Camera recs from photo enthusiasts?

[Jules13]

Hello, I'm looking for camera reviews/recs from those of you that have a premium point & shoot camera or are photo enthusiasts.

I've been looking at the Sony Cybershot Rx100ii (I was looking at the rx100 but decided I might like the wifi option of the ii).  Also the Fujifilm rx20 or rx30 was thrown out there from a local camera shop/photographer.

Then today, I was reading reviews on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7K (almost $300 cheaper than the Rx100) - those who love it tout the wide angel lens and that it handles better (control-wise) over the Rx100 and still has great IQ (though maybe not as good in low light), despite the small sensor.

I basically want something that will replace my DSLR and take great photos all around, but particularly in low light.  I take a lot of indoor photos, both in my house, indoor places like roller skating rink and the like, and of kids at school.  That is where everything seems to fail in my opinion of what I've had in the past. 

I will be honest that I hate carrying around the DSLR and I'm not great at using it anyway, so I end up taking photos with my Iphone (and the blur is just awful with fast kids and so noisy in low light) or my little Canon SD1200 IS that is so slow I can barely stand it so I end up defaulting back to my Iphone. 

It's high time for an upgrade.  I don't want to overspend, but also don't mind spending if it's worth it, because photos are important to me. 

What say you!?  Thanks!

[Capsu78]

This is from 2012, but Glenn from Instapundit is a certified "toy" guy who makes this recommendation.  I assume a current model would only be better.

 http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/138829/

As for me, I spent big on upgrading to a better Nikon DSLR which is large but awesome.  When I am on the prowl for taking pictures I will use the Nikon or my Iphone- I have sort of stopped using my Sony Cybershot that is in between.

[arebelspy]

Sony RX100 M3 - http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-point-and-shoot-camera-under-1000/

[nereo]

I basically want something that will replace my DSLR and take great photos all around, but particularly in low light.  I take a lot of indoor photos, both in my house, indoor places like roller skating rink and the like, and of kids at school.  That is where everything seems to fail in my opinion of what I've had in the past.

I will be honest that I hate carrying around the DSLR and I'm not great at using it anyway, so I end up taking photos with my Iphone (and the blur is just awful with fast kids and so noisy in low light) or my little Canon SD1200 IS that is so slow I can barely stand it so I end up defaulting back to my Iphone. 

There's an old adage in photography: "the best camera for the job is the one you happen to have with you". 
You are asking a really broad question.  It seems you don't like the dSLR's weight and bulk, so that should steer you towards either mirrorless cameras (which are tearing up the market right now) or any of the more expensive point-and-shoot options (which have improved considerably since your Canon SD1200 came out about six years ago).
you also mentioned that you are "not great at using [your dSLR] anyway".  This suggests that you haven't learned how to take full advantage of the tool at your disposal.

So what to buy?  I have no idea what dSLR you have, but everything will outdo your Canon SD1200. 
Everything you've mentioned will allow you to take great images even in fairly low light - especially if you learn some very basic post-processing skills.  You could also do well with the Sony a6000, or the Panasonic GF7, or Canon G7X, or any of probably three dozen other cameras made within the last 2-3 years.  It's about knowing how to use the camera that will yield great pictures.

[chicagomeg]

I love my RX100 (I have the original) and would shell out for the newer model not for the wifi but for the electronic viewfinder. The screen isn't bright enough so in very bright light I am basically guessing about how the shot will turn out.

I am very happy w/the low light performance. I assume since you have a DSLR already you know reasonably well how to take advantage of the ISO, Shutter Priority, and Aperture Priority to get the shot you want. If not, you should learn that before buying a new camera!

I love how portable the camera is. I take it way more places than I would ever take a DSLR. It doesn't fit in my (small, women's) pants pockets, but if fits great in most of my jacket pockets & doesn't take up much space in my purse. I'm also super happy with the battery life. HDR kills it (as you would expect) but otherwise it stays charged for months with minimal use, so it's always ready when I want to take a quick shot, and will last through almost a whole week of vacation shooting. I did buy a 2nd battery for it for about $20 and I use that when we go on vacation, but I'm not convinced it was really necessary.

Finally, I got mine from Amazon Warehouse deals. It was "used". Someone had ordered it, taken the charger, and returned it. Big deal, I just chatted w/Amazon & they sent me a replacement charger. There is also a tiny scratch on the display, but I saved about $75 for that, so it was worth it. Highly recommend this source for buying any high end electronics if you can't find them on Ebay.

