Considering my Camera Options

RogerMesenseless

RogerMesenseless

RogerMesenseless

Associate
Joined
2 Jul 2012
Posts
1,115
Location
Berkshire, UK
Hi Guys,

Looking for a new camera. Originally, I was looking for an entry level DSLR for the £350-400 mark. There seemed to be a large amount of cameras in this region (like the Nikon D3100 which seems to be mentioned a lot). However, I recently noticed that the Sony RX100 Mk ii was up on the rainforest for around the same price and it is constantly advertised as "The best pocket camera in the world" (MKBHD seems to like it quite a lot). So would you say this is a better option than a DSLR? Does the image quality stack up?

Also, what about the cost of after market lenses for a DSLR? I'm assuming it would be nice to have the added interchangeability and do they make a difference?

PS. Totally new to the show when it comes to photography so apologies if this is the equivalent of asking if I can put Diesel in my Petrol car :p
 
Last edited:
You can't go wrong with it. Really nice camera. For general use I'd be inclined to pick that over a DSLR. However, if you want to build up a system, have more control over your depth of field, then a DSLR will be the better choice. Consider compact system cameras as well, they have a large sensor like a DSLR (and interchangeable lenses) but are much smaller. The Panasonic GM1 would be my pick if I wanted a small, large sensor camera with interchangeable lenses.

Interchangeable lenses do make a big difference, but the lens on the RX100 is pretty nice.

Having said all that, I'd probably pick a Ricoh GR over all of those! But I wouldn't recommend it for beginners, it's a camera for people who really know what they want in a camera.

For what it's worth, I learned the ropes on a high end compact like the RX100 (a Canon G7) before I committed to a DSLR system once I knew I liked photography enough.
 
Last edited:
RogerMesenseless said:
Also, what about the cost of after market lenses for a DSLR? I'm assuming it would be nice to have the added interchangeability and do they make a difference?
Click to expand...

Yes they make a difference, its the whole purpose of any camera which has interchangeable lenses. If you think you can make do with one focal length, or one fixed zoom length, then you may as well just buy a camera with a permanently fixed lens.

Prices for lenses vary considerably, from fairly cheap lenses which can be bought for around £100-ish to professional lenses which range from £800-2000. You then get very specialist lenses which can cost a small fortune.

So you get what you pay for and lenses are arguably more important than the camera body and will certainly have a far longer life of usage than a digital SLR.
 
Odd forum to post in for my first post eh? Anyway, the RX100 (any version) is a fab choice. And these days any entry level dslr or compact system camera (mirrorless) is more than capable of producing great results. So whatever you decide you won't make a bad decision and, by and large, anyone who says different is ill-informed, insecure or a fanboy. However, having been on a very rewarding, enjoyable and expensive journey myself, I'd suggest you consider the following before choosing:

1. What are the main things that you are going to shoot? For example, could be "just" kids running around, holiday shots, family shots and so forth, or you might love sunrise landscape shots, or you might be really into motorsports or air shows or birds (ie fast things far away) or maybe even something like taking photos of the stars. You can't really do everything with one camera (or lens) although the latest superzoom compacts apparently do a surprisingly good job, albeit with a much smaller sensor than in the RX100 or any dslr. You can also get some very wide range zoom lenses (eg 18-135 or longer, also referred to as superzooms), but anything half decent is pricey for the lens and the cheap ones can be quite poor. If you want to shoot things beyond the focal length range of the RX100 then you'll need a dslr and more lenses. Dslrs will usually focus faster than the RX100 and mirrorless cameras too, although the gap is closing fast. But if you want to shoot fast moving sports or birds, then a dslr is probably the way to go.

2. How much are you going to get into photography. Probably hard to tell, but, and there's no criticism implied here, if you're going to leave the camera in auto mode then even the RX100 is probably not quite what you're looking for. If you're going to learn the basics and move out of auto so you have much more control and get better results (little bit of work, worth it) then an advanced compact like the RX100, a mirrorless or a dslr will serve you well.

