what camera to buy, needs to be compact for travelling

[fjrabon]

DSLRs have certain advantages:
- Reliable Autofocus even with action and lowlight
- Optical viewfinder; can be used indefinitely with no current useage (important for example for wildlife photography), no lag, especially also not in low light, no problems with artificial light (flickering problems), doesnt dazzle photographer by being too bright in low light etc
- Minimal current useage and thus very high number of images per battery possible; also no unnecessary heating of the image sensor
- Very reliable, well established product lines from Canon and Nikon; its quite safe to think these will persist
- Extreme abundance of quality lens offerings, with only few stinkers in between
- Large secondary producer market (Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, etc)
- Very large and high quality used market especially for Nikon
- Abundance of additional equipment (flashes etc) from original and other producers
- All available systems have large sensors (minimum APS-C 24x16mm "Half format").
- For all systems theres also film cameras that can use the same lenses, if wanted.
- Pentax DSLRs unfortunately are much less well supported
- Sony (previously Minolta) "DSLRs" are now a weird alternative technology with EVF

And Mirrorless have too:
- Possibly smaller, simpler construction (but needs larger batteries)
- EVF quality is independent of sensor size, offers reliable 100% view of the final image composition, cannot blind the photographer when looking into the sun, offers review of the current white balance settings and other image shortcomings, and may offer many secondary functions such as focus peaking, life histogram etc that are not possible with optical viewfinders; sometimes also ability to flip the viewfinder up [Panasonic GX7].
- Short distance between lens and sensor allows simpler and higher quality wide angle lenses (but only if the company managed to solve the technological problems associated with steep angles from such lenses, as Leica did and as Sony managed with the A7s [but really only the A7s; the A7 and A7r cannot handle more extreme wide angles]).
- Larger AF area in the image, great support for manual focusing, contrast autofocus needs no calibration and is theoretically 100% reliable in hitting focus, phase autofocus like a DSLR is possible on sensor but the technology is not working as well as with DSLRs (speed problems, often doesnt work in low light except for Canons Dualpixels), and there is also Panasonics new advanced contast autofocus that relies on knowing the current lens and its characteristics in unsharp areas.
- All companies are young, the market has fast movements such as for example the Panasonic GH4 which leaves any DSLR in the dust when it comes to affordable high quality video (internal 4K video supported, 10 bit supported if external recorder is used)

Another option:

Nikon 1 Cameras Interchangeable Lens Cameras from Nikon

I would ignore the Nikon 1 and Pentax Q systems for having an unnecessarily small sensor. Pentax Q has one because its a pretty old system; back then such small sensors gave a price advantage. But Nikon 1 has one only because Nikon didnt want to get into the Micro Four Thirds system. Their system has some advantages, but really unless you have very special demands its no good option.

Thus I really see no reason to get smaller than Micro Four Thirds. The Micro Four Thirds system has the best offer in lenses after the Canon and Nikon DSLRs offerings, and the camera bodies are impressively good as well, and most importantly the lenses are already VERY compact anyway.

If you really want even smaller, I recomment the Sony RX100 Mark II. I wont recomment the Mark III because the Mark III has a completely useless builtin EVF (that stalls when the camera is focusing) and while it offers more wide angle (a very good thing to have, no question) it also offers far less telephoto. The RX100 Mk2/3 offer the same sensor size as Nikon 1, but they have a high quality Sony sensor, while Nikon 1 technology requires special features of the inferior Aptina sensor.

There is ONE offer of Nikon thats worth a second look: the Nikon 1 AW1. This is a waterproof, shockproof, freezeproof camera for all the harsh environments. AFAIK theres only two lenses for that camera, though - a 28-75mm f3.5-5.6 zoom and a 27mm f2.8 prime. Well, as long as you want the lens and thus the whole system to be waterproof, shockproof, and freezeproof. AFAIK, for this class of camera, there is no model with higher image quality available.

I agree about mirrorless or bridge, but if size/weight are the big issue it's hard to beat some of the bridge cameras. For example the Canon G16 really is pocketable. The sensor is a little smaller than what you get on a mirrorless, but in good light/relatively low ISO you'll never notice the difference.

As a former user of the Canon G11: nope. Really isnt. Unless they changed the camera size since, of course.

You have a lot of strong opinions about cameras you've never actually seen in person (or heck, even googled), let alone used. Like the most egregious (but not only) example is commenting on the G15 without even taking the time to google it, let alone having tried to put it in your pocket. But nope, you felt compelled to go on ahead and say it isn't pocketable because you used to use a model that is 4 numbers different.

