Upcoming vacation - which small camera?

[Light Guru]

Yes by itself, my phone is my day to day camera. Add a bulky case and lenses I have to take off and put back on, and now I don't have a dedicated phone or a dedicated camera. Sure I can talk or text on the phone with the case and lens attached, but if I want to use it as a camera, have to keep lens attached and in hand. If I want to put it in my pocket, have to take the lens off, store that in its little bag in a separate pocket. If I want to put it on my mount in my truck my for GPS have to take the lens off and store it, take the case off, then use it, but if I see something I want to take a good picture of driving by, I've got to take it off the mount, put it in the case, attach the lens and then shoot. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that I'd be able to catch anything candid that way. It is essentially the exact same things as keep your DSLR in your back seat in its bag with no lens attached. Imagine passing your phone to your kid or neice/nephew so that they can play a game. Or to your friends/family to share pictures or a video or whatever. Would you want to hand it over with the lens attached? Probably not, so yet another reason to take it off and store it.

It doesn't make sense for me to use my phone as my camera beyond little snapshots I don't care all that much about. I have to ask, do you sell/manufacture these things? You sure do push them pretty hard.

I don't think you under stand you DONT have to take a case off to use external lenses (only the crappy ones). You would miss any candid moment any way by pulling out a point and shoot and powering it on. Why would you have yo take a case off to mount a phone in the car? Sounds like more of a bad car mount. I use a mount like this Amazon.com: The Original Patented InfiniApps Slyde CD Slot Mount for Smartphones, Cradle-less Universal cell phone holder with Quick-snap technology, magnetic cell phone mount for iPhone 6, 6 Plus (6+), 5S 5 4S, Galaxy S5 S4, Note 3: Cell Phones & Accessories and my phone can come off instantly at any time. My case never comes off the phone even when I use the additional lenses.

I think you have just already made up your mind that the iPhone can't produce good images and that its not convenient. The iPhone takes just as good of pictures and is just as convenient (if not more so) as a point and shoot camera. Im not saying its the best camera, I'm just saying its just as good as a point and shoot.

 

[jtyson]

No I know those lenses you pitched are used with the case. The only time I would need to take the case off is to use it on my GPS mount in my truck. Good luck with a magnetic or sticky holder hanging onto the phone when I'm off road or in the backwoods. I not only use my mount for GPS, but for hands free use with my phone, so it is necessary for it to be there.

I do not feel at all that my iphone can't take good pictures. For what it is, it takes awesome pictures. With lenses I'm positive it could be a pretty good alternative to a P&S, but the convenience just isn't the same. And the cost doesn't justify it being a better choice than a dedicated camera. $300 in lenses and case doesn't make sense when I could spend $150 more and have an a5000.

 

[LakeFX]

I'm generally with jtyson on this. While I don't have an iPhone, my android phone can be slow to load the camera app and is often sluggish to use depending on what else I've been using my phone for.

 

[jtyson]

I have to play devil's advocate a bit here. I've been an iPhone guy for the last 3 or 4 years I guess. I decided to try the Galaxy S4 when it came out. I used it for a month or two before I got rid of it, simply because the camera was far too slow to load and to take pictures, especially in rapid succession. I'm currently using the iphone 6+ and the camera on it is excellent compared to the Samsung, LG and HTC cell phone cameras I have played with.

With that being said, my reason for not wanting my phone to be my camera is the same reason I don't want my car to also be my house. Just because I could sleep in it pretty well, doesn't mean it is the best choice. Multipurpose is not always the best answer. In this case, a dedicated camera is a far more practical option for me. Maybe not for everyone, but for me. Some people love sleeping in their Vanagons.

As far as the camera search goes today, I was in a different Best Buy looking for a new TV (As suggested) and thought I would check out the cameras just to see if there was anything I was interested in. I decided to try out a few that actually turned on and weren't totally trashed.

RX100 mk3 - I actually really like this as far as size and function went. I stumbled through playing with the shutter priority mode. Tried aperture but couldn't figure out how to change it. Tried complete manual and had no idea what I was doing. The zoom was where I felt cheated. I don't know why, but 70mm seemed like far less than 55mm on the D5300 I also looked at. Of course, in Best Buy, it is hard to get a feel of how much reaching out you would really like to do.

D7100 w/18-200 Nikon VR lens. WHOA! That thing is a tank. I figured it was near in body size to the d3100 I had. Boy was I wrong. I was sort of thinking maybe I should just suck it up and get a DSLR and carry a backpack. Yeah it sucks but hey, awesome pictures. However, I will say, if I did decide to do that, it definitely wouldn't be that camera. Just plain too huge.

D5300 w/18-55 Nikon VR lens. Familiar. I liked it well enough. But it is big enough to make me not want it....I think.

Canon 60D - Unknown lens (I didn't pay attention). I like the layout of the canon cameras better. Just feel more natural to work with. However, still a GIANT camera.

A6000 - This one was kinda messed up. The LCD screen had everything looking monochromatic, and the EVF was the same. But I could take a picture and review it just fine. I'm comfortable enough with this camera that it might be a tolerable large. How would this perform with the 16mm prime I have for my NEX-3? My concern with going this route is that I know how expensive good lenses are for these cameras and the used market is slim to none, unless I want to use an adapter and manually focus everything and what not, which I'm not good enough, nor tolerant enough for.

