abbaav

I want to upgrade from a super-zoom and not sure of the benefits of a DSLR vs Mirorless

Mr ground rules are: a) Must be small, I walk with a cane and one handed shooting is sometimes the only option b) would like zoom from 20 something to at least 200 or more c) must have viewfinder (optical or EVF) d) no interest in wi-fi, video or in-camera processing. Would like to keep price under $1.000

I just want bright, sharp photos, especially in low light.

Your experience and suggestions please

MtnMan Loc: ID

I recommend the Sony NEX-7, which had a package deal that met your price a couple of months ago when I bought mine. You can also purchase a nice 55-200 mm lens for it...but that adds $350---$250 with the hundred dollar off coupon B&H was offering with the package deal.

My other camera is a high end DSLR...but just too heavy to take on significant hikes. The Sony takes comparable photos in many situations.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Sony HX300. One lens (Carl Zeiss). Super sharp. It has a 50x optical zoom. Great in low light. Look up james56 and look at his posts. All done with this camera. Then look it up on the internet to see if the specs are what you want. It is superior to the Canon version. The Canon version is also a great camera, but the Sony has a better picture. Nikon does not have anything that compares unfortunately. And these are well within you budget by a few hundred dollars.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Sony A3000 - $350 with 18-55 lens. 55-200 available. APS-c , 20MP .....At Walmart.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

People are suggesting cameras with interchangeable lenses. I wonder if this is truly what he wants. It appears to me that he would rather keep it simple with quality.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I have a u-4/3 camera and I love the format. It's smaller and lighter and cheaper and much easier to travel with. It beats ASP-C hands down for size weight and cost.

Having said that my D7000 is my go to camera, I get better quality results with less work. But I get good results with the u-4/3 too, just requires more work.

20mm to 200mm is a pretty wide range for a small format sensor, the problem is the wide end. Check your camera of choice for lens selections to be sure.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bright sharp photos especially in low light will be a problem. And so will a 10x zoom, since they generally will not be fast lenses - usually starts at F3.5 or F4 and go to F5.6 at the long end.

Most mirrorless cameras I have looked at have small sensors - usually Micro 4/3 - if they are going to be affordable. And the physics involved dictates that you are not going to get great low light performance on such a small sensor. The camera that comes to mind that is an excellent replacement for a DSLR if you can live with "best in class" mediocre low light/high ISO performance (it really doesn't get better until you go to APS-C or larger sensors), would be the Panasonic LUMIX GX7 with a 14-140mm or 14-150 lens. The full frame equivalent would be 28-280 or 28-300. The body alone is around $700, and the lenses 14-140 is around $450. The 14-150 is a Leica lens, and it provides excellent image quality, but it will set you back over $1200 alone.

For decent low light performance you'd have to get a bigger sensor, in which case the way to go would be the Sony A7. But the body alone is close to $2000. This camera would give you everything want in the camera, but you'll be around 3x your target budget.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Panasonic GX1 (micro 4/3) at ISO 3200 with the 14-42 "kit" lens.
As I understand it, Panasonic make some of the sensors for Olympus.
This grab shot is nothing to write home about but the noise is not bad for a relatively small sensor.
(you have to download it to really see it)

(Download)

MtnMan Loc: ID

His title suggested that. Both DSLR and Mirrorless suggest interchangeable lenses.

Of course all P&S and Bridge cameras are mirrorless also but I've never heard one called that.

abbaav

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions.

Keep them coming, I'm "still thinking"

Thaks
abbaav

JD750 Loc: SoCal

As shown below, my Panasonic DMC-G1 u-4/3 MILF (mirror less interchangeable lens format) camera with a 14-45mm lens (28-90 Full Frame equivalent) is about the same physical size as my older Nikon P100 super zoom. The Panasonic is considerably smaller (and lighter) than the Nikon D7000 with an 18-105 (28-160 full frame equivalent). Both lenses have uv filters and lens caps attached.

The Panasonic meets all your criteria a-d, and approximately e). Especially a).

However while the camera/lens combo shown below "takes great photos in good light". It's not as good in low light as a full size or ASP-C size sensor, as was pointed out by Gene51

But the DMC-G1 has a good ISO range and with Image Stabilization and a steady hand, it's possible to take descent dim-light photos. I took the palm tree-moon shot below with the DMC-G1 in twilight after sunset, using a tripod, 0.8s exposure, ISO 800, using my 70-200mm (140-400 full size equivalent) f4-5.6, Zoom. The image is a little noisy but tolerable. That is Mars ,not noise, on the lower left of the palm tree.

Good Low light performance is also a characteristic of the lens as was pointed out by Gene51, and there are some faster mirror less lenses coming out.

Panasonic DMC-G1 u-4/3 vs Nikon P100 Super Zoom


Panasonic DMC-G1 u-4/3 vs Nikon D7000


Panasonic DMC-G1 u-4/3 Moon Rise over Palm Tree

altheman Loc: Christchurch, New Zealand

I would wait until the new Sony A6000 comes out which is tomorrow for you guys in the states pair it with the 18-200 zoom and your set

amehta Loc: Boston

It seems you have several preferences:

a. small/easy to hold
b. at least a 7x zoom
c. OVF/EVF
d. under $1000
e. good low light performance

Since some of these tend to work against each other, there will need to be some compromises, and you will have to decide where those happens.

Leaving price out of the mix, we could start with three cameras:
1. Sony RX-10, not an interchangeable lens camera, but a 24-200mm f/2.8 lens (35mm equivalent) lens, $1300
2. Olympus OM-D E-M10 (Panasonic 14-140mm lens), $1330
3. Nikon D5200 (Nikon 18-140mm lens), $950

While the EM10 and D5200 have better "high-ISO" performance by a stop or so, the RX10 has a fast zoom which covers the requested range. No ILC lenses are f/2.8 for such a big focal length range (24-200mm).

If (a) is what you are willing to compromise on, the D5200 kit with the Nikon 18-140mm lens fits all of your other goals best. The total weight is about 1050g, about 2.3lbs. The Sony is more manageable, about 800g, 1.8lbs. The Olympus/Panasonic kit is lightest, about 650g, 1.5lbs. Except it isn't available yet, so your other m4/3 suggestions come into play...

Good luck deciding! :-)

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Ya that's a sweet camera, but the OP wants a view finder built in the camera.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Panasonic G3 or newer depending on price. A minor stroke left me with the inability to use a full size DSLR. I still favor the G3 over my Nikon 3200 at times.