Low priced point and shoot? Or just use my Note 5

[Ratman6161]

So here is my dilemma. I know computers and phones but I'm not a photography expert. the LCD screen on my Olympus SZ10 is broken and it doesn't have a regular vew finder ... so without the LCD its essentially useless.

I have a big vacation coming up in September and Prime day is Monday, so I've been looking at what kind of point and shoot camera I can get for $200 or less.

On the other hand, I have a Galaxy Note 5 that seems to take pretty good pictures. Would I be just wasting my money to buy a new camera? Is anything I could buy for the price I want to pay actually going to give me better results than just using my phone?

I will be taking pictures in a variety of environments both indoors and out. Probably not much at night but you never know.

Another factor is that I was considering not taking my phone since I don't think my Verizon phone will work in Ireland anyway...or am I wrong about that? Even if it would work as a phone, if I actually used it as such I think Verizon would stick me with massive charges, so I was considering just buying an el-cheapo pay as you go phone when I get there. Any recommendations in this area would be appreciated too. I guess I could take my note 5 just to use the camera if need be.

 

[CuriousMike]

There is no $200 P&S that willl give you appreciably better photos than your Note 5.

If you can scour craiglist and find a Sony RX100, that would be your best bet if you want a dedicated small camera that will do better.

 

[Ratman6161]

There is no $200 P&S that willl give you appreciably better photos than your Note 5.

If you can scour craiglist and find a Sony RX100, that would be your best bet if you want a dedicated small camera that will do better.

Thanks. There don't seem to be any on craigs list in my area. There are some on eBay and a lot of them seem to be asking more that MSRP for them. Don't think I'd be willing to go ebay on something like this though unless it was new and then of course its more than I want to spend.

But Ill keep looking. Who knows, I still have 2 1/2 months before the vacation.

 

[CuriousMike]

The only other suggestion I would have is to look for something slightly larger than a P&S, such as an older gen micro 4/3 camera.
This camera will give you anywheres from the same quality to much better quality shots as your Note 5 - it has an auto-mode so it should work pretty well. And you'll have a smidge of optical zoom.
To get the best out of it, you'd actually want to spend time learning a little about photography.
https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Four-Thirds-Mirrorless-3-0-Inch-Touch-Screen/dp/B004A8ZQJS/

 

[CuriousMike]

Maybe expand your search to Sony A5000/A5100 kits as well - those might be more prevalent on CL.
Bigger than P&S, but definitely a step up in photo quality.

 

[Ratman6161]

The only other suggestion I would have is to look for something slightly larger than a P&S, such as an older gen micro 4/3 camera.
This camera will give you anywheres from the same quality to much better quality shots as your Note 5 - it has an auto-mode so it should work pretty well. And you'll have a smidge of optical zoom.
To get the best out of it, you'd actually want to spend time learning a little about photography.
https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Four-Thirds-Mirrorless-3-0-Inch-Touch-Screen/dp/B004A8ZQJS/

Interesting. The Panasonic is only a little above what I wanted at $249. Amazon is also showing a used one for $138. I'm Leary of buying sight unseen, but it says "fulfillment by Amazon" and not a third party seller so I should be able to return it if I don't like what I get. On the other hand, Monday is prime day so I'm definitely holding off until then.

 

[CuriousMike]

Be aware that the first image shown is using a different lens - it shows (what I think is) the pancake 18mm.
The kit comes with the 14-42mm lens, which is the bottom photo and makes the camera "much more bulky."

Interesting. The Panasonic is only a little above what I wanted at $249. Amazon is also showing a used one for $138. I'm Leary of buying sight unseen, but it says "fulfillment by Amazon" and not a third party seller so I should be able to return it if I don't like what I get. On the other hand, Monday is prime day so I'm definitely holding off until then.

 

[Ratman6161]

Be aware that the first image shown is using a different lens - it shows (what I think is) the pancake 18mm.
The kit comes with the 14-42mm lens, which is the bottom photo and makes the camera "much more bulky."

