Change of pace - want to replace my Nikon D80 with...?

[AdvocatusD]

I've had my D80 Nikon for 7 years now and it's been great, but I find myself more reluctant to use it as time goes by.

I tend to take pictures on the fly and on the go, and I think the size is what is putting me off.

What I want is something that is smaller, but has most of the function.

I guess I'm wondering whether I should be looking at "bridge cameras" or whether I should just go for the smallest DSLR I can find?

The smallest DSLR around send to be the Canon EOS 100 SL1. Any experience of this camera?

I'd be grateful for some advice from people who might have had my thoughts?

[Simpo Two]

Smaller DSLR or top-end compact I'd say. If the former, I can't imgaine the Canon is much smaller than the Nikon so you may as well stay with the controls you know.

[Mr Will]

Avoid bridge cameras - they are just compacts in bulky bodies. Might as well get a good compact if you're going down that route.

Look at compact system/mirrorless cameras. They have DSLR sized sensors and quality but in a smaller package due to the lack of mirror and optical viewfinder (they often have an electronic one instead).

[ManFromDelmonte]

AdvocatusD said:

I've had my D80 Nikon for 7 years now and it's been great, but I find myself more reluctant to use it as time goes by.

I tend to take pictures on the fly and on the go, and I think the size is what is putting me off.

What I want is something that is smaller, but has most of the function.

I guess I'm wondering whether I should be looking at "bridge cameras" or whether I should just go for the smallest DSLR I can find?

The smallest DSLR around send to be the Canon EOS 100 SL1. Any experience of this camera?

I'd be grateful for some advice from people who might have had my thoughts?

A D3300 would allow you to keep most of your old lenses (depending on whether they are AF-S or not) and the IQ should be a decent step up, even if the handling is a step back.

[andy-xr]

Nikon 1 v2 on ebay is about £400, it's where my money would go if I wanted to drop down a bit in size and still keep some IQ

[TheRainMaker]

Don't know what your budget is but I got my hands on a Sony a7 a few months ago and I'm loving it so far.

Nice and light, smaller than a DSLR but with all the functions

[Mr Snap]

Have a look at the Fuji rangefinder type cameras, the X-100 is a bit pricey but the X-20 is under £400.

[F1JHerbert]

I use to have a Nikon D80 (bloody good camera). I recently got a new camera DSLR and I got a Sony A65 camera. As you said you wanted to go smaller. Try one of the the Bridge cameras.

[cornet]

Another vote for the Fuji X-system.

Just bought an X-E1 and very pleased with it. They are being discontinued but some branches of Currys might still have them in stock with the 16-50mm lens for £379.

[AdvocatusD]

Hi all, thanks for the contributions thus far. A little more thought and I think what I want is this in terms of priority:

1. Small size
2. Interchangeable lens
3. As much DSLR capability as possible

[Golaboots]

As usual it is all about the lenses.

I recently found myself in the same positions as yourself, with a D80 that I was leaving at home a lot.

I went for the Fuji XE-1 and kit lens. A great little camera with good performance all round.
It didn't work out for me though, if you want a long lens then its 90% as big as a DSLR but twice as hard to hold.
I sold it off and went back to Nikon DLSRs.

In hindsight it may have been best to keep both, fuji for carrying around and short focal lengths and a DLSR for sports/long lens.

[Simpo Two]

I've always found that an SLR and compact work well together. SLR for the serious stuff, compact for snaps - choose the weapon before you go.

[Mr Will]

Golaboots said:

As usual it is all about the lenses.

I recently found myself in the same positions as yourself, with a D80 that I was leaving at home a lot.

I went for the Fuji XE-1 and kit lens. A great little camera with good performance all round.
It didn't work out for me though, if you want a long lens then its 90% as big as a DSLR but twice as hard to hold.
I sold it off and went back to Nikon DLSRs.

In hindsight it may have been best to keep both, fuji for carrying around and short focal lengths and a DLSR for sports/long lens.

This is one of the places where micro-4/3rds got it right. The smaller, squarer sensor allows the lenses to be smaller than the APS-C based systems. Obviously there are other compromises involved but if I was looking to go small then m4/3 would get my money for that very reason.

For example here is the Fuji with a 28-200mm equivalent compared to an Olympus with a 28-300mm equivalent: http://camerasize.com/compact/#371.426,459.97,ha,t The Olympus has a significantly longer focal length but still comes in a lot smaller.

[marctwo]

I've been using Micro Four Thirds for a number of years. I recently had reason to lend my old Canon DSLR to a family member and just could not believe how big and heavy it was. Now I remember why I stopped using it!

