Background my wife owns a older nikon Dslr thats few years old. She Shoots in raw most of the time. She is by no means a professional. We have a kit lens and bigger lens. We will be getting a memory maker so i wanted to get her a more portable camera for our disney trip that will still live up to her expectations of a good quality camera and maybe she will use it more for everyday kid photos. Specifically for disney we will be taking mostly character pictures with kids and general pics of castle and main disney items. Would like capabilities of shooting some good quality video in the event something really cool happens and also pictures inside of rides like pirates and ariel and small world. I just would like to find something that is more up to date and easier to carry than two lens and big DSLR but not sacrifice much in terms of quality. 99% of time she takes pictures of our kids doing fun stuff maybe with new technology she does not even need a dslr. Any help or suggestions appreciated. Sorry if i sound like i don't know what I'm talking about... because i don't.
Disney specific camera?
- Thread starter rymahoney
- Start date
dancemonkey
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 246
Not a photographer. But my husband is... We don't like to be emcumbered at Disney so an iPhone and memory maker/photo pass works for us.
DizBee Brian
KUNGALOOSH!!!!
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
- Messages
- 55
Hi,
When I am on vacation [be it Disney or other...is there any place else to go??? lol] I typically bring my Sony RX100 miii. Its small, lightweight, pocketable and can be used for many types of shots. It has Raw functionality, a fixed, zoom lens [meaning you dont swap out lenses as you would with a DSLR], a built in EVF and flash, so its more than capable. As you may have noticed there are 3 versions, with variable differences [zoom ranges, EVF, and price tags]. Many Point and shoot camera's today shoot Raw and are probably more than capable. In my experience, the Sony RX100 iii does an excellent job, have a look! Hope this helps! Enjoy
Kungaloosh!
-Brian
When I am on vacation [be it Disney or other...is there any place else to go??? lol] I typically bring my Sony RX100 miii. Its small, lightweight, pocketable and can be used for many types of shots. It has Raw functionality, a fixed, zoom lens [meaning you dont swap out lenses as you would with a DSLR], a built in EVF and flash, so its more than capable. As you may have noticed there are 3 versions, with variable differences [zoom ranges, EVF, and price tags]. Many Point and shoot camera's today shoot Raw and are probably more than capable. In my experience, the Sony RX100 iii does an excellent job, have a look! Hope this helps! Enjoy
Kungaloosh!
-Brian
Thanks I will look into that. I noticed there is a size between dslr cameras and a pocket point and shoot. What are those and what advantages do they have?
DizBee Brian
KUNGALOOSH!!!!
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
- Messages
- 55
I assume you are referring to mirrorless or micro 4/3rd type cameras? These are smaller than a Full frame DSLR but slightly larger than a P & S, in both physical and sensor size. For the most part DSLR sensors are the larger and a P&S is much smaller. To be honest, for a recreational shooter you shouldn't really notice a difference in photo quality [there is a crop factor, but that's another story, lol]. The advantages/disadvantages come when you pixel peep [zoom in really close at the photo] and in low light situations. But the ISO [sensitivity to light] on most camera's today will help with the low light pics. The RX100 has a sensor that is somewhere in the middle, its a 1 inch sensor. Larger than a P & S sensor, smaller than a 4/3rds and APS or Full Frame/DSLR sensor...and it does an excellent job, regardless of size! Check out some Youtube reviews on it, you can not go wrong. Your wife will love the quality of the photos, it will be a very similar experiece to her DSLR and the size wont discourage her or you from dropping it in her bag or pocket.
Most camera brands make a very good P&S type camera. I just favor the sony as it fits what I want to do with it. I prefer the 'feel' of a camera over a phone. Plus i dont lose the manual or creative ability w/ it, as i do with a phone.
Again, I hope this helps!
Kungaloosh!!
-B
You have several options. Sony has been the leader in downsizing cameras with great quality, but there are other options as well.
First, you mentioned "between dslr and pocket" --- There is the realm of mirrorless cameras. That's a VERY broad statement. They are interchangeable lens cameras, like dslrs, but are typically (not always) smaller due to the lack of an Optical viewfinder system, and sometimes smaller sensors.