Thanks for all the advice. So prime day isn't turning out to be any help. I've been reading up on the Micro 4/3 form factor...which I didn't even know about before. As far as the camera itself, its seeming exactly like what I would want. Price wise, getting an older model or used one seems to be what I have to do to to get it to the price I want. I'm currently leaning heavily towards the Panasonic GF2 you recommended. But as you pointed out, the lens it comes with is pretty large. I could live with it but I'd prefer something physically smaller but still with at least a limited zoom capability. So, now I'm looking at a used body only GF3 on Amazon which they say is "with only slight signs of wear" and comes with everything except a lens for $109.

Then I started looking at lenses and of course they can get expensive. So the options I'm looking at now are:

New GF2 for $249
New GF3 for $339
Used GF3 body only for $109 + buy a lens. The question is what lens to pick if I go this route? Its become obvious that it would quickly become cheaper to just buy the kit and accept the larger size rather than the body only and separate lens. Any decent general purpose lens with a limited zoom capability and smaller than what comes with the kit and costs $140 or less?

Also, from what I've been reading, the GF3 isn't all that much of an upgrade over the GF2 so I guess for my purposes, if I was buying the kit and going with a new one, I'd be just as happy with the GF2?

 

[CuriousMike]

This really comes down to your matrix of
- how small do you really want
- how much are you really willing to spend
- how much ultimate photo quality are you after

My 2 minute internet "GF2 vs GF3" reading shows me that there isn't going to be a big enough difference between them for a new photographer to pull you one way or the other.

Micro 4/3 is considered small - the smallest interchangeable lens camera system.
Compared to the Sony RX100, they're going to appear somewhat large - and that size is the first thing you're going to have to determine if it's an OK trade off. ( www.camerasize(s).com is a fun site that'll let you compare cameras to other cameras, with double-AA batteries as a constant metric.)

My gut feeling is the best bet for you is the GF2 (new, used or otherwise) -- but this is predicated on you spending some time learning the camera and some very basics of photography. If you really just want something that will be as dead simple as your Note 5 to shoot with, then you should just stick with that. The reason I say that is because if you don't spend time with the GF2 before your trip, you will have a higher chance of missed ( or bad ) shots with the GF2 compared to just using what you know.

 

[Ratman6161]

This really comes down to your matrix of
- how small do you really want
- how much are you really willing to spend
- how much ultimate photo quality are you after

My 2 minute internet "GF2 vs GF3" reading shows me that there isn't going to be a big enough difference between them for a new photographer to pull you one way or the other.

Micro 4/3 is considered small - the smallest interchangeable lens camera system.
Compared to the Sony RX100, they're going to appear somewhat large - and that size is the first thing you're going to have to determine if it's an OK trade off. ( www.camerasize(s).com is a fun site that'll let you compare cameras to other cameras, with double-AA batteries as a constant metric.)

My gut feeling is the best bet for you is the GF2 (new, used or otherwise) -- but this is predicated on you spending some time learning the camera and some very basics of photography. If you really just want something that will be as dead simple as your Note 5 to shoot with, then you should just stick with that. The reason I say that is because if you don't spend time with the GF2 before your trip, you will have a higher chance of missed ( or bad ) shots with the GF2 compared to just using what you know.

Interesting comparison on size, which prompted me to compare the measurements of my old (and kind of crappy from the beginning) point and shoot. The web site you pointed out didn't have the old clunker on it but its still listed on Amazon so I got the dimensions there.
The P&S (in MM) is 106.7 x 38.1 x 66.4.
the GF2 is 112.8 x 32.8 x 67.8 so its only 6mm wider and 1.4mm taller and actually slimmer...but that's just the body. Its that lens that makes the size difference. I found a site with its dimensions that says it's 63mm tall so add that to the thickness of the camera and its about 96mm overall.

I don't mind spending the time to learn it. I work in IT and actually kind of have fun with techno-gadgets so that part isn't intimidating. So I guess its down to the size of that lens. Either get the GF2 if I can live with the lens or stick with my phone if I can't.