3. Related to the above, how much do you want to spend after the initial purchase? If nothing, then get the RX100. The lenses that come with entry level dslrs (termed kit lenses) are usually not great. And the lenses are the most important bit really. So IMO entry level dslr plus only the kit lens equals buy another lens or the owner probably should have bought a different camera in the first place

4. How does each camera feel. How do the controls feel, how does the size suit your hand, what's the viewfinder like (not sure RX100 II has one). For that you need to play with the different cameras. For example, low end dslrs tend to have crappy viewfinders, some are better than others. Mirror less tend to have electronic viewfinders, the best of which are now excellent. But you might be just fine without (and if you are, why pay for one)?

5. Do you shoot a lot of video. If so then the RX100 shoots great video in a less faffy way than a dslr (I mean one with a traditional mirror). Sony's SLT cameras and mirrorless cameras tend to be better at video. I'm generalising massively again. Anyway, the RX100 has a clickless control ring around the lens, which is great for video, because no clicks equals no noise when you move the ring when you're videoing, but not as good for changing aperture when you're shooting stills, because the clicks are really great for feedback. You need to play with one to see if you're bothered by it.

Sorry for the ramble, hope it helps, it's an important purchase I think so worth thinking about. If it's useful, I'll respectfully advise on a direction when you answer the questions.

Cheers,
Scott
 
Thanks for all the info guys! (You're not rambling at all ).

1. Right, as far as what I'm shooting, I'd imagine its going to be mainly Motorsports (upcoming job in the industry and I am into cars) and landscape shots for the time being. So the fast moving stuff I'll want to build up a DSLR? It does really sound like something with interchangeable lenses is helpful, but I still want to maintain the relatively compact size (G1?).

2. You're right, hard to tell at this point. I can imagine it will still remain at an entry level (not anything professional) but I am more than willing to fiddle with settings and tweak stuff to get what I want - so this still points to a DSLR.

3. Upper limit would be around £500-700 for Body + Lens.

4. I think I'd like to keep it to a relatively compact size. I think I'd draw the line when I have to have a separate bag for all the photography gear, so I'm thinking a Compact with interchangeable lenses?

5. Not planning on much video but having the added functionality of shooting good quality film would be welcomed (I'm assuming most DSLR's have nice video shooting capabilities anyway?).
 
GTRacer said:
You can't go wrong with it. Really nice camera. For general use I'd be inclined to pick that over a DSLR. However, if you want to build up a system, have more control over your depth of field, then a DSLR will be the better choice. Consider compact system cameras as well, they have a large sensor like a DSLR (and interchangeable lenses) but are much smaller. The Panasonic GM1 would be my pick if I wanted a small, large sensor camera with interchangeable lenses.

Interchangeable lenses do make a big difference, but the lens on the RX100 is pretty nice.

Having said all that, I'd probably pick a Ricoh GR over all of those! But I wouldn't recommend it for beginners, it's a camera for people who really know what they want in a camera.

For what it's worth, I learned the ropes on a high end compact like the RX100 (a Canon G7) before I committed to a DSLR system once I knew I liked photography enough.
Click to expand...

What do you think would be an appropriate choice? Sony so a number of smaller cameras and so do Panasonic (both with switchable lenses).

Nexus said:
Yes they make a difference, its the whole purpose of any camera which has interchangeable lenses. If you think you can make do with one focal length, or one fixed zoom length, then you may as well just buy a camera with a permanently fixed lens.

Prices for lenses vary considerably, from fairly cheap lenses which can be bought for around £100-ish to professional lenses which range from £800-2000. You then get very specialist lenses which can cost a small fortune.

So you get what you pay for and lenses are arguably more important than the camera body and will certainly have a far longer life of usage than a digital SLR.
Click to expand...

I am a bit of a 'tweaker' at heart so maybe I'd use the benefits of being able to change more stuff. Landscape and fast sports are quite different shooting scenarios so would it be hard to chose a lens that covers both of them?
 