Among mirrorless, you have the Sony A7 series -- These are full frame top of the line cameras. They are only slightly smaller than dSLRs, but they are likely far superior to your Nikon dSLR (I will assume you have an APS-C dSLR like most consumers).
More realistically for you, Sony, along with Fuji and Samsung, make APS-C mirrorless. This is the same type of sensor as your dSLR. Being newer than your dSLR, the image quality is likely noticeably superior to your dSLR. These cameras tend to be significantly smaller than most dSLRs. I just got the Sony A6000 as my backup camera (I use a full frame dSLR for my main camera). There is almost no downside to a camera like the A6000. The image quality will be equal or superior to your current dSLR. It will focus faster in most situations, the camera will be much faster in most situations. It will be much smaller. Far better live view, far better video. The few "downsides" --- It has an EVF instead of OVF. For many people, this is actually an advantage of mirrorless. But some people, sometimes for sentimental reasons, prefer an optical viewfinder. When shooting fast action, an OVF can sometimes be better. But the A6000 shoots 11 fps, and your older Nikon dSLR only likely shoots around 4 or 5 frames per second. So even for action, an EVF at 11 fps would generally be better than an OVF at 4-5 fps if you are trying to capture an action shot. To me, the biggest downside of EVF, is battery drain. You will find mirrorless batteries run out much faster than dSLR batteries. The other downside can be lens selection -- But this is a non-issue for most consumers. You said you have 2 lenses --- You can get lenses just as good for a system like the Sony mirrorless. The lens selection issue starts to come into play when you are looking at specialized $3000 lenses. You can get regular zoom lenses, some fast prime lenses, for a system like the Sony. But if you are shooting with a 17-50/2.8 on your dSLR, there is no full equivalent for a Sony mirrorless. On the other hand, you may find equivalents in Fuji or Samsung.
Next in the mirrorless world, you have Olympus and Panasonic 4:3 systems. They use a sensor a bit smaller than APS-C. It makes the cameras and lenses a little smaller than the Sony/Fuji/Samsung mirrorless. They have a great lens selection, a bit better than Sony. But as the sensor is smaller, the image quality is a little behind. Not a massive step behind, but a slight step backwards.
Next, you have the Nikon 1 system. This is a very compact system, known for super-fast autofocus. But the sensor is significantly smaller. The lenses aren't great. So it is a noticeable step backwards in image quality. It's still better than most point and shoots. But far behind a dSLR.
Then moving out of interchangeable lens cameras, you have a newer breed of enthusiast compacts. Many use a sensor developed by Sony that they call their "1 inch" sensor. It is the same size as the Nikon 1 sensor, but performs a little bit better. And many of these compacts have better lenses. So overall, they perform slightly better than the Nikon 1. These cameras can be capable of taking dark ride pics. The image quality *can* match some dSLRs. Especially, if you are comparing a camera like the Sony RX100 compared to an older dSLR with a kit lens --- Between the fact that the Sony RX100 has a newer sensor, combined with the fact that the Sony lens is better than a kit dSLR lens, the Sony RX100 can match or surpass the dSLR in many situations. But a camera like the RX100 cannot match a new dSLR with a premium lens attached.
The enthusiast cameras being made with the 1 inch sensor are:
The Sony RX100 (they now have 4 models for sale, from oldest to newest), the Sony RX10 (same sensor, slightly bigger camera, longer lens with more zoom range and better video), the Panasonic FZ1000 (similar to the RX10, the lens is a bit longer), and a few Canon GX models.
Here are Disney photos taken with the original version of the Sony RX100:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjBS3cEA
https://www.flickr.com/gp/havoc315/x58f01
First, you mentioned "between dslr and pocket" --- There is the realm of mirrorless cameras. That's a VERY broad statement. They are interchangeable lens cameras, like dslrs, but are typically (not always) smaller due to the lack of an Optical viewfinder system, and sometimes smaller sensors.
Among mirrorless, you have the Sony A7 series -- These are full frame top of the line cameras. They are only slightly smaller than dSLRs, but they are likely far superior to your Nikon dSLR (I will assume you have an APS-C dSLR like most consumers).
