Sell Nikon with NICE lenses and get a compact?

tmnt

tmnt

King of Australia
I might be crazy but my D80 died and my dilhemma is do I not buy again and sell my nice lenses (80-200 2.8, 17-35 2.8), accessories and just get a compact? I hardly ever use my camera but would still like to do some photography if the bug hits me and I believe as long as I can get some manual control I'll be able to get some great photos.

Any suggestions for a nice compact camera with a good optical zoom and some manual controls (do they have manual controls?). I have absolutely NO IDEA what's out there.

I know the best answer is 'do what you want' but come on, play along.
 
The Canon S100 compact is really nice. Fast lens, lower-noise sensor for a compact, decent manual control for a compact. And it shoots
raw so you can do all the tweaking in post production that you want. Downside, it has a bit of chromatic abberation but you won't
see it in the pictures because of the auto-CA correction. Anyhow, if you don't need the weight of the SLR and you still want to shoot
a good picture in a pinch look for a mid-level camera ~$450 from the big two.

Alternatively, the Sony NEX series is rather small and still has the cropped sensor size. I use old Nikon manuals on an NEX-5 for my
critical work and when it is time to be a tourist I can slap on the slow kit lens. Your existing lenses are probably all auto but you can
find manual lenses for a lot less than the resell value of your existing kit.
 
Cool, cool. I've quickly narrowed it down to the Canon S100 and the Olympus XZ-1. It's a very tough call though as both some have some big pros and cons.

CANON S100

CONS PROS
200 shot battery life good focal range
no hot shoe good video
shutter speed (1/4 sec) couple extra mp (not worried bout that though)


OLYMPUS XZ-1
PROS CONS
320 shot battery life. not so good video and vid sound (not really worried)
hot shoe
bigger sensor smaller focal range
longer shutter speed (1sec)

There seem to be dealbreakers on both side. The Canon possibly has a cleaner sensor but have to research that more. I like the bigger sensor on the XZ1 for DOF but the smaller focal range is a real bummer. Probably leaning toward the XZ1 atm but can't decide at all, ha.
 
F3$k, edited the pros and cons twice and it keeps formatting to crap. Screw it.
 
what's the price range?

you could look into nikon 1 series, something like the nikon v1 can accept nikon lens with an adapter. really fast focus, and face detection, 2.7x crop.(more expansive than entry level dslr)

you can choose from, point and shoot, compact interchangeable lens, m4/3 crop in a compact, aps-c crop in a compact-ish, full frame in a film like body.

what are you willing to give up, to get a smaller camera?

can you do without a viewfinder? or a range finder?
can you do with something smaller than dx or aps-c crop? m4/3? nikon cx?
small battery life?
a camera that only takes AA batteries?
lens that do not open passed 2.4 or 2.8?
a camera that take 2 seconds to take a picture?
a camera that does not support raw?

some small point and shoot do not give too many controls but offer other features. rugged, water proof, lens does not extrude when off, macro, raw...etc.

at the end of the day you can get an entry level dslr for the price of any good compact camera, how much are you willing to pay for a small sized body?
 
Def after a compact, just something I can slip in my pocket but can still do a few things and have some manual controls.

Not too concerned about battery life, will just buy extra batteries.
Won't be shooting really so much action so will have to accept the 2 sec pics (though it still sucks, lol).
Def chasing a cam to shoot RAW.

As far as money it's more about selling all my good stuff and downsizing. I could go for a trip to Hong Kong this year so would be good to just take a little camera that doesn't appear expensive too.

Maybe I'm leaning more toward the Canon now, I keep changing my mind. Is the 1/4 second shutter time really going to suck?
 
not all raw are equal. if your planning a trip to a region known for temperamental weather, you have to consider a water proof camera.

on the 1/250 shutter, if you plan on shooting in daylight, it will be limiting, and you will not have a place for a filter as well.
 
Last edited:
I love my Olympus ELP1 for stills; the newer EP3 is better, but its price tag probably doesn't improve your situation. Both will shoot RAW (although the JPEGs out of them are damn good) and do that whole m43 any-lenses-via-adapters thing.

Pair it with one of the fast m43 pancakes (14, 17, 20) or the Oly 12 or 45, or pancake 14-42 zoom, and it's a very nice, inconspicuous travel package.
 
i have seen a lot of cameras and mobiles busted from sand and dirt, mobiles damaged from lakes and pools. it does not rain often in cairo (i think it rained about 20min last year). and i'm a careful person, i would turn off the camera, or put a cover on it and be careful. but if your traveling, you could be more limited on time and resources. and you could decide to turn off your camera if it rained, and miss that illusive shot.
 
Gary Huff said:
I really think the need for a weather sealed/waterproof camera is way overblown.
Click to expand...

I think theres some truth in this, I think if you do a lot of photojournalistic work like myself in tropical conditions, weatherproofing and ruggedness is a plus. However I took my D7000 (which is only part sealed w/ a cheap unsealed tamron lens) on the back of an elephant for 2 hours in extreme monsoon rain. Don't get me wrong it got soaking but it never stopped performing and that's with minimum sealing on the body and a cheap tamron lens that was unsealed. The weatherproofing just helps to prolong the life of your camera and if you are on a paid job, stops you breaking vital kit that could jeopardise the job.
 
I agree the fear of weather destruction is grossly overblown, particularly for the majority of amateur shooters. Hostile environment shooters do benefit from not having to 'bag' a camera during rain, sandstorm or snow but in 35 years the only camera I drenched was when I flipped into a fountain somersault style! I always carry AquaPac in case I get to cover a Hurricane and live to upload the images... but that's never happened.
Dust on the sensor or scratches on lens elements and stressed cable connections are the critical fears. Focus on those please.
 
I would vote for the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX9V over the Canon S100. It has a much better zoom range, while still being compact. It also shoots the best video of any small sensor compact camera, with really amazing quality. It has a full manual mode too, for folks that want to take complete control over the exposure. Less expensive than the Canon too.

The only place where I see the Canon S100 having an edge is in size. However, you may regret going to such an ultra compact model.

Here is how they compare in size:

​
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX9V:



4.1 x 2.3 x 1.3 in.​

Canon S100:

3.9 x 2.4 x 1.1 in.​
 
I would not vote for any compacts at all. The IQ really is very snap-shottish on even the very best models. Sure, with post processing and scaling the images down to about 1200x800 or so it can look OK. Yet even with that I can see some pretty big differences.

Something like a Sony CS2 or a Panasonic GH1 sells for $200 to $250 in barely used condition. Why would anyone even think about a compact these days? I could possibly understand it if the target was to get one of those water, dust, freeze, shock, and crush proof models but regular P&S compacts? Those days are over.

With one of the mirrorless cameras I named you can even keep your lenses and use them with just a $15 adaptor. Works great!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top