I'm looking for a Compact Camera (Traveling)

[Klouuse]

Hello,

first and foremost, I basically know nothing about Cameras.

I'm looking for a Compact Camera for Traveling. My Budget is about 450€

 

In case it matters, next trip is to Havanna, looking at the Culture there.

It should be good for low light and maybe be also be able to put on a lens.

[Ausfernando]

Your heart is in Havana 

havana unana

[Himommies]

What phone do you have?

[Klouuse]

1 hour ago, Himommies said:

What phone do you have?

My Dad has an S7 Edge. I own a Huawei P8 Lite.

[xQubeZx]

Find a used Panasonic LX100. 

[Himommies]

2 hours ago, Klouuse said:

My Dad has an S7 Edge. I own a Huawei P8 Lite.

Would I recommend spending another 450 on a camera then?No

 

[Klouuse]

7 minutes ago, Himommies said:

Would I recommend spending another 450 on a camera then?No

 

So you say the S7 is good enough?

[Himommies]

53 minutes ago, Klouuse said:

So you say the S7 is good enough?

Do you really want to bring another 450 allong with the 1000 your already bringing

and yes the S7 is good enough

[Klouuse]

1 hour ago, Himommies said:

Do you really want to bring another 450 allong with the 1000 your already bringing

and yes the S7 is good enough

My Dad kinda insists. So I rather find a good one than him buying a bad one.

[thekillergazebo]

A6000 with kit lens. I would say point and shoot but I haven’t used many. The a6000 is light and company and has a larger sensor then the phone so you should get better lowlight shots and can play with the depth of field more. It’s also small and light so easy to travel with. And because it’s so small you won’t bring to much attention to a larger dslr. Plus for me I don’t like using my phone Incase someone grabs it and runs. I’ve seen that a lot when I’ve traveled. 

[cc143]

other similar options include: 

 

Canon M3 with 22mm f/2 ef-m lens (pancake prime) 

 

Fuji xt10/xe2 + xf 27mm f/2.8 

 

Or, if you'd rather have something closer to a dslr which has its advantages, 

 

Nikon d3300/d3400 with an 18-55mm or a Canon SL1 or 750d with kit lens (18-55mm) or 24mm f/2.8 stm. 

 

I would advise against the a6000 due to the appauling battery life coupled with the lack of over usb charging while working, unless you also have room for 3-4 spare batteries. 

[thekillergazebo]

The a6000 even with 4 batteries is smaller then the Nikon or canon equivalent. Plus their 3rd party batteries are like $30 for 2 with the carger. So battery lift isn’t that big of a deal. I was in NYC with my a6300 for 4 days and only went through a battery aday. And I’ve always gotten more shots then what they list per battery. Only time I’ve killed a battery quicker is when I’m doing studio work, which is kinda odd.

[cc143]

6 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

The a6000 even with 4 batteries is smaller then the Nikon or canon equivalent. Plus their 3rd party batteries are like $30 for 2 with the carger. So battery lift isn’t that big of a deal. I was in NYC with my a6300 for 4 days and only went through a battery aday. And I’ve always gotten more shots then what they list per battery. Only time I’ve killed a battery quicker is when I’m doing studio work, which is kinda odd.

I owned the a6000 and have to say that battery life was even more appauling than I expected after reading about it extensively before purchasing. The a6300 is another story and I wouldn't advise against buying one, but I would certainly from own experience advise against the a6000. I thought this plagued all mirrorless cameras, until I used the xt10, where the battery life is far better. 

 

Also, 3rd party batteries are cheaper, but also last significantly less. Now nikon and canon entry level dslrs are larger, but to call them bulky is an extreme overstatement, especially coupled with a prime or pancake lens, and if you go to anything other than the kit lens on the Sony (which I believe you should because it is pretty bad optically, even for a kit lens). Also, as I mentioned they have their advantages. It is up to the OP to decide regarding the tradeoff, which is why I also gave mirrorless equivalents, however, given my own past experience at this point in time, I can't but advise against buying an a6000. 

[thekillergazebo]

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

I owned the a6000 and have to say that battery life was even more appauling than I expected after reading about it extensively before purchasing. The a6300 is another story and I wouldn't advise against buying one, but I would certainly from own experience advise against the a6000. I thought this plagued all mirrorless cameras, until I used the xt10, where the battery life is far better. 