[space]

Real Photo Enthusiasts^TM carry around 8x10 cameras with sheet film. :P

On the more serious side:

My personal ideal point and shoot would be a Sigma DP2 Quattro (note: I don't actually have one), but those are rather expensive (not as much as a Leica M9, but still quite a bit) and require some technical skill to actually use properly. The older cameras in that series are generally doubly so. So I'll refrain from recommending them for now. (Yes, I know the technicalities of a Foveon sensor and how it's different from a Bayer sensor)

I'm not sure I have many more recommendations for average consumer cameras - I haven't been looking into too many of those lately. Maybe the Fujifilm X20/X30 or the XF1 if you want something with a zoom and less expensive? For mirrorless, I kinda liked the Pentax Q when that came out, but it's a bit old now and isn't really that great of a camera anymore. I have an Olympus E-PL1 that I'm unlikely to replace anytime in the future.

[jmusic]

Right now I'm rocking only a Ricoh GR.  Used to have a Canon dSLR and later an Oly E-M5 but I was constantly buying more lenses...  Having the fixed lens of the GR has been a blessing for my wallet as it prevents "GAS" (gear acquisition syndrome).  Excellent color for up to 1600 ISO, or 6400 for B&W (very natural looking grain!).  It also has a leaf shutter and can sync flashes at any shutter speed if you're a Strobist.  I do miss telephoto sometimes though...

Its fraternal twin, the Nikon Coolpix A, has been selling for stupid cheap money these days, but most reviewers that I follow prefer the handling of the GR (and I bought well before the fire sale).

[KS]

Following to see the responses. So far most of our research and in-store playing have us leaning toward the one ARS linked, but as yet we've had trouble pulling the trigger given the price. Granted, we haven't bought a camera since our 2006 powershot A620 (pretty good for its time and still works fine, but the tech has come a loooong way since then) so my guess is we'd use it long enough to get our money's worth, but still love to hear if there are other great options for less.

[arebelspy]

Following to see the responses. So far most of our research and in-store playing have us leaning toward the one ARS linked, but as yet we've had trouble pulling the trigger given the price. Granted, we haven't bought a camera since our 2006 powershot A620 (pretty good for its time and still works fine, but the tech has come a loooong way since then) so my guess is we'd use it long enough to get our money's worth, but still love to hear if there are other great options for less.

IIRC their recommendation for the best model under 500 is the RX100 M1 (first version). 

I'm willing to pay about $600 used for the M3, but if you want to save a few hundred, $350 or so used for the M1 is probably your best bet.

[gimp]

Woo! Something I know about.

First, buy used, it's way cheaper.

They're not exactly point-and-shoots, but they're a helluva lot lighter - olympus has been doing great stuff. Like the OMD EM-5. Same with the new fuji interchangeable lens cameras - tiny! but so good.

But if you want real tiny, people really love that sony that's been recommended here.

If you want a gem in the rough, a used canon eos-m with 22mm lens (about 35mm equivalent field of view) is under $300 and is a very competent camera (for the cost); adapts dslr lenses from canon trivially, and all manner of other lenses too.

A leica m3 is a fantastic, fantastic camera, but the lens you put on it will add quite a bit of cost.



But me, I stick with a Canon 5Dc. It's a beast.


And for you - try the iphone. You always have it on you, you're already using it. Try just using it alone; it might suit most of your needs!

[KS]

IIRC their recommendation for the best model under 500 is the RX100 M1 (first version). 

I'm willing to pay about $600 used for the M3, but if you want to save a few hundred, $350 or so used for the M1 is probably your best bet.

Good to know! I think if we saw one at $600 we'd definitely go for it... we've got more than enough budget for it even at full price but, well, I'm the kind of person who hangs out in MMM forums a lot, so we do tend to hem and haw about spending on bigger stuff like this. :)

[3okirb]

I have a Canon S95.  There have been some other versions in that line since I got it... S100, S110, S120.  All of them are good.  They have a slightly larger sensor than most point and shoots and are portable enough and can be used fully manual if you want to learn photography or get a little more creative with your shots.  My opinion is the S95 is just about as good as the follow up cameras if you want to get a cheaper camera that performs well.

I also have a Nikon D5300 and although the S95 doesn't take as good indoor shots as the DSLR does, it is every bit as good in any other situation.  (You're never going to get as good indoor shots as an SLR with any point and shoot)

EDITED TO ADD:  No point and shoot is going to take pictures as instantly as your SLR.  (You mentioned kids and indoors) My feeling is that you're probably going to be disappointed in any point and shoot you end up getting if you want to take pictures like that.

[jmusic]

EDITED TO ADD:  No point and shoot is going to take pictures as instantly as your SLR.  (You mentioned kids and indoors) My feeling is that you're probably going to be disappointed in any point and shoot you end up getting if you want to take pictures like that.

+1

[Angie55]

I got the Panasonic LX100 and have been very pleased. Yes, its more expensive than comparable rx100. But what really sold me was having all of the manual controls as physical buttons so there was less going through menus. It also had an electronic viewfinder (which I couldn't care less about but DH wanted).

Its point and shoot mode is very good and its been awesome in low light. I love how its fairly compact so its not a pain to lug around. It won't quite fit in our pocket like we were used to but its pretty darn close.

[tomsang]

A high end professional photographer that I know was just commenting how amazing these Moment Lens are for the iPhone 6. His professional equipment is in the $25k+ range. His comment that this lens is sharper than his $5,000 SLR from eight years ago.

The company is currently doing a kickstarter that incorporates the case and the lens. So you are always ready. 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/584288471/moment-case-worlds-best-iphone-case-for-mobile-pho?ref=discovery

I ordered a lens and a case. I will let you know how they work. Lens will be here soon case in June.

[gimp]

His comment that this lens is sharper than his $5,000 SLR from eight years ago.

That makes no sense. A lens can't be sharper than a camera. That's like saying that this new engine is faster than an older car frame. It almost makes sense until you realize, no, it doesn't, those things go together, they don't compete against each other.

If you are talking about the lenses available eight years ago... pretty much any standard professional lens from 2007 is going to be far superior, and a lot cheaper than $5k. I guarantee it.

Also, notice how the videos for this kickstarter were shot with real lenses (and real cameras)?

Believe me, I am all for using your iphone as your primary camera - it only makes me happy - but people do so out of convenience and good-enough quality, not because it's actually superior in image quality.

[arebelspy]

A high end professional photographer that I know was just commenting how amazing these Moment Lens are for the iPhone 6. His professional equipment is in the $25k+ range. His comment that this lens is sharper than his $5,000 SLR from eight years ago.

The company is currently doing a kickstarter that incorporates the case and the lens. So you are always ready. 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/584288471/moment-case-worlds-best-iphone-case-for-mobile-pho?ref=discovery

I ordered a lens and a case. I will let you know how they work. Lens will be here soon case in June.

I'd consider getting that for travel, to save on weight/space, if they make a 6+ one.

[johnny847]

Believe me, I am all for using your iphone as your primary camera - it only makes me happy - but people do so out of convenience and good-enough quality, not because it's actually superior in image quality.

+1

There are three main components in getting good photos: the sensor itself, the lens, and the digital signal processing. All of these should be balanced well. Getting a really nice lens for a tiny ass sensor like that on a phone is not balanced - you will be limited by the sensor itself.

In broad daylight, tiny sensors still work just fine. Once you get indoors (even in what we humans would consider to be ok lighting), image quality from a smartphone starts to drop. And once you get into low light, it's no comparison to a proper camera.

[tomsang]

His comment that this lens is sharper than his $5,000 SLR from eight years ago.

That makes no sense. A lens can't be sharper than a camera. That's like saying that this new engine is faster than an older car frame. It almost makes sense until you realize, no, it doesn't, those things go together, they don't compete against each other.

If you are talking about the lenses available eight years ago... pretty much any standard professional lens from 2007 is going to be far superior, and a lot cheaper than $5k. I guarantee it.

Also, notice how the videos for this kickstarter were shot with real lenses (and real cameras)?

Believe me, I am all for using your iphone as your primary camera - it only makes me happy - but people do so out of convenience and good-enough quality, not because it's actually superior in image quality.

He was not saying that it is superior to his $25k+ professional camera.  He is saying that having a phone that outperforms cameras from 8 years ago is amazing and the IPhone can do it with this improved lens addition.  He felt that the IPhone's current lens configuration was a limiting factor and that he was impressed with the Moments Lens based on his trials/playing around with it. As someone else posted, "the best camera for the job is the one that you have on you."  Most people have their phones on them throughout the day.  So if you can beef up the limiting factor, the lens, then the IPhone becomes a good alternative.  Not equivalent to a professional camera, but significantly more portable and the equivalent or better to professional SLR's from 8 years ago. 

The OP was looking for a point and shoot camera as his SLR was too bulky or cumbersome to use on daily basis.  He currently is using his Iphone.  Maybe a better lens will help the picture taking. I don't know if this is a solution, but wanted to let people know what I heard from a very high end photographer.  He was impressed with how their lens improved the IPhone's picture quality.  The link that I posted is for their upcoming case.  The Lenses are available now and according to him are a nice addition to your IPhone.

I am not associated with the company, just passing along what I thought might be helpful. 

[gimp]

I would be very interested to know what $25k+ professional camera he has - you don't meet a lot of people with medium format digital backs!

And I am saying, though you may feel free to trust your friend over an internet rando, that my 2005-model dslr and appropriate lens is not outperformed by any phone with any attachment.

But I agree that an iphone is great. And can be used as a sole camera. I am just saying, let's not get carried away.

[imryanbingham]

The Sony cameras are great. I've had the chance to use the RX100 and the really cool RX1. Both are quite amazing. Sony did a really good job with both of these. The form factor is nice and the image quality is excellent. I'm looking forward to the day when the RX1 comes way down in price. At the moment, it's a rental only for me on those special occasions or paid assignments. I would strongly recommend the RX100 though. I used one of those in Oregon and was very pleased with the results.

[Jules13]

Only just getting back to the forum.  Thanks for all the responses/advice.  I've been obsessed reading all the reviews/specs/comparisons etc and ran across too many camera options.  I don't want interchangeable lenses and yes, tired of the bulk of the DSLR.  I know basic ISO, shutter priority, aperture priority, though I'm a bit rusty.  But, motivated to get some good photos on our upcoming trip to Australia and also just better everyday photos.  I'm tired of blurry Iphone photos.  You just can't take photos of moving kids with an Iphone. 

I'm going to look at the Rx100, Canon s120 and Canon G16 this weekend at Best Buy so I can handle them all.  I think the G16 will probably be too big, but the reviews are good.  I love the size of the s120 and it might be fine for my needs, but still going to check out the rx100.  All should do well in low light with f1.8 at the wide end, which is probably what I'd be at when indoors.  I know the Rx100 would do best, but the s120 does have some features that I like. 

Anyway...thanks again for all the comments!

[hred17]

I wanted something smaller than my Canon 5D DSLR as well as I just found I was not using it because I hated carrying it around.

I invested in a Canon G15 and have never looked back. Small, compact, takes amazing photos in low light and has all the manual controls you could ask for. I love it!

[Capsu78]

Tip; buy a second memory card at purchase...

[OutBy40]

I basically want something that will replace my DSLR and take great photos all around, but particularly in low light.  I take a lot of indoor photos, both in my house, indoor places like roller skating rink and the like, and of kids at school.  That is where everything seems to fail in my opinion of what I've had in the past. 

I will be honest that I hate carrying around the DSLR and I'm not great at using it anyway, so I end up taking photos with my Iphone (and the blur is just awful with fast kids and so noisy in low light) or my little Canon SD1200 IS that is so slow I can barely stand it so I end up defaulting back to my Iphone. 

I haven't used a point and shoot camera in a while (I'm a DSLR guy, the Nikon D7000).  But, based on your intended purpose for the camera, a point and shoot will certainly improve the megapixel quality of the pictures, and might even reduce blur SOME, but depending on what you're photographing (moving subjects...like kids), its ability to effectively stop action probably won't meet your expectations. 

Have you taken a look at the 4/3rds system?  They aren't as small as point and shoots, but they ARE smaller than DSLRs, and will provide some of the speed that I think you're looking for. 

Also, I need to reiterate the suggestion made by someone else - never, ever, ever buy a new camera or lens.  Find a reputable used camera shop (like www.keh.com out of Atlanta) or even eBay for much better deals on photo equipment.

[Jules13]

Thanks OutBy40 for the Keh recommendation.  I want a small, pocket, or nearly so, camera.  I think the new point and shoots that I'm considering are definitely fast enough for my needs.  9-12 fps is pretty fast.  I don't think my DSLR is any, or much, faster.  My old camera point and shoot shoots at 1 frame per second!  So, any of them will feel lightening fast compared to it. :)