RogerMesenseless said:
What do you think would be an appropriate choice? Sony so a number of smaller cameras and so do Panasonic (both with switchable lenses).



I am a bit of a 'tweaker' at heart so maybe I'd use the benefits of being able to change more stuff. Landscape and fast sports are quite different shooting scenarios so would it be hard to chose a lens that covers both of them?
Click to expand...

There are pros and cons to all cameras and camera systems.
Sony did load of very good NEX mirrorless cameras that are small, packed with features have great image quality but limited lens choice and the longer lenses are non-existent or big. Fuji and Samsung are in a similar boat, Fuji cameras look retro and appeal to SLR uses, especially those who grew up with film (but mNy feel this is just gimmicky). Nikon do a very nice 1 series mirrorless CSC, they are by far the closets to a DSLR in terms of autofocus performance and responsiveness but also suffer from limited lens choices. The sensor is smaller than the above which has pros and cons- smaller lighten lenses including long telephotos I a very small package, but the smaller area captures less light and limits shallow focus ability.

Micro four-thirds is the original mirrorless compact system camera. This system has a few advantages. Anyone can join this standard so at the moment both Panasonic and Olympus make m43 cameras, but in theory the likes of sigma, or Casio, or whoever can join the consortium and produce compatible cameras. This also means there is way more support for lenses, helped by the fact that thirds parties like sigma and Leica have full access to all focus and metering communications. Furthermore being the most mature platform there is already a large lens selection. Everything tends to be well polished, runs smoothly, is fact, responsive, reliable, etc., compared with the likes of Fuji etc that still have to make good improvements to firmware, or haven't figured out how everything will work with as series or lenses quite yet. Not that th either systems have major issues but you can definitely tell that the m43 produces have been in the game longer.
The sensor size of m43 camera is smaller than the likes of Fuji and Sony, but bigger than the Nikon 1. Most people tend to find this is the optimum size, like the bears and the porridge the sensor is not too big but not too small. Lenses can be made much smaller than the larger sensors, but the sensor still performas just as good as the bigger sensors, and the wide aperture lenses still provide opertunities for shallow Depth of focus.

Here would be my brief summary:
Sony NEX: the best choice for landscape and architecture, still life. Especially the full frame A7 and A7R. Big sensors, good lenses, great image quality.
Nikon 1: best choice for sports and wildlife. Fastest cameras, best AF.
Fuji: best for hipsters, best for people used to DSLRs, bets for street, best for portraits.
M43 ( Olympus and Panasonic) best for people wanting a complete system, or varied lens choice,best allrounder. For video the panasonic are the best CSCs for video.
 
So it really sounds like an M43 compact is what I'm looking for then. After a bit of reading it sounds like the best ones include the Sony NEX3L, Olympus OM-D E-M10 and the Panasonic GM1 (the latter being a bit above my price range). The NEX3L is a relatively cheap body but factoring in the price of a decent lens it's going to be in the £500-600 range which is my ideal budget really. Can the additional price of the Panasonic and Olympus units be justified over the NEX Cameras?
 
MFT is a well rounded system but I'd disagree with it being the ideal or "just right" sensor size. Yes the lenses tend to be larger with larger sensors, but at the same time performance is demonstrably better. It depends on what the user ultimately wants. I didn't want to make the compromise in IQ and noise performance so stuck with an APS-C sized Fuji system to complement my DSLR.

As a Fuji user, and purely an amateur enthusiast, I'm definitely not a hipster, I just appreciate the excellent performance in a small for factor. Not to mention the lenses are all fabulous in performance and build quality.

Edited for cretinous Android autocorrect!
 
