Looking for something smaller with great shots

[Nena2007]

Hey there! We are planning a trip this december and it will be the first for our two youngest (they will be 2 and 3). The last thing I want to worry about while chasing my four kiddos around the park is wondering if someone is stealing my gear from the stroller. I know some of the more compact cameras they have now take stunning photos. I remember reading an article by a photog who said one they had seriously competed with their DSLR (of course now i can't remember the article or the photog).

Anyway, does anyone have any suggestions? Thinking something around or under $1000.

 

[SplashMo]

SONY RX100 $400-$550

Awesome little camera

Fuji x-E2 with 18-55 kit lens. (Possibly under $1000)

I would just go with the SONY RX100 great deal on a very small camera with excellent image quality and video.

 

[cisobe]

I second the Sony RX 100, but suggest getting the newer RX 100 II. If not, the Canon G1-X is supposed also be a great point and shoot.

 

[boBQuincy]

If you want a P&S the RX is a good one, if you want interchangeable lenses (and larger sensor) then Panasonic's GM-1 is a good one. Both of these are really small.

 

[wiigirl]

I second the Sony RX 100, but suggest getting the newer RX 100 II. If not, the Canon G1-X is supposed also be a great point and shoot.

 

[havoc315]

Heard good thing about the Canon G1-X.
I can personally vouch for the RX100, particularly for Disney.

In fact, the RX100 can in many situations, produce better image quality than a basic dSLR with basic kit lens. (As the RX100 has a lens that is better than a dSLR kit lens).
In terms of landscapes, the RX100 really shine. It can handle Disney dark rides. Works great combined with a gorillapod -- a great compact portable low light/fireworks set up.
It's focus is reasonably fast.
Where it doesn't match a dSLR -- you have less control of background blur than a dSLR. And the lens is limited to a range of 28-100mm. This is slightly more than most dSLR kit lenses, but you can always add another lens to a dSLR.

In terms of old RX100 versus newer. Image quality is almost identical. The older is a bit more compact, and much cheaper. The newer version has a hotshoe (if you want to add external flash or EVF), tilting LCD, and wifi. If you don't need those things, I would save money and get the cheaper version.
For $400-$500, I actually say the RX100 is a good value.

As it is close to your budget, I might glance at the RX10.

Same sensor as the RX100. But the key difference is a 24-200 2.8 lens. In perspective, there is no such thing as a 24-200 2.8 lens for dSLR. You would need to get a 24-70 2.8 ($500-$1000 minimum) and a 70-200/2.8 ($1000-$2000 easily).

So it's the RX100, with an even better lens. The lens is wider than the RX100, and has double the telephoto reach.
The RX100 lens is slightly faster at the wide end (1.8 versus 2.8), but the aperture only reaches 1.8 at 28mm. Zoom in to 50mm or 100mm, and the RX100 aperture shrinks quickly. The RX100 stays at 2.8.
Meaning -- extreme low light, Disney dark rides -- you may be best served with the RX100 at 28mm and 1.8. But in regular low light situations, where you might want freedom to zoom a bit, the RX10 will be far superior. The RX10 also will give you better control over background blur (still not quite as much as a dSLR, but better than any other bridge camera).

The RX100 is a great sometimes dSLR replacement for advanced photographers, and a possible every day camera for basic needs. The RX10 is potentially a full time dSLR replacement even for some enthusiasts.

 

[havoc315]

Some RX100 samples:


untitled-261.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


Bermuda Horseshoe Bay by Havoc315, on Flickr


museumnightrx-49.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


View from Grand Central by Havoc315, on Flickr


Tower of Terror library by Havoc315, on Flickr


Great Movie Ride, Wizard of Oz by Havoc315, on Flickr


Aug 31, 2012-82 by Havoc315, on Flickr


Epcot Illuminations by Havoc315, on Flickr


Epcot China Warriors by Havoc315, on Flickr


Disney Boardwalk sunset by Havoc315, on Flickr


Disney Boardwalk at night by Havoc315, on Flickr


20120905_1423.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[Nena2007]

Wow... what a nice camera you have!!! LOL. But really, thanks for sharing those Its nice that it has those capabilities in the right hands.

I am going to check it out, I am afraid that I am going to go a little nuts not being able to do full manual, but I'm sure I will live. I just worry about it exposing for the wrong areas.

 

[Nena2007]

Just saw your discription - got distracted with the photos. Thanks for detailing all of the differences for me. I am a professional photographer, I shoot a 5dmkii and usually a 50 1.2 or 70-200 2.8. It sounds like either of those would be a good fit, the longer focal length of the RX10 sounds interesting for me, as sometimes you just can't get as close as one would like. Thanks again!!!

