Versatility vs. IQ vs. Size.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

I love the idea of simplifying down to a bridge camera and a compact digicam, but as even though my brain acknowledges that the image quality is good enough, I still find results from APS-C (and certainly full frame) more satisfying.

Click to expand...

This is interesting Can you explain why/how you find the results from APS-C or FF more satisfying? What makes the difference?

Click to expand...

It's hard to pinpoint. I think part of it is that none of my RX100/RX10 shots feature shallow depth of field. I wouldn't say shallow DOF shots are prominent in my photos, but they're there and they're important. I have plenty of photos taken in places where the background contributes to the image, but also plenty where it's a distraction that needs to be reduced. And in wildlife photos, my Sigma 100-400 at 400/6.3 on APS-C blurs backgrounds just a bit more than the RX10 at 220ish/4 (both 600mm equivalent). I'd like to go a little faster still when I choose a long tele for my Z5.

The rest of it is probably pixel peeping and feeling good about the image quality in a way that doesn't really matter. Backyard wildlife shots with that Sigma on my D7500 look just a bit crisper than the RX10 III (even though it has an excellent lens) when looking at 100% views. And even though the RX100/10 shots are generally plenty sharp enough, when I look at those 100% views, there's just something a little less "natural" or "photographic" about the images than the larger sensor shots. They don't scream "this was taken with a small sensor compact!" But there's something about them - again, at 100% - that isn't quite as satisfying.

Basically, they're good enough that if the cameras themselves were more satisfying, I'd be content with the compromise. But between the usability differences, the lens limitations (shallow DOF mostly) and that slight little IQ difference, it's too much compromise.

If the RX10 IV was redesigned with better (for my tastes) controls, a nice, big, high res EVF, and maybe a manual zoom instead of power zoom (icing on the cake, though it might very well be impossible) then I'd be awfully tempted to own that and a compact (larger sensor) camera with a compact fast prime. But the lens lineup I've settled on gets me close enough with ILCs by allowing me to carry just 1-2 lenses (different lens depending on what I'm doing).

--
Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Try flickr - type in the camera (or a lens you might be inclined to use) in the search bar, then click the option to search groups and locate a group dedicated to that camera/lens.

My smugmug gallery is outdated and I have little uploaded that's arranged by camera. Here's a gallery showing some stuff taken with an older APS-C body with a subpar sensor (NEX-5 with a 14MP sensor that wasn't really great for its day) with the slow 18-55 kit lens ...

https://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com/Other/Disney-18-55-samples/n-h4jR9/

And here's a collection of shots taken with the 10-year old RX100 (1" sensor with 28-100 equivalent f/1.8-4.9 lens):

https://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com/Other/RX100-Samples/

Expensive but small and great IQ, much better than 99% of compacts.

Ozzie SD said:

Dennis said:

Ozzie SD said:

I totally get what you are saying. Makes sense. Subject, composition, lighting all impact your final outcome. But ... that is not exactly what I meant. I understand that eventually it's me who has to make a nice picture. But to be able to do that, I need the best gear that fits my needs, and my wallet.

Click to expand...

The gear can determine how good your photos look if you're pushing limits - printing huge, for example. But for web/HDTV displays and even modestly big prints (13x19 desktop prints and even 20x30" prints hung on a wall) it really doesn't matter. So the gear is more about what you can shoot and how well you can shoot it.

Click to expand...

Clear.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

In other words, the potential outcome could be better with the better equipment.

Click to expand...

Better how? In measurable terms you can only see if you're comparing images side by side at 100%? No matter what you buy, there's always something better. It would be a shame to prioritize image quality that will never make a difference in real life over usability that affects whether you want to take the camera out in the first place. Or the ability to shoot shallow depth of field or action or whatever else you might want to shoot.

Click to expand...

Good point. Food for thought!

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

For example a bridge camera could be an option, but will it produce images as good as for example an APS-C camera,

Click to expand...

Does it matter?

Click to expand...

It does matter in the sense of I want to see good quality images, nice colors, sharp, no noise, no dark parts (like vignetting). I am afraid a bridge camera will not have the same quality as a separate lens because compromises would have to be made for such a long zoom range in a (relatively) compact body.

Click to expand...

But there have been more complaints concerning "tele-softness" from long-zooms on APS/FF cameras than the (praised sharpness) of the Leica & Zeiss zooms on the FZ1000 & RX10-IV cameras, (400 & 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4).

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

If I would shoot the exact same picture with a RX100 VII and a Fuji X-S20, would you be able to see the difference in the end result?

Click to expand...

What's the end result?

Click to expand...

That's actually a very good question! Mainly the end result will be a picture being stored on my computer. I have quite a good monitor (resolution 2560x1440 pixels) . I want to watch my pictures in good quality on my monitor, preferably taken in a higher resolution than my monitor, so I can also zoom in to see nice details.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

I do want zoom, I do want a compact solution, but at the same time I want good image quality.