Thanks for all your help

 

[MrSquished]

What olympus m43 bodies fit your budget? I chose them over panasonic when switching to m43 and love them. I haven't paid much attention to the m43 market since I settled in with my setup - an OMD EM-1 and an OMD-EM5 Mk II. I know they came out with an OMD EM-1 Mk II but I simply don't need it - but I still do want it quite badly

 

[Ratman6161]

What olympus m43 bodies fit your budget? I chose them over panasonic when switching to m43 and love them. I haven't paid much attention to the m43 market since I settled in with my setup - an OMD EM-1 and an OMD-EM5 Mk II. I know they came out with an OMD EM-1 Mk II but I simply don't need it - but I still do want it quite badly

I'm not tied to a brand at the moment, but the GF2 I've been looking at on amazon.com is $249. That's a bit above what I started out at but doable. From my reading so far, it seems like anything significantly better is also significantly more expensive though I'm also considering used. Open to any suggestions though.

 

[Ratman6161]

OK, so after two weeks of research, I'm back. During that time I went to a local Best Buy store, not because I would actually buy there but because they have a number of cameras of different brands and sizes on display where I could actually pick them up and see how they felt in my hands as opposed to just seeing pictures on line.
Some that I Saw included Sony A5100 and a6000, Panasonic GX85 (slightly bigger than their M 4/3 cameras), and similar sized Olympus (can't remember the exact model). The conclusion I reached was that any of the cameras in this size range would not be too large for me, though they could become so if they had a really big lens on them. So that kind of put the size issue to bed for me.
As to price, after my research, I decided to increase my price range up to around $400 which can get me something of a much newer generation.
I've now pretty much narrowed down my choice to the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7. I'ts $430 on Amazon and with a $40 gift card I have available it makes $390. From the reviews I've read, its just as good as the latest and greatest M 4/3 from Panasonic, the GX850 as long as I don't care about the couple of features the newer model adds (which I don't).
But, I'm also looking at the Sony A5000. Amazon has that for $399 so with my gift card I could get that for about $359. The biggest differences between the two seem to be that rather than M 4/3, the Sony has an APS-C sensor, 20 MP rather than 16 for the GF7, and is $30 cheaper.
Looking at the "kit lens" that comes with each, on a site called Imaging Source I found reviews of the lenses from both. Important because I see myself using what ever comes with the camera at least initially and possibly for the life of the camera.
Sony "The Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is a compact and inexpensive kit zoom lens that produces decent results, although it suffers from heavy barrel distortion at wide angles and produces images that are only super-sharp at the center."
Panasonic "The new Panasonic 12-32mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 ASPH MEGA O.I.S. Lumix G Vario lens is a stellar companion to the tiny GM1. It produces excellent, sharp photos at all focal lengths, even wide open, and has minimal distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration. And while the lack of a dedicated focus ring is a little disappointing, as manual focusing using the touch screen is a little slow and awkward, overall there's not much to complain about with this lens. The Panasonic 12-32mm is the perfect match for the powerful and pocketable GM1 thanks to stellar optics and a super-lightweight, ultra-compact design."

To me the Panasonic seems like the winner. Is the APS-C sensor on the Sony that big a deal? To me it seems like for my purposes it probably isn't.

 

[CuriousMike]

I have owned APS-C ( Nikon D5000, D5200, D7100, Sony A6000, Sony Nex 3N, Fuji XT-20 ), Full Frame ( Nikon D610 ) and Micro 4/3 ( Olympus OM-D EM10 ).

The cameras I was most unhappy with were the Sony's -
(1) I thought the kit lenses sucked. Others disagree. Others agree
(2) I thought the ergonomics sucked.
(3) I thought the menus sucked.
(4) The images were good.
(5) The lens selection was modest

The OM-D EM10 was arguably one of my favorite camera's I've owned.
(1) The controls were great
(2) The menu system was meh
(3) The kit lens was super
(4) The image quality was good - surprising amount of highlight and shadow detail recovery available
(5) For action images, the autofocus was useless
(6) The lens selection is very good ( you can buy Panasonic OR Olympus m43 lenses)

The other thing to remember is, based on physics, generally, m43 lenses will be smaller than their APS-C counterparts.
Generally, m43 lenses are also slightly less expensive.

