Alternative to DSLR

[localgroup]

Hey everyone,

I am looking to buy a camera for my trip to Europe this summer. Bare with me as I haven't purchased a camera in 8 years and am now just starting to get in to photography. I know lots has changed in the camera world so I am trying to get caught up on reading.

I don't want to lug around a DSLR, and I don't want a point and shoot (that's what my phone is for) so I am considering the Canon SX50HS. My budget for a non DSLR is $500.

Just need a camera that has :

- HD video
- Good zoom
- Ability to take pictures quickly (Is this what the shutter speed/lag refers to?)
- Some sort of image stabilization (always hated blurry pictures)

I was considering the Canon SX50HS. Thoughts?

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/produ...ad0c2fe65den02


Also, mirror less cameras seemed interesting.

Open to any suggestions/feedback.

Thanks!

[ga16i]

Is that bridge camera really that different from carrying a DSLR?

Not sure what you had in mind for point and shoot, but the wife has been loving her SX260 and the SX230 before that.



I think it's got reasonable HD video, zoom is not as nice as what you posted, but it's still 500mm equivalent. Turns on quick and has IS.



Edit: DAMN IT! I don't know how to embedded Youtube videos on Beyond.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21VI...Etj7w&index=45

[localgroup]

ya I guess I was mainly drawn to the SX50HS because I thought the zoom was cool, but really I can't see myself taking full advantage of it very often.

Now that I think of it, a smaller, more compact camera is ideal for me. That SX260 looks great. I am also considering the Cyber-shot DSCHX30.

There are so many cameras within my price range. Hard to make a decision hah.

[Mitsu3000gt]

If you want to take pictures quickly, and have fewer blurry photos, you've just ruled out every single P&S camera.

Definitely look into Mirrorless if you want performance in a small package.

The problem will be staying under your budget, and getting a "good" zoom, depending on what your definition of that is. More zoom typically means bigger lens. If you want ridiculous zooms in a tiny package, your only option is a P&S but it will suck at everything else you want it to do.

Have a look at the Panasonic GF/GX series, Nikon 1 series, Sony NEX series, and Olympus PEN series and see if anything piques your interest.

If you're going all the way to Europe, I wouldn't compromise on a camera - you can always sell it when you get back if you overspend if it's that big of a deal.

[blitz]

Bump that number up a bit and you can get a Sony RX100. P&S, great lens, large sensor, fast AF.

Long zooms are over rated.

[ga16i]

But if you want "good zoom" on mirrorless, you're probably no smaller than the SX50HS and would likely end up with a lot less zoom. Always a trade off between size, and zoom.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by blitz
Bump that number up a bit and you can get a Sony RX100. P&S, great lens, large sensor, fast AF.

Long zooms are over rated.

I had forgot about the RX-100. That might be a decent compromise. What's the shot-to-shot time like though? That's usually where even the high end P&S fall short.

[ga16i]

Originally posted by blitz
Bump that number up a bit and you can get a Sony RX100. P&S, great lens, large sensor, fast AF.

Long zooms are over rated.

Sensor size at least according to those happy with Nikon 1 series VS APS-C is over rated
Depending if OP is into wildlife, birding or pervert voyeur photography, a long zoom is essential.
Comparing 400mm vs 500mm EFL isn't a big difference, but 100mm vs 400~500mm is huge.

OP: why do you want a big zoom anyway?

[blitz]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


I had forgot about the RX-100. That might be a decent compromise. What's the shot-to-shot time like though? That's usually where even the high end P&S fall short.

10 fps with a buffer for about 12 I think.

Originally posted by ga16i


Sensor size at least according to those happy with Nikon 1 series VS APS-C is over rated
Depending if OP is into wildlife, birding or pervert voyeur photography, a long zoom is essential.
Comparing 400mm vs 500mm EFL isn't a big difference, but 100mm vs 400~500mm is huge.

OP: why do you want a big zoom anyway?

Sensory is the same size as the Nikon 1

I think the 1" sensors are just about perfect for casual users. Good balance between camera size, DOF and ISO.

I think all people who are new to the photography game lust after longs zooms "just because". I know I did. Truth is, most cheap camera's suck at long focal lengths anyway (optical quality, focus speed, and aperture), especially if he's into wildlife/birding/voyeur stuff.

[laser05]

EDIT: Same user as localgroup, have two accounts because I forgot my password years ago, doh.

The zoom isn't as important. Its probably just the kid in me that thought it would be cool.

I have been searching a lot and it seems there is a trade off to make. Either I can up my budget and get a smaller camera or I can keep my budget and get a bigger camera. I am leaning towards the latter. Right now I don't feel comfortable spending $700(RX100 - although is an amazing camera), which is getting towards entry level SLRs

The Nikon J1 has some great specs but it has 3200 ISO which seems low, no ?I should of mentioned low light shooting was also a concern.

Other then this Europe trip the camera will mostly be used for scenery shots while hiking and camping. It seems as if I will eventually have a few cameras to choose from for different situations, but at this time I just want an overall good camera.

Thanks for the input so far everyone.

[ga16i]

Originally posted by laser05
EDIT: Same user as localgroup, have two accounts because I forgot my password years ago, doh.