Click to expand...

Every camera delivers good image quality. It's hard to pick based on image quality when you don't know what your requirements are.

Click to expand...

As I said, nice colors, sharp image, no noise (in daylight). I want the quality to match the quality of a picture taken by a pro with professional equipment.

Click to expand...

What is more important ... ultimate-optimate IQ from an image that does NOT exist or very-good IQ from an image that DOES exist, (because of unique features from a specific camera ???

Ozzie SD said:

And I mean that in a relatively "easy" situation like in daylight with no moving subjects. I understand the pro and his pro camera will product better results with fast moving objects or in more difficult situations like in the evening when it's darker. My current camera, though being compact and having a long zoom range, does not produce the nicest images in terms of image quality. Yes, it's acceptable, but I want to go the next step, otherwise there would not be a reason for me to buy a new camera. I could just keep using my current one.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

Compact like RX 100 VII, bridge, M4/3 or APS-C? What would you do if you were in my shoes and had to spend around $ 1.000 to $ 2.500?

Click to expand...

Assuming you want to treat photography as a hobby and not just get good pictures now and then, I'd go with a subset of my current kit: Nikon Z5 with 24-200 and the 40/2 for those cozy restaurant shots Or if it falls in the budget, upgrade to a Z6II (even used) for improved autofocus (though if mostly shooting static scenes, like I do, it's overkill).

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll be checking that out!

Ozzie SD said:

Note that I'm going after convenience here and minimizing lens changes. If you need 2+ lenses to cover wide to tele, it means a camera bag and frequent lens changes and gets to be a nuisance. I'm happy to do that out shooting nature with a tripod, but not walking around a city or on vacation. That's a conscious tradeoff between convenience and image quality (though I'm sure a 20x30" print made with the 24-200 would look fine by my standards). The small, fast prime fits in a jacket pocket or backpack or any small bag you're carrying and lens changes are infrequent - swap it when you go from outdoors to indoors or when light levels fall at night. Not every time you need to go from wide to tele!

Micro 4/3 with the 12-100/4 and fast prime (20/1.8 or 17/1.7) is another option, but the m43 bodies I like (with a decent grip and good VF) are pricey and the 12-100 costs more than the Nikon 24-200.

If you can convince yourself that 24-120 range instead of 24-200 is good enough, then a m43 body with the 12-60/2.8-4 would be less expensive and more compact - a tempting option.

A Sony FF body with 28-200 and a fast compact prime is another option. The more desirable bodies tend to be pricey and the affordable bodies tend to be old

I love the idea of simplifying down to a bridge camera and a compact digicam, but as even though my brain acknowledges that the image quality is good enough, I still find results from APS-C (and certainly full frame) more satisfying.

Click to expand...

This is interesting Can you explain why/how you find the results from APS-C or FF more satisfying? What makes the difference?

Ozzie SD said:

I would not, personally, recommend Fuji. The lens lineup has a great reputation, but I find the midrange zooms lacking. An X-S10 would be a great choice and the 18-135 would probably still be a match for a bridge camera, and then a small f/2 prime for low light would be an okay kit. The 16-80 is has great specs and is very compact; it doesn't review well due to subpar corner sharpness, but I've seen nice results online from it (gets back to the whole question of how good is good enough - we can look at all these lens tests that show lens A is so much better than lens B, then look at photos that look great from both of them).

I would not recommend Nikon APS-C because of the lack of in-body image stabilization (otherwise the 18-140 and 24/1.8 would be a nice, light, inexpensive kit). Sony APS-C is good, but the better stuff available for it is expensive and I'm not sure there are any good wide-ranging zooms.

The 1" sensor bridge cameras are great - most people could be happy with the image quality in online displays, HDTVs, prints to 13x19 (and bigger if shot well). You don't have the shallow DOF option in low light (unless you add a second camera). And as handy as I find my RX10 III for travel, I don't find it so enjoyable to shoot with the power zoom (I believe the FZ1000 II has that as well?) smaller viewfinder (harder to use with my eyeglasses) and controls that I don't love.

It's all tradeoffs. I recommend downloading some samples and viewing them however you plan to view your photos - on a TV, printed, whatever. (You can save money by printing 1/4 of an image instead of a whole image) ... 1/4 image at 8x12 instead of full image at 16x24, for example. And see if you can try out whatever you're thinking about.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your great answer!

Click to expand...

PhotoTeach2 said:

But there have been more complaints concerning "tele-softness" from long-zooms on APS/FF cameras than the (praised sharpness) of the Leica & Zeiss zooms on the FZ1000 & RX10-IV cameras, (400 & 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4).

Click to expand...

I think there's a certain degree of relativity and variation of expectations in that. Unfortunately, I've seen very little in the way of direct comparisons between bridge cameras and tele lenses on ILCs.

