/ Which camera - £300ish budget.
Was looking to replace with the latest model, but do you think it's worth going for a bridge camera (Powershot sx50 caught my eye)?
Please feel free to reccomend other models.
Panasonic GX1. Brilliant. Go CSC over bridge.
FYI, Italian photog Gianni Galassi has (IMO) great shots, and has a great affection for the Canon G15, which he reviews here:
Ming Thien recommends the Panasonic LX7, btw. If you liked the G11, you probably will do well to replace it with its latest kin --sounds like a decent improvement to an already good camera.
Which isn't to exclude your *also* acquiring some CSC downstream --the G15 after all could be seen simply as the cost of a good CSC lens (and might serve for one end of the range, for a while).
.:. There are many good choices. The G15 should fit solidly amid considerations.
(Were I to be a "fanboy" of anything, btw, it might be the LX7 --I've the LX3, in need of upgrade (it got some damage).)
I've had a G11 and an SX10 and SX20.
A bridge camera is a lot lot bulkier than a G Series. However, there's no denying that the lens on the SX50 is remarkable, and I'm sure it's a fine camera. Another G series will give you slightly better IQ, a lot less bulk, but a less amazing lens.
If I didn't have a camera, but I had £300 to spend, I'd get a budget DSLR.
I shoot Canon, but a Nikon D3100 and kit lens can be had for less than £300:
To me. that is an amazing bargain. which will give you hugely superior IQ to either a G or SX series, with the option of acquiring further lenses, e.g. Nikon 18-300 (equivalent to 27-450mm in old money). With a bit of a search, I'm sure you'll find DSLRs with a kit lens by other manufacturers for around £300.
Then there's the 2nd hand market.....
If you are tempted by the Csc route, rather than the dslr, the main reason would be to avoid bulk. Consider buying secondhand maybe a gf1 (currently £90 with years warranty) and spending as much of your dosh on lenses. After all current top end bodies like the gx1 will be peanuts in a few years.......but you'll still be able to use the lenses.
If you lose or damage the gf1 like the G11 at least you won't be crying to much!
They are well under 300 now because the s120 is just out.
If size and weight are a major consideration you might want to consider the Sony RX100 (there was a tread on this earlier in the year with a strong recommendation from, I think, Ian Parnell). I'm pleased with mine. Larger sensor than the Canon G series (apart from the G1X of course)and I don't think anything else this small comes with comparable image quality. And the video is good too. You'll probably get better image quality with the larger micro-four thirds or APSC sensors used in CSCs but they are nowhere near as compact, especially if you add a zoom lens.
The RX100 was over £400 when I purchased but with a new version just out (not much of an improvement I think unless you want a hot shoe or Wi-Fi) I would think it may be coming down in price.
Keep clear of Panasonic. I have a Panasonic ZX1 compact with a knackered zoom, been back to the menders 3 times for same problem and still doesn't work.Have written to Panasonic but they don't give a shit and just want more money to fix it.
Last November I bought a Panasonic G5 DSLR, just taken this back to the dealers today with a touchscreen that doesn't work properly, still under warranty thankfully.
But with no camera for the next 3 weeks I'm a bit pissed off actually.
Before you go for Canon check out this forum
I know a few people with G's and all have bad lens scratches from the the lens cover as it opens and shuts I think the G15's are worse that earlier models.
Sounds like you've had a bit of bad luck. I've a Panasonic LX2 from 2006 which should be dead by now considering the abuse it's had over the years but it's still working perfectly but I'm not so sure the Canon S110 I got this summer will last the next 7 winters in damp jacket and trouser pockets.
The Canon S110 mentioned earlier is a really nice landscape camera and propped on a rock, lens stopped down and its nifty inbuilt ND filter called into action makes great long exposures for waterfalls and the like, even in the very brightest sunlight. Its WI-FI is totally useless though.
If it doesn't need to fit in a pocket, a s/h lower end Sony NEX body (older model 3's or 5's), a lens adapter and a few 30-50 year old manual lenses will be more versatile, make much better photos and cost less than £300.
I'd get a budget DSLR.
> I shoot Canon, but a Nikon D3100 and kit lens can be had for less than £300:
I wonder how you come to assess this "hugely superior IQ"?