More realistically for you, Sony, along with Fuji and Samsung, make APS-C mirrorless. This is the same type of sensor as your dSLR. Being newer than your dSLR, the image quality is likely noticeably superior to your dSLR. These cameras tend to be significantly smaller than most dSLRs. I just got the Sony A6000 as my backup camera (I use a full frame dSLR for my main camera). There is almost no downside to a camera like the A6000. The image quality will be equal or superior to your current dSLR. It will focus faster in most situations, the camera will be much faster in most situations. It will be much smaller. Far better live view, far better video. The few "downsides" --- It has an EVF instead of OVF. For many people, this is actually an advantage of mirrorless. But some people, sometimes for sentimental reasons, prefer an optical viewfinder. When shooting fast action, an OVF can sometimes be better. But the A6000 shoots 11 fps, and your older Nikon dSLR only likely shoots around 4 or 5 frames per second. So even for action, an EVF at 11 fps would generally be better than an OVF at 4-5 fps if you are trying to capture an action shot. To me, the biggest downside of EVF, is battery drain. You will find mirrorless batteries run out much faster than dSLR batteries. The other downside can be lens selection -- But this is a non-issue for most consumers. You said you have 2 lenses --- You can get lenses just as good for a system like the Sony mirrorless. The lens selection issue starts to come into play when you are looking at specialized $3000 lenses. You can get regular zoom lenses, some fast prime lenses, for a system like the Sony. But if you are shooting with a 17-50/2.8 on your dSLR, there is no full equivalent for a Sony mirrorless. On the other hand, you may find equivalents in Fuji or Samsung.
Next in the mirrorless world, you have Olympus and Panasonic 4:3 systems. They use a sensor a bit smaller than APS-C. It makes the cameras and lenses a little smaller than the Sony/Fuji/Samsung mirrorless. They have a great lens selection, a bit better than Sony. But as the sensor is smaller, the image quality is a little behind. Not a massive step behind, but a slight step backwards.
Next, you have the Nikon 1 system. This is a very compact system, known for super-fast autofocus. But the sensor is significantly smaller. The lenses aren't great. So it is a noticeable step backwards in image quality. It's still better than most point and shoots. But far behind a dSLR.
Then moving out of interchangeable lens cameras, you have a newer breed of enthusiast compacts. Many use a sensor developed by Sony that they call their "1 inch" sensor. It is the same size as the Nikon 1 sensor, but performs a little bit better. And many of these compacts have better lenses. So overall, they perform slightly better than the Nikon 1. These cameras can be capable of taking dark ride pics. The image quality *can* match some dSLRs. Especially, if you are comparing a camera like the Sony RX100 compared to an older dSLR with a kit lens --- Between the fact that the Sony RX100 has a newer sensor, combined with the fact that the Sony lens is better than a kit dSLR lens, the Sony RX100 can match or surpass the dSLR in many situations. But a camera like the RX100 cannot match a new dSLR with a premium lens attached.
The enthusiast cameras being made with the 1 inch sensor are:
The Sony RX100 (they now have 4 models for sale, from oldest to newest), the Sony RX10 (same sensor, slightly bigger camera, longer lens with more zoom range and better video), the Panasonic FZ1000 (similar to the RX10, the lens is a bit longer), and a few Canon GX models.
Here are Disney photos taken with the original version of the Sony RX100:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjBS3cEA
https://www.flickr.com/gp/havoc315/x58f01
Yes and no. "Mirrorless" is such a broad term... If you compare a $500 dSLR to another $500 dSLR, they are ultimately going to be very similar. A few different button placements, a few small feature differences.. but comparing a Canon Rebel and a Nikon D3300, etc... You aren't going to see worlds of difference.
On the other hand, you can see much broader differences with mirrorless. While none would be a "bad decision".... you do need to think carefully about what it important to you. You don't want to buy a Nikon 1 system and then wonder why the image quality isn't as good as a dSLR... or buy a Sony A5100 or Canon M3 and suddenly realize you don't have a viewfinder, or buy a Sony A7 and suddenly realize that most of the lens options are big and expensive.
So it is important to balance -- size, image quality (knowing what sensor size you are buying), EVF (does it have an EVF? what is the quality of the EVF?), auto-focus system (especially some older mirrorless have very slow AF), etc.
This kinda confused me a little. But i will read up on it.... So based on a Disney trip charater photos, castle pics, firework pics and on occasions video. Most situations we would run into at Disney would be great for her around the house party's and such I will look at the sony any others to compare to are welcome.
