Bushwalk Australia

I’m in the market for a small point-and-shoot Camera for ~$1000.00.

I want the Camera for landscapes and macros. If I can get a good wildlife shot as well, even better.
It must be small. I don’t want to have to take off my pack and muck around. I want to reach for the camera, spend the time to get the shoot but then keep walking, while I tuck the camera away.

The Sony RX100 IV looks like a good option ATM and I've read posts from 2013 but before I fork out I’d like to know what other options are out there.

I currently use my Samsung S5, a GoPro and a Sony 5100.
The Samsung doesn’t work for me as I have an inherited tremor in my right hand so the small aperture means the photos can be burred plus I like to save battery for other stuff.
The GoPro is poor in low light and turns magnificent views into mole hills, too wide an angle.
The Sony 5100 is currently my go to Camera and happy with its quality and features but is too big. Looking for something smaller. Weight isn’t so much an issue.

I’m interested in people’s experiences good and bad with their compact cameras.

I posted here before I bought the Sony RX100m3 and after using it for a few years I can totally recommend it.

I recently 'upgraded' to a DSLR which definitely made me realise just how good the quality of the Sony was for such a ridiculously small camera, especially on full auto settings. The Sony's HDR makes great photos out of low light and high contrast situations where I now have to work much harder to get an image. I'm not familiar with the 5100 but you might already have those benefits.

Still delighted with my RX100M1, and if I needed to replace it I'd get another. I had to buy one for my wife too so I could get mine back frim her - she now has an M3 and loves it.
I've been so happy with this camera that I haven't kept up with new offerings from other brands but I'd be very surprised if any have come up with a better camera in this class.

+1 for the RX100

I still have the original that I purchased when they came out around 5 years ago and it is still going strong.

The image quality is nothing short of outstanding for such a small camera, it definitely holds it's own against the DSLRs I've had. The sensor is amazing for it's size with virtually noise free images up to iso800 and combined with the zeiss lens it is beautifully sharp at most apertures and zoom levels. You can even get a little bokeh when zoomed out using a small f-stop.

To make it even better I made a few worthy additions over the years: a wrist strap, a mogopod circular polarising filter which adds almost no bulk but lots of utility and also an aftermarket grip to make it a little easier to hold on to, a good addition as it's quite a small camera that needs the extra grippage.

I reckon you couldn't go wrong with any model and if mine dies I would probably get one with the pop up viewfinder as I don't like holding the camera up in front of my face, it just feels wrong

I like the 'Tough' series that most manufacturers put out nowadays...they all have the usual
bells & whistles but with underwater photography thrown in too.
Not ultra wide lenses like the action cams...they're start around the 24mm-28mm mark(from the old 35mm days)
depending on make.
Quality is fine for the internet, but if you want to blow them up to put on your wall, look for something else.
...all slip nicely into you shirt pocket, waiting for action.

Add a Gorillapod to your pack & your good to go.

The new Nikon Coolpix W300 is probably what I'll be buying soon.

16MP, optical zoom, waterproof to 30m and "shockproof" for a drop from 2.4m onto concrete.

$600 at the first on-line camera store I looked at so you can probably get it cheaper if you look around.

The only downside (from my perspective) is it uses proprietary batteries so you'll have to carry a spare (or a charger) for longer trips.

I have the Sony RX100 III and the CoolPics (AW120) underwater camera - 'waterproof to 18metres'.

The RX100/III is a remarkable little camera but quite heavy-ish. I'm still learning many of it's features. The RX100 IV gets a vote from me!

The CoolPics camera we took scuba diving in Tahiti only down to a max of ~10metres. On about the 8th dive it came up completely full of salt water! Completely dead and all our precious UW Tahiti photos gone. (We followed the sealing instructions to a tee - but still full of water) Fortunately it was new and under warranty and they managed to recover all the photos and give us a new replacement camera. I'd be wary of any consumer camera they say is 'waterproof to XXmetres' - unless it has the real/dedicated underwater camera housing. ($$$)

Agree that I probably wouldn't take the Coolpix diving but it should be waterproof enough not to worry about getting it wet when bushwalking


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The pocket waterproof, dustproof & dropproof etc etc cameras
work fine within their parameters just don't push them to
their limits...

ofuros wrote:The pocket waterproof, dustproof & dropproof etc etc cameras
work fine within their parameters just don't push them to
their limits...

More importantly, don't expect them to stretch for much. Rather limited limit in the IQ (image quality) department, especially for the typical high contrast scenes encountered in the bush.

ofuros wrote:The pocket waterproof, dustproof & dropproof etc etc cameras
work fine within their parameters just don't push them to
their limits...

We used the camera WELL within its limits (only used to 10metres) - but still full of salt water and D.E.A.D.

Should have mentioned, the RX100 series can be charged by USB, so if you already carry a battery bank for your phone, it doubles to charge the camera - one less battery to carry. I've found hat's a pretty important feature for bushwalking.

I have one of those water/shock proof ones, bit old now (AW120), have taken it to 20m a few times, which is 2m deeper than it's rated, and not had an issue.

