft. Its doable on a pro setting in the phone but its a crap experience, slow and involves taking you mind away from the image.
"The best camera is the one you have with you" doesn't mean don't take a decent camera it just means if you DON'T have any camera you will miss every shot. He's also got a book by that name so he's fairly obviously going to push it as a mantra.
I would 100% whip out my phone if its what i had but if i was going out to take photos or somewhere i suspect i might want to take "photographs" i would be taking an actual camera with actual controls and a sensible user interface for the purpose.
I definitely take it to extreme though...
The RX100s mentioned above are good. Largish sensor means decent image quality and when using large apertures, a degree of (real, not fake phone) blur / bokeh should you want to. It also has proper controls although a bit fiddly because of the size of the camera.
Another good reason is that it can record in RAW opening up possibilities in editing. A standard compact will likely just record JPEGs limiting what you can do. This might not matter to you though.
The RX100 my daughter has is 24-70mm full frame equivalent so not very wide or very telephoto. This might be restrictive in what you want to use it for but other models are available.
Used Micro 4/3.
I had the original rx 100. It was great for 7 years then i lost it.
It will be replaced by one of these
canon gx 7 mark iii
24 100 focal length range. Fast lens. Usb c. Built in neutral density filter
Or a used rx 100 vi or vii
The new ones no longer charge the battery in the camera. It’s a got more zoom but a slower lens so gathers less light. But great AF ace a view finder
I also use my phone an iPhone 14 pro
The mid focal length camera is really solid. Good enough to allow me to crop
the wide is good. Not as good but easy useful. The telephoto is just ok. With no cropping i get a good print or desk top back ground. But you can’t crop much
The rx 100 was way more crop able and gave loads more reach in practice
Slight Hijack, Clicked on this as I’m looking for a ‘beginner’ camera for my youngest for Christmas.
She says she wants to get more into photography, I suspect she might want to do it at GCSE later on (or not, who knows). Her sister has a basic point and shoot thing, I don’t know if it’s some sort of digital detox thing or “kids these days” actually appreciating a “specific tool for a specific job” sort of thing, but I am just fine with encouraging it.
Anyway she’s been stealing my old Exilim which she’s finding rather limited, slow old and a bit crap (because it is). I’ve asked her to do some googling to understand what in particular she might want features wise, but I am wondering if a Bridge camera of some sort might suit her better than a point and shoot pocket thing (which is really what a phone does). I don’t think a DSLR would be the best beginning tool for her, but something where she can either go full auto or delve into settings to play with exposure, white balance, screw on a filter or a macro adapter, etc if/when she’s ready.
But I’ve not looked at cameras or kept up with them for a fair old while. Were Bridge cameras sort of left by the wayside? Do people either go point and shoot or DSLR these days? I’ve always liked the form factor (but not enough to actually but one in the last 15 years).
Any thoughts photography nerds?
What you need is a Fuji X30 - just so happens I have one I no longer use 😉
A Canon G16 could be a good starting point for your daughter cookeaa , It fulfils most of the things you mentioned apart from adding filters. It actually has an optical viewfinder rather than just relying on the rear screen, can shoot RAW and has both auto settings and fully manual. I used mine a great deal for years whilst out walking but to be honest I now mostly use my iPhone but being able to shoot RAW gives much more flexibility for post image processing
@cookeaa check your local charity shops as they sometimes have decent cameras for not much money.
Sony rx100vii or variant is the go to super compact long lens travel cam.
But after extensive use the dynamic range is awful and not good enough for anything but controlled lighting. Image stabilisation is rubbish. But it's small and a marvel of engineering. (Partner still has an rx100vii)
I've just bought a Panasonic s9 for a Bcam. Fantastic compact small full frame camera. Got a like new return with lens for £800. This camera was £1699. I can't praise it enough.
Image quality is lovely. No EVF which might be a problem. I will live with that for 800.
You can get the bodies for around 600 or less.
Phone wise I'm on a Xiaomi ultra 15 which is just about the best 'real' camera on a phone. Excellent 1" type sensor and not super processed either with good raw capabilities. (Again when on offer as a fortune new.)
You can buy a phone kit to it which makes it operate like a compact camera.
I'd go S9 though for size and performance. Pick a used one/deal one up. They come up on offer at the usual sale days . But appreciate it's over your budget a bit.
@rone - what’s the robustness like on the S9? I’m after a camera for bikepacking trips and it looks good but heard it feels a bit flimsy
If you think you want a compact camera, then probably just use a phone with multiple lenses. There are some exceptions like the Sony RX and others but the majority of compacts don’t offer much more than a modern phone.
if you want to get creative and control shutter speed / ISO / aperture and screw on a filter or polariser then buy a 2nd hand DSLR or micro 4/3 with some lenses. If you don’t like, sell it on for no loss. You can find some real bargains on DSLRs particularly as people are selling them to move to mirrorless.
