Buying a new camera for holiday

Forums › Digital Imaging › Buying a new camera for holiday

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#989276 17-Feb-2014 22:27

If it is just to be viewed on screen then you don't necessarily need 24 or 36 megapixels etc ..

Are you just taking pictures on bright sunny days or in dark cafes etc? If the latter the larger the sensor is nice. Quality vs convenience. Even with the SLR lenses you don't expect real quality with a 18-200mm or 28-300mm lens. If you are just after casual snaps SLR might not be for you unless you genuinely want one like the soccer moms out there or if you are really interested in photography as a hobby. A friend of mine was really into dSLR wanted the super lens like yourself got a Tamron 18-200 or 28-350 (times 1.6x because he didn't have a full frame sensor) something like that finally got one and hasn't touched it in over a year.

With the SLRs with my hobby I can shoot a film body even manual focus rely on a non zoom (fixed) prime lens. Your fast aperture (low f number) zooms are expensive and large. Take out full frame bodies you can get smaller Canon or Nikon or Pentax bodies and slap on a prime fixed lens but you don't get the convenience and portability. You do get a sensor that is even physically larger than the Sony RX100.

If you want quality and all the long and wide lenses, photographers carry a large camera bag with 2 or 3 large lenses ......

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#989304 17-Feb-2014 22:42

rokki: Can you fit a zoom lens to a RX100 mk1 and mk2 ?

Not by Sony but I found these options

http://www.ebay.com/itm/FISHEYE-0-18X-Wide-Angle-HD-LENS-KIT-Sony-RX100-Adapter-Tube-Tripod-/200873172806?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec4f95f46

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Super-Fisheye-Wide-angle-0-30X-lens-adapter-ring-Sony-RX100-Camera-100-/200918596652?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec7ae7c2c

http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-6X-SUPER-Telephoto-HD-Lens-Kit-Sony-DSC-RX100-RX100-W-Adapter-Ring-NEW-/181054683930?pt=US_Camera_Camcorder_Accessory_Bundles&hash=item2a27b33b1a

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#989352 18-Feb-2014 00:42

timmmay: Jimmy, sensor size is the reason to get high end P&S cameras. Bigger sensor = more light = better images. Expensive cameras with small sensors are a waste of money.

The RX100 was called the best compact camera in the world by many people when it came out. The II probably wins that title now.

Yes, I understand all that that.

My point was that (in my view) if you are going to spend enough money to get a high end P&S, you might as well go the whole hog and get an SLR - which tend to have both the bigger sensors, and other benefits/options as well (hotshoes, range of manual controls, interchangeable lenses, cable releases...). In my opinion the price/quality tradeoff from moving that far up the point and shoot range isn't great and, as there are diminishing returns and you pay quite a bit to get incremental gains. Value wise you are better off either savings significant money and going with a cheaper P&S if you just want good snapshots, or spending a little more and getting an SLR (which offers better quality/flexibility for not much more money).

I'm not saying high end P&S models aren't good, or that they aren't significantly better than cheaper ones (they are). I'm saying that if you are spending the sums that take you pretty much into the SLR price range anyway, it will be better value to actually get an SLR.

Mid range P&S cameras are pretty darn good nowadays.

High end P&S cameras are very good, but significantly more expensive.

A mainstream SLR, with a good quality lens matched to the photo type you are taking, costs slightly more again but offers a significant extra quality leap. Especially if you add external flashes etc.

Anyway, just my two cents.......

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#989356 18-Feb-2014 01:12

JimmyH, the problem is that when you go up to DSLRs you are having to carry around a much bigger camera than with a point and shoot.

For most people that are not photonerds (and even for some of us) that means it doesn't get used. Then what is the advantage of having a camera that could take better photos?

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#989409 18-Feb-2014 07:12

JimmyH:My point was that (in my view) if you are going to spend enough money to get a high end P&S, you might as well go the whole hog and get an SLR - which tend to have both the bigger sensors, and other benefits/options as well (hotshoes, range of manual controls, interchangeable lenses, cable releases...). In my opinion the price/quality tradeoff from moving that far up the point and shoot range isn't great and, as there are diminishing returns and you pay quite a bit to get incremental gains. Value wise you are better off either savings significant money and going with a cheaper P&S if you just want good snapshots, or spending a little more and getting an SLR (which offers better quality/flexibility for not much more money).

