raypep

I recently traveled to Scotland, England and France over a three week period, taking with me a Nikon 7100 and a Tamron 16 - 300 walk around lens. I also took with me a Sony RX 100 M3 for those times I was not intending to take photos but might see an opportunity. I did not have carry-on except for a back pack where I placed the Nikon. There was lots of walking around and lots of airports. After awhile, the Nikon seemed to get heavier as I went along. Towards the end, I just did not want to lug the Nikon and chose the Sony.

Back home, on my computer, I can see the hundreds of photos I took and if I may say they look pretty good. And, until I remember where I was, it is hard to tell the difference between shots from the Nikon and the Sony RX. The Nikon was slightly better. Since I don't plan on large prints or for that matter any prints I just want to see great photos on the computer.


I am retired , 70 years old, and perhaps not as spry as I used to be. I have many more trips coming up and need advice.


Here is the question and sorry to take so long to ask it: can anyone recommend a light weight camera great for travel with a fixed lens like the Sony RX with a one inch sensor but with a larger telephoto -longer than the 70 mm on the RX ? I appreciate your advice. Thanks

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I feel your pain. I can't recall ever taking a substantial trip, especially by air, carrying a DSLR. I have often brought a camera that fits into a case on my belt. Rip the Velcro open, take the shot, put it back.

Now I have a Sony A6000 for when I want something small, although it's not going to fit into a belt case. I do have a tiny Sony WX9, which fits into a belt case. While the quality is good, it's not up to DSLR or mirrorless level.

I'll post some links below for camera comparisons and compact recommendations. I'm guessing you'll want a viewfinder.

http://www.cameradecision.com/
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

Compact, raw, viewfinder (not the newest of links)

https://www.lifewire.com/best-viewfinder-cameras-493677
http://www.compactcamerawithviewfinder.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/compact-cameras-with-viewfinders

More -
http://snapsort.com/roundups/raw-compact-digital-cameras-viewfinder
http://www.compactcamerawithviewfinder.com/

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

As long as you require a fixed lens, and you like the RX100, look at the RX10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU8F0IUGHRM&t=384s

SamOTing

Check out the Canon G16. Sure beats lugging a big old heavy camera. Those days are long gone for me. And in the end, it is not the camera that "makes" the picture; it is your eye.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Maybe the Panasonic FZ1000 is what you are looking for.

RolandDieter

I believe the smallest, lightest camera with a 1" sensor is the Panasonic Lumix zs100, focal range 25 - 250mm. I've done well with it.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

My wife bought a Panasonic ZS 100 with 1" sensor. She took it to Europe last month and got great results. My choice for small and light is the Panasonic LX100 with a larger m43 lens but it is not quite as small and the zoom range is reduced.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

I feel the Sony RX10 first model is a wonderful all in one camera. Reasonably small (not a pocket camera, however). Constant 2.8 Zeiss lens 24-200mm zoom with constant aperture. And you can get one for around $350 to $400 on Ebay (used). It also has a feature I really appreciate..aperture is adjusted on the lens, either with or without click stops.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Since your goal seems to be to view images on a computer instead of making sizable prints, I'd recommend just a point-and-shoot. Even an old one would do the job.

I have an old Ricoh GR3 stuck in a drawer that's TINY and makes great images for the tube. It's about 3/4" thick and the same width and length as a new iPhone.

I think folks are generally over-killing it on the amount of gear needed to post pictures to Facebook, Flickr, and other online places.


Here is a Flickr search of shots taken with a GR3.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Ricoh%20GR3

printer273

Take a hard look at the Sony RX10III or the new RX10 IV all the reach you will need, lighter weight great quality and it does video well if needed.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

That's what I'm also considering for a river cruise in Aug. 2018. I may rent one. BTW: I'm 80 and still shoot with two DSLR's & Canon L lenses.
Mark

DavidS

I'll second bsprague's motion re: Lumix ZS100. We just got back from two weeks in Ireland using the ZS100. Got great pictures and didn't miss my DSLR. It has a 25-250 equivalent lens and a 1" sensor. In addition to the light weight, the small size offered a huge advantage in that it was easy to slip it under my raincoat whenever it rained - which, in Ireland, was regularly (though not constantly). This is not so much the case with the mock SLR "bridge" cameras that others have suggested here.

rmm0605 Loc: Atlanta GA

I am also 70. I bought a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000, Which has a 1" sensor and a 24-400mm equivalent Leica-designed lens. This model camera has been superseded but the original and its replacement both do an excellent job.

cthahn

Do a search for various cameras with specifications. They all give the weight. The lens will add to the weight. I am 86 years old and never think about the weight of equipment.

tomad Loc: North Carolina

I own two of the cameras recommended by others here, the original Sony RX10 and the Panasonic ZS100. Both have 1 inch sensors and both take very good photos. The Sony is a little bit better in quality and controls IMO, but it is almost as big as a DSLR with a small lens. The ZS100 is almost pocketable, i.e., will fit in a jacket or cargo pocket and has 50 mm (35mm equiv) more reach; 250mm vs 200mm on the RX10. It also has a touch screen while the original Sony RX10 does not. They both shoot raw and have most of the control of a DSLR. Either would be a good choice.