Compact v DSLR

I suppose it depends what you shoot and how much time you're willing to invest in learning the camera. I moved from a decent compact to my first dslr, a Canon 20d, 8 years ago and I've never looked back but I've spent a small fortune on lenses since and upgraded the camera once. I expect to go full frame early next year. I shoot landscapes,  portraits and weddings and an slr suits my needs but for others it may be overkill. If you're not sure perhaps you could hire or borrow one first and see if you get on with it? You can get good shots with a compact and there are some interesting half way houses around nowadays, mirrorless etc, and I'm sure you'll have fun with whatever you get.  Enjoy its a nice thing to shop for

My favourite cameras I've used in your price range (£600?)

1. Ricoh GR, fits in your pocket, fantastic userbility, great IQ from APSC sensor - fixed 28mm equiv lens. Love it.

2. Lumix LX7 - teeny tiny teeny really weeny sensor but lovely camera to use and nice image quality from a 'Leica' lens - zoom

3.Fuji X100s used - Great camera. Fixed 35mm equiv lens

4.Fuji X-A1, with lens of your choice. You can get a body for a hundred and something quid. Best bargain camera, with APSC sensor

5.New Canon G7X - Just trying this out. Does not have pin sharp IQ but it somehow is giving nice 'artistic' images. Nice tilt screen with touch/drag focus.

If you want DSLR, then Nikon 3300 is apparently the mutts for a 'budget' DSLR and Canon EOS 100D is compact and decent too.

Some people swear by the Sony RX 100 (I, II and III) but to me they were awkward to use and their IQ seems too analytical to me (so not the naim of the camera world...)

Given what you're used to and what you describe you're after, I'd try an LX7 (and the bolt on evf if you like) which will be wayyyy within your budget.

A 'DSLR' won't, in itself, lead to better pictures.  Lots of gear maybe.

If you liked the little Leica why not try a Fuji X100S where you can point and shoot or experiment with manual settings - It's mastering the latter that will help towards better pictures imho.

G

edit - Jamie typing as I was.

If you enjoyed the D-Lux 4 you'll love the LX7. It's just a D-Lux 6 in disguise at a fraction of the price.

I still own a D-4..

+1

In fact it could lead to worse pictures. Using Av, Tv or Manual without taking the time to learn how to do so properly will result in a lot of screwed up photos, I know I've been there. Owned a DSLR for 5 years and still learning how to use it.

For general photography, in good lighting conditions, a compact is all you need.

A good compact is all what normal people need. Or you could opt for the newer mirror less cameras. But please keep in mind Dslr and mirror less both require further investments in Lenses and training (your time).

I used to use a Canon EOS100 film camera, and for a while, a Nikon F80 (or was it an F85 ?), so I am not adverse to the concept of a larger camera. In fact, I still have the Canon.

I have only had the D-Lux 4 for about 4 or 5 years and and its simply practical/lazyness that led me to this camera - I found I was unwilling on a long trek to open up the rucksac every few minutes, set up a tripod, measure the light etc etc, so I wasn't actually taking (m)any pictures!

That changed with the D-Lux 4. I have been taking it most places, but even then, I only occasionally seem to have time to set up a tripod to take a landscape and I suspect that camera-shake is age-related. So, if a DSLR, with good a anti-shake system would produce significantly sharper images, and light metring was significantly better, I might be tempted to give the more bulky equipent another shot ! and take the time to use a tripod again.

Many thanks for the suggestions so far. his is going to take some thinking time.

I own 2 DSLRs, a bunch of lenses, and my pictures are rubbish. I wouldn't know an interesting composition if it hit me in the face. My post-processing mostly just makes my stuff even worse. The only worthwhile photos I have taken are important to me personally, but on an objective basis, they are just rubbish.