Last edited:
Mirrorless systems are dSLRs, without a reflex mirror. That's the only difference. Some mirrorless -- Like the Sony A6000, are much better for sports than most dSLRs. Assuming you buy the same lenses for the mirrorless as you would buy for the dSLR, there is absolutely no reason to keep the dSLR. Other than longer battery life, it really doesn't have any advantages for an ordinary consumer. (for an enthusiast or pro, a dSLR can still have advantages, but we aren't talking about the $500 dSLR and $200 lens... talking about the $2000 dSLR and $2000 lens).
Now, it does depend on WHICH mirrorless. Like I said, the Sony A6000 is essentially a dSLR without a reflex mirror. It is actually faster than any sub-$1000 dSLR on the market. It may be the best dSLR/mirrorless camera you can buy in its price range. Best image quality, fastest autofocus, best performance, most features. So to me, this camera is easily a replacement for a consumer-level dSLR.
On the other hand, a camera like the Nikon 1 --- It is better for sports than a dSLR, because it is super fast, with super fast auto focus. But where the Sony A6000 image quality can match or surpass a consumer dSLR, the Nikon 1 is below a dSLR. So for taking low light pictures, for example, you might want to keep your dSLR over the Nikon 1.
In other words -- Some mirrorless cameras are essentially equal to, or better than, consumer dSLRs. Some are meant to be lesser cameras.
A lot to comprehend here. yikes. Of all you mentioned which is best that only requires one lens. i feel like the sony i would need both lens which then would defeat going to a smaller camera as she would have to carry two lens around. BTW her camera now is the nikon d5100
Last edited:
No, mirrorless cameras are all interchangeable lens cameras --- Except for having a mirror inside the camera, they are the same as dSLRs. They take multiple lenses, just like dSLRs. Just like dSLRs, you can choose just to use 1 main lens. The lenses for some mirrorless systems tend to be smaller than dSLR lenses, but that really depends which mirrorless system.
The "enthusiast compacts" -- like the RX100, the RX10, the FZ1000, the GX7 --- they are all one lens.
It comes down to, do you want a much smaller camera that replaces your dSLR -- better image quality, better performance, faster, and much smaller (about half the size)? Or do you want a much much much smaller camera (about 1/4th the size), that can replace your dSLR in some situations but not necessarily all situations.
What 2 lenses does she currently have?
Though these sites aren't 100% accurate, here is a rough comparison of the D5100 with the A6000:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5100-vs-Sony-Alpha-A6000/detailed
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/nikon/d5100/vs/sony/a6000/
No camera REQUIRES more than 1 lens. The Sony RX100, for example, only has 1 fixed lens. The newest version has a 24-70mm lens. The original version had a 28-105mm lens.
So it is the same thing as carrying your Nikon D5100 with the standard 18-55 lens. (that really means 27mm to 80mm). So carrying a camera like the RX100 is the same thing as carrying your D5100 with just 1 lens. But it means if you want to zoom longer, you can't do it with the RX100. But with a mirrorless/dSLR, you can zoom more by adding another lens.
In other words, the RX100, would be the same range as if you took your D5100 and left the second lens at home.
You may be thinking of "bridge cameras" -- They look a bit like dSLRs, and they have lenses that cover really wide ranges. But they have teeny tiny sensors and their image quality is poor. And you said you didn't really want to sacrifice image quality. If you are willing to take very inferior image quality, then bridge cameras become an "all in one" option.
Last edited:
So why does she have to carry the 50 prime?
There is no camera on earth that can replace both a 50 prime and a 18-200. There are cameras that can replace the 18-200, but that's a slow lens. So it will never give the fast aperture that will replace the 50. There is even an 18-200 lens for the Sony A6000.
And there are cameras that can come close to replacing the 50 prime. For example, the RX100, newest model, is 24-70, 1.8-2.8. So around the 24-50 range, it can come close to replacing the 50 prime. But you would lose the 70-200 range of your current lens.
You can opt to carry just the D5100 with 18-200. And there are lots of other cameras you can carry with that same range.
The zoom does not have to be 200. obviously she wants as much as can get without sacrifice. I think really she wants smaller and lighter camera. As far as which lens i have no clue and i don't think she does either. As long as it can be used in most situations it will work. You guys are the experts... Im clueless but don't want her to know I'm getting her a camera for our trip.