Then you can shoot in RAW and process in Lightroom or a free / cheap converter. This is massive. To those that say processing an image is cheating, well your phone or compact does that for you by guessing and spits out a jpeg. RAW lets you adjust exposure, lift shadows, reduce highlights without degradation of the image (within limits). I find this part really enjoyable.
But after extensive use the dynamic range is awful and not good enough for anything but controlled lighting
i assume that’s in jpeg because i never had an issue in RAW
Here are a few from my rx 100. I think only the cave cave and beer exceed the dynamic range
https://www.flickr.com/gp/john_clinch/5eD22ndP69
i think dslr or mirrorless is the way to go. They can be so cheap. Compacts attract a premium at the moment Try and get one with a good lens. Either a prime or wider range zoom
I love compacts but they don’t really teach depth of field control because the sensor is so small
@rone - what’s the robustness like on the S9? I’m after a camera for bikepacking trips and it looks good but heard it feels a bit flimsy
I use a lot of cameras for video and I don't see much difference between this and any consumer camera.
Put it in a silicone sleeve. Screen protector. All good.
I had a sony zv-e1/ a7c before this it wasn't any better.
I've only had it 3 months so long-term is different.
I think the most comments relate to the odd nob moving. Not seen it myself.
I've DJI action 6 for biking now.
But after extensive use the dynamic range is awful and not good enough for anything but controlled lighting
i assume that’s in jpeg because i never had an issue in RAW
Here are a few from my rx 100. I think only the cave cave and beer exceed the dynamic range
https://www.flickr.com/gp/john_clinch/5eD22ndP69
i think dslr or mirrorless is the way to go. They can be so cheap. Compacts attract a premium at the moment Try and get one with a good lens. Either a prime or wider range zoom
love compacts but they don’t really teach depth of field control because the sensor is so small
No raw or jpeg doesn't matter. Dynamic range is a product of sensor attributes. (Might be a tiny bit more depending on how much the post-processing fouls up RAW. )
It's probably 10 stops max. Despite claiming 12. Have a sky in the image and it will be blown out against a modest landscape. Took it on holiday. Easily clips. I've had two too.
Most FF only get 12ish stops max. But you can push that with noise reduction if you understand expose of course.
Just a limitation of a small old sensor.
You can work around these things by choosing your composition and doing tricks on post.
(Theres not a whole lot of intensity in your image really. Good shot as it is.)
Dynamic range is just something for nerds to argue over on internet forums 🙂 If it’s really an issue, it’s an absolute doddle to merge 2 or 3 exposures in software e.g. one exposed for the sky and another for land.
Or use a graduated filter which used on my old cameras. Or underexpose and lift the shadows if using a modern camera. Or just wait for ideal lighting or create your own artificially.
People seemed to manage back in film days with Velvia which had an exposure latitude of 5 stops.
Dynamic range is just something for nerds to argue over on internet forums 🙂 If it’s really an issue, it’s an absolute doddle to merge 2 or 3 exposures in software e.g. one exposed for the sky and another for land.
Or use a graduated filter which used on my old cameras. Or underexpose and lift the shadows if using a modern camera. Or just wait for ideal lighting or create your own artificially.
People seemed to manage back in film days with Velvia which had an exposure latitude of 5 stops.
Dynamic range (for video mostly) is the single biggest challenge to capturing an image where you have little control of the light, especially outdoors. Merging images is not an easy option there for video.
Stills, granted - it's much easy to fudge stuff but that's not really my thing with stills. I don't want to spend time post-processing that much etc. So give me as much DR as possible. Let's face it most cameras take great images these days in terms of resolution / colour.
Holiday travel etc - I stil found the Rx100 to be underwhelming in that respect - it's still a relatively small/old sensor. There are limited physics at play.
Interestingly DJIs Osmo Pocket 3 - having a newly developed 1" sensor absolutely floors the RX100 in terms of DR. Took it to the US and got great images with hardly any clipped skys. But the Pocket doesn't really have zoom such. But is a fab tool in terms of small-tech / quality / gimbal.
People seemed to manage back in film days with Velvia which had an exposure latitude of 5 stops.
Well - what were the other choices? If it's all you've got it's all you've got.
I didn’t know we were discussing video creation. If we were, then I take your point.
Thing is that most of my favourite images were taken with film. It’s more the feeling they evoke, or the effort that was made to get it, or the time of day it was taken. Not dynamic range. I don’t think I’ve looked a Joe Cornish or Colin Prior image and decided it was ruined because I saw a patch of pure white in a cloud.
So, for me pretty irrelevant and completely irrelevant for the OP or Cookeaa.
hah!