 

Also, 3rd party batteries are cheaper, but also last significantly less. Now nikon and canon entry level dslrs are larger, but to call them bulky is an extreme overstatement, especially coupled with a prime or pancake lens, and if you go to anything other than the kit lens on the Sony (which I believe you should because it is pretty bad optically, even for a kit lens). Also, as I mentioned they have their advantages. It is up to the OP to decide regarding the tradeoff, which is why I also gave mirrorless equivalents, however, given my own past experience at this point in time, I can't but advise against buying an a6000. 

I’m am really shocked you and I have had such differing experiences with Sony. I have also owned the a6000 and it has proformed also identical in battery usuage and reliability as my a6300. And even more shocking is your experience with the 3rd party ones. I have tried two different bands and they have all done equally if not better then my Sony ones. I will say the non Sony ones don’t charge as fast though. Man I’m sorry you had such a bad time when I’m here thinking it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Hopefully the OP finds a camera that fits him well.

[cc143]

3 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

I’m am really shocked you and I have had such differing experiences with Sony. I have also owned the a6000 and it has proformed also identical in battery usuage and reliability as my a6300. And even more shocking is your experience with the 3rd party ones. I have tried two different bands and they have all done equally if not better then my Sony ones. I will say the non Sony ones don’t charge as fast though. Man I’m sorry you had such a bad time when I’m here thinking it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Hopefully the OP finds a camera that fits him well.

mate there is kind of a general concesous on the fact that anything sony made before the a9 has battery issues (I would argue even the a9 isn't that great considering its place in the market, but thats another matter). Hell, sony practically aknowledged that themselves by including 2 batteries with the a7ii and enabling over usb charging while shooting. Also, third party batteries are in general worse performing than OEM ones, hence the ability to sort of justify buying OEM at 3 times the price sometimes.

 

That's also not my only gripe with the a6000, it has some nice features on paper, but in the real world its really not that great a camera, and I would argue the same for both Sonys I have used (admittedly not a great sample size). buffer size (the fact that I cant use the damn thing for what seems like hours until it empties the buffer!), ergonomics, general useability, like the time it takes to be shot ready after turning on, coming from a dslr system, these little things make a lot of difference. Also I dont know if you've used any other remote apps, but since you've mentioned it, its fine is useable, but everything else Ive ever tried, Canon, Fuji, Nikon, they are all better, the first two miles ahead, and that is the one area Sony should really excel in. These things may seem small, but they make a huge difference in using the camera.

 

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I did say I believe the a6000 to be worse than its claimed to be, I believe I have to substantiate that claim that's it.

[xQubeZx]

9 hours ago, cc143 said:

mate there is kind of a general concesous on the fact that anything sony made before the a9 has battery issues (I would argue even the a9 isn't that great considering its place in the market, but thats another matter). Hell, sony practically aknowledged that themselves by including 2 batteries with the a7ii and enabling over usb charging while shooting. Also, third party batteries are in general worse performing than OEM ones, hence the ability to sort of justify buying OEM at 3 times the price sometimes.

 

That's also not my only gripe with the a6000, it has some nice features on paper, but in the real world its really not that great a camera, and I would argue the same for both Sonys I have used (admittedly not a great sample size). buffer size (the fact that I cant use the damn thing for what seems like hours until it empties the buffer!), ergonomics, general useability, like the time it takes to be shot ready after turning on, coming from a dslr system, these little things make a lot of difference. Also I dont know if you've used any other remote apps, but since you've mentioned it, its fine is useable, but everything else Ive ever tried, Canon, Fuji, Nikon, they are all better, the first two miles ahead, and that is the one area Sony should really excel in. These things may seem small, but they make a huge difference in using the camera.

 

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I did say I believe the a6000 to be worse than its claimed to be, I believe I have to substantiate that claim that's it.

I think the experience depends a lot of where you come from. I also own an a6000 and loves it. Sure I do have some issues with it but the things I like outweights them and is in no way stopping me from taking good images. 

