£200 travel camera?
Discussion
Canon Eos-M from Argos probs the best thing you can buy new for £200 at the moment maybe? Small camera but the 18-55 lens doesnt retract so still takes up a bit of space but wont be a chore to lug around like a DSLR.
Could look second hand at maybe something like a Lumix GX-1 etc. Similar sort of thing to the EOS-M but wont be new these days.
Some of the premium compacts worth a look as well though like the Lumix LX-7, Olympus XZ-2 etc. Might be able to get a second hand Sony RX100 for that as well. All of these retract their lenses to make them great to store.
Could look second hand at maybe something like a Lumix GX-1 etc. Similar sort of thing to the EOS-M but wont be new these days.
Some of the premium compacts worth a look as well though like the Lumix LX-7, Olympus XZ-2 etc. Might be able to get a second hand Sony RX100 for that as well. All of these retract their lenses to make them great to store.
Mr Will said:
Why? A CSC in automatic will out-shoot a compact in automatic.
But to a degree that's going to be noticeable for holiday snaps?I personally would consider a decent compact that'll shoot well in auto, have a wider focal range and more sharing options. Most people aren't going to be making wall-wide canvas's out of their travel photo's - they'll be for social media consumption and for the preservation of memories. So is slight difference in quality from photo's shot in auto going to get as much real world use as the other features that a good compact will offer instead?
I suppose that's a question that only Rogue or his friend can answer.
I'm not knocking the EOS-M incidentally, just suggesting that it's horses for courses - rather than the MX-5 of cameras.
tenohfive said:
Mr Will said:
Why? A CSC in automatic will out-shoot a compact in automatic.
But to a degree that's going to be noticeable for holiday snaps?I personally would consider a decent compact that'll shoot well in auto, have a wider focal range and more sharing options. Most people aren't going to be making wall-wide canvas's out of their travel photo's - they'll be for social media consumption and for the preservation of memories. So is slight difference in quality from photo's shot in auto going to get as much real world use as the other features that a good compact will offer instead?
I suppose that's a question that only Rogue or his friend can answer.
I'm not knocking the EOS-M incidentally, just suggesting that it's horses for courses - rather than the MX-5 of cameras.
A compact in auto will deliver roughly the same quality as a mobile phone. A CSC in auto will deliver roughly the same quality as a DSLR (also in auto). They will offer all the same features as a compact, there is no sacrifice there. All you give up is portability and a bit of zoom range.
Now don't get me wrong, good compacts have their place and their advantages. They are great if you want something with manual control that will fit in a pocket (that's why I own mine) but as a one camera, easy to use, do it all solution they have been surpassed now CSCs have fallen in price.
Mr Will said:
A compact in auto will deliver roughly the same quality as a mobile phone.
I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I've got one of the better cameras on my mobile phone out there and my S110 - an old compact - blows it out of the water on IQ. It also has a fair degree of optical zoom, something a mobile phone doesn't have, and can connect to my mobile phone or laptop wirelessly allowing near instant sharing through social media.Your comment may be true of low end compacts, but certainly not your RX100 and equivalent compacts.
I'd love a decent CSC like the EOS for my uses, but if it were someone I know that wasn't going to take it out of auto I know what I'd be recommending.
tenohfive said:
Mr Will said:
A compact in auto will deliver roughly the same quality as a mobile phone.
I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I've got one of the better cameras on my mobile phone out there and my S110 - an old compact - blows it out of the water on IQ. It also has a fair degree of optical zoom, something a mobile phone doesn't have, and can connect to my mobile phone or laptop wirelessly allowing near instant sharing through social media.Your comment may be true of low end compacts, but certainly not your RX100 and equivalent compacts.
I'd love a decent CSC like the EOS for my uses, but if it were someone I know that wasn't going to take it out of auto I know what I'd be recommending.
The RX100/G7X is a step up in quality again, yes, but you won't get either of those for £200 and they are still inferior quality to the slightly larger compact systems, which also undercut them on price.
Wifi is by no means exclusive to compacts, it's found on CSCs and DSLRs these days, and if your camera doesn't have it then it can be added via a wifi card. Still less convenient than just taking it on a phone in the first place though.
The only plus point I see for the compact is size, but I don't think that's a priority here.
Mr Will said:
I have an S110 too, so know it well. If I just leave it in auto my phone (Z1 compact) gets close to the same image quality. Certainly enough that it's hard to tell them apart at web-sizes. The advantages over the phone are the zoom and the controls, but the latter are irrelevant if you're just going to leave it in auto.
The RX100/G7X is a step up in quality again, yes, but you won't get either of those for £200 and they are still inferior quality to the slightly larger compact systems, which also undercut them on price.