My phone is a Pixel 7a which is pretty mediocre on the camera front. For Xmas I'll be getting a nice little pancake prime lens for my Fuji XT2 to make it more of a coat pocket option. I kind of enjoy the lack of a zoom for some reason. Makes me think about the composition a bit more
As it happens I have a Fuji XF10 which I used for this exact purpose for a while. Really enjoyed having a camera with a sharp 28mm lens and a really good sensor. There is a lot to be said for simplifying photography and I personally am a fan of the semi wide prime.
Although now I've just seen what they are selling for I might move it on!!
I didn’t know we were discussing video creation. If we were, then I take your point.
Thing is that most of my favourite images were taken with film. It’s more the feeling they evoke than dynamic range or the effort that was made to get or the time of day it was taken. I don’t think I’ve looked a Joe Cornish or Colin Prior image decided it was ruined because I saw a patch of pure white in a cloud.
So, for me pretty irrelevant and completely irrelevant for the OP or Cookeaa.
Yep all fair points. But in stills the rx100 lacks quite DR dramatically. There's no free lunch.
But given we're not either of those people - you don't say NO to more DR if there's an option.
Literally started this point by offering a real-world view of travel for stills/video with the Rx100. Had access/owned to two versions. RX100va and Rx100vii.
It's great in many other ways.
The DR issue might not bother you but it definitely is a limitation - OP can be made aware and make his choices.
The RX100 series definitely has limitations in some areas - high ISO is a struggle for it.
I've lost the photography bug over the past couple of years and want to pick it back up. I feel a new camera might spur me on. I currently have two Sony's - RX100 IV and A77 II. I quite fancy trying a Fuji X-T5. Some of the images that you see posted on line are sublime. They just seem to have extra depth. Some of the film simulations are really nice too and I see great results posted with JPEGs SOOC. Fuji aren't without issue though, the AF is reported to be poor
@rone that images isn’t really the aim. It’s a link to an album. The beer and cave are clipped. I didn’t think the others are
It’s better then my Nikon D70 was which was only defeated once or twice
A secondhand Olympus om-d should be well within your budget.
the sensor is a micro 4/3.
the camera looks very portable and because of the smaller sensor, a regular 50mm lens becomes a 100mm effective lens.
120mm becomes 240mm.
So you can take zoom shots without the bulk of an equivalent full frame camera.
the smaller sensor may translate into less depth of field, but no ones complaining.
Smaller sensor equals larger depth of field? Well it doesn't but it requires a shorter focal lens to cover the sensor at a given distance. Which inherently has a shorter focal length.
Conversely that camera upthere has a really shallow depth of field which is a pain in the arse.
@rone that images isn’t really the aim. It’s a link to an album. The beer and cave are clipped. I didn’t think the others are
It’s better then my Nikon D70 was which was only defeated once or twice
A D70 is what 20 years old?
It's possible to take great pics with lots of cameras mentioned here, no question.
It's possible to be smart and use raw to work around DR limitations, for sure.
But it is a limitation that ideally you might not be happy with on a small sensor - especially on the RX100. That said the RX100 is an amazing package. I mean, squeezing a tiny EVF and nice controls on it.
I'm off on hols next week and I will be taking for (pleasure) a Panasonic s9, DJI action 6, and the 15 ultra to have a bit of a play with.
The DJI action 6 is surprisingly capable and the best image I've yet seen out of an AC.
I'm using a Fuji xf10 compact. Tiny and light but big apsc sensor, fixed lens but it has a crop zoom that is surprisingly useful. Nice build quality and feel.
Images are stunning Downside is slow AF, but for street photography there are ways around that if it's a problem. Also no vf.
Full range of Fuji film recipes if you want them bar acros. I really enjoy the velvia mode.
Otherwise I'd be looking at a Ricoh gr.
Prices on these compacts are absurd 2nd hand. An xf10 is probably 400 now(I paid 220 new)
Prices on these compacts are absurd 2nd hand. An xf10 is probably 400 now(I paid 220 new)
!!
Why is that?
all the kids want one! olde camcorders are also poplular, the crappy image quality is desirable now
Why is that?
Small, light body, quality lens and phenomenal images. Out of production
Also trendy
To the OP.
Try to get your actual hands on a few and pick the one that you think you'll enjoy holding and using.
Unless you're an actual pro or 'serious' hobbyist (I want to avoid using the word nerd) then most cameras/manufacturers are much of a muchness and will work for you in terms of features and image quality.
Manual and RAW are only a concern if you want to edit 'properly'. Aperture Priority and .jpg are fine for most hobbyist purposes.
Best superzoom compact I ever had was a Lumix from around 10 years ago, not sure what they're like now or if they still make them (compacts seems to come and go in terms of popularity/sales).
FWIW, now I use either my TG7 (brilliant for macro and super tough but pretty average for everything else) or my Insta360 One RS (no zoom, fixed focus, fixed aperture but tough and very compact). If I wanted pure street I'd go for a used M43 and a short fastish vintage lens.
(Having said all that I fully accept my views on photography may not match most people's accepted wisdom)