Advice on a compact travel camera

[Bensch]

Hi everyone

Hoping to get some advice in regards to choosing a compact digital camera for travelling.

Budget isn't the best, am looking at spending between $500-$600.

Being able to shoot RAW is a must, and something with a good amount of zoom (up to 300mm or so equivalent) would be really nice.

Main use would be travel based photography, so landscapes and some animal/zoo shots.

Smaller the better for size, don't want to take my DSLRs due to size/weight, so something small would be good.

Have been looking at the Panasonic Lumix TZ90, which seems to fit the bill nicely, but was wondering if anyone has any other suggestions?

Thanks

[William W]

Nikon Coolpix B700.

WW

[Gazza]

Phone?

Maybe your current device is not up to the task, so, why not update and kill two birds with one rock? (1 less item to lug about...)
I read now that there's a few out there shooting RAW/DNG but a little on the slow side...just a thought



Cheers -

[Bensch]

Nikon Coolpix B700.

WW

Thanks William

The B700 has some really nice specs, and the focal length is really good, but it is a little larger than I was hoping for.
Based on what I could find, it is around the same size as my D3100 without the battery grip.

Phone?

Maybe your current device is not up to the task, so, why not update and kill two birds with one rock? (1 less item to lug about...)
I read now that there's a few out there shooting RAW/DNG but a little on the slow side...just a thought

Cheers -

Thanks Gazza

A good suggestion, in fact, I did actually use my droid when I came over to Ballarat/Mildura last year.

The picture quality was ok, but only jpg, as my phone doesn't support RAW.

I'd like a new phone, but really can't justify purchasing another one just yet, my current one was purchased around 6 months ago.

Something to keep in mind when upgrading next time. Phone that shoots RAW is a great idea, but for travels I would prefer something that doesn't need a shoe leather zoom

[John King]

Andy, have you considered the Olympus E-PL8 with 14-42R zoom? (28-84mm effective focal length)

Available new from DigiDirect for $688.

https://www.digidirect.com.au/camera...2mm_lens_brown

Probably more suitable for your uses with the 14-42 EZ pancake zoom.

[Bensch]

Andy, have you considered the Olympus E-PL8 with 14-42R zoom? (28-84mm effective focal length)

Available new from DigiDirect for $688.

https://www.digidirect.com.au/camera...2mm_lens_brown

Probably more suitable for your uses with the 14-42 EZ pancake zoom.

Thanks John

Certainly looks interesting, will have to do some googling as I'm not too familiar with Micro 4/3rds cameras.

Looks like my previously mentioned Panasonic has got some competition

[John King]

Andy, if you add the plastic fantastic 40-150R lens (mine was about $170 at Michael's), this will get you from 28-300 effective focal length at very cheap overall cost.

The image quality of the 14-42 Olympus lenses is derided by reviewers, very unfairly IMNSHO. These two kit lenses are both light and cheap. Easy to carry anywhere. Decent build and IQ, specially for the money.

e.g. 14-42 EZ pancake zoom:



40-150 @ 150:

[Bensch]

Andy, if you add the plastic fantastic 40-150R lens (mine was about $170 at Michael's), this will get you from 28-300 effective focal length at very cheap overall cost.

The image quality of the 14-42 Olympus lenses is derided by reviewers, very unfairly IMNSHO. These two kit lenses are both light and cheap. Easy to carry anywhere. Decent build and IQ, specially for the money.

Thanks John, greatly appreciated.

Fantastic photos

Still need to do more research on micro 4/3rds cameras, but looking favourable for my purposes

[John King]

Thanks for your kind comment Andy.

No one camera is perfect in every way. Pretty well all of them since about 2003 have been capable of taking exceptionally good photos. Basically any ILC with 5 MPx or more!

I have an environmental portrait printed at A2 size on our wall. You can clearly see every single hair on the subject's head. I took it with my 5 MPx E-1. Even its high ISO (3200) RAWs look far better when using PS6! Using CS2, they were a very colourful mess ...

[Hawthy]

The Panasonic TZ90 is an upgrade to the TZ30 that I bought back in 2013 to take to Canada and Alaska. The main changes are the number of megapixels (20 vs 14) and that it can shoot RAW (a real bonus in my opinion). The sensor size is virtually unchanged meaning that the pixels are smaller on the TZ90, which is not necessarily a good thing. It also has a much greater zoom at 720mm compared to 480mm, which I found was more than adequate.

How did it go? It was certainly small and fit easily into my pocket. It was easy to use and the photos looked great on the camera but when I got back and looked at the images they were a bit disappointing with artefacts clearly visible at 100%. Also, having come from a DSLR to a travel zoom, I found having controls accessed via a screen rather than by dials difficult to get used to. Plus, you can't fit a polarising filter to it, which I think is a must for landscape photos. I had plenty of shots with blown out skies. Having access to RAW might alleviate some of these issues.

If I had my time over again, I would just take my DSLR with a kit lens, a wide angle lens and maybe a zoom up to 200mm. Sure, you look like a tourist carrying around such an obvious camera but where I went the tourists probably outnumbered the locals so I would have fit right in.

