The perfect travel camera ? small camera with low light needed... G1x?G15? other?

tomkbucks

tomkbucks

Suspended / Banned
Messages
877
Name
thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
So just returned from my trip to Sri Lanka - amazing but thats another topic.. the biggest 'faff' was the camera.. i traveled light and found the 60d, two lenses and chargers etc just to much to carry.. so this year on the next adventure i need a smaller setup... ideally something good in low light , and which can give me a good DOF for portrait shots , but were the image quality will not suffer to much over the 60d i currently have , am i asking to much ? the best camera i can seem to find is the G16 from canon , but anyone offer any other alternatives ?
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can go wrong with any of the below;

G1x
G16
P7800
LX7
RX100
X20

For me, the best out of the lot would be the x20 for its manual zoom and OVF. I had the x10 and it was such a pleasure to use for these reasons.
 
Have you considered m43? Something like a GX1 or E-PL5 will be the same sort of size (or even smaller) when coupled with one of the pancake lenses. Decent manual controls, very good image quality, and if buying second hand a GX1 and two lens setup (eg 20mm 1.7 pancake for low light and whichever zoom best fulfilled your price/focal range/pocketability criteria) could probably be had for £3-400.

Or E-PL5 with 14-42 kit lens and a free 17mm 2.8 from Olympus is currently £390 on Amazon atm, which is a great deal.
 
Last edited:
An EOS M?

Similar output in a much smaller form to your 60D, and the benefit of also being able to use existing glass if you feel the need.
 
If you want a truly compact pocketable size then the Sony RX100 or RX100 Mk2 takes a lot of beating. I carry mine in a pouch on my trousers belt all the time. And I use it as a 'standard' lens alongside my DSLR zoom lens.
 
i have to be careful and think about what it needs to do.. so in order 1) image quailty 2) fast lens (so 2.8 thought really..) 3) a bit of 'length' 4) no 'faf factor, as i always have the dslr which with a 17-50 lens is not that massive... i think if the RX100 was 2.8 thought it would be a close.. and if it had a longer zoom (for more DOF) it would be a clearer winner, for now it seems i cant find a better choice than a g16.. suppose id best go to john lewis and have a play with one...
 
tomkbucks said:
i have to be careful and think about what it needs to do.. so in order 1) image quailty 2) fast lens (so 2.8 thought really..) 3) a bit of 'length' 4) no 'faf factor, as i always have the dslr which with a 17-50 lens is not that massive... i think if the RX100 was 2.8 thought it would be a close.. and if it had a longer zoom (for more DOF) it would be a clearer winner, for now it seems i cant find a better choice than a g16.. suppose id best go to john lewis and have a play with one...
Click to expand...
The x20 is clearly better in all of the above :) try that too before making your final decision.
 
tomkbucks said:
i have to be careful and think about what it needs to do.. so in order 1) image quailty 2) fast lens (so 2.8 thought really..) 3) a bit of 'length' 4) no 'faf factor, as i always have the dslr which with a 17-50 lens is not that massive... i think if the RX100 was 2.8 thought it would be a close.. and if it had a longer zoom (for more DOF) it would be a clearer winner, for now it seems i cant find a better choice than a g16.. suppose id best go to john lewis and have a play with one...
Click to expand...

....Don't be put off by the RX100 (M2) not being 2.8 - It performs outstandingly well in very low light conditions (check the RX100 thread on TP). It has an exceptionally large sensor. However, it's optical zoom is very limited indeed compared with its rivals and digital zoom always delivers very poor quality on cameras. I guess it's what gets compromised in the RX100's overall package.

I agree that your best next move is definitely to go and have a play at John Lewis with all the cameras you have shortlisted. It's like the girl you fall in love with - You'll know when you meet her and have had a test drive.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of shots in a very dark engine shed last weekend, just point & shoot, on my RX100 II....

Engineshed_00038.jpg


Engineshed_00019.jpg
 
Dave1 said:
An EOS M?

Similar output in a much smaller form to your 60D, and the benefit of also being able to use existing glass if you feel the need.
Click to expand...

I agree. I found the same problem lugging my 60D around. Just got the EOS M and I can still use my EF lenses on it when I need them.:agree:
 
Just spotted on another thread that Currys/PCWorld are knocking out the XF-1 for £150 or so. Possibly lacking a little in reach but it's f/1.8 at the short end 25mm (35mm EFL) and shares it's guts with the X10. Slips into a shirt pocket.
 