Because the G15's distant relative the G10 got introduced by one not-so-obscure photography site's bold assertion that IT --viz, the lowly, then new & 14.7mpx, G10-- could produce prints at 13x19" that defied distinction from those from a mega-poundSterling Hasselblad med.format 39mpx gun!! --yeah, quite some claim (aptly entitled "You've Got to be Kidding!"), but one that surprisingly (IMO) drew hardly a challenge on the Luminous-Landscape forum, home of the article. (Yet when another co-owner of the site asserted that one could readily distinguish even "small prints" from any MF camera vs. those from top-end DSLRs, there were cries of outrage; there was only a slight retraction of the assertion.
.:. So, one can read all manner of things, and from folks you'd think should know (better)!
In this case, though, I think that the G15 will serve well, and probably give output equal in practical terms to the DSLR. But I don't recall the OP stating output needs.
That article was based on a single pair of photographs Michael Reichman took and printed. In low light or with distant subjects at the far end of the zoom range the IQ of the G series cameras falls apart in comparison to a DSLR. Therefore it's entirely accurate to say that the IQ is superior overall.
Anyway, I stand by my recommendation, and consider your post pointlessly argumentative drivel, which you can shove somewhere cosy.
Sony RX100 can be had for £400 now.
Large sensor, 28-100mm, shoots RAW, one of the few (the only?) compacts accepted by Alamy,
I second that, olympus cameras are amazing.
Continuing the pointlessly argumentative theme :P , that Sony is a great little camera with a larger sensor, but not really a 'large' sensor.
Sony's NEX series have 'large' sensors. In fact, the APS-C sensors used in the NEX are slightly larger than those found in most DSLR's.
Sony are expected to be selling a full frame 'NEX' pretty soon. A sensor matching the size of 35 mm negative is really large (about 7.5 times more area than the RX100).
> Continuing the pointlessly argumentative theme :P , that Sony is a great little camera with a larger sensor, but not really a 'large' sensor.
> Sony's NEX series have 'large' sensors. In fact, the APS-C sensors used in the NEX are slightly larger than those found in most DSLR's.
I was using 'large' in relative way, the one in the Sony being about 4x bigger than a 'normal' compact.
I have the RX100 and the NEX7 btw.
I knew you were, but in the true spirit of UKC, I thought I'd nitpick anyway :P I also have a NEX 7 (and a NEX 5N) and way too many ancient ebay bought 99 pence-£25 Minolta Rokkor and MD fit Vivitar lenses (now used with a Mitakon lens turbo for full frame capture). I couldn't afford an RX100 so got a 'grey market' S110 for about £215 which I quite like and hope against hope will prove as robust as the LX2.
I love the NEX 7. Mine came with an 18K shutter count for just £400 on ebay a few months ago and it's the best camera I've ever used. IMO, trinav is superb after setting up my own preferences and its OLED viewfinder beats an SLR TTL viewfinder 9 times out of 10. I've held onto the NEX 5N as its definitely less noisy in the dark and it now gets used on a polar aligned, motorised telescope mount for night sky photography.
I reckon that Alamy list of unacceptable cameras is a guideline for new users. It's pretty easy to remove exif information from an image and I'd guess that there'll be a lot of images in their catalogue that wouldn't conform to it if the truth were known.
> That article was based on a single pair of photographs Michael Reichman took and printed.
?! According to the article (mind you, I've doubts ... :o),
a series of seven people who are well-informed-photographically were invited to try to separate into piles A or B the prints (presumably paired per view, 1 from each camera), viewed up close w/scrutiny --and they couldn't do so better than chance.
> Therefore it's entirely accurate to say that the IQ is superior overall.
It was more than this, merely: "hugely superior". And there is much camera ground to cover beyond these two candidates (incl. m4/3, e.g. between them), for which one should then expect like distances of IQ, but it doesn't add up in total! (My own experience is with older versions of the pair --D40 & LX3--, and I don't see that difference (but in SOOC JPEGs only).)
Thanks for sharing, you sound cozy.
Elsewhere on the site
At a bar in Llanberis an old man chimed in And I thought he was out of his head Being a young man I just laughed it off When... Read more
Climbing Technology’s range of winter hardware continues to grow and for winter 2014 they have a crampon in the range to... Read more
This years ROCfest will be slightly different. We've decided to run a Climbing Festival, not just a competition! Over... Read more
Steve Dunning has made what is likely the tenth ascent of The New Statesman, the classic and bold gritstone arete at the Cow... Read more
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more