Those super tele zooms almost always look bad at the long end compared to the short end and, in turn, at the short end compared to a midrange zoom or a 50mm prime or other very sharp lenses for a system. It's easy to come away with the idea that they're just bad and incapable of making good photos. Yet when you see wildlife pics taken with those zooms, they look great.

I haven't done apples to apples comparisons (same shot, same time) but I have shot similar subject matter (birds & rabbits in my back yard) with both my RX10 III and the relative inexpensive Sigma 100-400 Contemporary on my Nikon D7500. Both are 20MP sensors, both are 600mm equivalent and they have nearly equivalent max apertures. Wide open, I think there's fairly little to pick between them, though I'd give a slight edge when pixel peeping to the Sigma zoom on the D7500. Like I said, it's unscientific, but I'm convinced enough that I choose the D7500/zoom combo over the RX10 III.

Ozzie SD said:

What a great thread this is turning out to be. Learning a lot here! Definitely will help me to make the right choices. Though I don't have time to answer you all, please do know that I have read all your replies and will take them into consideration.

Big thanks to all of you!!!

Now the final ...

There is one last thing I would like to learn from you. We discussed some subjects (size, zoom range, IQ, budget) and narrowed down the possibilities. One thing we did not discuss, well we sort of did, but for me it's not totally clear yet ... is "what" I can photograph with a certain camera. With this I mean, with a bridge camera I can zoom in very far (so the "what" could be a bird), but in low-light situations I think it under-performs (more noise compared to APS-C or FF). So it won't be the best choice to take pictures in the evening.

I truly would like to see some pictures you made yourself with one of the cameras being discussed to show what it is capable of.

I am also interested to see the image quality during normal circumstances (daylight). How do Fuji APS-C, Sony RX100, Nikon Z5, Olympus/Panasonic M4/3 perform?

Zoom range ... I do not have a clear idea of what zoom ranges are used to capture what kind of subjects. For example, I heard mentioned a 16-80 mm lens, but also a 24-120 of 24-200 mm lens. Can you explain what these zoom ranges are typically used for? Are there advantages or disadvantages that come with a smaller or longer zoom range?

Click to expand...

You have those ranges in the camera you have now. What do you use it for?

Look at the exit data and see what focal lengths you use and what type of photos "you" take.

28mm is wide enough for landscape and 90mm is adequate for portraits. What do you want outside that range?

Ozzie SD said:

Maybe I am asking too much, but I would definitely like to see some of your pictures that show what a camera is capable of, or which show the differences in zoom range or aperture (for example F 4.0 versus F 5.6 or F 2.8). Can also be pictures to show where a camera lacks (for example visible noise in a darker environment).

So actually I am hoping to learn where a camera shines and lacks (I think this mainly has to do with sensor size) and if I am able to see this in your pictures. And secondly I hope to learn what subjects I can photograph with a certain zoom range. I already know what options I can choose from according to my wishes and available budget. The last and final step is that I would like to learn the "what" I can photograph with a certain type of camera. Special attention to how much zoom I would need to capture things that interest me.

When you can help me with this final question, I am convinced I have enough information to make te best choice and to start my new hobby! :-D Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

BBbuilder467 said:

28mm is wide enough for landscape and 90mm is adequate for portraits. What do you want outside that range?

Click to expand...

One of my favorite photos is a 3-shot montage of the Detroit skyline at sunset, which I did with a 6D and Canon 100-400L lens. The final, stitched image is very much "wide-angle" because of the distance across the Detroit River from Belle Isle. I wouldn't have gotten the detail, though, with one frame at (say) 28mm.

Don't assume what gear you might need for a specific genre.

Ozzie SD said:

What a great thread this is turning out to be. Learning a lot here! Definitely will help me to make the right choices. Though I don't have time to answer you all, please do know that I have read all your replies and will take them into consideration.

Big thanks to all of you!!!

Now the final ...

There is one last thing I would like to learn from you. We discussed some subjects (size, zoom range, IQ, budget) and narrowed down the possibilities. One thing we did not discuss, well we sort of did, but for me it's not totally clear yet ... is "what" I can photograph with a certain camera. With this I mean, with a bridge camera I can zoom in very far (so the "what" could be a bird), but in low-light situations I think it under-performs (more noise compared to APS-C or FF). So it won't be the best choice to take pictures in the evening.

I truly would like to see some pictures you made yourself with one of the cameras being discussed to show what it is capable of.

Click to expand...

I showed some here ... https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67361725

I also do a LOT of SUN-light FILL-FLASH ...

ONLY a leaf shutter (in fixed-lens cameras) can allow this ... (FZ and RX)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67361740

NOTE THAT THESE ARE ALL STRAIGHT-OUT-OF-CAMERA with NO Post-Processing what-so-ever.

Ozzie SD said:

I am also interested to see the image quality during normal circumstances (daylight). How do Fuji APS-C, Sony RX100, Nikon Z5, Olympus/Panasonic M4/3 perform?

Zoom range ... I do not have a clear idea of what zoom ranges are used to capture what kind of subjects. For example, I heard mentioned a 16-80 mm lens, but also a 24-120 of 24-200 mm lens. Can you explain what these zoom ranges are typically used for? Are there advantages or disadvantages that come with a smaller or longer zoom range?

Maybe I am asking too much, but I would definitely like to see some of your pictures that show what a camera is capable of, or which show the differences in zoom range or aperture (for example F 4.0 versus F 5.6 or F 2.8). Can also be pictures to show where a camera lacks (for example visible noise in a darker environment).

Click to expand...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67361725

I also do a LOT of SUN-light FILL-FLASH ...

ONLY a leaf shutter (in fixed-lens cameras) can allow this ... (FZ and RX)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67361740

NOTE THAT THESE ARE ALL STRAIGHT-OUT-OF-CAMERA with NO Post-Processing what-so-ever.

Ozzie SD said:

So actually I am hoping to learn where a camera shines and lacks (I think this mainly has to do with sensor size) and if I am able to see this in your pictures. And secondly I hope to learn what subjects I can photograph with a certain zoom range. I already know what options I can choose from according to my wishes and available budget. The last and final step is that I would like to learn the "what" I can photograph with a certain type of camera. Special attention to how much zoom I would need to capture things that interest me.

When you can help me with this final question, I am convinced I have enough information to make te best choice and to start my new hobby! :-D Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

Ozzie SD said:

I am also interested to see the image quality during normal circumstances (daylight). How do Fuji APS-C, Sony RX100, Nikon Z5, Olympus/Panasonic M4/3 perform?

Click to expand...

In daylight at full screen, any darn camera with any size sensor made in the last 10 years or so does well, but, as the pixel peep increases and/or the light levels get lower, then it is bleedingly obvious that the larger sensors do better.

Ozzie SD said:

Zoom range ... I do not have a clear idea of what zoom ranges are used to capture what kind of subjects. For example, I heard mentioned a 16-80 mm lens, but also a 24-120 of 24-200 mm lens. Can you explain what these zoom ranges are typically used for? Are there advantages or disadvantages that come with a smaller or longer zoom range?

Click to expand...

Years back in my film era days and with various camera clubs we used to discuss what what was a useful camera for a traveller and general photos. It was decided that 28-200mm was ideal as the zoom for 35mm film was not too big for all day carrying and really that was the only lens needed for most occasions. Chasing wildlife and birding of course was another matter altogether and no tele lens was ever long enough for that.

Every bird that exists has already been photographed and up on the web somewhere, so why repeat that? For me it is far more enjoyable to simply sit and watch the birds behaviour, no need to freeze them into a photo, maybe a video would be better but then, I just like to observe birds and wildlife and let it stick in my memory. Others will disagree.

Many years later I settled on the Sony RX100M6 for my compact and that (or the RX100M7) is ideal for a traveller with its "24-200mm" lens that is good even wide open despite its small maximum apertures. Compared to what I get from my M4/3 gear it all looks the same in daylight shots but as light falls I had better be using my M4/3 gear as the difference then is obvious.

I'm getting too old now to bother but really I should move to Full Frame gear to get what I really want in those occasional low light situations. But all that money and size just for a few low light shots when by far the most of my shots are in daylight or maybe slightly subdued light interiors.

For me it really works out that the little Sony RX100M6 gives me nearly everything I need, and if low light then use tricks of the camera and also of course raw files and DxO Photolab7 to get superb noise reduction. It honestly could be my only camera, just as it is my wife's only camera (yes, two Sonys in the family) and she usually takes more shots than I do when on holidays.

Don't be afraid of noise, dead clean images can sometimes look too plastic so really need to avoid that over -processed low noise shots. Many photo edit suites have options to add noise/grain to get a more film-like look, that "grain" nicely hides the fact that at great enlargements the true fine detail was not really captured properly.

Anything that has a bigger sensor than the HX99 will give better results in a wider range of lighting, but as you move up in sensor sizes then getting back to that up to "720mm" performance gets way harder and way more expensive to achieve.

Anyway, whatever you may get in a system camera, be it M4/3, APS-C or FF then there will still always be a case for a small and reliable compact to use in situations where "big" cameras are too awkward or are simply banned from being used.

You seem like a prime candidate for a Sony RX100 VII …

Here's a link to a post with some photos made with a Fuji X-T20 and 18-55mm f/2.8-4 kit lens from a summer roadtrip with my brother. They've been processed in Lightroom Classic: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67167769

Here's a link to some photos made with the same kit during a trip to Taiwan. These are pretty much straight outta camera: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59673371

Ozzie SD said:

There is one last thing I would like to learn from you. We discussed some subjects (size, zoom range, IQ, budget) and narrowed down the possibilities. One thing we did not discuss, well we sort of did, but for me it's not totally clear yet ... is "what" I can photograph with a certain camera. With this I mean, with a bridge camera I can zoom in very far (so the "what" could be a bird), but in low-light situations I think it under-performs (more noise compared to APS-C or FF). So it won't be the best choice to take pictures in the evening.

Click to expand...

Yes. Given the limitations with sensors we have today, the smaller sensors are no match for the larger ones when it comes to ISO performance and noise.

Ozzie SD said:

I truly would like to see some pictures you made yourself with one of the cameras being discussed to show what it is capable of.

I am also interested to see the image quality during normal circumstances (daylight). How do Fuji APS-C, Sony RX100, Nikon Z5, Olympus/Panasonic M4/3 perform?

Click to expand...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison

Ozzie SD said:

Zoom range ... I do not have a clear idea of what zoom ranges are used to capture what kind of subjects. For example, I heard mentioned a 16-80 mm lens, but also a 24-120 of 24-200 mm lens. Can you explain what these zoom ranges are typically used for? Are there advantages or disadvantages that come with a smaller or longer zoom range?

Click to expand...

You can also search for Field Of View and Focal Length articles.

Lenses with extensive zoom ranges are generally harder to make while keeping performance decent, is my understanding.

You ask if viewers of similar pictures from two similar cameras could tell the difference.

Maybe.

But more likely there would be more difference between and among three identical frames of the same subject, all shot in RAW.

Open #one with the camera's automatic built in RAW converter.

Open #two using one of the hundreds of presets you can buy. (Fropacks have lots of choice. So does Vanessa Joy. And Katelyn James)

Open #three with a RAW converter of your choice, such as Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Adobe Lightroom, Capture One.

All three pictures can all be manipulated in many ways. Lighter, more saturated, higher contrasty,...

BEFORE YOU PRESS THE SHUTTER, with all the decent DSLR cameras and SLR-style mirrorless digital cameras, you can set several pictures styles. These styles make your pictures look different from each other, in ways similar to how film photographers chose one film for weddings and elegant portraits and one film for vibrant portraits and high-impact fashion and one for more saturation, etc.

I use Adobe Photoshop Elements, which I buy outright rather than subscribe to.

BAK

John Gellings said:

You seem like a prime candidate for a Sony RX100 VII …

Click to expand...

If size is his priority, and lack of tele or low-light is not a major issue ... yes ...

But I assume he is used to his prior 720mm-EFL ... so the RX10-IV would be closer ... (BUT ... it does NOT have a FULLY-Articulating/Reversible LCD so to me it would be limited to sports/wildlife/birding).

The FZ1000-II can still do 800mm-EFL with its 20mpx interpolated-zoom, and does have the FA-LCD for more overall versatility for family/travel etc. use. (and is cheaper)

Both have faster lenses than the RX100 series.

It's a wonderful feature to have for landscape photography!

These were all shot with a Fujifilm X-T 2 and and a relatively inexpensive. XC-16-50mm f3.5-5.6 lens.

Dennis said:

Ozzie SD said:

Dennis said:

I love the idea of simplifying down to a bridge camera and a compact digicam, but as even though my brain acknowledges that the image quality is good enough, I still find results from APS-C (and certainly full frame) more satisfying.

Click to expand...

This is interesting Can you explain why/how you find the results from APS-C or FF more satisfying? What makes the difference?

Click to expand...

It's hard to pinpoint. I think part of it is that none of my RX100/RX10 shots feature shallow depth of field. I wouldn't say shallow DOF shots are prominent in my photos, but they're there and they're important. I have plenty of photos taken in places where the background contributes to the image, but also plenty where it's a distraction that needs to be reduced. And in wildlife photos, my Sigma 100-400 at 400/6.3 on APS-C blurs backgrounds just a bit more than the RX10 at 220ish/4 (both 600mm equivalent). I'd like to go a little faster still when I choose a long tele for my Z5.

The rest of it is probably pixel peeping and feeling good about the image quality in a way that doesn't really matter. Backyard wildlife shots with that Sigma on my D7500 look just a bit crisper than the RX10 III (even though it has an excellent lens) when looking at 100% views. And even though the RX100/10 shots are generally plenty sharp enough, when I look at those 100% views, there's just something a little less "natural" or "photographic" about the images than the larger sensor shots. They don't scream "this was taken with a small sensor compact!" But there's something about them - again, at 100% - that isn't quite as satisfying.

Click to expand...

Okay thanks, it would be nice to be able to sometimes blur a background, so it is something to take in consideration.

Dennis said:

Basically, they're good enough that if the cameras themselves were more satisfying, I'd be content with the compromise. But between the usability differences, the lens limitations (shallow DOF mostly) and that slight little IQ difference, it's too much compromise.

If the RX10 IV was redesigned with better (for my tastes) controls, a nice, big, high res EVF, and maybe a manual zoom instead of power zoom (icing on the cake, though it might very well be impossible) then I'd be awfully tempted to own that and a compact (larger sensor) camera with a compact fast prime. But the lens lineup I've settled on gets me close enough with ILCs by allowing me to carry just 1-2 lenses (different lens depending on what I'm doing).

Click to expand...

PhotoTeach2 said:

Ozzie SD said:

Dennis said:

Ozzie SD said:

I totally get what you are saying. Makes sense. Subject, composition, lighting all impact your final outcome. But ... that is not exactly what I meant. I understand that eventually it's me who has to make a nice picture. But to be able to do that, I need the best gear that fits my needs, and my wallet.

Click to expand...

The gear can determine how good your photos look if you're pushing limits - printing huge, for example. But for web/HDTV displays and even modestly big prints (13x19 desktop prints and even 20x30" prints hung on a wall) it really doesn't matter. So the gear is more about what you can shoot and how well you can shoot it.

Click to expand...

Clear.

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

In other words, the potential outcome could be better with the better equipment.

Click to expand...

Better how? In measurable terms you can only see if you're comparing images side by side at 100%? No matter what you buy, there's always something better. It would be a shame to prioritize image quality that will never make a difference in real life over usability that affects whether you want to take the camera out in the first place. Or the ability to shoot shallow depth of field or action or whatever else you might want to shoot.

Click to expand...

Good point. Food for thought!

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

For example a bridge camera could be an option, but will it produce images as good as for example an APS-C camera,

Click to expand...

Does it matter?

Click to expand...

It does matter in the sense of I want to see good quality images, nice colors, sharp, no noise, no dark parts (like vignetting). I am afraid a bridge camera will not have the same quality as a separate lens because compromises would have to be made for such a long zoom range in a (relatively) compact body.

Click to expand...

But there have been more complaints concerning "tele-softness" from long-zooms on APS/FF cameras than the (praised sharpness) of the Leica & Zeiss zooms on the FZ1000 & RX10-IV cameras, (400 & 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4).

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

If I would shoot the exact same picture with a RX100 VII and a Fuji X-S20, would you be able to see the difference in the end result?

Click to expand...

What's the end result?

Click to expand...

That's actually a very good question! Mainly the end result will be a picture being stored on my computer. I have quite a good monitor (resolution 2560x1440 pixels) . I want to watch my pictures in good quality on my monitor, preferably taken in a higher resolution than my monitor, so I can also zoom in to see nice details.

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

I do want zoom, I do want a compact solution, but at the same time I want good image quality.

Click to expand...

Every camera delivers good image quality. It's hard to pick based on image quality when you don't know what your requirements are.

Click to expand...

As I said, nice colors, sharp image, no noise (in daylight). I want the quality to match the quality of a picture taken by a pro with professional equipment.

Click to expand...

What is more important ... ultimate-optimate IQ from an image that does NOT exist or very-good IQ from an image that DOES exist, (because of unique features from a specific camera ???

Click to expand...

That is a very good point. I do think there will be some compromises in image quality. An $ 750 camera can't have the same quality as a $ 1.500 or $ 2.000 camera I would assume. I would have to dive further into this. But I do definitely get the point about getting a shot or not.

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

And I mean that in a relatively "easy" situation like in daylight with no moving subjects. I understand the pro and his pro camera will product better results with fast moving objects or in more difficult situations like in the evening when it's darker. My current camera, though being compact and having a long zoom range, does not produce the nicest images in terms of image quality. Yes, it's acceptable, but I want to go the next step, otherwise there would not be a reason for me to buy a new camera. I could just keep using my current one.

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Compact like RX 100 VII, bridge, M4/3 or APS-C? What would you do if you were in my shoes and had to spend around $ 1.000 to $ 2.500?

Click to expand...

Assuming you want to treat photography as a hobby and not just get good pictures now and then, I'd go with a subset of my current kit: Nikon Z5 with 24-200 and the 40/2 for those cozy restaurant shots Or if it falls in the budget, upgrade to a Z6II (even used) for improved autofocus (though if mostly shooting static scenes, like I do, it's overkill).

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll be checking that out!

PhotoTeach2 said:

Note that I'm going after convenience here and minimizing lens changes. If you need 2+ lenses to cover wide to tele, it means a camera bag and frequent lens changes and gets to be a nuisance. I'm happy to do that out shooting nature with a tripod, but not walking around a city or on vacation. That's a conscious tradeoff between convenience and image quality (though I'm sure a 20x30" print made with the 24-200 would look fine by my standards). The small, fast prime fits in a jacket pocket or backpack or any small bag you're carrying and lens changes are infrequent - swap it when you go from outdoors to indoors or when light levels fall at night. Not every time you need to go from wide to tele!

Micro 4/3 with the 12-100/4 and fast prime (20/1.8 or 17/1.7) is another option, but the m43 bodies I like (with a decent grip and good VF) are pricey and the 12-100 costs more than the Nikon 24-200.