And you stated in regards to mirrorless cameras "all companies are young" which is about as wrong as can be. The companies in the mirrorless game are: Sony (1943), Fuji (1933), Panasonic (1918) and Leica (1918). 1 started basically the same time as Canon, the other three are older than Canon, two by over a decade.

 

[kepa]

OP, what is the budget?
I took the Sony RX100 mk III with me to New York and Barcelona last year, as a secondary camera, and it worked out really well. It has great image quality, good performance at higher ISO for when things start to get a bit dark, and the in-camera flash can be aimed upwards to bounce off the ceiling, rather than a direct flash that is much harsher and uglier. The pop-up EVF is great in bright conditions. I would suggest going to your local camera store and checking it out.

 

[joelie93]

I really don't have a budget, and if i went DSLR what camera should i get and what lens should i get (one all round lens)

DSLRs have certain advantages:
- Reliable Autofocus even with action and lowlight
- Optical viewfinder; can be used indefinitely with no current useage (important for example for wildlife photography), no lag, especially also not in low light, no problems with artificial light (flickering problems), doesnt dazzle photographer by being too bright in low light etc
- Minimal current useage and thus very high number of images per battery possible; also no unnecessary heating of the image sensor
- Very reliable, well established product lines from Canon and Nikon; its quite safe to think these will persist
- Extreme abundance of quality lens offerings, with only few stinkers in between
- Large secondary producer market (Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, etc)
- Very large and high quality used market especially for Nikon
- Abundance of additional equipment (flashes etc) from original and other producers
- All available systems have large sensors (minimum APS-C 24x16mm "Half format").
- For all systems theres also film cameras that can use the same lenses, if wanted.
- Pentax DSLRs unfortunately are much less well supported
- Sony (previously Minolta) "DSLRs" are now a weird alternative technology with EVF

And Mirrorless have too:
- Possibly smaller, simpler construction (but needs larger batteries)
- EVF quality is independent of sensor size, offers reliable 100% view of the final image composition, cannot blind the photographer when looking into the sun, offers review of the current white balance settings and other image shortcomings, and may offer many secondary functions such as focus peaking, life histogram etc that are not possible with optical viewfinders; sometimes also ability to flip the viewfinder up [Panasonic GX7].
- Short distance between lens and sensor allows simpler and higher quality wide angle lenses (but only if the company managed to solve the technological problems associated with steep angles from such lenses, as Leica did and as Sony managed with the A7s [but really only the A7s; the A7 and A7r cannot handle more extreme wide angles]).
- Larger AF area in the image, great support for manual focusing, contrast autofocus needs no calibration and is theoretically 100% reliable in hitting focus, phase autofocus like a DSLR is possible on sensor but the technology is not working as well as with DSLRs (speed problems, often doesnt work in low light except for Canons Dualpixels), and there is also Panasonics new advanced contast autofocus that relies on knowing the current lens and its characteristics in unsharp areas.
- All companies are young, the market has fast movements such as for example the Panasonic GH4 which leaves any DSLR in the dust when it comes to affordable high quality video (internal 4K video supported, 10 bit supported if external recorder is used)

Another option:

Nikon 1 Cameras Interchangeable Lens Cameras from Nikon

I would ignore the Nikon 1 and Pentax Q systems for having an unnecessarily small sensor. Pentax Q has one because its a pretty old system; back then such small sensors gave a price advantage. But Nikon 1 has one only because Nikon didnt want to get into the Micro Four Thirds system. Their system has some advantages, but really unless you have very special demands its no good option.

Thus I really see no reason to get smaller than Micro Four Thirds. The Micro Four Thirds system has the best offer in lenses after the Canon and Nikon DSLRs offerings, and the camera bodies are impressively good as well, and most importantly the lenses are already VERY compact anyway.

If you really want even smaller, I recomment the Sony RX100 Mark II. I wont recomment the Mark III because the Mark III has a completely useless builtin EVF (that stalls when the camera is focusing) and while it offers more wide angle (a very good thing to have, no question) it also offers far less telephoto. The RX100 Mk2/3 offer the same sensor size as Nikon 1, but they have a high quality Sony sensor, while Nikon 1 technology requires special features of the inferior Aptina sensor.