Metering on modern cameras, and especially SLRs is incredibly good and on SLRs noise control is better than it has ever been so its possible to use higher isos to reduce camera shake and still get sharp detailed pics.  There are very few bad cameras now at 600 quid and whichever option you go for you'll get well exposed sharp shots and, if you are willing to put in the time and move away from auto and use a tripod for the odd shot, you will be amazed at what a current mid range camera is capable of. The main thing, a bit like hifi I suppose, is to try and audition first even if its just to check you like the weight and handling.  Let us know what you get and how you get on with it

Don, I have owned several  Nikon SLRs in the past 30 years. By the sounds of it you are quite used to the camera(D-4) but can't be bothered with the bulkness of the SLRs and lenses plus filters, flash, batteries, cards, tripods, etc...and you don't seem like an anorak or pro photographer. Jamie offered some good advice on mid range choices. Listen to him... 

I like the Lumix TZ series , we have had 2, TZ 5 and TZ30, it been a couple of weeks so they are probably up to TZ 60 or more by now.

As with the LX 7 Leica lenses, point and shoot up to usual manual and various priorities and HD 1080p video too.

Good value for around £300.

Switching to a DSLR will bring significantly higher image resolution - particularly if you go for a full frame model such as the D610.  However, associated with the full sensor is the quest to get the best from it and the temptation to have the best lenses to meet this objective. A quest which can end up with a rather large camera bag to carry more weight than you'll ever want on a budget long since blown!

I have a D-Lux 5 which followed a 3 and I love the familiarity of using it and the ability to carry it around without too much thought.  The D610 with wide aperture zoom lenses looks impressive, takes razor sharp images which can be enlarged to infinity, but more often than not sits at home. And my shoulders feel all the better for it!

I suspect that the D-Lux 6/ Pana LX7 won't have long left in their cycle however, their familiarity may be a much greater benefit for you than the larger image sensor probably to be included with the next iteration.

One camera which is currently being launched and which I think would be well worth considering (I'm not sure when it hits the UK market) is the new Panasonic LX100.  Depending on how much it will cost, it could be the near perfect replacement for your D-Lux 4.  Here's a link you may find interesting:

http://www.dpreview.com/previe...eviews-latest-widget

Peter

Full-frame DSLRs like the Nikon D610 are just too big - I tried one ; the smaller and lighter ones (half-frame) feel rather cheap and plasticky. I would go for a mirrorless camera, like the smaller Fujifilm X (the XT1 and XE2 would be out of your price range, the XA1 and XM1 would fit the bill). They are easy to use and the quality is excellent. Olympus also has some good models, with good lenses, which I've also tried - I don't like the Panasonics so much, a bit too fiddly.

I bought a Fuji XE1 two and a half years ago and never regretted it - I had a couple of Nikon bodies with seven or eight lenses before (film cameras).

Fuji regularly  improve the firmware, there are new downloads every six months or so : my camera is better than when I bought it. I'm afraid big DSLRs are out of the question for me - they're fine for professional photographers. Go to a dealer that lets you borrow the cameras for a couple of hours.

I'd go along with Jamie's advice Don. For many years I've owned SLR cameras, both digital and film, the last being a Canon 5D Mk II with a pretty comprehensive collection of 'L" series lenses, a superb beast but a beast nevertheless and an unfortunate dose of Rheumatoid arthritis forced me to reappraise my photographic needs. I've since moved over to a Fuji Pro-X1 and, although I've bought a few lenses for it (wide-angle, telephoto, fixed focus and middling zoom) it takes superb photos, is much lighter and neater in both camera and lenses, and I've ended up using it far more.

I think the large DSLRs have had their day for all but the most dedicated, and the latest crop of Lumix, Canon, Nikon, Fuji etc. compact cameras are astonishingly good. It's just a question of finding one that suits you personally. I've also (along with a heap of old cameras I can't bear to part with) got a waterproof & shockproof Lumix something-or-other that lives in my pocket & is ideal for hillwalking in The Lakes.

Take a look at the Olympus m4/3 range, especially the OMD EM-1,  all of the features of a DSLR without the size and weight and the mirror flapping up and down.