It depends why you are travelling and what you want the camera to do. If you are sightseeing and just want some nice shots to remind you of where you went the travel zoom will be fine. If the aim of your trip is to take high quality photographs you might want to take a DSLR. As an example, a night time cityscape would not turn out as well using the TZ90 as it would with a DSLR.

I rarely use the TZ30 now. I will take it if I need to take photos for work because it is simple and takes very clear photos in the daylight.

Here is an example with typically blown out skies:

[dacar]

Another consideration is the battery. Will you be able to recharge it daily? If not, buy one that takes AA batteries.

Sent from a mobile thing.

[Bensch]

Thanks for your kind comment Andy.

No one camera is perfect in every way. Pretty well all of them since about 2003 have been capable of taking exceptionally good photos. Basically any ILC with 5 MPx or more!

I have an environmental portrait printed at A2 size on our wall. You can clearly see every single hair on the subject's head. I took it with my 5 MPx E-1. Even its high ISO (3200) RAWs look far better when using PS6! Using CS2, they were a very colourful mess ...

Thanks John, still having a hard time deciding in which direction to go. (I know, I'm hopeless)

I really like the look of the Olympus and the fact that I can change lenses. Out of interest, do the Olympus lenses allow the use of a screw on filter or lens hood? Filter would be nice, but a hood would probably be important.

My two main concerns are quality and weight (with RAW being an absolute must, wouldn't consider a camera without it).

For quality, I really enjoy the effects (bokeh) produced by the DSLR, and am after something that would produce the same results for wildlife (my main focus), but also just as capable for landscape/travel photography.

Weight is a huge consideration, and the thing most likely to be the deciding factor.
Example, my Nikon D3100, Nikkor 18-105 and Sigma 70-300 have a collective weight of just over 2.2kg, then add to this say 300g for the charger, so a total of approximately 2.5kg.

This might not sound very much, but I prefer to travel (when going via air) carry on only, so am limited to a total of 7kg inclusive of clothing, toiletries, electronics, suitcase weight, etc. so weight quite quickly becomes a problem.

While I could probably get away with a carry on that is a 1kg or so over the limit (testing shows total carry on weight would be 8.9kg), with the luck that I have, if they weighed a single bag during an entire day, it would be mine...

The Olympus, 14-42 and 40-150 have a collective weight of around 655g total (from what I can find in documentation), this is a much more attractive option.

The Panasonic TZ-90 has a total weight of 322g, however, I'd happily go for the slightly heavier Olympus compared to the Panasonic depending on image quality.

I suppose at the end of the day, the question is which one of the two would give better bokeh.

This is the quality I get on my DSLR, so it would be the same that I'd want on the subsitute camera.

_DSC6827 by andrewbensch, on Flickr

The Panasonic TZ90 is an upgrade to the TZ30 that I bought back in 2013 to take to Canada and Alaska. The main changes are the number of megapixels (20 vs 14) and that it can shoot RAW (a real bonus in my opinion). The sensor size is virtually unchanged meaning that the pixels are smaller on the TZ90, which is not necessarily a good thing. It also has a much greater zoom at 720mm compared to 480mm, which I found was more than adequate.

How did it go? It was certainly small and fit easily into my pocket. It was easy to use and the photos looked great on the camera but when I got back and looked at the images they were a bit disappointing with artefacts clearly visible at 100%. Also, having come from a DSLR to a travel zoom, I found having controls accessed via a screen rather than by dials difficult to get used to. Plus, you can't fit a polarising filter to it, which I think is a must for landscape photos. I had plenty of shots with blown out skies. Having access to RAW might alleviate some of these issues.

If I had my time over again, I would just take my DSLR with a kit lens, a wide angle lens and maybe a zoom up to 200mm. Sure, you look like a tourist carrying around such an obvious camera but where I went the tourists probably outnumbered the locals so I would have fit right in.

It depends why you are travelling and what you want the camera to do. If you are sightseeing and just want some nice shots to remind you of where you went the travel zoom will be fine. If the aim of your trip is to take high quality photographs you might want to take a DSLR. As an example, a night time cityscape would not turn out as well using the TZ90 as it would with a DSLR.

I rarely use the TZ30 now. I will take it if I need to take photos for work because it is simple and takes very clear photos in the daylight.

Here is an example with typically blown out skies:

Thanks Andrew, great information, and a lot to think about

As mentioned above, weight is a significant issue.

Not too worried about looking like a tourist (I stand out enough as it is) and would happily take my DSLR, but more concerned about kit weight (2.5kg for DSLR as above, vs 400-600g for smaller cameras).

Thanks for the great info on the TZ230, all important factors to keep in mind.

RAW is a must, it does help fix those sky blowouts, but like anything, can only do so much.

I'm not the world's best photographer by any means, but my aim is to be able to take high quality holiday photos, with added pictures like above.

But I suppose that like with everything, it is a trade off between quality and weight, etc.

Out of interest, what is the equipment pictured in your photo? Looks interesting

Another consideration is the battery. Will you be able to recharge it daily? If not, buy one that takes AA batteries.

Sent from a mobile thing.

Thanks dacar, something that I hadn't thought about.