Personally I have two high end SLRs, half a dozen lenses, flashes, radio slaves, etc, as I'm a professional photographer. I used to take one of my big cameras on holiday, but for a body, flash, and two lenses you basically need an entire backpack to carry the thing around, and I got tired of it. Micro 4/3 is lighter but you still need a dedicated bag. A big high end P&S doesn't have lenses but still takes up a bit of space. Huge zooms are pointless, over 200mm will pretty much never be used - you kinda need a tripod.

The RX100 fits in my front or back jeans pocket, and if it's in a bag it's smaller than the flash I used to take - let alone the lenses, camera body, etc. The flash on compact cameras is pointless, though you can get optical slaves that ignore preflash (which I haven't done but should probably do).

Even given how highly I value good quality images the RX100 (or similar) is a great compromise for me for traveling - though there may be holidays in future where I take a DSLR, mostly when I want a wide lens. Super keen photo nerds will have a different point of view.

rayonline:
rokki: Can you fit a zoom lens to a RX100 mk1 and mk2 ?

Not by Sony but I found these options

http://www.ebay.com/itm/FISHEYE-0-18X-Wide-Angle-HD-LENS-KIT-Sony-RX100-Adapter-Tube-Tripod-/200873172806?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec4f95f46

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Super-Fisheye-Wide-angle-0-30X-lens-adapter-ring-Sony-RX100-Camera-100-/200918596652?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec7ae7c2c

http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-6X-SUPER-Telephoto-HD-Lens-Kit-Sony-DSC-RX100-RX100-W-Adapter-Ring-NEW-/181054683930?pt=US_Camera_Camcorder_Accessory_Bundles&hash=item2a27b33b1a

I'd love a wide angle adapter, but none of the ebay/amazon ads actually show an RX100 with an adapter. I just don't know if it'll actually work in practice. It's a fixed lens camera with no obvious easy way to fit an adapter.

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#989433 18-Feb-2014 08:21

What is a suitable camera for the OP?

With my own interest and travel I do take a SLR with lightish smallish lenses and I must take a tripod just b/c I am into landscapes at low light. I allocate time for my photography, sunrise outside then brekkie and have dinner earlier than I can do a sunset and twilight. But I am not tagging with others on my travels. If I did I try to do it but I guess I will be limited to fewer outtings or that I will see them later when I go out myself and they have dinner without me..... Much of the time shooting ISO 100 or 50 film. Also with SLRs. Christmas functions too with many guests etc. low light inside, singing and performances.

But. Just a few weeks ago we had a BBQ and we have another BBQ in a few weeks. Outisde in the city council parks with the provided BBQ machines. This other person didn't bring her 50D and her L series glass. She took a Samsung point and shoot camera that looks like a phone but I think it doesn't have a phone function but you might get a camera like that which has a phone function. Reason is where she works she is not allowed phones for confidentality. So she took that to the picnic. I was the dweb who took a Lowepro camera backpack to the picnic with a few lenses and 2 camera bodies, well I had 16mins to walk around the park by myself to shoot off a few b/w film images, LOL. But in those situations; picnic, someone's house for dinner, shopping malls, cafes I would prefer a smaller camera.

For myself I think that a a RX100/Fuji X100s would be a good for the casual stuff .. and the serious camera to be used at my own moments. Cost is a factor for myself might get that in the future used. I could take a little digital Nikon with a 24mm prime lens but like the X100s a prime lens probably isn't suitable for other people, ok for a camera buff though.

Jaxson

8042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#989545 18-Feb-2014 11:34

timmmay: The RX100 fits in my front or back jeans pocket.

Sadly there's not much room left in my front jean pockets

ugh, who am I kidding...

I think everyone is actually saying the same thing here, just from different angles.

In my humble opinion, it basically boils down to:

You're going on a cruise. Kick back and have some fun.

