No touch screen. Same sub-standard smaller than everyone else screen. (It's like 2.5" usesable area for viewing photos).
I'd be tempted though if:
It's no longer the sluggish dog for sports that the A6000 is. Slow to turn on, locks up after a burst, slow for simple function such as zooming in on a raw preview. Automatic features such as eye AF and tracking AF work in any lighting.
The PDAF is actually usable in anything but great lighting
Better with 3rd party lenses to make up for the horrible sony lens lineup.
Also the LA-E3 won't work with a single one of my sony alpha lenses so hey that may be worth mentioning (the limited compatability).
Isn't this just a casio tryx knockoff?
keeponkeepingon: Y'all need to narrow down what you mean by "travel camera" because your selections are all over the place.
"We've picked out our best picks for the photographer who wants to keep things simple by carrying a compact camera rather than one with interchangeable lenses."
If you are going with that as a definition then I would think your travel camera recommendations would cover a wide range of focal lengths (as you can't change the lens) and the recommendations should be small and easy to travel with "a compact camera".
But on your list you have two recommendations with a fixed, very ackward focal length, and a large super zoom that is as big as a DSLR.
FOCUS DPREVIEW! This is not the large sensor compact or the super zoom review. You've left off popular options that fit your definition (Sony HXV90, Nikon S99000) to push your hipster darlings.
"Did you really just call 35mm (equiv) an awkward focal length?"
Yes I did! For travel it's extremely awkward. Often not wide enough seldom long enough.
Do you get out of the house much?
Y'all need to narrow down what you mean by "travel camera" because your selections are all over the place.
Teila Day: Articles like this make me gag. It's essentially saying "hey, your kid is dumb as a bag of rocks, so instead of getting your kid a camera s/he can learn shutter speed, aperture, iso relationships and change lenses, let's let them be cute and amuse us as they wallow in ignorance with their new toy..."
The best camera for kids to use are cameras like an old Pentax K1000 if they're the type of kid that wants to experiment and be surprised later after the film is developed, and old DSLR and a lens or two. Even an old used cheap view camera is an option.
This article demonstrates the same mentality that makes public schools so behind the times.. The take away here for me is that this article should demonstrate to parents that you have to take charge of your kid's life; as opposed to being directed by those who are clueless.
Simon Joinson. Pentax makes pink cameras too.
Dang anti pentax bias is everywhere!
keeponkeepingon: Dad with bunch of kids:
ipod: great. Get an Otterbox Defender case. The 5g is a generation behind but may be better for kids as it has the lanyard attachment.(omitted din the 6th generation
Kidizoom: Owned it. Needs lots of light but of course the kids will want to use it indoors. Result: pictures look horrible kids lost interest quickly
Coolpix S33: We had the S30. bad IQ, needs lots of light, battery compartment leaked and the camera died.
Instax: $1 a picture that's not going to fly in this house.
Olympus TG-4: Really? There's like 7 current waterproof cameras with similar quality and you pick the most expensive? It may be drop proof but it's not loss proof. Panasonic TS5, TS25, Canon D20, Pentax WG-4 will hurt $100 less when the kid leaves it on the bus.
TSZ50: ? that's a real head scratcher. You basically could replace it with any point and shoot and it would be just as good/bad for kids. Pricey, chunky and has a horrible/breaky Pinocchio stick out lens.
Schira: It looks like a great choice and at $199 it's $150 less than the "top of the line" dpreview is recommending for junior.
miles green: You are right, having an aperture setting is almost useless on these small cameras. Canon has been selling refurb late model DSLRs for $200ish, a much better option if that's the purpose.
Dad with bunch of kids:
It's something to consider if my K-01 or EOS-M ever bite the bullet but given they are built like tanks and have survived me this long it may be quite awhile.
Regarding sharpness; I think it's easy to be sharp at 16mp. I wonder how well the lenses would fair with a decent modern high resolution sensor. (My old NEX was fairly decent at 16mp but my newer sony 20+mp alpha produces a lot of mush, not extra detail with the same lenses).
"ave essentially closed the gap between DSLR and mirrorless focus performance for all but the most demanding applications. "
This is fairly untrue unless you conser "inside" or "cloudy day" most demanding.