You are giving up a modest amount of ultimate photo quality going to m43, particularly if you will be doing a lot of night photography.

I for one think that m43 is a great choice for you.

Also:

 

[Ratman6161]

I have owned APS-C ( Nikon D5000, D5200, D7100, Sony A6000, Sony Nex 3N, Fuji XT-20 ), Full Frame ( Nikon D610 ) and Micro 4/3 ( Olympus OM-D EM10 ).

The cameras I was most unhappy with were the Sony's -
(1) I thought the kit lenses sucked. Others disagree. Others agree
(2) I thought the ergonomics sucked.
(3) I thought the menus sucked.
(4) The images were good.
(5) The lens selection was modest

The OM-D EM10 was arguably one of my favorite camera's I've owned.
(1) The controls were great
(2) The menu system was meh
(3) The kit lens was super
(4) The image quality was good - surprising amount of highlight and shadow detail recovery available
(5) For action images, the autofocus was useless
(6) The lens selection is very good ( you can buy Panasonic OR Olympus m43 lenses)

The other thing to remember is, based on physics, generally, m43 lenses will be smaller than their APS-C counterparts.
Generally, m43 lenses are also slightly less expensive.

You are giving up a modest amount of ultimate photo quality going to m43, particularly if you will be doing a lot of night photography.

I for one think that m43 is a great choice for you.

Also:

Once again, thanks for your help. I ended up ordering the Panasonic GF7. Should be arriving today. I think its going to work well for me. In the end the techie in me just couldn't stand the idea of going with something older than that. And I envision keeping it for a long time so it seemd to me to be worth it to [pay a bit more for a camera that's only one generation oled

 

[CuriousMike]

I ended up ordering the Panasonic GF7.

Congrats - you made a good decision. You have a little more than a month before your trip - I'd urge you to spend as much time using the camera between then and now as possible. Be sure you're familiar with the basics ( auto-mode, reviewing photos, how to charge ) and perhaps some less used functions you might want to use but could use ( timer, adjusting the exposure up/down, setting the JPG quality and punchiness.)

 

[Ratman6161]

Congrats - you made a good decision. You have a little more than a month before your trip - I'd urge you to spend as much time using the camera between then and now as possible. Be sure you're familiar with the basics ( auto-mode, reviewing photos, how to charge ) and perhaps some less used functions you might want to use but could use ( timer, adjusting the exposure up/down, setting the JPG quality and punchiness.)

Thanks, I'm already having a lot of fun with it. Of course now I have a lot of pictures of my cats, dogs, and yard but its good practice.

 

[Ratman6161]

Update. So I went on my big vacation with my new Panasonic GF7. It worked great and I ended up loving it. But one thing I discovered is I ended up taking a lot of outdoor landscapes where I wished I had more zoom than the 12 -32 kit lens can d4luver. So now I'm shopping for my first lens. On Amazon, there is a panasonic 35 - 100 form $164 and an Olympus 40 -150 for $124. The Olympus seems like the better deal except....the Olympus doesn't have image stabilization in the lens as they put it in the camera body. Should that be a deal breaker?

 

[CuriousMike]

Broadly, you need to also consider that the Olympus starts at 40 but ends at 150, where the Panasonic starts at 70 and ends at 100.

That may not seem like a big deal, but in "equivalance" terms, it is.

Essentially, m43 camera focal lengths are 1/2 that of a full frame cameras "equivalence."

So,
40-150 = 80-300
35-100= 70-200

The Panasonic is wider at the short end, but shorter at the long end - by a fair amount.
Where the Olympus is longer at the short end, but longer at the long end.

If you care about absolute reach (how much of the big part of the zoom you're getting), the Olympus gives you more.

You can try the Nikon "focal length simulator" - leave it at FX and just concentrate on differences between 70 & 80, and then 200&300.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

Beyond that, yes, image stabilization is a sorta big deal - particularly with longer focal lengths.
Now, if you shoot in (a) good light and keep up a (b) high shutter speed, you can mitigate this.