If you can convince yourself that 24-120 range instead of 24-200 is good enough, then a m43 body with the 12-60/2.8-4 would be less expensive and more compact - a tempting option.

A Sony FF body with 28-200 and a fast compact prime is another option. The more desirable bodies tend to be pricey and the affordable bodies tend to be old

I love the idea of simplifying down to a bridge camera and a compact digicam, but as even though my brain acknowledges that the image quality is good enough, I still find results from APS-C (and certainly full frame) more satisfying.

Click to expand...

This is interesting Can you explain why/how you find the results from APS-C or FF more satisfying? What makes the difference?

PhotoTeach2 said:

I would not, personally, recommend Fuji. The lens lineup has a great reputation, but I find the midrange zooms lacking. An X-S10 would be a great choice and the 18-135 would probably still be a match for a bridge camera, and then a small f/2 prime for low light would be an okay kit. The 16-80 is has great specs and is very compact; it doesn't review well due to subpar corner sharpness, but I've seen nice results online from it (gets back to the whole question of how good is good enough - we can look at all these lens tests that show lens A is so much better than lens B, then look at photos that look great from both of them).

I would not recommend Nikon APS-C because of the lack of in-body image stabilization (otherwise the 18-140 and 24/1.8 would be a nice, light, inexpensive kit). Sony APS-C is good, but the better stuff available for it is expensive and I'm not sure there are any good wide-ranging zooms.

The 1" sensor bridge cameras are great - most people could be happy with the image quality in online displays, HDTVs, prints to 13x19 (and bigger if shot well). You don't have the shallow DOF option in low light (unless you add a second camera). And as handy as I find my RX10 III for travel, I don't find it so enjoyable to shoot with the power zoom (I believe the FZ1000 II has that as well?) smaller viewfinder (harder to use with my eyeglasses) and controls that I don't love.

It's all tradeoffs. I recommend downloading some samples and viewing them however you plan to view your photos - on a TV, printed, whatever. (You can save money by printing 1/4 of an image instead of a whole image) ... 1/4 image at 8x12 instead of full image at 16x24, for example. And see if you can try out whatever you're thinking about.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your great answer!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bill Ferris said:

...

I think you might find the Fuji system a good fit for both the photography you do and your interest in keeping the bulk of a kit manageable. That said, I'd also encourage you to trust your gut. You know your needs and interests better than anybody else in this thread. Ultimately, you're going to be the best judge of which kit is right for you.

Click to expand...

Thanks very much for your thoughts. Will definitely take Fuji in consideration!!

Craig Gillette said:

It might help to tell us just how you are going to prepare and share your images? Prints? How big? On-line? That could be far more limiting than the camera gear.

...

I don't think both wider and longer will come in under $2500. Best wait and use the first body and lens, whatever you go for, for a while to get a feel for how things are going and what changes you might want to make.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your extensive reply!

Ozzie SD said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Ozzie SD said:

Dennis said:

Ozzie SD said:

I totally get what you are saying. Makes sense. Subject, composition, lighting all impact your final outcome. But ... that is not exactly what I meant. I understand that eventually it's me who has to make a nice picture. But to be able to do that, I need the best gear that fits my needs, and my wallet.

Click to expand...

The gear can determine how good your photos look if you're pushing limits - printing huge, for example. But for web/HDTV displays and even modestly big prints (13x19 desktop prints and even 20x30" prints hung on a wall) it really doesn't matter. So the gear is more about what you can shoot and how well you can shoot it.

Click to expand...

Clear.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

In other words, the potential outcome could be better with the better equipment.

Click to expand...

Better how? In measurable terms you can only see if you're comparing images side by side at 100%? No matter what you buy, there's always something better. It would be a shame to prioritize image quality that will never make a difference in real life over usability that affects whether you want to take the camera out in the first place. Or the ability to shoot shallow depth of field or action or whatever else you might want to shoot.

Click to expand...

Good point. Food for thought!

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

For example a bridge camera could be an option, but will it produce images as good as for example an APS-C camera,

Click to expand...

Does it matter?

Click to expand...

It does matter in the sense of I want to see good quality images, nice colors, sharp, no noise, no dark parts (like vignetting). I am afraid a bridge camera will not have the same quality as a separate lens because compromises would have to be made for such a long zoom range in a (relatively) compact body.

Click to expand...

But there have been more complaints concerning "tele-softness" from long-zooms on APS/FF cameras than the (praised sharpness) of the Leica & Zeiss zooms on the FZ1000 & RX10-IV cameras, (400 & 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4).

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

If I would shoot the exact same picture with a RX100 VII and a Fuji X-S20, would you be able to see the difference in the end result?

Click to expand...

What's the end result?

Click to expand...

That's actually a very good question! Mainly the end result will be a picture being stored on my computer. I have quite a good monitor (resolution 2560x1440 pixels) . I want to watch my pictures in good quality on my monitor, preferably taken in a higher resolution than my monitor, so I can also zoom in to see nice details.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

I do want zoom, I do want a compact solution, but at the same time I want good image quality.