 

But as said, you coming from a DSLR I can defentivly see you have issues with ergonomics and the ”speed” and things like that. And not to lie, I’d love to have a high end dslr or mirrorless but my budget doesn’t allow that. Which is important, the a6000 is objectivly a very good performer for its price. The sensor and AF are good considering what you pay for it. It will of course not compare to a high end DSLR like a 5D or D850 or a high end mirrorless as a XT2 or A7r iii. 

 

Compare it to cameras in the same price bracket and then it makes a lot more sense as it can be found for the same price as a Nikon D3400 which is a lot worse of a performer imo. 

 

But we shall not lie, the battery is pretty bad, but I carry three batteries and I’m usally fine with that considering how small they are. Ergonomics depends, I’ve got small hands so I don’t have to much of an issue but I can see that others find it a bit uncomfortable. But the raw images you get are great. I’d would however try to stay away from the kit lens. It works yes, but I’m always so much happier with my results when I use a sharper lens. 

 

Also, you often compare the XT10 to the A6000 I have seen. I get that, but there is a 200USD price difference between the two. At least where I live. 

[cc143]

2 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

 

There are things on smaller entry level dlsrs like useability that are better. After all, having the fastest AF anf 10 fps doesn't really make a difference if you don't actually need it. imo it just shows the disparity between brands like Canon or Nikon, or even Olympus that have been making cameras for decades, vs. Sony which is a consumer electronics brand and will cram the most performance they can in a small body and think that's it. In the real world though, that isn't really enough. When I first got the a6000, I came from an almost 10 year old eos 50d, and I won't lie, initially I was astounded by what seemed great performance in such a small camera (having owned a number of similarly sized, much less capable point and shoots over the years.) But that novelty wore off in like a week. Yes my hands are huge and yes I have had a lot of hours on slr and dslr cameras, much more than most, to come to appreciate what difference these small details do. 

 

I don't know if you are talking new, in which case, the xt10 is sort of discontinued, but currently in the used market in the UK (and what I've seen in the US) the xt10 is significantly cheaper. Also, there is a couple of things fuji got right that make it imo more useable than the sony, even if the AF system is inferior (although not by as much as you'd imagine). 

 

a) ergonomics work better, which is astonishing for such a small camera. Not talking dials and knobs, but actual feel in the hand and grip. 

b) it is ready to use much faster than the a6000, which means I can keep it off around my neck and it will be ready soon enough so I don't miss the shot, which makes the battery last waaay longer. 

c) The glass. Its compact affordable and exquisite (emphasis on affordable). Also, because fuji don't have a FF line, it allows them to focus more on the apsc glass. 

 

There are numerous small things that are much better on the fuji that added up make a huge difference, which is why I tend to recommend it over the a6000 for photography. 

 

Also the issue with carrying batteries is that you still have to change them, and if that happens in the middle of a video or long exposure, or time lapse or something of the sort it could prove very bad.  

 

My example from earlier, the a6000 has a 24mp sensor vs 16 and does 10 fps vs 8 (I believe not entirely sure), those differences make no sense whatsoever on such a camera, trust me you can shoot fast action with 6-7 fps, I've done it, it is simply not necessary on that camera, but Sony did it, it looks better on paper, but in practice, not that significant.

 

At the end of the day, if it works for you it does, although I guess until you have actually used something else (which you may well have) you won't know what you are missing out. I've heard seasoned pros, who shoot Canon or Nikon for years try the other and go that is so much better on Nikon and vice versa. The Sony didn't work for me, there are people it will work for. However, the modern tendency to just blindly recommend some times (not saying you've done that or anyone else here) does piss me off. It demonstrates fanboyism to an unprecedented extent. I wholeheartedly believe at this point I could go to a forum asking "I have a d700 and £10,000 of glass and am looking to upgrade the body" and have someone say what you need is the sony a whatever. Anyway this is sort of off topic, but I had to rant for a while;P 

 

Conclusion, @OP go into a store, try different things out. The on paper advantages and disadvantages of each system are mentioned here and are widely available with very little research required, members of this forum have given you part of their own experiences, see what feels better in your hands and what you prefer, think on it a bit and buy whatever you decide to buy. 

