I'm traveling to Europe and looking for a camera to bring. I don't want to bring my DSLR as I have an injury and want something lighter to make it easier to keep with me. Any recommendations under $300? I know that cheap point and shoots won't really be better than a phone, but I'm wondering if there' something decent in the $250-300 range? I'd like something to have on hand every time I travel. I don't mind buying refurbished. Would love to have a good zoom, but not required. Thank you!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Best camera for travel under $300
- Thread starter jarofmar
- Start date
tedolf
Forum Pro
Olympus E-pl1/2 . About $75.00. Great if you have some old SLR or rangefinder lenses. You can even use your existing DSLR lenses with AF with an adapter.
tedolph
tedolph
InkedMarie
Senior Member
Are you in the US? If yes, check B&H, Adorama and KEH for a used Sony rx100 or one of the Panasonics (sorry unsure of the particular numbers...I got a used LX7 for less thsn $300 and it's a great little camera).
Marie
Marie
KCook
Forum Pro
M
minababe
Guest
OP, I'm not really sure...
The fact that you've used DSLRs suggests that you might have a higher standard in what you would want in a point and shoot than the average consumer and therefore wouldn't really be happy with a sub $300-priced model even if it were "decent" for its class.
Know what I mean? I think that most people who are used to DSLRs tend to want "premium compacts" like the Panasonic LX7, LX10 or a Sony RX100 become they come closest to the feel and performance of a DSLR. Like others have suggested, you can get them for under $300, but not refurbished--used.
There are "decent" budget cameras in the price range you're talking about, I suppose, like the very highly rated Canon Powershots (for example, the sx710 hs). But would they measure up to someone used to the performance of a DSLR? Maybe, maybe not.
The fact that you've used DSLRs suggests that you might have a higher standard in what you would want in a point and shoot than the average consumer and therefore wouldn't really be happy with a sub $300-priced model even if it were "decent" for its class.
Know what I mean? I think that most people who are used to DSLRs tend to want "premium compacts" like the Panasonic LX7, LX10 or a Sony RX100 become they come closest to the feel and performance of a DSLR. Like others have suggested, you can get them for under $300, but not refurbished--used.
There are "decent" budget cameras in the price range you're talking about, I suppose, like the very highly rated Canon Powershots (for example, the sx710 hs). But would they measure up to someone used to the performance of a DSLR? Maybe, maybe not.
Thank you! What are your thoughts on the LumixZS50?
InkedMarie
Senior Member
M
Mark B.
Guest
See below - it has a tiny sensor - 1/2.3" - compared to a DSLR. You'll be disappointed in anything but bright sunshine; higher ISO just will not compare to a DSLR.
Thank you! That and the LX7 are right around the same price and the Sony RX100 being a bit more. Is the Sony worth the extra money?See below - it has a tiny sensor - 1/2.3" - compared to a DSLR. You'll be disappointed in anything but bright sunshine; higher ISO just will not compare to a DSLR.
M
Mark B.
Guest
It has a 1" sensor, so you can see in the above diagram it is significantly larger than the LX7; this should translate into better IQ, but as I've never used either can't say how much difference there will be.Thank you! That and the LX7 are right around the same price and the Sony RX100 being a bit more. Is the Sony worth the extra money?See below - it has a tiny sensor - 1/2.3" - compared to a DSLR. You'll be disappointed in anything but bright sunshine; higher ISO just will not compare to a DSLR.
M
minababe
Guest
Whether you think it's worth the extra money all depends on what trade off you're willing to live with. The thing about both cameras is that they each have strengths and weaknesses that cancel the other out in terms of which is "better." I don't have the RX100 but own the LX7, and from what I understand, the Sony has the better IQ and lower noise at higher ISOs. However, the Panasonic has more zoom, base ISO at 80 and better low light performance. So if you absolutely have to have the best IQ, maybe go with the Sony. But if the Panasonic's IQ is good enough for you and you see yourself taking a lot of low light pictures, maybe spring for the LX7.Thank you! That and the LX7 are right around the same price and the Sony RX100 being a bit more. Is the Sony worth the extra money?See below - it has a tiny sensor - 1/2.3" - compared to a DSLR. You'll be disappointed in anything but bright sunshine; higher ISO just will not compare to a DSLR.
M
minababe
Guest
Because it has a faster lens. It has an f/1.4 lens; the RX100 has f/1.8.
It might help if you gave a few more requirements. It's clear you want smaller than DSLR and less than $300. That is a lot more descriptive than some folks post.
For $300, you can get a micro-four thirds body like an EP3 with kit zoom (28-84mm equivalent) or a pancake f/2.8 35mm equivalent for your budget. The EP3 has twin dials and a pop up flash.
You can get a compact like Canon G12 or RX100. Or lots of other cameras. Depends on your needs and priorities.
I traveled last year with only my EP3 and smartphone. Weight and size were my priorities. If you have a recent smartphone, you may better off than with a small-sensor compact, so long as you're not pixel-peeping (and even if you do).
A better photographer could get better results than these.
I had a Nikon APS-C camera and lenses that were left home on this trip, and sold late last year to fund an additional micro four thirds camera.
Last edited:
I'm looking for something that'll last me a few years so I don't have to upgrade again for a while. I'd also like something that takes good pictures indoors as well as something with a decent auto mode as my mom may be using the camera as well on an upcoming Europe trip. Thank you!It might help if you gave a few more requirements. It's clear you want smaller than DSLR and less than $300. That is a lot more descriptive than some folks post.
For $300, you can get a micro-four thirds body like an EP3 with kit zoom (28-84mm equivalent) or a pancake f/2.8 35mm equivalent for your budget. The EP3 has twin dials and a pop up flash.
You can get a compact like Canon G12 or RX100. Or lots of other cameras. Depends on your needs and priorities.
I traveled last year with only my EP3 and smartphone. Weight and size were my priorities. If you have a recent smartphone, you may better off than with a small-sensor compact, so long as you're not pixel-peeping (and even if you do).
A better photographer could get better results than these.
I had a Nikon APS-C camera and lenses that were left home on this trip, and sold late last year to fund an additional micro four thirds camera.
I don't think your logic is correct. The sensor size of LX7 is 42 mm2 while RX100 sensor size is 116 mm2. In other words, RX100 can capture almost 3 times amount of light as LX7, giving same lens aperture. It means f/1.4 lens on LX7 will be equivalent to f/2.4 on RX100.
Dpreview has post an excellent explanation of equivalence here (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care).
Regards
M
minababe
Guest
Congratulations! Have fun on your vacation! :-D
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum