Difficult to select a new camera

[Ido]

As you like smaller cameras I think it would be worth looking at the m4/3rds system.

They are tidy, have small excellent prime and zoom lenses, can be bought with or without viewfinder and in real terms there image quality is almost as good as the aps-c based cameras you mention.

If this option is not alien to you, chime back in and I'll give few examples, then others can give proper knowledge on the subject

Not all Micro Four Thirds cameras are really tiny. Panasonic’s GM-series cameras are very, very small, and they are pocketable when very small lenses are mounted, such as the kit 12-32, or the 20 or 15 f/1.7 lenses. Maybe the 35-100 variable aperture zoom (not the f/2.8 one) is small enough, too. But if you want an entire kit that’s pocketable—including a telephoto zoom—you’d be better off with a Nikon 1 J5. If you don’t need telephoto, or “specialty” lenses, just get an RX100.

 

[jeroen81]

Thanks again for your replies!

I have considered the m3/4 system as well and I still prefer the looks of those cameras to the Sony compact camera (should that be an important factor?...) but when it comes to specs I still prefer the Sony RX100 ii to a m3/4 system because the smaller model m3/4 cameras have lower dxomark scores (lower low light scores) compared to the "bigger" m3/4 cameras like the recent Olympus OM and PEN series. The only exception is the Olympus PEN E-PM2 which is affordable as well. Although this camera has a bigger sensor which I like (not just for low light situations but also for DOF options) it is bundled with a slower kit lens (f/3.5) compared to the Sony (f/1.8) so I would think I have to add a fast prime lens to get a system that performs better in low light than the Sony. That makes the m3/4 less compact and more expensive than the Sony.

I have also considered the Olympus E-P5 because it seems to have very good specs (5 axis IBIS, good sensor specs, good build quality), but I'm not sure if the protruding lens makes it more bulky.

 

[jaomul]

The dxo scores between the current m43 sensors may vary slightly, but for the most part they are all the same or similar Sony sensors (at least the Olympus models). Not trying to talk you into m43, aps-c still have the edge in performance, but m43 has a very good price/ size and performance all things considered. EM5 by olympus go for very small money new now

 

[jeroen81]

Today I visited a camera store in order to get an idea about camera sizes. To be honest, I found most m3/4 cameras not much smaller than entry level dslr cameras. Even the Sony A6000 was comparable in size, although its kit lens could be of low quality. I still like the Sony RX100 ii camera but I find it too expensive. For the same amount of money I can buy a Nikon d5200 which has a much higher dxomark score and gives me more possibilities in future. Because most m3/4 cameras have only a slighty smaller body and lens, I prefer to go for a DSLR. My new idea is to keep my Canon Powershot S95 for longer bike trips / holidays where I need compact size, and add a bigger DSLR for smaller (day) trips. In that case I have a choise.

So my new question is what Nikon (I decided to go for Nikon) should I buy: D3300, D5200 or D5300? If I'm correct D3300 has lower dxomark score, would that be visible in the pictures? If so, D5200 is cheaper than D5300 and I don't need wifi and GPS, would there be a difference in IQ between D5200 and D5300 because of lack of OLPF?

 

[Derrel]

Finally...a critical step in your decision making process: actually going to a store, and picking up the cameras, to get an idea of what they are like as real-world objects and as photographic instruments. And yes, you're right: most m4/3 cameras are about the same size as entry-level d-slr cameras. And yes, the Sony RX100 ii is expensive. And yes, a small Nikon has a better DxO Mark score and has more future possibilities: it's a NIKON, not a Sony...it is part of a huge, decades-old system of cameras, lenses, and accessories. You've finally hit upon the realization that for bicycle trips, a pocketable type compact like the Canon S95 is a great choice, but when you need "more camera", a small Nikon is a great choice, and the entry-level Nikon bodies are priced very low.

As to the Nikon D3300, D5200, D5300, the reviewer whose reviews I trust the most online is Thom Hogan; he does not rush his reviews out, or write fluffy First Look pieces. I don't think the low pass filter elimination leads to much higher image quality unless you have exquisite lenses (Zeiss 135/2 APO, Nikkor 200 f/2 VR-G, 85/1.8 G) mounted at optimal apertures above the diffraction limit: your LENSES act as low-pass filters by default, and eliminating it saves Nikon money on every body made that way.

Nikon D5200 versus Nikon D3300 versus Nikon D5300 - Side by side camera comparison | DxOMark

NOT much difference except the 1.1 EV wider dynamic range for the D5200 and D5300 over the D3300. All of the other number differences are utterly minute. The High ISO differences are not even a third of a stop. The score differences of one to two points overall are pretty meaningless, since the scores are already so high, at above 80. Imagine the difference between opening your wallet and having 82 dollars, 83 dollars, and 84 dollars.

 

[jaomul]

Good call. M4/3 is great for me as it has a few small lenses and it's portable, but only because I have what I consider a fuller system with my Nikon dslr set up.

