what type of camera do i want?

longwalks1

am after a new camera, budget up to £300 I think, to play around with and learn to master ready for a trip to thailand later this year, where we will be travelling the remote areas by motorbike so want to capture village life, candid shots, the 'real' thailand. Ive got a compact, and use my iphone but want something where I ca nthrow the background out of focus etc. Dont really fancy carrying a huge SLR around and several lenses, so do I need a CSC camera or a bridge camera?

And any recommendations please in my price range?

Ainsley1

Panasonic lumix bridge cameras get my vote.
Great lenses, wide angle (ish) with big zoom, stabilised, lots of functions, auto and many manual........Small and lightweight.

bsod

any compact with a zoom is capable of the short depth of field effect - fully open iris, fast shutter speed, full zoom, close subject. (or low shutter speed, and manually track the subject if they are moving fast, for a similarly striking effect). macro subjects also have very little dof.

£60, fits in a pocket, inconspicuous, ideal for biking

Honey_Badger

britishboy wrote: »

am after a new camera, budget up to £300 I think, to play around with and learn to master ready for a trip to thailand later this year, where we will be travelling the remote areas by motorbike so want to capture village life, candid shots, the 'real' thailand. Ive got a compact, and use my iphone but want something where I ca nthrow the background out of focus etc. Dont really fancy carrying a huge SLR around and several lenses, so do I need a CSC camera or a bridge camera?

And any recommendations please in my price range?

I would consider something like an Sony RX100 (the original is about £350) it gives a larger than normal sensor for a compact combined with a large aperture lens, but is still pocketable.

mksysb

for throwing the background out of focus, you need a larger sensor than in most compacts. Have a look at the Canon eos M10.

Thailand is a great place, you should have a lot of fun there.

Johnmcl7

Honey_Badger wrote: »

I would consider something like an Sony RX100 (the original is about £350) it gives a larger than normal sensor for a compact combined with a large aperture lens, but is still pocketable.

The RX100 is a great little camera particularly to carry while traveling although even with its wide aperture, I find it's not enough to get the shallow depth of field effects you can get on a camera with a larger sensor and wide aperture prime.

A bridge camera certainly won't either as most (bar the much pricier Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000) use absolutely tiny sensors in them which are no bigger than what a decent phone camera uses.

Ideally a Sony E-mount camera or a Nikon/Canon DSLR with a fast prime lens would do the job well although a Sony would barely be in budget before buying the prime and while second hand it may just be doable with an DSLR, that's ruled out for size. Also while prime lenses offer superb IQ, are comparatively cheap and offer a wide aperture they're inflexible in that they only a single focal length with no zoom.

John

Honey_Badger

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

The RX100 is a great little camera particularly to carry while traveling although even with its wide aperture, I find it's not enough to get the shallow depth of field effects you can get on a camera with a larger sensor and wide aperture prime.

A bridge camera certainly won't either as most (bar the much pricier Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000) use absolutely tiny sensors in them which are no bigger than what a decent phone camera uses.

Ideally a Sony E-mount camera or a Nikon/Canon DSLR with a fast prime lens would do the job well although a Sony would barely be in budget before buying the prime and while second hand it may just be doable with an DSLR, that's ruled out for size. Also while prime lenses offer superb IQ, are comparatively cheap and offer a wide aperture they're inflexible in that they only a single focal length with no zoom.

John

I take your point, but the problem is getting something within the OPs budget. I agree in general bridge cameras don't fit the bill due to small sensors or cost.

The OP also said

britishboy wrote: »

Dont really fancy carrying a huge SLR around and several lenses, so do I need a CSC camera or a bridge camera?

So to me that indicated that the OP should be looking at a good quality compact. It is possible to get blurred backgrounds with cameras with 1" sensors like the RX100, I manage it with my RX100III but it is more difficult.

The part where the OP said "Dont really fancy carrying a huge SLR around and several lenses" rather struck a chord with me as I've in the last year moved away from a micro four thirds system, to a couple of reasonably high end compact/bridge cameras (RX100 & RX10). It's resulted in me taking far more photographs than I had in a long time.

bigfreddiel

Any camera will do. My ten year old camera turns out pictures as good as any new camera.

It's the person behind the viewfinder thst makes the picture not the camera

Enjoy your trip, cheers fj

Johnmcl7

Honey Badger - I completely agree with you, I had the RX100 mk1 and now use the RX100m4 and it gets more use than most of my cameras as it's the one I always have on me. I think Sony have really nailed the balance between image quality and size as the RX is small yet packs a comparatively large sensor plus a bright zoom lens.

However I felt I should point out that the RX100 can't do shallow depth of field as the OP requested although I also agree with your point, no camera does meet those requirements.

John

Johnmcl7

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Any camera will do. My ten year old camera turns out pictures as good as any new camera.

It's the person behind the viewfinder thst makes the picture not the camera

Enjoy your trip, cheers fj

This isn't even remotely true, yes the person behind the camera makes a big difference but camera technology in just about every area has moved on significantly in ten years and that's had a huge impact on image quality and performance. It's incredible that something like the RX100 which is a tiny compact camera can offer usable iso 3200, a decent amount of dynamic range, detailed 20MP output plus exotic features like 1000fps shooting while old compacts high iso simply wasn't even an option as the noise was too high.

You may question does anyone actually want any of that but by far one of the most common complaints I see in camera forums particularly with 1/2.3in based compact and bridge cameras is poor low light performance. The difference in high iso even between current 1/2.3in, 1in, APS-C and FF sensors is huge going from a blurry mess to relatively noise free and no-one wants a blurry mess of a photo:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_sx530hs&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100m5&attr13_2=sony_a6500&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

John

lemontart

mksysb wrote: »

for throwing the background out of focus, you need a larger sensor than in most compacts. Have a look at the Canon eos M10.

Thailand is a great place, you should have a lot of fun there.

The sensor size is not totally correct, I have had several travel compacts that offer excellent dof, it is more down on how to use it and what you focus on.

Saying tha look at the lumix dmx-tz range