Alan Sandham said:
I found the same problem lugging my 60D around. Just got the EOS M and I can still use my EF lenses on it when I need them.
Click to expand...

....That EOS-M looks like a fascinating bit of kit. It does seem to be video orientated though according to reviews. However, if you have spent quite serious money on Canon L lenses why would you compromise by not using a higher spec body? And surely lugging lenses to go on the EOS-M doesn't result in a more lightweight camera gear travel bag.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

.
 
RedRobin said:
....That EOS-M looks like a fascinating bit of kit. It does seem to be video orientated though according to reviews. However, if you have spent quite serious money on Canon L lenses why would you compromise by not using a higher spec body? And surely lugging lenses to go on the EOS-M doesn't result in a more lightweight camera gear travel bag.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

.
Click to expand...

You don't have to lug the big lenses, the 22mm is tiny, the 18-55 small, BUT if you did want to use your favourite EF lens you can. By your reasoning, why do people with xxxD or xxxxD bodies bother with good glass?

The M is pretty good at stills (probably won't make a good Motorsport body, but otherwise works well).

Here is a pro that used a M as his back up body on a agency shoot, the stills look pretty good.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
You don't have to lug the big lenses, the 22mm is tiny, the 18-55 small, BUT if you did want to use your favourite EF lens you can. By your reasoning, why do people with xxxD or xxxxD bodies bother with good glass?

The M is pretty good at stills (probably won't make a good Motorsport body, but otherwise works well).

Here is a pro that used a M as his back up body on a agency shoot, the stills look pretty good.
Click to expand...

....And that pro perfectly illustrates why the camera takes the photograph but the photographer makes the photograph, as Ansell Adams said many decades ago.

I can only offer my opinion what I personally would do and for me, anything bigger than the size of a RX100 or Lumix TZ40 simply is not compact enough to be a true travel camera. That's just me but it's a valid opinion. Each to their own. :)
 
RedRobin said:
I can only offer my opinion what I personally would do and for me, anything bigger than the size of a RX100 or Lumix TZ40 simply is not compact enough to be a true travel camera. That's just me but it's a valid opinion. Each to their own. :)
Click to expand...

Personally after changing to CSC's with EVF's I wouldn't consider any small camera without a VF. Being small enough to fit in a trouser pocket is one good thing but if it comes with a ho hum lens, prossibly questionable low light performance and no VF I'd rather carry a CSC in a small camera bag and avoid poor performance in low light and difficulty seeing the screen in good light.
 
thanks chaps for the input , i think the x20 could be another option so its down to the g16 and that fight fight fight....
 
Depends on budget, personally the Fuji X Pro1 is brilliant but probably too much, the X100 is pretty good too and being fixed length means no dilemma over what lens to take.
 
woof woof said:
Personally after changing to CSC's with EVF's I wouldn't consider any small camera without a VF. Being small enough to fit in a trouser pocket is one good thing but if it comes with a ho hum lens, prossibly questionable low light performance and no VF I'd rather carry a CSC in a small camera bag and avoid poor performance in low light and difficulty seeing the screen in good light.
Click to expand...

....You should try out the Sony RX100M2. It has an attachable EVF option which is reputed to be exceptional, although relatively expensive. The LCD is exceptional too, and also tilts. The pics I posted earlier surely show how easily it handles low light and there are even better examples by others in the RX100 thread on TP.

But, the OP is no longer considering the RX100 so I'll stop posting my enthusiasm for it.
 
im sure its a great camera , i think from the features the x20 and g16 fit the bill, im a canon user so this may swing it.. but the x20 has a manual zoom , which would be awsome..so i guess i need to go fiddle and see... the g16 also has some nice 'toy' features which as a fiddler i would like.. plus all my canon bits would work on it, hum decisions decisions !
 
well after a time and a 'fiddle' the g16 has it… better features on the camear, like HDR mode which seemed to work well, being a canon user it was all quite usable for me , was better in the hand… also a proper view finder… the zoom is longer , and 2.8 on the whole range, from looking at most of my pictures I seem to take 'long' ones not at the wide end , so worth having the 2.8 all the way though , the sony is a top camera but think its just that little to short for good DOF at the long end - and not quite as fast… so that’s a tick from me for the g16!
 
Enjoy, Thomas! :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top