I still standby my statement earlier that m43 is almost as good image quality wise and recommend it if size is an issue.

However, a dslr is more competent in a lot of areas, continuous autofocus being the biggest one for me.

Of your list I'd go d5200

 

[jeroen81]

Thanks for your replies. I prefer the D5300 as it creates slightly sharper images because it lacks an AA filter, but it lacks a DOF preview button and eye sensor as well. I think this won't be a big problem but I find it a little strange that there's no DOF preview button.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Ya I mean a 1975 MK II Ford Escort is a good car but,, wait! are talking cars or TV's?. DOF preview!, so I shaved my bikini zone for nothing.

 

[jcdeboever]

Does it need to be waterproof?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Solarflare]

Consider getting the RX100 III, it has a much faster lens

Actually nope.

The RX100M2 comes with a 28-100mm f1.8-4.9 equiv

The RX100M3 comes with a 24-70mm f1.8-2.8 equiv

As you can see : the lower f-number is EQUAL.

So you can use the RX100M2 in the dark just as well as the RX100M3, as long as you're staying at 28mm (24mm for the RX100M3).

And in bright daylight, you'll have to stop them down anyway.

The difference is, as long as there isnt too much light you can get a bit more shallow depth of field from the RX100M3. Or get better chances at snapping a picture at something else but the lowest focal length. Personally I think thats not a priority for me with a 1" compact.

The main reason I can see the change as good is that f/4.9 is probably already past the diffraction limit of the 1" sensor, so a f/2.8 upper aperture is better in this respect.

Plus, 24mm instead of 28mm at the lower end is nothing to sneeze at.

But ultimately it comes down to taste. I'd rather have more telephoto.

[...] but m43 has a very good price/ size and performance all things considered. [...]

Actually neither M43 nor APS-C sensors are any expensive anymore. Thus APS-C, with its bigger performance, has the crown when its about bang for the buck.

The only good reason to get M43 is if you want small size.

[...] To be honest, I found most m3/4 cameras not much smaller than entry level dslr cameras. [...]

Thats because they have to fit into a human beings hand.

I recently tried to pick up a Fuji X-E2 in the shop and it HURT. Because I couldnt get a good grip at all and the camera was cutting me. I couldnt hold the camera straight either, not with a single hand, I could hardly keep it holding. Now the grip of my Ricoh GRD4 isnt any better, but I can hold that camera without issues because its much lighter.

Thats because I have relatively large hands and these cameras are apparently made for asian hands... ?

So yeah, theres a limit to how small you can make cameras.

 

[jcdeboever]

Speaking of grip....My S90 was painful enough to modify it, I think the S95 would be the same. Very smooth as in slippery.

One thing not mentioned though, does the op need it to be waterproof?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jeroen81]

@jcdeboever: that's a nice modification! No the camera doesn't need to be waterproof.

Today I tried a Nikon D5500 and a D5200 (unfortunately there was no D5300) and I can hold the D5500 much better than the D5200. If the D5300 has a similar fit as the D5500, I will buy a D5300.

Yesterday I borrowed a Olympus E-PM1 m3/4 camera from a friend of mine. I was surprised by the image quality: more detail and sharper images than my S95. Nice small camera. But I didn't like the small buttons. Nonetheless interesting to try and test this camera.

 

[jcdeboever]

I think they were suggesting D3300. That's what I bought, I know it takes good pictures, just not by me. I get a good one once in a while. My problem is I used to think more when using film. A good friend of mine borrowed my D3300 camera for a couple of days so I could look at his photos and their stats. I knew it was me then.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[goodguy]

Actually nope.

The RX100M2 comes with a 28-100mm f1.8-4.9 equiv

The RX100M3 comes with a 24-70mm f1.8-2.8 equiv

As you can see : the lower f-number is EQUAL.

So you can use the RX100M2 in the dark just as well as the RX100M3, as long as you're staying at 28mm (24mm for the RX100M3).

And what if I want to shoot at 70mm at f2.8 ?

 

[Ido]

If the D5300 has a similar fit as the D5500, I will buy a D5300.

The D5300 body is actually identical to the D5200. Nikon made some design tweaks and revisions with the D5500, I believe by making the body a little smaller while making the grip a little deeper.

Yesterday I borrowed a Olympus E-PM1 m3/4 camera from a friend of mine. I was surprised by the image quality: more detail and sharper images than my S95. Nice small camera. But I didn't like the small buttons. Nonetheless interesting to try and test this camera.

Keep in mind that the E-PM1 was an early attempt by Olympus to target the low-end market—basically the “point-and-shoot” users. That target audience doesn’t care about buttons and manual control. There are Micro Four Thirds cameras that are a lot better in this regard. In the Olympus lineup, it’s without doubt the OM-D series, and from Panasonic it’s the mid-range G, “upper-mid-range” GX (though the new GX8 is very much a top-of-the-line camera), and high-end GH series.