[xQubeZx]

35 minutes ago, cc143 said:

There are things on smaller entry level dlsrs like useability that are better. After all, having the fastest AF anf 10 fps doesn't really make a difference if you don't actually need it. imo it just shows the disparity between brands like Canon or Nikon, or even Olympus that have been making cameras for decades, vs. Sony which is a consumer electronics brand and will cram the most performance they can in a small body and think that's it. In the real world though, that isn't really enough. When I first got the a6000, I came from an almost 10 year old eos 50d, and I won't lie, initially I was astounded by what seemed great performance in such a small camera (having owned a number of similarly sized, much less capable point and shoots over the years.) But that novelty wore off in like a week. Yes my hands are huge and yes I have had a lot of hours on slr and dslr cameras, much more than most, to come to appreciate what difference these small details do. 

 

I don't know if you are talking new, in which case, the xt10 is sort of discontinued, but currently in the used market in the UK (and what I've seen in the US) the xt10 is significantly cheaper. Also, there is a couple of things fuji got right that make it imo more useable than the sony, even if the AF system is inferior (although not by as much as you'd imagine). 

 

a) ergonomics work better, which is astonishing for such a small camera. Not talking dials and knobs, but actual feel in the hand and grip. 

b) it is ready to use much faster than the a6000, which means I can keep it off around my neck and it will be ready soon enough so I don't miss the shot, which makes the battery last waaay longer. 

c) The glass. Its compact affordable and exquisite (emphasis on affordable). Also, because fuji don't have a FF line, it allows them to focus more on the apsc glass. 

 

There are numerous small things that are much better on the fuji that added up make a huge difference, which is why I tend to recommend it over the a6000 for photography. 

 

Also the issue with carrying batteries is that you still have to change them, and if that happens in the middle of a video or long exposure, or time lapse or something of the sort it could prove very bad.  

 

My example from earlier, the a6000 has a 24mp sensor vs 16 and does 10 fps vs 8 (I believe not entirely sure), those differences make no sense whatsoever on such a camera, trust me you can shoot fast action with 6-7 fps, I've done it, it is simply not necessary on that camera, but Sony did it, it looks better on paper, but in practice, not that significant.

 

At the end of the day, if it works for you it does, although I guess until you have actually used something else (which you may well have) you won't know what you are missing out. I've heard seasoned pros, who shoot Canon or Nikon for years try the other and go that is so much better on Nikon and vice versa. The Sony didn't work for me, there are people it will work for. However, the modern tendency to just blindly recommend some times (not saying you've done that or anyone else here) does piss me off. It demonstrates fanboyism to an unprecedented extent. I wholeheartedly believe at this point I could go to a forum asking "I have a d700 and £10,000 of glass and am looking to upgrade the body" and have someone say what you need is the sony a whatever. Anyway this is sort of off topic, but I had to rant for a while;P 

 

Conclusion, @OP go into a store, try different things out. The on paper advantages and disadvantages of each system are mentioned here and are widely available with very little research required, members of this forum have given you part of their own experiences, see what feels better in your hands and what you prefer, think on it a bit and buy whatever you decide to buy. 

Agree. OP should go to a store and try for himself as people preffer very different systems. As seen here, we have quite different opinions, which is fine. 

 

And btw I’ve tried a few cameras. I’ve tried my friends 6D quite a bit and its amazing, except for two things imo. The AF is horrific and the raw files are quite subpar compared to nikons or sonys. But as said above, peoples prefferances vary widly. Also looked a bit at the A7 and A7r a while back but I found those two way to slow even though they can be found used for ”cheap”. 

[Stagea]

On 12/10/2017 at 11:45 AM, Klouuse said:

Hello,

first and foremost, I basically know nothing about Cameras.

I'm looking for a Compact Camera for Traveling. My Budget is about 450€

 

In case it matters, next trip is to Havanna, looking at the Culture there.

It should be good for low light and maybe be also be able to put on a lens.

These can take decent low light photos and can be upgraded with other lenses later on:

https://www.amazon.de/Panasonic-DC-GX800KEGS-Systemkamera-Megapixel-Videoaufname/dp/B01N6QNOZ5

https://www.amazon.de/Canon-Systemkamera-Megapixel-Display-15-45mm/dp/B016MUIOBS