 

[havoc315]

Wow... what a nice camera you have!!! LOL. But really, thanks for sharing those Its nice that it has those capabilities in the right hands.

I am going to check it out, I am afraid that I am going to go a little nuts not being able to do full manual, but I'm sure I will live. I just worry about it exposing for the wrong areas.

The RX cameras are designed with the enthusiast in mind. They allow for full manual control. Manual focus even includes focus peaking, though I find that manual focus doesn't work great.
There is a ton of customization as well.

In fact though, I find there the RX100 is better designed for manual control than most entry level dSLRs. Even the pop-up flash is better than dSLRs (It can be tilted upwards with your finger for a bounce effect).

As a professional, you'll be able to get a ton out of the RX100 or the RX10. The RX10 is a bit "big" -- Can't make a constant 2.8 lens for a 1 inch sensor too small. It's smaller than a dSLR, but much bigger than most compacts/bridge cameras.
The RX100 is small enough for a pocket.
The RX10 also added top tier video functions, though that's not my cup of tea. (The RX100 has pretty darn good video as well, but the RX10 was designed as an option for professional videographers).

 

[trickiwoo]

I got myself a Sony NEX camera for situations when I wanted better quality than a point and shoot, but a smaller/lighter camera than my DSLR. I couldn't be happier! It's a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera that fits in a purse or large pocket. The picture quality is fantastic, and it is amazing at capturing images in low-light!

 

[havoc315]

I got myself a Sony NEX camera for situations when I wanted better quality than a point and shoot, but a smaller/lighter camera than my DSLR. I couldn't be happier! It's a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera that fits in a purse or large pocket. The picture quality is fantastic, and it is amazing at capturing images in low-light!

Well... That's because it is a dSLR, at least where it matters. They use dSLR sensors. The a7r uses basically the same sensor as the Nikon d800.
But unfortunately, since they use large sensors, they also typically need large lenses. There are some pancake and collapsible lenses. But your longer telephoto lenses, they will be the same size as dSLR lenses. To keep it totally compact, you need to stick to the range of the smaller lenses, which aren't the highest quality.

Certainly, there are some people who use both. But for most shooters, there would be no reason to have a dSLR and a NEX. They basically are the same thing but with a different viewfinder and focus system. (And Sony dropped the NEX name, they now go by a3000 (dSLR style), a5000, a6000, a7 (24mp ff)and a7r(36 mp ff))

 

[DisneyPeanut]

Just found this thread and very interested in the rx100. Were those pictures photoshopped in any way?? They are beautiful!!! Now to just decide if I want the rx 100 or the rx 100 ii

 

[HPS3]

I'm probably the only one in the fuji camp. If you want that old style manual control with shutter dial, aperture rings etc., get a Fuji. The Sony A6000 would also be a great choice. A lot of shooters have moved to Fuji from the 5DII and think the files are better in shadows and noise. Jpegs are amazing and usually rival processed RAW files.

 

[Animagic!]

The RX100 series cameras certainly get rave reviews. They are pretty popular among enthusiasts. They certainly are compact and portable.

I recently was faced with essentially the same choice this past week. I took a long hard look at the Fuji x100 and x100s. All things considered the x100s is an amazing camera, depending on your level of understanding regarding exposure and manual settings. It's JPEGs are remarkable. It has a fixed 23. f/2 lens but I see that as a plus. The compact, interchangeable lens Fujis are supposedly pretty great cameras. From the reviews they appear to be great; however, I have never used one.

I settled on the Sony a6000. It is small, light, compact, and has a very nice sensor. The EVF and Focus Peaking are wonderful features in a compact camera. I've used Focus Peaking with wonderful success. Personally, I want the ability to change out my lenses. I'd much rather have a few compact lenses than a fixed zoom like the RX100. I'd prefer a fixed wide aperture prime over a slower zoom, but that's just me. The a6000 body is $599. With a very small power zoom kit lens it's $799. The a6000 was the best choice for me. However, as a single guy without kids the a6000 is a back up/light packing camera. It's supplemental to my full frame a99 and larger lenses. I frequently carry two bodies on me when I'm in the parks, so I'm in a different situation than you are. But the a6000 is a great compact choice for $599.

 

[havoc315]

Just found this thread and very interested in the rx100. Were those pictures photoshopped in any way?? They are beautiful!!! Now to just decide if I want the rx 100 or the rx 100 ii

I'd either save money and go with the rx100, or go all out for the rx100iii.
The iii has some nice advantages: faster wider lens and EVF.

A couple of my photos are jpegs straight out of the camera, but most were shot in raw and processed in lightroom.