# What camera should I get? (first high budged camera)



## Chris1706

Hey there, 

I am currently looking to buy my first more expensive camera. I didnt want a DSLR, cause I want to be able to carry it around easily, but still I want good quality. 

The first question I have is, would you recommend more a good point and shoot camera, like the sony rx100 m3 or a mirrorless camera? In which condition these kind of cameras are better, because I have browsed a lot in the internet and found a lot of reviews/comparisons between the sony rx100m3 and some mirrorless cameras, where the sony won. 

The second question: what mirrorless camera would you recommend? I have a budget of max 1k and it's hard for me to deside, because there are a lot of cameras which are in the same price range.

Thanks a lot for your advice
Chris


----------



## jaomul

You should say your type of photography


----------



## snowbear

The one that feels best in your hands.


----------



## Chris1706

Well I will go on bigger trips in the next years, and I want to be able to make beautiful landscape and also animal pictures. But I will also use the camera to make some daily shots on the streets and third im into dance-sport, where quite fast movements happen. Cant really tell my type of photography


----------



## jaomul

I was going to suggest a m4/3 system until you said fast moving sports. Very few mirrorless excel here, and within your budget there is no great m4/3 that will track moving subjects well.

The Sony a6000 is a camera that would be worth looking into. I wouldn't recommend a p+s as a choice over interchangeable lens cameras as a flexible option


----------



## Ron Evers

jaomul said:


> I was going to suggest a m4/3 system until you said fast moving sports. Very few mirrorless excel here, and within your budget there is no great m4/3 that will track moving subjects well.
> 
> The Sony a6000 is a camera that would be worth looking into. I wouldn't recommend a p+s as a choice over interchangeable lens cameras as a flexible option



I shoot action faster than dance with my m4/3 cameras.  




 



 

Single shot auto focus.


----------



## jaomul

Ron, I knew these type photos would be quoted as I was here before. Of course the m4/3 can take fast action shots, but my point is tracking is poor with them. Any camera can take a shot of fast action, but tracking is a different story.

 My EM5 is my favorite camera, if it tracked good it would be perfect for me,
but continues focus is more miss than hit


----------



## Chris1706

Hey there. Okay, well the sports thing is definetly not on the top  of my priorities. Could you suggest some m4/3 cameras, so I have a option to choose between? And do you know if there are going to come some new modles on the market until july which are worth waiting?


----------



## jaomul

I'd highly recommend the original OMD EM5, weather sealed, fast, great viewfinder, fab image quality, lovely jpegs, amazingly customizable and also going cheap now because it has a newer model to replace it.


----------



## Chris1706

Okay and what is the difference between the em5 and the em10? because currently the cost pretty much the same. And do you have experience with the Panasonic GM5? the formfaktor seams really nice with this one


----------



## Designer

Is Mr. Google off today?


----------



## W.Fovall

this is the best camera, easy to cary and great boca.


----------



## Islesfan91

Chris1706 said:


> Hey there,
> 
> I am currently looking to buy my first more expensive camera. I didnt want a DSLR, cause I want to be able to carry it around easily, but still I want good quality.
> 
> The first question I have is, would you recommend more a good point and shoot camera, like the sony rx100 m3 or a mirrorless camera? In which condition these kind of cameras are better, because I have browsed a lot in the internet and found a lot of reviews/comparisons between the sony rx100m3 and some mirrorless cameras, where the sony won.
> 
> The second question: what mirrorless camera would you recommend? I have a budget of max 1k and it's hard for me to deside, because there are a lot of cameras which are in the same price range.
> 
> Thanks a lot for your advice
> Chris



I went through this looking at mirrorless as I wanted something smaller and lighter but I didn't want to sacrifice image quality and I wanted weathersealing.  I looked at the em5, em10 and em1.  while the em1 was significantly more expensive, I liked the way it felt while holding it, I liked the button layout and options and it felt like it would give me what I wanted when I didn't want to carry around the canon 6d.  (not to say the image quality is on par, but for the weight and size, it's good enough for me)

I'd say given your budget, the em5 or em10 would both be good choices.  I looked at the sony a6000 but didn't like the lens options.


----------



## Gary A.

I have FF dSLR's, APS-C mirrorless and MFT mirrorless cameras. My camera of choice is the Fuji APS-C mirrorless. I found it a good compromise between the large body of a FF and the small sensor of the MFT. The EM1 and XT1 are similar in size, the Fuji lenses, while much smaller than the equivalent FF lenses are larger than the equal MFT lens. I found the EVF of the XT1 to be significantly better the the EVF of the EM1. I've owned EM5's and I find the handling of the EM1 to be superior to the EM5. If you do any low light photography, the Fuji kicks butt ... but the EM5/EM1 has this incredible IBIS which adds IS to any lens. Fuji lens are all wonderful. At a minimum, my Fuji lenses are equal to my 'L' lenses. For me, the bottom line is not feel, or looks, or size ... but the image (okay ... maybe looks, lol). I really like the image quality of what Fuji delivers over MFT. The IQ differences between Canon FF and Fuji APS-C is insignificant for what I shoot and how I shoot. 

Unfortunately, the XT1 and EM1 are above your budget. But check out the Fuji X-E2. It uses the same sensor and lenses as the XT1, just more of a rangefinder look, smaller EVF, no weather sealing,et al. 

I suggest you look at refurbed XT1's or EM1's.


----------



## rexbobcat

The Fujifilm cameras are really good, as stated above. The Fujifilm XE-2 is about $600 and that leaves $400 for lenses.

There's also the Sony A7, which just now got a price drop to $1000. Of course, this isn't including a lens, however, the Sony is a full frame camera vs. Fujifilm's APS-C sensor if that makes any difference.