So my dilemma today was price. $799 for the RX100 mk3. $699 for the A6000. The more capable camera is cheaper... however the more capable camera is also much larger. They didn't have an a5000 for me to check out, otherwise I would have thrown that one in the mix too.

I think that in the next couple days I'm going to try and find a real camera store and check out the a5000, a6000, RX100 mk3, Lumix LX100.

What about super zoom cameras? Some of them aren't much bigger than the a6000 with the kit lens on there. Are there any decent ones out there?

 

[iolair]

Canon 60D - Unknown lens (I didn't pay attention). I like the layout of the canon cameras better. Just feel more natural to work with. However, still a GIANT camera.

If you like the Canon layout, maybe the 100D; significantly smaller than the 60D. You could go for two lenses - the new 24mm f/2.8 STM is tiny and good for general photography; then a wide-ranging zoom for everything else. The 100D layout isn't quite as nice as the xxD series though

 

[jtyson]

I was at Costco today and thought I'd check their cameras. They had the A5000 and A5100. Played with both a bit and I preferred the A5100. Though I don't know if that would warrant the extra $200. I didn't check anything on it to see what the differences were, but with the same settings, the A5100's pictures seemed a pinch better. Granted I was snapping pictures of strangers in Costco so not exactly fantastic test subject matter. Both of those cameras were definitely larger than a pocket camera would be considered in my book, but I could possibly cram one with the 16-50mm or the 16mm prime in a pocket. I would like to see them side by side next to the A6000 for a size comparison.

 

[rudimaes]

The A5100 has the same sensor as the A6000, but is smaller and lighter.
Here you can compare the size:
Compare camera dimensions side by side
Rudi

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

I had the A6000 a few times, it takes excellent photo`s but i could not get the AF to focus on a moving target moving closer to the lens, almost all out of focus, which is strange when i have seen some of the beautiful photo`s of moving dogs and alike.

My biggest disappointment was the built in flash does not seem to auto adjust the output low enough for close portraights or selphies compared to my Nikon or the Fuji i have had.

John.

 

[jtyson]

John, do you have a suggestion other than the A6000?

I like that size comparison website. Just wish they had technical details too. What is it that makes the A6000 worth more than the A5100?

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

My suggestion was a bit too big for you, but you would get the best full auto photo`s with the Nikon S1 it can take fullhd video and photo`s at the same time, see if you can get a reconditioned or a used one with a 10-30mm lens for the IS.

The A6000 has a nice EVF and a good autofocus system supposedly, it`s 24mp photo`s are very nice.

John.

John, do you have a suggestion other than the A6000?

I like that size comparison website. Just wish they had technical details too. What is it that makes the A6000 worth more than the A5100?

 

[jtyson]

Oh sorry, I seemed to have already forgotten earlier replies! I had taken down some notes on camera suggestions and must have either crossed that one off the list or forgot to put it on there all together.

I think at this point, I'm leaning towards the A6000, A5100 or RX100 MK3. However, I still want to put hands on an LX100. I'm also considering looking at an RX10. Larger and definitely not pocketable, but much more flexible than anything else without having to swap lenses. I was reading quite a few good reviews as well.

I'm also concerned though that if I am going to be buying something that isn't pocketable at all, am I doing myself a disservice by not just buying another DSLR?

If you couldn't tell, I really like to over complicate things. Every time I hold the RX100, I like it because I know I would take it so many places because it would easily fit in my pocket. But I also know that I would feel like I'm missing out on a lot with such a limited zoom range. The A6000 is awesome, but it is still a full blown camera with full blown features that I admit I am not all that fond of, but I feel like for $100 less than the RX100, it would be stupid of me not to go that route. Especially considering I already have a prime lens that would work on it too.

Part of me wants to buy both the A6000 and the RX100. But that is an absurd amount of money for someone to spend that isn't all that serious about photography

 

[LakeFX]

All of those things are tradeoffs. In the end what matters most is how many of your needs it meets and what you are willing to sacrifice for it. I went through a similar process a few months ago deciding between the a6000, a5000, mft system, and rx-100. In the end, the a 500 is a touch bigger than I really wanted and doesn't have the evf the a6000 does. But, it is small enough to fit in a jacket pocket, easily uses adapted legacy lenses that have opened a new world of affordable glass to me, has a great sensor, and the manual controls work pretty well. Not everything I wanted, but the best combination available. The price of $300 for the kit really got me to take the leap because it is cheap enough that I can replace it when I decide I want something different and with adapted lenses, I won't even need new glass.

 

[jtyson]

I am seriously trying to get into a camera shop to check these things out side by side in good condition, but my schedule hasn't allowed it.

When you mention legacy glass I'm assuming you just mean any old lenses with the appropriate adapters? If I were to get into photography more seriously, that may matter more to me then, but not so much now. I barely want to hassle with setting things in camera, let alone attempting to twist rings and manually focus.

 

[LakeFX]

Yeah, that's what legacy glass means. Obviously my needs are different than yours. I was just pointing out the tradeoffs and what I was willing to compromise to get the other features I wanted.

 

[jtyson]

I used to hunt yard sales and pawn shops for old Minolta lenses that would work with my Sony A55. I had 3 of them when I sold it. Of course they were fully functioning AF and such, but still, I get the appeal of the ability to use older lenses as well. It's a shame that Sony didn't stick with the A-mount throughout. Sure the chunky plastic kit lenses are huge, but a lot of the vintage minolta glass was much smaller and obviously more robust and well made.