Click to expand...

Every camera delivers good image quality. It's hard to pick based on image quality when you don't know what your requirements are.

Click to expand...

As I said, nice colors, sharp image, no noise (in daylight). I want the quality to match the quality of a picture taken by a pro with professional equipment.

Click to expand...

What is more important ... ultimate-optimate IQ from an image that does NOT exist or very-good IQ from an image that DOES exist, (because of unique features from a specific camera ???

Click to expand...

That is a very good point. I do think there will be some compromises in image quality. An $ 750 camera can't have the same quality as a $ 1.500 or $ 2.000 camera I would assume. I would have to dive further into this. But I do definitely get the point about getting a shot or not.

Click to expand...

Just an aside, but along the same vein. You never mention whether you will be alone or in company if others when you visit the cites, etc. Sometimes with too much (or too big) of kit you run the risk of being “that camera guy”. After being the downer of the party, those big kits get left at home…. Or you get left.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

And I mean that in a relatively "easy" situation like in daylight with no moving subjects. I understand the pro and his pro camera will product better results with fast moving objects or in more difficult situations like in the evening when it's darker. My current camera, though being compact and having a long zoom range, does not produce the nicest images in terms of image quality. Yes, it's acceptable, but I want to go the next step, otherwise there would not be a reason for me to buy a new camera. I could just keep using my current one.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

Compact like RX 100 VII, bridge, M4/3 or APS-C? What would you do if you were in my shoes and had to spend around $ 1.000 to $ 2.500?

Click to expand...

Assuming you want to treat photography as a hobby and not just get good pictures now and then, I'd go with a subset of my current kit: Nikon Z5 with 24-200 and the 40/2 for those cozy restaurant shots Or if it falls in the budget, upgrade to a Z6II (even used) for improved autofocus (though if mostly shooting static scenes, like I do, it's overkill).

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll be checking that out!

Ozzie SD said:

Note that I'm going after convenience here and minimizing lens changes. If you need 2+ lenses to cover wide to tele, it means a camera bag and frequent lens changes and gets to be a nuisance. I'm happy to do that out shooting nature with a tripod, but not walking around a city or on vacation. That's a conscious tradeoff between convenience and image quality (though I'm sure a 20x30" print made with the 24-200 would look fine by my standards). The small, fast prime fits in a jacket pocket or backpack or any small bag you're carrying and lens changes are infrequent - swap it when you go from outdoors to indoors or when light levels fall at night. Not every time you need to go from wide to tele!

Micro 4/3 with the 12-100/4 and fast prime (20/1.8 or 17/1.7) is another option, but the m43 bodies I like (with a decent grip and good VF) are pricey and the 12-100 costs more than the Nikon 24-200.

If you can convince yourself that 24-120 range instead of 24-200 is good enough, then a m43 body with the 12-60/2.8-4 would be less expensive and more compact - a tempting option.

A Sony FF body with 28-200 and a fast compact prime is another option. The more desirable bodies tend to be pricey and the affordable bodies tend to be old

I love the idea of simplifying down to a bridge camera and a compact digicam, but as even though my brain acknowledges that the image quality is good enough, I still find results from APS-C (and certainly full frame) more satisfying.

Click to expand...

This is interesting Can you explain why/how you find the results from APS-C or FF more satisfying? What makes the difference?

Ozzie SD said:

I would not, personally, recommend Fuji. The lens lineup has a great reputation, but I find the midrange zooms lacking. An X-S10 would be a great choice and the 18-135 would probably still be a match for a bridge camera, and then a small f/2 prime for low light would be an okay kit. The 16-80 is has great specs and is very compact; it doesn't review well due to subpar corner sharpness, but I've seen nice results online from it (gets back to the whole question of how good is good enough - we can look at all these lens tests that show lens A is so much better than lens B, then look at photos that look great from both of them).

I would not recommend Nikon APS-C because of the lack of in-body image stabilization (otherwise the 18-140 and 24/1.8 would be a nice, light, inexpensive kit). Sony APS-C is good, but the better stuff available for it is expensive and I'm not sure there are any good wide-ranging zooms.

The 1" sensor bridge cameras are great - most people could be happy with the image quality in online displays, HDTVs, prints to 13x19 (and bigger if shot well). You don't have the shallow DOF option in low light (unless you add a second camera). And as handy as I find my RX10 III for travel, I don't find it so enjoyable to shoot with the power zoom (I believe the FZ1000 II has that as well?) smaller viewfinder (harder to use with my eyeglasses) and controls that I don't love.

It's all tradeoffs. I recommend downloading some samples and viewing them however you plan to view your photos - on a TV, printed, whatever. (You can save money by printing 1/4 of an image instead of a whole image) ... 1/4 image at 8x12 instead of full image at 16x24, for example. And see if you can try out whatever you're thinking about.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your great answer!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...