The lens selection for M43 is the best out of all the mirrorless systems, although the Fuji lenses are nice too.

[cornet]

Mr Will said:

This is one of the places where micro-4/3rds got it right. The smaller, squarer sensor allows the lenses to be smaller than the APS-C based systems. Obviously there are other compromises involved but if I was looking to go small then m4/3 would get my money for that very reason.

For example here is the Fuji with a 28-200mm equivalent compared to an Olympus with a 28-300mm equivalent: http://camerasize.com/compact/#371.426,459.97,ha,t The Olympus has a significantly longer focal length but still comes in a lot smaller.

I didn't want to compromise on the sensor but wasn't fussed over a zoom lens so went for the 27mm as I prefer using prime lenses where I can anyway.

This makes it nice and compact, still won't fit in your jeans pocket though

http://camerasize.com/compact/#459.97,371.388,ha,t

[marctwo]

cornet said:

I didn't want to compromise on the sensor but wasn't fussed over a zoom lens so went for the 27mm as I prefer using prime lenses where I can anyway.

This makes it nice and compact, still won't fit in your jeans pocket though

http://camerasize.com/compact/#459.97,371.388,ha,t

Not really a fair comparison though.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#459.5,371.388,ha,t

[cornet]

marctwo said:

cornet said:

I didn't want to compromise on the sensor but wasn't fussed over a zoom lens so went for the 27mm as I prefer using prime lenses where I can anyway.

This makes it nice and compact, still won't fit in your jeans pocket though

http://camerasize.com/compact/#459.97,371.388,ha,t

Not really a fair comparison though.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#459.5,371.388,ha,t

No but my point was it is the lenses on these cameras that add the bulk. I really think that the 4/3rds system is any more practical in terms of size than the Fuiji X-system.

If you want something you can really put in your pocket then get a Sony RX100 II or III

[Mr Will]

cornet said:

No but my point was it is the lenses on these cameras that add the bulk. I really think that the 4/3rds system is any more practical in terms of size than the Fuiji X-system.

If you want something you can really put in your pocket then get a Sony RX100 II or III

It's a question of horses for courses really. If you want to go out with just one body and lens then it doesn't make a great deal of difference either way (even something like a 6D with a small prime on it isn't exactly a burden). If you want to take a body and multiple lenses, particularly if any of them are big telephotos, then it does start to matter.

Personally, I do the same as you and divide cameras in to pocketable or not. For that reason, I have a full-sized DSLR plus a decent compact - I don't think the Fuji X-System would really be any more practical (for me) than my 5D. I get tempted by a camera that splits the gap from time to time but at the end of the day I personally just don't have any need for it.

[marctwo]

Mr Will said:

It's a question of horses for courses really. If you want to go out with just one body and lens then it doesn't make a great deal of difference either way (even something like a 6D with a small prime on it isn't exactly a burden). If you want to take a body and multiple lenses, particularly if any of them are big telephotos, then it does start to matter.

Personally, I do the same as you and divide cameras in to pocketable or not. For that reason, I have a full-sized DSLR plus a decent compact - I don't think the Fuji X-System would really be any more practical (for me) than my 5D. I get tempted by a camera that splits the gap from time to time but at the end of the day I personally just don't have any need for it.

I totally agree that even a small CSC is not going to fit in a pocket. But the combination of small size and weight still means I am much more likely to take it with me rather than a larger DSLR which would gather dust at home. I have a 2 lens kit that fits into a very small shoulder bag and it's easy to carry around all day without really noticing. For pocket size I have a phone.

[cornet]

Mr Will said:

It's a question of horses for courses really. If you want to go out with just one body and lens then it doesn't make a great deal of difference either way (even something like a 6D with a small prime on it isn't exactly a burden). If you want to take a body and multiple lenses, particularly if any of them are big telephotos, then it does start to matter.

Personally, I do the same as you and divide cameras in to pocketable or not. For that reason, I have a full-sized DSLR plus a decent compact - I don't think the Fuji X-System would really be any more practical (for me) than my 5D. I get tempted by a camera that splits the gap from time to time but at the end of the day I personally just don't have any need for it.

I was torn between a compact and the Fuji. In the end I went for the Fuji, it's significantly smaller and lighter than my D600 (took it to Glastonbury and just had it clipped to my rucksack straps most of the time or in my waterproof pocket). It doesn't stand out anywhere near as much as a DSLR, nearly everyone that asked me about it thought it was an old film camera.

No it's not pocket able in the true sense but it's small enough that I will just throw it in the car/bag without thinking.