Having to get another camera! Which?

[E65Ross]

Had to send my Sony rx100 back under warranty and they contacted me today saying I can get a brand new camera to the same value of what I paid (£350) but the rx100 is now selling for £290.

Is there another compact camera better for the price? Or shall I just get another rx100?

Cheers

[E65Ross]

Mr Will said:

How compact do you need? There are some very good deals on the Sony a5000 at the moment.

Is the A5000 a better camera? It's list price is around £50 cheaper than the RX100....

There is this camera

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/cameras-camcorders/d...

Doesn't necessarily have to be compact but it is more preferable.

The panasonic has a bigger sensor and a wider ISO sensitivity range, but everything else seems inferior?

Edited by E65Ross on Wednesday 20th May 20:56

[E65Ross]

If looking at DSLR cameras instead....what about this?

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/cameras-camcorders/d...

Or

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/cameras-camcorders/d...

Would I notice much difference in pic quality? Thanks

[E65Ross]

Or what about bridge cameras? It seems these focus on zoom which I'm not especially fussed about. I mostly take pictures of either landscapes/scenery or cars.

Cheers

[E65Ross]

Many thanks for this very helpful post.

I think I'll end up getting the rx100. I wonder, though, whether I'll get store credit... So I'd have another £60 to spend in there, or whether it's just a case of you only get a camera and you have £350 limit.

[E65Ross]

Will probably end up getting another rx100 then!

Cheers guys.

[E65Ross]

Well.... I ended up getting a DSLR! I got a Nikon D3300 with the double lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm).

I may, in the future, invest in another compact but for now of I'm out and about I'll use the phone, but if I know I'll be taking photos then I'll use the DSLR.

Just been having a play around with it, going to take time getting used to it! First impressions are that it takes a very sharp image. The rx100 was a great camera but clearly this is another level.... But then it costs more and is about 10x the size, so it should!

[E65Ross]

V8Wagon said:

Good shout. Reckon you'll get some stunning images out of that!

Had a little play around in the back garden, the lighting was dreary (dull, overcast skies) but I must say the clarity of the images is really good. I just need to get a nice sunny day, a nice location and a few hours to really practice and get used to all the settings!

One of the most handy settings I enjoyed on the RX100 was the ability to "lock"the exposure, and then focus on another area (which may be darker, for example)....this gave some great images very easily and have found out how to do that on the D3300.

I also liked the sunset mode on the RX100 but there doesn't appear to be a separate mode for that....though if you go into "guide" mode > advanced there is an "enhance reds in sunsets" sort of mode so I'm hoping that's similar. Was 100% overcast this evening which didn't help!

I'm sure I'll start a thread asking for help soon enough

Cheers

[E65Ross]

LC2 said:

E65Ross said:

One of the most handy settings I enjoyed on the RX100 was the ability to "lock"the exposure, and then focus on another area (which may be darker, for example)....this gave some great images very easily and have found out how to do that on the D3300.

Look for the Exposure Lock button. I don't know what it looks like on a Nikon (on a Canon it's a * if I remember correctly)

E65Ross said:

I also liked the sunset mode on the RX100 but there doesn't appear to be a separate mode for that....though if you go into "guide" mode > advanced there is an "enhance reds in sunsets" sort of mode so I'm hoping that's similar. Was 100% overcast this evening which didn't help!

The best bet is to ignore the 'creative' modes and simply set up the correct exposures using the Aperture or Shutter priority modes (or delve into full manual). Capture in RAW, then apply the enhancements afterwards in your image processing suite of choice.
That way you are starting with the data as captured, rather than data as amended by Nikon's 'creative' processing and can edit it as you see fit, perhaps to something completely different from what you had originally thought/intended.

Whilst the sun is far from out I've just done some practice at a light in the room, playing around with aperture, ISO and shutter speeds as well as white balance, exposure compensation etc and you can get some very desirable shots.

Forgive my ignorance, but why shoot in RAW? I don't have any editing software at present.... I mainly use Linux and I have the gimp.... That's about it! I do use Windows 8 occasionally. Not sure I can justify the cost of photoshop just yet, as much as I'd like.

One thing I'm struggling to understand is when an aperture adjustment would be more, or less, preferable to an adjustment in the shutter speed for still shots. I understand that a slower shutter speed may be preferable if you want to show flowing water, and to compensate for more light coming in you may want a smaller aperture. But for still settings you could have a small aperture but longer shutter and I can't see how that give a different photo to a large aperture but short shutter speed..... Could anyone explain the 2 scenarios for me?

Many thanks chaps!

[E65Ross]

edit - ignore that, just found out a smaller aperture (and thus a faster shutter to get the same exposure) will lead to a better depth of field....better for scenery and so on; the opposite may be preferable for portrait images where you may want a more blurry background.

Cheers

[E65Ross]

What a fantastic summary for various scenarious! Thanks chap!!

If I'm taking a shot of something moving (eg a bird) does anyone know whether the camera will automatically focus on the subject if I have it in 3d tracking mode but keep the shutter held down (for multiple shots) whilst moving the camera to follow the subject (such as when it flies from left to right across my field of vision)

Thanks! And sorry for so many questions....you've all been so helpful

[E65Ross]

LC2 said:

You'll want the continuous servo mode which allows the camera to maintain focus as the subject moves.
You'll also want to restrict the focus area to a small group (as opposed to all focus points) or a single point *IF* you can keep the single point on the subject (which for a bird you probably won't be able to).

I don't know your camera, but if there is an option to reduce the chance of it changing focus target (say if a branch that is closer gets in the way), then you are likely to want that on too.

Perfect, thank you, sir!

[E65Ross]

Mr Will said:

It's quite rare for me to recommend buying more gear but if and when you have the money the Nikon 35mm 1.8 is a little gem. It doesn't zoom but the pay off for that it that it is tiny, very sharp and can let in more than four times as much light as your current lenses. It will revolutionise your ability to shoot indoors without flash and is well worth the ~£130 it costs.

I will look into this. I am after smaller lenses too....

I was told by the chap who sold me it "use the 18-55mm for indoors, and the 55-200mm for outdoors". Now, I'm finding that for doing scenery where you want to get lots in the 18-55mm is better. If you're trying to shoot something a little further away then the 200mm is clearly better. Does anyone know what 200mm works out in terms of zoom?

I see people on here do some amazing shots with what appears like a very wide angle, and get an awful lot in view... Is that a small lens (eg smaller than 18mm)? Or something else?

Many thanks!