My A6000 is fairly quick to drop the PDAF in anything less than perfect lighting, forget about "most demanding"
Perhaps the ultra high end is better but acording to your own coverage they are still fairly lacking versus the high end DSLRs.
doesn't google photos already do this?
noflashplease: The plastic mount is downright scary to contemplate. Overall, this camera looks like a corporate cost-cutters dream, a parts bin special of A58 and A77 bits, including that absolutely tiny 2.7" rear screen, which is no longer full articulated. The plastic mount is the absolute deal killer. The only reason anyone would still buy an A-mount camera is to support a pre-existing collection of quality Maxxum/A-mount lenses, but who in their right mind would hang a big, heavy, professional lens from that plastic mount? Just how much did Sony save by using plastic instead of metal? 5 cents? 10 cents? It seems that the A-mount isn't fading away gracefully, it's being nickeled and dimed to death.
I'd wager more than a few would use it with the famous beercan ($100ish old minolta AF F4 70-200 zoom) That thing is a friken tank. It's probably OK but I'd find the pastic mount worrisome with legacy minolta glass.
In this day and age how does a camera with 8X zoom quailify as a "long zoom"?
With such a low bar for "long" there's a slew of pocket cameras that should be on the list Canon PowerShot ELPH135, (8x zoom) ELPH 500 (10x) nikon cool pixes, sonys such as the WB800 etc
dog house riley: I'm quite satisfied with my D3300 and its under $500.00 price tag. I enjoy its compact size and great IQ. Just my 2 cents. Even its not on the list! maybe it should be?
HowaboutRAW that's the historical amazon price a respectable source that makes returns and full refunds easy.
Xoden: Shouldn't this list be named something like 'Some entry-level mirrorless body-only cameras'?It will definitely match the contents better.
". It should be pretty clear from the title which segment of the market"
The specially crafted segment you can declare sony a winner? Because that's what it's looking like. Put mirrorless in the title and you come off looking just a little better but you are still ignoring the miserable quality of the kits zoom.
Jorginho: From what I have seen the Sony does not have the best allround AF at all. It hesitates on low light where the Panasonic does not. Also EPL7 is the only one here that lets you put a EVF on it. Also Nikon J5 and the m43 cams are considerably smaller once you add lenses. But we all see it coming, don't we.
But it is all clear to me: this years winners will be Sony, Sony, Sony, Sony. Dpreview lately is mostly all about Sony. Understandable partly, Sony no doubt deserves a lot of credit for what they did with their A7 system. But dpreview is a bit too much into that brand for my taste.
"impressive image quality. "
Really? Have you actually used or tested the kit zoom?
It's a total PITA as it starts at an almost unusable 16mm (bad res bad "big nose" perspective distortion) slows the startup, sucks the battery and gives really meh images.
It's been under 550 for the last year and 500 for the last 6 months. It currently sells for $450, $100 less than some of the cameras in the roundup.
Title says ILC not mirrorless so where are the cheap DSLRs?
Also wow, total shutout of the whole M43 system?
All the cameras have 3" screens but you fail to mention the movie optimized 16:9 aspect ratio of the A5100 screen which is horrible for viewing pictures. The actual screen size for picture/live view is more like 2.5" and it feels incredibly small compared to the competitions 3:2 aspect ratio screen.s
One plus for the A5100 not mentioned over the A6000 is that you can actually control the power zoom from the body. I have no idea why the A6000 is totally braindead regarding the power zoom. You can't control it from the body, so you always need two hands instead of one when zooming
Neither body will let you set a starting focal length so you always start at 16mm where the lens is weakest.
babart: Apparently it's easy to get rid of the extra import screen, courtesy of a DPR respondent in France: "I turned off the 'Show "Add Photos" screen' option in Edit -> Preferences and everything seems to be back to normal."
I can't verify that as I went back to LR 6.1.1, and I also can't verify if that fixes any of the other problems with the 6.2 update.
Thanks for this. It's not the same at all but it's much closer to the old interface.
I'm using the new import for the first time today and all I can say is "wow".
For such a huge change in a .x update to software key to many pro workflows it's kind of incredible how much they changed the import.
Luckily I learned through discussions here that there is an option to turn off "add photos" and it gets you to something a little more similar to what we are used to. But still it's not there yet. For example what's with the huge check mark preventing you from seeing what photos are being imported?
It's a bit worrisome that adobe would so casually make such huge changes to the frontend without something to smooth the experience; for example an easy switch to put it back to the exactly the old way while you learn (or complain about) the new methods.
The more I look at the pictures the more I don't feel I need to upgrade my 5s.
Is anyone else a bit disappointed that other than resolution there has not been much progress?