Wifi is by no means exclusive to compacts, it's found on CSCs and DSLRs these days, and if your camera doesn't have it then it can be added via a wifi card. Still less convenient than just taking it on a phone in the first place though.
The only plus point I see for the compact is size, but I don't think that's a priority here.
If we were to agree that for web purposes that a modern mobile is sufficient, and a compact unquestionably has an improvement over a mobile - it makes a CSC even more overkill in the IQ stakes.The RX100/G7X is a step up in quality again, yes, but you won't get either of those for £200 and they are still inferior quality to the slightly larger compact systems, which also undercut them on price.
Wifi is by no means exclusive to compacts, it's found on CSCs and DSLRs these days, and if your camera doesn't have it then it can be added via a wifi card. Still less convenient than just taking it on a phone in the first place though.
The only plus point I see for the compact is size, but I don't think that's a priority here.
How much optical zoom does your Z1 Compact have? We all know that for mobiles you zoom with your feet or you don't zoom. (By co-incidence I have a Z1 - Sony did good.) People want to be able to zoom, it's easier and given a choice they'll take a snap rather than seriously move about to compose an image.
Again, a compact has a wider (relative) focal range than your CSC with an 18-55, right? Which is quite convenient for most people.
And whilst CSC can have wifi, or have it added (at extra cost) - keeping it on topic, does the EOS-M have it? The compacts being mentioned do.
Compacts are marginally easier to use and offer some different features, and I think for the non-photographer those factors offset the difference in IQ which - if I'm correctly interpreting your post above - we agree isn't going to be noticeable for most people. No one camera does everything, compromises need to be made somewhere.
We're photographers, we know the better the image the more we can do with it. Chasing that purist approach of the best quality is natural for us - but most people aren't photographers, they're snappers. They're documenting the moment rather than trying to create a kind of art. So most people have different needs.
tenohfive said:
If we were to agree that for web purposes that a modern mobile is sufficient, and a compact unquestionably has an improvement over a mobile - it makes a CSC even more overkill in the IQ stakes.
I don't agree the compact has a significant improvement in quality. Both have similar sensors and both have high quality, fast (f/2) lenses. In fact, the phone has more modern versions of both. Where is the compact getting it's advantage from?tenohfive said:
How much optical zoom does your Z1 Compact have? We all know that for mobiles you zoom with your feet or you don't zoom. (By co-incidence I have a Z1 - Sony did good.) People want to be able to zoom, it's easier and given a choice they'll take a snap rather than seriously move about to compose an image.
None, but then you know that. I've already chalked zoom up as an advantage to the compact.tenohfive said:
Again, a compact has a wider (relative) focal range than your CSC with an 18-55, right? Which is quite convenient for most people.
28-90mm-e for the CSC vs 24-105mm-e for the S110. A slight advantage but I don't feel a significant one, especially as the CSC has the option to go as long or as wide as you like if you're prepared to buy another lens for it.tenohfive said:
And whilst CSC can have wifi, or have it added (at extra cost) - keeping it on topic, does the EOS-M have it? The compacts being mentioned do.
The EOS-M doesn't, but the £240 Sony A5000 or the £200 Samsung do (and they're both cheaper than an S120).tenohfive said:
Compacts are marginally easier to use and offer some different features, and I think for the non-photographer those factors offset the difference in IQ which - if I'm correctly interpreting your post above - we agree isn't going to be noticeable for most people. No one camera does everything, compromises need to be made somewhere.
No, the user interface and features are almost identical. The compromise is purely on size. The difference in quality between a compact and a phone is barely noticable, but the difference between either of them and a CSC (or for that matter a DSLR) is. This is especially true indoors, or in any other condition where the light is less than perfect.tenohfive said:
We're photographers, we know the better the image the more we can do with it. Chasing that purist approach of the best quality is natural for us - but most people aren't photographers, they're snappers. They're documenting the moment rather than trying to create a kind of art. So most people have different needs.
Correct, people have different needs. If you need a camera to fit in a trouser pocket and carry every day then a compact is the only option. I have one, it's great. They also make great companions to a DSLR, giving a choice between portability and quality.I don't think that's most people though. They have a phone for everyday shots and want something better for travel or special occasions. They don't need or want the bulk and features of a DSLR, but a CSC splits the difference very nicely. It offers DSLR quality, Compact camera ease of use and stuffs in a jacket pocket or bag so you barely notice you are carrying it. They are the closest thing that exists to an 'everyman' camera.
Mr Will said:
It offers DSLR quality
And yet your everyday person using it will get no noticeably better results than using a good compact, because it's the person behind the DSLR that is able to get the most out of the technical abilities and actually attain that 'DSLR quality.'I think we're going round in circles now though. Hopefully it's not derailed the thread too much. I'm happy to agree to disagree on the subject, chances are that whatever the OP's friend ends up with he'll be happy with.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff