For traveling, you cannot beat when i had my Canon 400D with a sigma 18-250. Very good autofocus, better than Canon kit lens, and plenty sharp to enlarge to 1-2m canvas. Complement that with the 50mm 1.8 and it was a dream for travel.
Then went crazy and went full frame and specialized lenses and it killed my interest in travel photography because i have a family and frankly couldn't be bothered lugging 10kg of equipment to planes, beaches, ski fields, etc. Bought a super zoom but the range is only 28-300. Nothing compared to aps-c 16-300 (x1.6)
I would instantly go back to new gen apsc in a heart beat if not for the expensive paper weights that i already own.
I guess what you would need to think about is, as per Batman's comment, how keen are you to be carrying around bagloads of dedicated camera gear, switching and changing lenses in and out? Having a "prosumer" super zoom all in one camera would be suitable for most peoples needs. If however you are leaning towards the interchangeable lens systems, the A6500 with the 16-50mm kit would be small enough to carry around all day, and give you the flexibility you may need. Those menus are definitely a learning process though hahaha
Like others have said, yes. The Sony RX100 Mark VI is expensive, even the previous ones were already expensive. Yes there is the Sony mirrorless as you have mentioned but how willing are you to lug that out. There are a few other options as well not just the RX100.
I gone thru 2 dSLRs over the course of 10yrs or 15yrs then I picked up a Ricoh GR. I had proper cameras already but I still got the Ricoh, mainly because when I was with other people they were not into photography. All we do is go for walkabouts and sit in a eatery or mall. Even when I have gone with them with my dSLR at the end of the day they were just quick snapshots with the very few printed A4.
One time I was silly enough to take a dSLR, 2 film SLRs for b/w film and color slide film and 3 lenses, a flash gun and a tripod. Under 35 degree weather. All they did was walk around, got food and maybe go to the shops. Then after 2 days I resorted to my manual focus Nikon film camera b/c it was the smallest and just took my 50mm prime lens. Which I guess why not just take a prem compact, I didn't carry a 2nd lens so lens changing wasn't even an issue to me. When I have travelled by myself my go to lens for myself is just a 18-35 and a 50mm. But again, I find that in day time when the light is strong and harsh I just prefer a prem compact and maybe take the big guy out when the light is nicer later in the day. Also less effort to myself.
At one stage i would carry a full frame DSLR body, an APSC DSLR body, a 24-70mm 2.8, a 70-200mm 2.8, an 50mm or 85mm prime, a 14mm prime, that is just ridiculous and I accept that. SO i retired from it. But i can see a good APS-C with 16-300mm would be amazing for range, give superbly sharp pics. Just not the low light action ability. Shallow depth of field of single subjects can be simulated easily by shooting at 300mm. And if you really must have a large aperture lens just get a prime that suits (not cheap!)
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