"Most" situations is the rub. There are over 200 Nikon compatible lenses..... For a reason. I own about 10 different lenses myself. I "need" 10 lenses, because there is no one lens that truly covers "most" situations.
Now, it depends on the needs of the photographer. If you aren't picky about image quality, if you never shoot in low light, if you don't need ultra wide shots, etc... Then you can make do with 1 lens.
Your wife's 18-200 is perfectly decent for most good light shots. The 50mm prime is a specialty lens, for high quality, for great portraits with great background blur, and for low light situations. The 18-200 is useless in low light, and can't create the beautiful background blur to the same degree as the 50 prime.
So no camera, and no lens, will replace both the 18-200 and the 50mmn.
To give you an idea of the lenses I own to cover different situations:
14mm prime, for ultra ultra wide landscape.
18-35g -- For convenient wide landscapes
24-70/2.8 for general purpose, walk around, and professional portraits where I may be shooting different sized groups of people
70-200/f4 -- an event lens, when I need to capture candids from a distance, and when I need a telephoto zoom.
300/f4 -- My sports and wildlife prime lens.
45/1.8 -- My low light, high quality lens. Sometimes general walk around when I want to go light.
85/1.8 -- My go-to portrait lens for solo portraits, couple portraits and headshots. My favorite lens actually.
105/2.8 macro -- Sometimes portrait, but mostly just for macro work. I don't use it a ton.
Selling my: Nikon 50/1.8, I didn't like it as much as the Tamron 45/1.8. Also selling my 24-85, as it has been replaced by my 24-70.
The point of this is simply to demonstrate the impossibility of a true "all in one" --- Unless you are giving up stuff. Giving up the ability to shoot macro, or giving up low light, or giving up wide angle, or giving up telephoto.
So you can get the RX100, for example..... It has a good lens on the wide end. It has a much shorter range than the 18-200.
You can get the A6000, for example -- you can get it with the 18-200, and it will replace the Nikon with 18-200, but it won't replace the 50.
You can get the A6000 with 18-200 AND with 50/1.8 -- And it will be an exact replacement for your Nikon set up, it will be much smaller, but it will be 2 lenses.
You can get the A6000 with 16-50 (which is teeny tiny) and with 55-210 -- It's 2 lenses, even with 2 lenses, it is much smaller than the Nikon with 18-200, but still lacks the 50.
You can get something like the FZ1000 or RX10, which will give you the type of range you get with the 18-200, and decent aperture, but still won't completely replace the 50mm. And you can't add a 50 to it.
So when you say something that will work in "most situations" -- It really depends on the situations you want. And it may absolutely require multiple lenses. (If you want to shoot dark rides at Disney AND you want to shoot the safari at Animal Kingdom, that basically requires 2 lenses or more).
dmaxphil
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2013
- Messages
- 893
Interesting. Just tossing this out there, but.... Maybe you should be looking at good point and shoots. (or fixed lens types that have teleconverter options)
I picked up an Olymus TG-4 to shoot around water. It's tiny. It will "do" low light stuff with a max aperture of f/2. Shoots RAW. Shoots (35mm equivalent) 25mm-100mm and up to 170mm with a converter. And takes surprisingly good video.
May have been asked, but how large will you be printing your images?
Not the best examples, but some pics from my TG-4.
I picked up an Olymus TG-4 to shoot around water. It's tiny. It will "do" low light stuff with a max aperture of f/2. Shoots RAW. Shoots (35mm equivalent) 25mm-100mm and up to 170mm with a converter. And takes surprisingly good video.
May have been asked, but how large will you be printing your images?
Not the best examples, but some pics from my TG-4.
-
Top 10 Character Dining Experiences at Walt Disney World
-
Disney x Loungefly's New 3-Piece Frankenweenie Series
-
New 'Passport to Morimoto Asia' Program Launching at Disney World For 10th Anniversary
-
Why I Like Rain at Walt Disney World
-
Vintage Disney Shopping: Chloe's Treasure Thursday
-
All New 'Coco' Merchandise Arrives at Disneyland Resort
-
What Discounts are Available Onboard Disney Cruise Line Shops?
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
New Posts
- Sticky