I'd be conflicted about this if I were in your shoe's - I'd probably want the Olympus for the extra reach, but I also would be weary of unsharp images due to camera shake at longer focal lengths.

I will say this: The 35-100 will be a tremendous zoom upgrade over your 12-32, so that might be a winner.
Using the Nikon focal length simulator above, concentrate on looking at (24-64mm) vs (70-200mm) - you may find that sufficient.

 

[Ratman6161]

Broadly, you need to also consider that the Olympus starts at 40 but ends at 150, where the Panasonic starts at 70 and ends at 100.

That may not seem like a big deal, but in "equivalance" terms, it is.

Essentially, m43 camera focal lengths are 1/2 that of a full frame cameras "equivalence."

Broadly, you need to also consider that the Olympus starts at 40 but ends at 150, where the Panasonic starts at 70 and ends at 100.

That may not seem like a big deal, but in "equivalance" terms, it is.

Essentially, m43 camera focal lengths are 1/2 that of a full frame cameras "equivalence."

So,
40-150 = 80-300
35-100= 70-200

The Panasonic is wider at the short end, but shorter at the long end - by a fair amount.
Where the Olympus is longer at the short end, but longer at the long end.

If you care about absolute reach (how much of the big part of the zoom you're getting), the Olympus gives you more.

You can try the Nikon "focal length simulator" - leave it at FX and just concentrate on differences between 70 & 80, and then 200&300.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

Beyond that, yes, image stabilization is a sorta big deal - particularly with longer focal lengths.
Now, if you shoot in (a) good light and keep up a (b) high shutter speed, you can mitigate this.

I'd be conflicted about this if I were in your shoe's - I'd probably want the Olympus for the extra reach, but I also would be weary of unsharp images due to camera shake at longer focal lengths.

I will say this: The 35-100 will be a tremendous zoom upgrade over your 12-32, so that might be a winner.
Using the Nikon focal length simulator above, concentrate on looking at (24-64mm) vs (70-200mm) - you may find that sufficient.

So,
40-150 = 80-300
35-100= 70-200

The Panasonic is wider at the short end, but shorter at the long end - by a fair amount.
Where the Olympus is longer at the short end, but longer at the long end.

If you care about absolute reach (how much of the big part of the zoom you're getting), the Olympus gives you more.

You can try the Nikon "focal length simulator" - leave it at FX and just concentrate on differences between 70 & 80, and then 200&300.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

Beyond that, yes, image stabilization is a sorta big deal - particularly with longer focal lengths.
Now, if you shoot in (a) good light and keep up a (b) high shutter speed, you can mitigate this.

I'd be conflicted about this if I were in your shoe's - I'd probably want the Olympus for the extra reach, but I also would be weary of unsharp images due to camera shake at longer focal lengths.

I will say this: The 35-100 will be a tremendous zoom upgrade over your 12-32, so that might be a winner.
Using the Nikon focal length simulator above, concentrate on looking at (24-64mm) vs (70-200mm) - you may find that sufficient.

once again thanks for the suggestion. As before it seems like its all coming down to how much I want to spend.

I think indefinitely want the image stabilization so that means I have to stick to Panasonic lenses. Looking at the simulator, the picture they used is enlightening. The light house on the clif is pretty much the same scenario I was in in Ireland except there it was s castle on a cliff.

I don't think the 35-100 would have been enough. On the simulator I looked at 200, 300, 400 and concluded that 400 is what I wish I had. Panason9c lenses On Amazon:
35-100 $164
45-150 $197
45-200 $447 or 244 used.

So the 45-150 seems like the sweet spot price wise and should be way better than what I have. Ill probably look around to see what's available used locally.

Finally, its amazing how fast this is becoming an addiction not long ago I only wanted to spend $200 on the whole camera. Ended up spending more than double that. And now I'm contemplating spending more than the camera cost just for a lens! But hopefully between what came with the camera plus a decent zoom in whole be done for a while.

 

[CuriousMike]

Just keep this chart in mind ...