Last edited:
CGrieves said:
MFT is a well rounded system but I'd disagree with it being the ideal or "just right" sensor size. Yes the lenses tend to be larger with larger sensors, but at the same time performance is demonstrably better. It depends if

I'm a Fuji user, and an amateur enthusiast, but definite not a hipster, I just appreciate the excellent performance in a small for factor. Not to mention the lenses are all fabulous in performance and build quality.
Click to expand...

Do you know of anything in the Fuji range that is M43 or offerers similar performance while maintaining the wide variety of lenses?
 
CGrieves said:
MFT is a well rounded system but I'd disagree with it being the ideal or "just right" sensor size. Yes the lenses tend to be larger with larger sensors, but at the same time performance is demonstrably better. It depends if

I'm a Fuji user, and an amateur enthusiast, but definite not a hipster, I just appreciate the excellent performance in a small for factor. Not to mention the lenses are all fabulous in performance and build quality.
Click to expand...

The performance is not always demonstrably better thoug. The m43 sensors outperform current canon crop sensors and the difference to Sony and Fuji APS-C sensors is relatively small compared to the size of the lenses.

It all depends what you want to shoot. For portrait work then I think the Fuji is hard to beat because it does have a larger sensor along with fast glass.

As for the hipster comment, I didn't mean every Fuji user was a hipster, but that hipsters would prefer the retro styling to conventional cameras.
 
RogerMesenseless said:
So it really sounds like an M43 compact is what I'm looking for then. After a bit of reading it sounds like the best ones include the Sony NEX3L, Olympus OM-D E-M10 and the Panasonic GM1 (the latter being a bit above my price range). The NEX3L is a relatively cheap body but factoring in the price of a decent lens it's going to be in the £500-600 range which is my ideal budget really. Can the additional price of the Panasonic and Olympus units be justified over the NEX Cameras?
Click to expand...

RogerMesenseless said:
Do you know of anything in the Fuji range that is M43 or offerers similar performance while maintaining the wide variety of lenses?
Click to expand...

Just to clear up some things.

The Sony NEX cameras and the Fuji cameras are not part of the M43 consortium, they use different sensors sizes, different lens mounts and require different lenses.

Secondly, you have picked out some high end M43 cameras and then questioned the price. Have a look at cameras like the Olympus EPL-5 which will do everything you want.


If you only want to shoot at shorter focal lengths then the Sony and Fuji systems are highly reccomended, the Fuji if you are in to portraits. If you want to start using longer focal length lenses for motorcars/planes/wildlife/sports and want something more responsive then I would consider the m43 cameras like Olympus EPL-5.


All of these camera take great images that are very similar to each other. If you are really concerned with the best image quality then there are better options out there (the Sony A7r as a mirrorless, otherwise you are looking at DSLRs with good glass)
 
D.P. said:
Just to clear up some things.

The Sony NEX cameras and the Fuji cameras are not part of the M43 consortium, they use different sensors sizes, different lens mounts and require different lenses.
Click to expand...

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

Secondly, you have picked out some high end M43 cameras and then questioned the price. Have a look at cameras like the Olympus EPL-5 which will do everything you want.
Click to expand...

In hindsight, yes I did realise these were some of the higher end ones. TheEPL-5 seems to be an appropriate choice for someone like me on a relatively small budget but still wanting interchangeability. M43 seems like the way to go for price and performance.

If you only want to shoot at shorter focal lengths then the Sony and Fuji systems are highly reccomended, the Fuji if you are in to portraits. If you want to start using longer focal length lenses for motorcars/planes/wildlife/sports and want something more responsive then I would consider the m43 cameras like Olympus EPL-5.
Click to expand...

Motorsports is on my list of things I'll be shooting.

So the Olympus seems to fit the bill for a small ish camera with swappable lenses. Thanks for your help! I'll look at some reviews (mainly to get an idea of the button placement, build quality ect).
 
Everything said above is true, and very good summary from DP - apart from hipster comment :)

Couple of considerations based on OP's answers/comments above:
- Camera Size - mirrorless cameras (any of them) will in general be smaller than a dslr simply because there is less gubbins needed between the lens and the sensor (an amazing amount less actually, look at a teardown video)
- Lens Size - not as clear cut. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lens at any given focal length/aperture combination (for OP, the smaller the aperture number, the more light gets in and the shallower the depth of field). Full frame sensor (OP, google search for sensor size chart) + big focal length + big aperture (small number, termed 'fast') = massive heavy long super expensive torpedo. So smaller sensor = smaller, lighter, not necessarily cheaper lens
- Cost - Oly/Pana and Fuji stuff tends to be more pricey - lots more Canon/Nikon dslr lenses 2nd hand, more 3rd party manufacturers selling very good lenses, and hugely more volume of cameras and lenses are sold so even new is comparatively cheaper - I'm discounting Nikon 1 and Canon eos-m mirrorless as they're very limited systems right now
- Usability - personal choice here. The Olympus em-1 and em-5 for example are fantastic cameras with great lenses (Panasonic lenses are totally compatible). But, I personally didn't get on with the control system. I loved the fuji controls (and I'm no hipster and never shot film :) ). And there isn't a bad fuji lens and most are fantastic. But Oly cameras are really excellent and there's plenty of superb m43 lenses too.

So, my view is this:
1. A dslr system will most likely be cheaper - if you want to shoot Motorsport inside £700 then you're probably looking 2nd hand dslr + long lens. There are plenty about - check out London camera exchange or wex for example, or it's easy to rent - but what you save in cash you will pay for in size/weight. And entry level optical viewfinders are nasty.
2. For size/weight and current motorsports ability and future system flexibility - either Oly/Pana m43 or fuji depending on what feels better to you - BUT it will cost more
3. I would forget anything else unless you get an incredible deal on a sony APS-C system (look at sensor size chart). The new sony full frame cameras are meant to be excellent, but you're into massive lenses again (I'm an ex sony full frame user but any ff lens is huge).
4. By the sounds of it, the RX100 will serve you very well as a 2nd camera :) Your pocket camera, the one you always have with you. I have a fuji x100s for that purpose but I'd have an rx100 in a heartbeat as a more pocketable alternative :)

By the way, mirrorless cameras can use any other lens (canon, Nikon etc) by using a relatively cheap adapter. I can't be faffed, but lots of people do. That might be best of both worlds.

Good hunting!
 
You can read reviews but having read everything in sight for several months I can honestly say DON'T BOTHER :) Reviews in printed camera mags are generally a waste of time, if only because they can't really find anything to write about. They tend to look at things that aren't really important, like mega high ISO performance (who cares) and don't spend enough time on what the camera is like to use, the lens and flash systems, availability of 3rd party and used gear, resale values, suitability in different situations... Understandable, because they have to fill pages and they would need to say the same things all the time, but not really that helpful. The possible exceptions are things like dpreview.com and ephotozine. I'd use the reviews to get a bead on the different variables and terminology rather than whether one body is better than another.

I'd recommend (and I didn't do this enough) finding a good well stocked camera shop and having a good play. . The prices will be close enough to Internet and most will price match, or get close. And they might have used gear too, which I'd recommend considering because you'll save loads, and there is lots of good quality used kit out there.

Suggestions. Look through the viewfinders, look at the lens prices. Have a couple of scenarios in your head like "how do I shoot a fast moving car in dim light and what happens if the sun is behind it" or "how do I set it up to control depth of field on a bright sunny day". I'm sure you'll think of better examples but those things need a bit of settings/exposure/drive mode fiddling, and my guess is that you'll find some control systems more intuitive than others (eg I like the way fuji does it, some people prefer the super-flexible Olympus). The higher end models of any camera brand typically have more controls available (or at least more easily accessible) than the lower end models. But they'll still take a fine picture and if you do get an entry level, you can always upgrade if and when you need to.

Good luck, and whatever you get, enjoy!

Cheers,
Scott
 
Last edited:
£450 with cashback (only two days left!)

gm1.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom