Pocketable camera for nature with good low-light video?

[Larry San]

Hello,

I am a performer and also like to take photos in nature, both macro and zoom. I currently use a Sony AX100 to record my performances, and an iPhone 12 mini for photos, but I'm not happy with the output from either.

Is there a camera, at any budget, that I can:

1. Keep in the pocket of hiking pants and quickly pull out for nature photos

2. Zoom + macro

3. Use for low-light video in churches and concert halls

Seems like it’s down to the Sony RX100 VII and Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark II, but I'm not confident that the images would be much better than from iPhone 12 mini?

I'm up for spending a lot of money to get a very good camera, but It seems like the ones with really nice images like a7C would take too much time for wildlife/nature and also be too big for that use case.

many thanks for your advice!

— L

 

[ZilverHaylide]

Hello,

I am a performer and also like to take photos in nature, both macro and zoom. I currently use a Sony AX100 to record my performances, and an iPhone 12 mini for photos, but I'm not happy with the output from either.

Is there a camera, at any budget, that I can:

1. Keep in the pocket of hiking pants and quickly pull out for nature photos

2. Zoom + macro

3. Use for low-light video in churches and concert halls

Seems like it’s down to the Sony RX100 VII and Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark II, but I'm not confident that the images would be much better than from iPhone 12 mini?

I'm up for spending a lot of money to get a very good camera, but It seems like the ones with really nice images like a7C would take too much time for wildlife/nature and also be too big for that use case.

many thanks for your advice!

— L

I'm not the right person to answer your question, since my recent camera experience is with cameras much larger than you want, and anyway, there may not be any great solution, since the point-an-shoot market segment has largely crashed.

But I will say that for someone to suggest a good solution (if one exists), you need to be more specific about your requirements. Including:

1) does "nature" mean plants? insects? large animals? birds in flight? landscape?

2) "macro" is a term often used loosely, how small of a rectangle (mm X mm) do you want to be able to fill the viewfinder with?

3) what will be your photo output requirements? -- how big do you want to be able to print? Or will viewing be mostly on a screen? If the latter, social media on a phone? Or big computer monitor?

4) are you willing to change lenses?

5) are you willing to do post-processing of your images? Or do you just want camera-output JPEGs (for stills)? Modern noise reduction software and other post-processing can significantly improve the output from small sensors, or from even a larger one used in less-than-optimal conditions, probably significantly increasing the number of candidate cameras.

6) for a "pocketable" camera, how big is your pocket?

One point I will make (even without any of the above further information) is that if you want to be able to record your own (video) performances, you will want a camera with a rear LCD that is either fully-articulated or 180-degree flip-up (not all flip-up ones go 180 degrees), so that you can see yourself at least well enough to monitor your position in the frame. It's possible to use an external mirror device on a screen that only flips 90 degrees, but that's bulky and the view is inferior. It's also possible to use an external LCD monitor via HDMI output (if the camera has one), but again, extra bulk, and in this case significant cost. However, an external monitor can be significantly larger than the cameras rear LCD, so there is a big benefit as well as a cost).

 

[Larry San]

Thanks a bundle for your insight.



1. Nature - mainly landscapes, some animals on the ground. Not hoping to catch mid flight quick-flying birds

2. Macro - actually I exaggerated. I mean just enough to do food closeups. Perhaps 4cm should fill the viewfinder.



3. I’m happy to change lenses.

4. happy to do some post occasionally but would like camera-ready output. That said, I feel the standard smartphone sort of output (small sensor and lots of processing) looks over processed, so I’d like to avoid a solution like that.



5. For video of my own performances, I typically have to have the camera quite far away and zoom in (and often crop later thanks to 4K). It’s too far for me to be able to center myself in a 180° rotated LCD.



thanks again.
—L