----------



## sashbar

If you are interested in FUJI, you can wait a bit fot the new FUJI X-T10,  it will be similar to X-T1,  but cheaper .


----------



## crzyfotopeeple

I recently switched over to Fuji XT1 and can highly recommend it. The image quality is outstanding and the manual controls are great. The viewfinder is big and bright. You can get the XT1 with 18-55 now for around $1300. I picked up the XT1 with the 18-135 for $1500. A little over your budget but not by much.


----------



## jaomul

Think op possibly gone, having never said they want a Fuji


----------



## chuasam

Those are hardly high budget.
Try this.



 
Leica type 240 with a Summisomething 35mm f/1.4


----------



## unpopular

You all know I love fuji - but what is it's AF performance like these days? I know the X-1 series were not so hot in this department, and while very precise, I'm not too crazy about the "Silver-Lining" focus assist -it's good, but I think Sonys "Red Highlight" would be faster. Can you change the focus assist visibility in newer models?

As for the Leica - well, it has no AF. But, rangefinders are easier and faster to focus than SLRs, esp in low light.


----------



## chuasam

the Fujifilm XT1 has amazing autofocus. The Leica's manual focus is really slow if the subject is moving or noncontrasty. I played with one for a couple of hours and I must say - I love the lens but the body was really underwhelming. Too heavy and had horrible dynamic range.
If it was my money, I would get a Lumix LX100 or the Leica D-Lux type109.
I am all about lightness these days. I borrowed a Lumix GM1 for a Vacation in London last month.
It was the camera I used the most. It was a bit weak in low light mostly because of the slow lens but out there in the brightness of day - <3 it was light and had superb image quality.


----------



## Solarflare

chuasam said:


> Those are hardly high budget.


 Seriously ? That photo looks like a careless snapshot from a $200 point & shoot. Most of the picture is white because of overexposure.


----------



## Gary A.

unpopular said:


> You all know I love fuji - but what is it's AF performance like these days? I know the X-1 series were not so hot in this department, and while very precise, I'm not too crazy about the "Silver-Lining" focus assist -it's good, but I think Sonys "Red Highlight" would be faster. Can you change the focus assist visibility in newer models?
> 
> As for the Leica - well, it has no AF. But, rangefinders are easier and faster to focus than SLRs, esp in low light.


Yes, Blue & Red.

I shoot sports with the XT1 (albeit youth level sports) and while the AF isn't as good as my 1Ds, it isn't an $8,000 camera either. While I wouldn't use the XT1 to shoot sports professionally, it is good enough for the expectation of most hobbyists. You won't get as many keepers and you have to work harder, but you can still get good stuff. Presently, Fuji lacks the long fast lenses which a true sports photog desires.


----------



## unpopular

Gary A. said:


> Yes, Blue & Red.



I wonder why the XE-1 didn't get this feature with the last update?


----------



## chuasam

Solarflare said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are hardly high budget.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously ? That photo looks like a careless snapshot from a $200 point & shoot. Most of the picture is white because of overexposure.
Click to expand...

That's because it is a snapshot of my dog. It was lunchtime and my boss handed me a Leica 240 and said... here go play with this. And I'm like..oh okie.
Never used a Leica before and I figured it was good a chance as any.  Yeah, the dynamic range on the camera bites but I had no idea that you had a fetish for pebbles on the beach.


----------



## gsgary

Solarflare said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are hardly high budget.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously ? That photo looks like a careless snapshot from a $200 point & shoot. Most of the picture is white because of overexposure.
Click to expand...

Thats because the Leica needs more input from the photographer than a dslr and is for the more serious photographer it is not something you can just go out and shoot for half an hour


----------



## chuasam

gsgary said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are hardly high budget.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously ? That photo looks like a careless snapshot from a $200 point & shoot. Most of the picture is white because of overexposure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats because the Leica needs more input from the photographer than a dslr and is for the more serious photographer it is not something you can just go out and shoot for half an hour
Click to expand...

The light meter on that stupid Leica is very rudimentary. I wanted to test a black dog on a sandy beach. I had to overcompensate by 1.5ev to get detail on the dog. The dynamic range is much less than my usual camera.


----------



## gsgary

chuasam said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are hardly high budget.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously ? That photo looks like a careless snapshot from a $200 point & shoot. Most of the picture is white because of overexposure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats because the Leica needs more input from the photographer than a dslr and is for the more serious photographer it is not something you can just go out and shoot for half an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The light meter on that stupid Leica is very rudimentary. I wanted to test a black dog on a sandy beach. I had to overcompensate by 1.5ev to get detail on the dog. The dynamic range is much less than my usual camera.
Click to expand...

Not if you know what you doing, dynamic range is good on the 240


----------



## chuasam

gsgary said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are hardly high budget.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously ? That photo looks like a careless snapshot from a $200 point & shoot. Most of the picture is white because of overexposure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats because the Leica needs more input from the photographer than a dslr and is for the more serious photographer it is not something you can just go out and shoot for half an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The light meter on that stupid Leica is very rudimentary. I wanted to test a black dog on a sandy beach. I had to overcompensate by 1.5ev to get detail on the dog. The dynamic range is much less than my usual camera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you know what you doing, dynamic range is good on the 240
Click to expand...

Yes but still less than my usual camera and I didn't want to muck around with his settings too much. Just playing with someone else's camera during lunch.


----------



## gsgary

Like I said they are not like shooting a dslr, I would take a 240 over any dslr but ill stick with my film M's


----------



## Solarflare

Either way that image is in no way a good candidate to judge over the possible image quality from a digital Leica M.


----------