Mirrorless cameras take the ease of lens design to the pre SLR days when lenses had to be moved further away from the film/sensor to allow for the mirror to work and so increased the cost and complexity of the lenses.

The LX100 has RRP of £799, the new Leica D-Lux £826. Due around November. For once pricing is similar but Panasonic has a habit of big price drops, Leica doesn't. Fwiw I have a habit of trying what look interesting cameras to me and either moving them on if I'm underwhelmed or selling whatever they replace. A D-Lux is on its way from RDC...

Like Tony I have a number of keepers, the Fuji XT-1 and Ricoh GR for instance, the GR really is a star IMO but I suspect you prefer a zoom lens. Either way you could do worse than go to Jessops, WEX, Park Cameras and try them out (NB not had a Fuji X10/20/30 but you can add them to the list too!)

I changed from a DSLR kit to micro 4/3's format just over a year ago and haven't looked back.

I wasn't using the DSLR due to the faff of carting it about.

I bought a modest Panasonic DMC-G5 which had a good offer on a longer lens and also picked up a smaller version (GF5) which is not much larger than a compact. I can switch lenses between the 2 cameras and can get all of this in a bag half the size of the old camera and get much more use from it.

Pictures are excellent and they are easy to use with enough flexibility for most amateur photographers.

Richard

Hmm i wouldn't write off DSLR's quite so easily. Having tried and owned my fair share of the smaller beasts, Fuji X1Pro, X100S, Leica M8/M9, i say none come close to what my Canon 1DS3's offer in terms of a robust RAW file. The Canon is simply much better all-round if RAW shooting is your bag. Sure if you want to shoot everything at stupidly high ISO because you can't use a tripod, then some of the latest little cameras do a fine job, but when the chips are down i know what tool i'd rather use.

Like in all things there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Not exactly in the same ball park... A maximum of £1200, according to the OP.

Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, they will do the trick. The reason why I prefer the Fuji is that it has that old-world feel to it, and the lenses are first-class (expensive though).

I just paid £800 for another back up 1DS3 body, and a 5D2 goes for less, so well within the ball park.

Very true - compromises with each. I sold my DSLR kit a few years back when i had a D7000 + various lenses. Great bit of kit and i enjoyed using it but didn't enjoy the bulk and it wasn't particularly discreet. I moved to M4/3 with an Olympus OMD E-M5 and love it. Small, great IQ and a great selection of lenses. Not good for action and sports but for what i want it's a great machine. It has a very good in body image stabilisation system too. I also have a Mk1 Sony RX100 which is my go everywhere camera. Not as much fun to take pictures with as the OMD but it's got me pictures i would not have otherwise got as it's always with me.

As some have already said, the new Lumix LX100 looks great (as does the Lumix GM5 if you want interchangeable lenses). Try a few out and buy the one you like to use and is small enough for you to take around with you.

Good luck 

I didn't get the impression that Don has a battery of good quality lenses at his disposal which could have quite an impact on budget (and overall weight and bulk).  But I agree about image quality - I was amazed at the level of detail available in a RAW file.

The D610 body isn't all that big, it's just when you stick, say, a 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S on it that the overall package bulks up.

Peter

Don, how about looking at it from a slightly different perspective. There is a lot to be said for a great full frame sensor, be it Nikon or Canon, and Voitlander make a quite superb 40f2 Ultron. It is small, fast discreet and light. It is also lightyears ahead of cheap bundled zooms when it comes to sharpness and contrast. For your £1200 budget you could buy a used 5D2 with a used 40m Ultron in Mint condition. The focal length is extremely versatile and as a one lens outfit would be all the lens most people need. Of course it can't be used for everything, however most of the time 'everything' is overrated and simplification most often leads to better pictures.

I traded my Nikon D3s and lens collection for a Sony A7 and lenses. Haven't looked back. The lighter bag and more compact system outweighs the loss of autofocus performance for me.

Bet you're glad you asked...