The majority of my travel would be confined to hotel, airbnb, etc. so charging normally wouldn't be an issue.

However, another thing to take into consideration is the weight/size of the charger required. Some/most travel cameras allow charging via USB, so I'd be able to use my multiport USB charger and charge along with phone, kindle, etc. where as others generally need a dedicated charger.




Thanks for your help everyone, greatly appreciated

Still have around 2 weeks before I'm looking at purchasing (but could always extend it neeed), so hopefully I've made my mind up by then

[Hawthy]

Out of interest, what is the equipment pictured in your photo? Looks interesting

That, my friend, is a rail snowblower at Skagway, Alaska. It allowed trains to use the Yukon Pass during winter. It is a bit of a running joke in the Where, What, Who section of AP because it turns up regularly. I used that photo to generate a response from Ameerat but sadly...(crickets chirping).

[ameerat42]

You debbil, you, Hawthy! I didn't look into this thread before,
as I had nothing to offer on the topic. Howevva, now that it's changed to snow[movers]...

Yes, I've seen this very engine, too. Nice town, that. Did you take the free historical walk, or take
the White Pass Special? - Two bob says you can't guess which I did

Now back On Topic... - I agree with your point of forgetting all about a compact camera for travel,
unless all you want is travel snaps.

[Bensch]

That, my friend, is a rail snowblower at Skagway, Alaska. It allowed trains to use the Yukon Pass during winter. It is a bit of a running joke in the Where, What, Who section of AP because it turns up regularly. I used that photo to generate a response from Ameerat but sadly...(crickets chirping).

Nice, thanks for the info Andrew

You debbil, you, Hawthy! I didn't look into this thread before,
as I had nothing to offer on the topic. Howevva, now that it's changed to snow[movers]...

Yes, I've seen this very engine, too. Nice town, that. Did you take the free historical walk, or take
the White Pass Special? - Two bob says you can't guess which I did

Now back On Topic... - I agree with your point of forgetting all about a compact camera for travel,
unless all you want is travel snaps.

Thanks Am, yep that is the track I was starting to head down.

Looks like 4/3rds it is

[Hawthy]

You debbil, you, Hawthy! I didn't look into this thread before,
as I had nothing to offer on the topic. Howevva, now that it's changed to snow[movers]...

Yes, I've seen this very engine, too. Nice town, that. Did you take the free historical walk, or take
the White Pass Special? - Two bob says you can't guess which I did

Now back On Topic... - I agree with your point of forgetting all about a compact camera for travel,
unless all you want is travel snaps.

Self- guided walk for me. Booked with Tight-A*** Travel.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[John King]

Andy, my E-M1 MkI, 14-42 EZ pancake zoom, 40-150 plastic fantastic, spare battery, and clip on flash in its Thinktank Mirrorless Mover 10 bag (about 150x150x125) weighs 1227.7 grams (very accurate scales ... ). The E-M1 MkI body is relatively heavy for mFTs, around 550 grams.

IQ is much the same as the image you posted, maybe a bit sharper. Certainly not perceptibly worse.

[Bensch]

Andy, my E-M1 MkI, 14-42 EZ pancake zoom, 40-150 plastic fantastic, spare battery, and clip on flash in its Thinktank Mirrorless Mover 10 bag (about 150x150x125) weighs 1227.7 grams (very accurate scales ... ). The E-M1 MkI body is relatively heavy for mFTs, around 550 grams.

IQ is much the same as the image you posted, maybe a bit sharper. Certainly not perceptibly worse.

Fantastic, thank you John, greatly appreciated

Looks like there is an Olympus coming my way in the next few weeks

Looking at ordering around the 15th of next month, so hopefully they have the black version still in stock

[John King]

Hope that it suits you, mate.

Do keep in mind that the menus and operation will be completely different from what you are used to. It will have a learning/acclimatization curve attached!

mFTs lenses are generally at their best between wide open and no smaller than f/8. There are exceptions to this, but not with any of the kit lenses. Of course you can use smaller apertures, but diffraction will almost certainly be noticeable. If for happy snaps, no problem. If for an A2 size print, different matter.

All the best with it. Keep us posted.

[Bensch]

Hope that it suits you, mate.

Do keep in mind that the menus and operation will be completely different from what you are used to. It will have a learning/acclimatization curve attached!

mFTs lenses are generally at their best between wide open and no smaller than f/8. There are exceptions to this, but not with any of the kit lenses. Of course you can use smaller apertures, but diffraction will almost certainly be noticeable. If for happy snaps, no problem. If for an A2 size print, different matter.

All the best with it. Keep us posted.

Thanks John

The technical side sometimes gets me, but based on your info, essentially would I be correct in thinking that the kit lenses would be sharpest between say f/4 and f/8, and starts to get noticeably softer between f/8 and f/16?

If so, I don't think it would be a deal breaker for me, normally shoot wildlife around f/7.1-f/8. Might just mean shooting with a lower f stop number or focus stacking for landscapes?

The majority of my photos are Facebook, forums, etc with the occasional 6x4 print or very rarely a 16x12 canvas.

Thanks again


Sent from my A1601 using Tapatalk