Under many circumstances (bright day light etc) there honestly won't be a lot in it between many cameras in your price range.
Different times of the day, low light, different subjects, how fast they're moving, how close you need to be etc, will have an impact on any cameras ability to get a good shot.
IQ isn't necessarily the prime concern, given honestly a lot of cameras are pretty good anyway.
Here's a bit of fun...

or here:

What a lot are referring to above is the amount of effort required both to lug your gear around, and to get the shot you're after anyway.
When I travel for work I try to take the whole kit, tripod, DSLR, lenses, 10 stop filter etc.
I get up early and I stay up late and I walk around my new location looking for points of interest.
When I travel on a holiday I like to enjoy it with my friends and family, and I'm not looking to lug a ton of gear with me and take a long time setting up for a shot.
It's simply not sociable.

If IQ was the sole driving factor then I'd have to suggest going the DSLR route.
BUT, given the budget is lower and it's for a holiday, I would suggest a high end Point and Shoot, or a compact style camera.
Mirrorless gives a smaller body, but you've still got interchangeable lenses etc, so that's still a pain from a size point of view.
The hyperzoom bridge cameras are also large, but you don't have interchangeable lenses with them at least.

The Sony RX100 gets rave reviews.
It's got a larger sensor than most of the similar sized compacts, so it's got better low light abilities.
Sounds good to me.

Get an underwater housing for it and take some cool videos snorkelling, or sitting on the floor of the pool on the cruise ship.
Enjoy your holiday first and foremost.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#989564 18-Feb-2014 11:56

I'm not saying high end P&S models aren't good, or that they aren't significantly better than cheaper ones (they are). I'm saying that if you are spending the sums that take you pretty much into the SLR price range anyway, it will be better value to actually get an SLR.

The issue with going SLR is that more often than not, you'll need to invest more for decent lens, and it soon gets really bulky.

If you really need the flexibility of changing lens, then go SLR is the sure way.

But for typical holidays, I'd rather have the best image quality that fits in my pocket. Just saying.

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#989588 18-Feb-2014 12:51

Yeah what is suitable ... ?

I know some people online that came to NZ for a cruise / wildlife trip the husband is a camera fanatic so had 2 bodies, L series glass etc. The wife had her monopod and a bird scope ..... I heard also some kiwi's went overseas to Canada / Alaska and did something similar. I don't suggest it but some people get the wife and children to help carry their SLR equipment, ROFL .... Ditto visit Disneyland with a camera vest and backpack of gears .... and I mean Nikon D4 bodies ....

rokki

374 posts

Ultimate Geek

#990080 19-Feb-2014 03:53

Hi All thanks for the awesome responses it seems that RX100 both versions are out of my pricing league sadly so what is the next best ?

My gear 55" Samsung 4K SUHD LCD HDR , Denon AVR-4200W Reciever in 7.1.2 Surround , Denon 2 Channel Amp to power ceiling speakers , Combination of Polk Audio Fronts And Tannoy Surrounds plus 2 Cambridge Audio Ceiling Speakers Pioneer Downfiring Subwoofer , Oppo UDP-203 UHD Player , Roku Ultra , Apple TV 3

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#990084 19-Feb-2014 07:09

What's your actual budget? What's most important to you, image quality or camera size? Do you want to take a lot of low light images without flash, or mostly daytime snaps?

rokki

374 posts

Ultimate Geek

#990086 19-Feb-2014 07:20

Hi Timmay I need a jack of all trades. Kind of like a one Camera to rule them all. Budget is up to $1000 including memory and case etc. Parallel imported is not an option.

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#990100 19-Feb-2014 08:09

Sony RX100, $800. (cheaper elsewhere but PW reputable)

Case from ebay, $25 max.

Memory card, $40 for 16GB or $67 for 32GB.

Total $892, less if you get a good deal on the RX100. $892 is less than $1000. Unsure why you think the RX100 can't be had within your budget. If you want to spend less, no problem, but this is the camera that best meets your requirements.

rokki

374 posts

Ultimate Geek

#990255 19-Feb-2014 11:05

timmmay: Sony RX100, $800. (cheaper elsewhere but PW reputable)

Case from ebay, $25 max.

Memory card, $40 for 16GB or $67 for 32GB.

Total $892, less if you get a good deal on the RX100. $892 is less than $1000. Unsure why you think the RX100 can't be had within your budget. If you want to spend less, no problem, but this is the camera that best meets your requirements.

Hi all well i bit the bullet and bought the DSC-R100 Mk 2 i got a good deal so very happy and under my budget so thanks for all of your advice.

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#990256 19-Feb-2014 11:06

What'd you pay for it, and where from?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4