The zoom isn't as important. Its probably just the kid in me that thought it would be cool.

I have been searching a lot and it seems there is a trade off to make. Either I can up my budget and get a smaller camera or I can keep my budget and get a bigger camera. I am leaning towards the latter. Right now I don't feel comfortable spending $700(RX100 - although is an amazing camera), which is getting towards entry level SLRs

The Nikon J1 has some great specs but it has 3200 ISO which seems low, no ?I should of mentioned low light shooting was also a concern.

Other then this Europe trip the camera will mostly be used for scenery shots while hiking and camping. It seems as if I will eventually have a few cameras to choose from for different situations, but at this time I just want an overall good camera.

Thanks for the input so far everyone.

Since OP will likely be more interested in dark fetish dungeons in Europe, a large'ish sensor like the R100 or something from the mirrorless camp seems more appropriate. Their relative small size will be easier to conceal and operate with one hand.

[blitz]

Originally posted by laser05
The Nikon J1 has some great specs but it has 3200 ISO which seems low, no ?I should of mentioned low light shooting was also a concern.

It depends. ISO 3200 with a slow lens isn't great for low light stuff, but ISO 3200 with a fast lens will be fine.

That's the reason I'd recommend the RX100 over the Nikon, the RX lens is f1.8 at it's 28mm equivalent (fully zoomed out) which is where you'll probalby be using it at night and indoors. To get the same versitility out of a mirrorless, you'd need to buy body + kit lens + fast wide prime which is pretty expensive.

[msommers]

Just to throw in a curve ball...what about the Panny DMC-FZ200K? My parents used this when they went to South America and I was pretty impressed with the shots on the short and long end.

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/DMC-FZ200K

When I was in Europe, I think I had a very select few shots that weren't wide. High ISO performance would be really nice, there are plenty of places where it would have been handy - churches & castles being huge ones.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by laser05

The Nikon J1 has some great specs but it has 3200 ISO which seems low, no ?I should of mentioned low light shooting was also a concern.

Nothing you're looking at will look great over ISO 1600-3200 anyway, so it doesn't really matter IMO. Only the best crop sensor DSLRs or newer FF DSLRs put out very good 3200+. Most current mirrorless cameras top out around 1600-3200 as far as usability goes unless all you want is a tiny image for Facebook or something, or heavy post processing. With the P&S cameras you were originally looking at, they start looking pretty bad above ISO 200-400, even though they often advertise ISO 6,400- 12,800 capability. At that point it's strictly a marketing ploy, so don't pay too much attention to things like megapixels or maximum ISO.

A faster lens can make up for worse ISO capability as well, for example F2.8 lets in 4 times as much light as F5.6, so you can see how you can start to compensate that way if your camera can't shoot clean ISO 3200 or whatever.

What about something like this:
http://www.lensandshutter.com/produc...roductid=14743

Plus this:

http://www.adencamera.com/product-ov...830&Category=1

$3 over budget, and you get a fast 10mm f2.8 prime (27mm equivalent) + a stabilized 30-110mm (roughly 80-300mm equivalent).

That happens to be a very good deal, currently. That setup was originally over $1100.

For me personally, the big selling point of the 1 series is that it incorporates a similar type of AF as a true DSLR, so you can actually reliably track action with it. It's also incredibly responsive, and the price is very good right now. It doesn't seem like you will really need that ability though, based on your descriptions. Seems to me like you need something wide and compact.

The advantage of something like the RX100 is you wouldn't have to change lenses, and the lens will mostly retract into the body. Don't expect it to be as responsive as some of the mirrorless cameras though.

For Europe and Hiking, I really doubt you will be using much of a zoom. I used to be all worried about getting as much reach as possible, but now, unless I'm at a zoo, I just want as wide as possible.

I think you should go to a camera store and play with a few options to get a feel for size, ergonomics, and responsiveness. It might give you some better direction.

[blitz]

Pfff, 2.8 isn't fast

[Mitsu3000gt]

Don't you have an F0.95 lens or something around there? Your opinion doesn't count

[clem24]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Most current mirrorless cameras top out around 1600-3200 as far as usability goes unless all you want is a tiny image for Facebook or something, or heavy post processing. With the P&S cameras you were originally looking at, they start looking pretty bad above ISO 200-400, even though they often advertise ISO 6,400- 12,800 capability. At that point it's strictly a marketing ploy, so don't pay too much attention to things like megapixels or maximum ISO.

I've used 12,800 on my Panasonic GX1. Sure it might look noisy on my 30" screen, but I printed a pic on my little Canon 4x6 dye sub and it looked absolutely fantastic. I've also resized for facebook with minimal ill effects.

For all you pixel peepers out there, 12,800 will look like absolutely shit. For all you photographers out there interested in capturing the moment, 12,800 on my GX1 is awesome!!

But yeah, 12,800 ISO and f/1.7 = win. Seriously though, back in the day, who carried around film that was more than 800 ISO?

[dragonone]

LX7 is at a great price right now. Same with some used GX1's on amazon.com if you plan on getting lenses. I'm all for Olympus's IBIS tho.