There is ONE offer of Nikon thats worth a second look: the Nikon 1 AW1. This is a waterproof, shockproof, freezeproof camera for all the harsh environments. AFAIK theres only two lenses for that camera, though - a 28-75mm f3.5-5.6 zoom and a 27mm f2.8 prime. Well, as long as you want the lens and thus the whole system to be waterproof, shockproof, and freezeproof. AFAIK, for this class of camera, there is no model with higher image quality available.

I agree about mirrorless or bridge, but if size/weight are the big issue it's hard to beat some of the bridge cameras. For example the Canon G16 really is pocketable. The sensor is a little smaller than what you get on a mirrorless, but in good light/relatively low ISO you'll never notice the difference.

As a former user of the Canon G11: nope. Really isnt. Unless they changed the camera size since, of course.

i would ignore the above recommendation of ignoring the nikon 1 system.
its worth taking a look at. very compact, the AF is fantastic, and it is extremely affordable.
they make some nice lenses for it, and it wont break the bank getting a nice setup.
as for the constant attacks on smaller sensors, its all about what you need and how much you want to pay.
I can get perfectly usable images from my J3 at ISO 2000. Sorry if some people cant do the same thing without the benefit of a larger sensor. Plus, the nikon 1 fits neatly into a pocket with one of the smaller prime lenses.

The biggest issue with the nikon 1 is that there isnt as much in the way of lens choices as there are for other systems, like the M4/3 system. there's also no hot shoe mount. But the image quality is quite good , and its probably the smallest DSLR system you can get.

its really impossible to give you any serious suggestions without knowing how much money you want to spend.
It isnt so much that there is a "bad" compact system as it is you need to decide which system fits your needs and budget. each system offers something a little different, and many have different tiers of camera bodies each costing a different amount and having different features.

 

[Solarflare]

Get an entry level DSLR of your choice from Canon or Nikon (Pentax is also an option; the usual choice is trying them out in the shop and taking what "feels" best) and one of the corresponding kit lenses. The later are as "all round" as it will ever get. There is no such thing as a true "all around lens", though. Thats why more expensive cameras are system cameras and allow changing the optics. Everything implies a cost, including (as you demanded) compactness.

The currently smallest DSLR is AFAIK the Canon 100D.

 

[Designer]

I really don't have a budget, and if i went DSLR what camera should i get and what lens should i get (one all round lens)

I went with the Nikon D5000 several years ago. That is considered an "entry level" DSLR. The more recent iteration of that model is the D5500, which has more features and costs more.

See them here: DSLR Cameras Digital SLR Camera Reviews More Nikon

It was bundled with two zoom lenses, the 18-55 and the 55-200. I use the 18-55 on my camera almost all the time. That lens goes from fairly wide to short telephoto by which I mean it's not the widest, nor the longest, but a pretty good lens for everyday shooting.

Since I've owned my camera I have purchased two additional lenses, a speedlight, a couple of tripods, and some lighting gear.

 

[petrochemist118 143]

Get an entry level DSLR of your choice...

This seems to be advice that ignores the OP's prime requirement of compactness. All too often advice given out on forums seems to be based on 'this works for me so must be the best for you'. (The remainder of Solarflares post doesn't exibit this common failing)

I certainly agree on the advantages of being able to change the lens, but where compactness is a prime requirement DSLRs are no longer the best option. Yes they have some advantages over mirrorless systems, but they also have disadvantages, and good advice should show both allowing the OP to make an informed choice.

Last week on a trip to Monaco I took my DSLR (as it's advantages are very relevant for motorsport) but instead of packing a wide angle lens for scenic shots I ended up bringing a Panasonic GF2 with 2 small primes (17mm 2.8 & body cap fisheye). This micro 4/3 combination was actually smaller & lighter than the wide angle DSLR lens I could have taken & also gave me a second body!

 

[petrochemist118 143]

The GF2 with a pancake lens fitted can fit in a shirt pocket, with the kit lens a coat pocket is possible.

i don't remember the gf2 w/ 20mm/1.7 or even 17/2.8 fitting in any of my shirt or pant pockets, but i don't have the camera handy to check on that...one of my more recent "rigs" is the fuji x-a1 w/ the 27mm/2.8 "pancake" which does remind me of my old gf2 and 20/1.7 combo but with noticeably better performance...

Perhaps the shirt pocket might be a bit of a challenge, few of my shirts have them these days, and those that do might be more generous than normal.
My GF2 with a 17/2.8 fitted spent a fair bit of time in & out of my trouser pocket (that's pant for you in the US) last week, and when the body cap lens is fitted it's smaller still.