Camera advice

[wijcc]

I currently have a Panasonic dmc-fz200 bridge camera. I like the fact that it has a nice big zoom but not so much that the pic quality is not as good as those taken by dslr camera.
I mainly use a camera when travelling, I would like a camera that takes good pics which I can then print to A3 or A2 size.
Can anyone recommend a good setup for me. Is there much benefit from getting a more expensive dslr camera for example Nikon D3000 series vs D5000 series vs D7000 series camera?
Ideally I don't want to spend too much hopefully less than £500-600 for a camera and lens 300mm... but if spending more can be justified I could do.
Can anyone recommend a good setup?
Thanks in advance

 

[beefybarn]

Whats the problem with the pics from the FZ200. I had a Nikon D5200 setup but swapped to a FZ1000 for the convenience and have not noticed any drop in picture quality.

 

[wijcc]

The pics I take are not as detailed or good in quality as those taken by others taking pics with DSLRs at the same time. Particularly when the lights starts to fade. For example the pics taken on a Nikon d5100 of the same things at same place/time are much better than my pics.

 

[wijcc]

How does the likes of the Sony DSCRX100 compare to the likes of a Nikon D5600?

 

[EsaT]

How does the likes of the Sony DSCRX100 compare to the likes of a Nikon D5600?

Its sensor size could be called as half way between FZ200 cameras and interchangeable lens system cameras.
So it's major step above traditional tiny sensor cameras.
But also has more size, weight and cost than normal fixed lens cameras.

It's simply laws of physics:
If you want notably bigger sensor and pixels that means also either lot bigger optics or then more limited zoom range.
Which anyway add cost to optics and size and weight.
Every camera and system is always compromise in that.
Further if you want to have big DOF (depth of field) for landscapes or architecture with bigger format camera you need to stop lens down meaning you won't get light gathering extra from bigger lenses.

What kind "targets" you photograph obviously has effect to what you would need.
That affects especially system cameras with more limited zoom range lenses.

For maintaining more travel friendly size and weight from system cameras you should check mirrorless cameras and especially Micro Four Thirds.
It has now very good lens selection and if you don't need latest video features (4K) there's likely good amount of Olympus E-M serie bodies available used.

Whats the problem with the pics from the FZ200. I had a Nikon D5200 setup but swapped to a FZ1000 for the convenience and have not noticed any drop in picture quality.

FZ1000 has 1" sensor instead of tiny 1/2.3" sensor of FZxxx models so those can't be compared.

 

[wijcc]

Thanks, what would help in getting better quality pics, a dslr along the lines/price budget of nikon D5600 with fairly long zoom £800-900 ~?

 

[wijcc]

Still trying to decide whether to replace the FZ200 and what to get instead. Should I buy a refurbished Panasonic FZ1000 or TZ100 (around £400 mark), new Sony RX100 (£320). I usually only use the camera when I go on holiday, so leaning towards the TZ100 or RX100, which is the better camera in terms of picture quality, low light shots?
Or I am better off going down the SLR route and get a Nikon D5600 with 18-140mm lens for example?

 

[EsaT]

Still trying to decide whether to replace the FZ200 and what to get instead. Should I buy a refurbished Panasonic FZ1000 or TZ100 (around £400 mark), new Sony RX100 (£320). I usually only use the camera when I go on holiday, so leaning towards the TZ100 or RX100, which is the better camera in terms of picture quality, low light shots?

Basing on price I guess RX100 model (half dozen versions) you're referring is one of those older models with "short" zoom range: 28-100mm in first two, and then 24-70mm after that.

While having stop "slower" aperture decreasing lower light performance compared to RX100s TZ100's 25-250mm zoom range would give lot more flexibility.
Unless you're exclusively interested on wide landscapes and such that 70mm tele of RX100 III/+ is simply awfully short and you would need lots of that "foot zoom" for smaller details/objects.
Which might be little bit hard, if there's say some cliff or "ditch" in front of you.
Neither is 100mm much better, while losing some in wide end.
And you would be stuck with that optics.

What kind photography you do?
General landscapes/nature or do you just visit cities etc?

 

[wijcc]

Mainly visiting cities, but i like doing landscape shots and animals too.
It is the RX100 mark 1, is it worth paying extra for later versions?
Thanks.