Stew63 wrote:

ofuros wrote:The pocket waterproof, dustproof & dropproof etc etc cameras
work fine within their parameters just don't push them to
their limits...

We used the camera WELL within its limits (only used to 10metres) - but still full of salt water and D.E.A.D.

GPSGuided wrote:

ofuros wrote:The pocket waterproof, dustproof & dropproof etc etc cameras
work fine within their parameters just don't push them to
their limits...

More importantly, don't expect them to stretch for much. Rather limited limit in the IQ (image quality) department, especially for the typical high contrast scenes encountered in the bush.

Not having a go, Stew...just a general observation.
I've used the Olympus & Fujifilm variations for more than a couple of years without any issues.
Yours must have been faulty.

GPSGuided wrote:

ofuros wrote:The pocket waterproof, dustproof & dropproof etc etc cameras
work fine within their parameters just don't push them to
their limits...

More importantly, don't expect them to stretch for much. Rather limited limit in the IQ (image quality) department, especially for the typical high contrast scenes encountered in the bush.

...and they struggle in low light situations.

Sounds like the Sony RX100 is still in a class of its own so I'll get the M3. Nikon Coolpics specs out nicely size wise and against the other "Tough" option but I think my GoPro will compliment the Sony well on those rare occasions.

These Cameras make tents, tarps, bags, quilts and packs look kind of cheap!

crollsurf wrote:Sounds like the Sony RX100 is still in a class of its own so I'll get the M3. Nikon Coolpics specs out nicely size wise and against the other "Tough" option but I think my GoPro will compliment the Sony well on those rare occasions.

These Cameras make tents, tarps, bags, quilts and packs look kind of cheap!

Note: The GoPro is pretty good for video when scuba diving (with red filter) - but for stills whilst scuba diving - total crap. Nikon Coolpics is quite good underwater (scuba) for a 'budget' UW camera - but has no red filter.

Canon G7x works for me - I carry it in a case attached to my chest strap for quick access. Great image quality, 60fps video, good all rounder.

Skibug.

The Canon G15/G16 and subsequent G7x series are very reliable, showerproof, and have (arguably) the best UI on the market. I notice quite a few mfrs copying them for that.
And yes, a single-hand fast-draw showerproof pouch on the pack shoulderstrap.

Cheers

rx100, best quality photos for a compact camera..
Olympus Tough for waterproof camera..

There is a 2017 review on dpreview that compares the above discussed cameras - it rates the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 above the:

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II
Canon PowerShot G5 X
Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II
Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100
Sony Cyber-shot RX100
Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II
Sony Cyber-shot RX100 III
Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV
Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V

The tele reach of the Lumix is worthwhile.

GPSGuided wrote:The tele reach of the Lumix is worthwhile.

24-72mm equiv. is hardly impressive.

potato wrote:There is a 2017 review on dpreview that compares the above discussed cameras - it rates the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 above the:

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II
Canon PowerShot G5 X
Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II
Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100
Sony Cyber-shot RX100
Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II
Sony Cyber-shot RX100 III
Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV
Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V

As the owner of a Lumix LX3 - perhaps the first of the compact enthusiast zoom camera class, I've always has a soft spot for Lumix cameras. But the LX5 and the LX7 were somewhat disappointing, and I didn't buy either of them. When Sony arrived with the RX100 and shook the class by the ears, I bought an RX100 instead.

DPReview might feel the LX10 is (marginally) the better all-round, but I'll take an RX100 V over it anytime.

there's a massive difference in price between the Lumix LX3 and Sony RX100 V. Is this comparing apples with apples?

I am an absolute amateur photographer looking for a camera for travel/walking. Would my photographs be twice as good from a camera that is twice the price of the Lumix LX3?

You're splitting hairs between either camera. I have the sony rx100 v1, the rx100v3, an Olympus OM-D and a couple of others. I use my Samsung S7 phone for most of my photography.

RonK wrote:24-72mm equiv. is hardly impressive.

Really? Why did I read it to have a 25-250mm equivalent 10x lens? Mix up of models?

I have an LX7 which I have been pleased with. Perhaps the two outstanding features of the camera is the ability to attach a polarising filter and the ability to adjust the aspect ratio of the images (common to all LX series?). I find the 24mm (35mm equiv) wide angle to be a minimum I would look for in a new camera, and while 90mm tele end is a bit short but necessary to get it to fit into a pocket without Mae West comments.

slparker wrote:there's a massive difference in price between the Lumix LX3 and Sony RX100 V. Is this comparing apples with apples?

Not any more. The class has come a long way since the LX3, and all have a much larger sensor now.

slparker wrote:I am an absolute amateur photographer looking for a camera for travel/walking.

Then the best camera for you would probably be the Lumix DMC-TZ100

slparker wrote:Would my photographs be twice as good from a camera that is twice the price of the Lumix LX3?

I can't quantify if they would be twice as good but they would be significantly and noticeably better.

But if you are keen for an LX3, I'll be happy to sell you mine.

GPSGuided wrote:

RonK wrote:24-72mm equiv. is hardly impressive.

Really? Why did I read it to have a 25-250mm equivalent 10x lens? Mix up of models?

TZ100