I’d like something to take with me on the bike, that produces better results than a phone, but less bulky than an slr (I already have a Canon).

Any suggestions? Couple of hundred quid budget, plenty of optical zoom, good for landscapes, lithium battery, new or used.

Lumix TZ70 (or TZ80 but poss not as good IQ/JPGs) for 30X zoom good image quality
Sony RX100 MK1 for excellent image quality (not nearly so much zoom.)

Both in your budget if buy lightly used (or stump up extra £50 for new)

For £200 I’m not sure there is anything materially better than a modern smart phone for landscape shooting. You’re outside so there’s plenty of light which means the limitations of the phone’s sensor are mitigated to a large degree. Nothing at that price will even have a view finder so the user experience isn’t even going to improve.

If you doubled your budget you’d do a lot better. At the c. £400 mark you could get a Ricoh GR second hand, although it doesn’t have a zoom lens, it’s fixed at 28mm, it’s still the best image quality you can put into a jeans pocket (much better than the Sony RX100)

Ricoh GR on eBay

But the Sony is hard to beat if you want the zoom and the MK1 can be had for your budget if you shop around on eBay. This would still be significantly better than a phone camera and you

Sony RX100 mk1

The MK3 is much better though as it adds a viewfinder which will make a big difference to image quality (because you’re bracing the camera against your eye and looking more carefully at you composition). You’d have to spend around £400 though again.

Really? I have a lowly TZ40 and it’s MUCH better than any phone camera I’ve seen.

Well much as it pains me to say it (because i hate the idea of phone cameras), the iPhone 6 camera is really very good if you have plenty of light.

A quick search on Flickr:

iPhone landscape example:

[url=https://flic.kr/p/SUasLB]Wet fields. Husby Klit, Denmark (March 2017)[/url] by Christoffer Jon Sinnbeck, on Flickr

I really quite like this and am surprised at how good the image quality is – the rendering of the green is lovely, the dynamic range, the contrast. All quite successful. Have a look here for more examples:

Christoffer Sinnbeck on Flickr

The one below is the Lumix. Looking at the work produced by that camera I much prefer the work in the link above.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/SUvWKG]Walsham Gates near Pyrford on the way out[/url] by Gilder Kate, on Flickr

High end phones (e.g. iphone 6) have the technical capability but they can’t replace a full digital SLR because they don’t handle like a D-SLR.

I tend to be one or the other…. and divide into either “snaps” or “photo’s” and other than lack of zoom I don’t feel like the bridge cameras produce a “photo”… so they are either somewhere between or “snaps” …

scotroutes – Member

geetee1972 » For £200 I’m not sure there is anything materially better than a modern smart phone for landscape shooting.

Really? I have a lowly TZ40 and it’s MUCH better than any phone camera I’ve seen.

+1.
I’ve got a Nikon P300, which must be 5 years old now. It was £300RRP but you could get it everywhere for £200. That’s what I paid for it.

It is better than any phone camera I have seen, easier to use & with a better battery life. It also has a wider lens than most (all?) camera phones so would be more suited to landscape shots.
Oh, and it’s got a half decent amount of OPTICAL zoom which is very rare to find on a phone.
If you really need to use it, the built-in flash will provide more than a token amount of illumination….

Sony RX100 still seems to be the camera to beat – although ergonomically it doesn’t seem to get great reviews and durability seems to be a bit of an issue with the lens mechanism.
You’ll struggle to find a ‘bad’ camera to be honest – it just depends what your priorities are.
Panasonic have options that seem to cover most bases.

Best thing to do is visit somewhere like a large John Lewis or Jessops that has plenty to have a play with & see what suits your requirements.

We have a Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR, had it for a few years, its had quite a few crashes and bangs whilst on the front of the backpack. does everything we want it to.

But the Sony is hard to beat if you want the zoom and the MK1 can be had for your budget if you shop around on eBay. This would still be significantly better than a phone camera and you

Sony RX100 mk1

The MK3 is much better though as it adds a viewfinder which will make a big difference to image quality (because you’re bracing the camera against your eye and looking more carefully at you composition). You’d have to spend around £400 though again.

I am a bit of an RX100 fanboi. I took a Mk1 on a trip-of-a-lifetime as a backup and used it as a backup when my Oly OMD EM1 was misbehaving. When I look at the pics I’m hard pressed to tell what was shot with what. The thing was that as they were shot in sunlight the Mk1 compositions were a bit random as I couldn’t see the screen. I decided to buy a new one with a viewfinder and intended to get the Mk3. However, when I compared it with a Mk4 there was no hesitation in getting the more expensive one.

(I sold the Mk1 on here for 120 quid)

Well much as it pains me to say it (because i hate the idea of phone cameras), the iPhone 6 camera is really very good if you have plenty of light.

A quick search on Flickr:

iPhone landscape example:

Wet fields. Husby Klit, Denmark (March 2017) by Christoffer Jon Sinnbeck, on Flickr

I really quite like this and am surprised at how good the image quality is – the rendering of the green is lovely, the dynamic range, the contrast. All quite successful. Have a look here for more examples:

I’m often surprised by the quality of my iPhone 5, especially in optimal conditions/light HDR and once I’ve had at it in Snapseed.

I must disagree with you re that example. The rendering of the green is more than likely down to it not being an iPhone capture, but a Sigma DP2 Merrill. These cameras have Foveon sensors and are singular in their rendering of greens. I like them very much. I would also be wary comparing pics taken on a bright cloudless midday with those taken in diffused light. This doesn’t necessarily show the desirable/superior characteristics of one camera over another, just a different subject/lighting. Here’s another sample from a DP2M:

Although between a Lumix and a DP2 I’d have the latter in a heartbeat. That said, I’ve gotten many lovely pics with a few older Lumix, and the quality of their lower light shots (and of course those usimg optical zoom) have far outstripped the iPhone.

(Cont’d…)

Compare the above DP2M image with this one from my now ancient Lumix TZ10:

See? It’s not at all a useful comparison of cameras, just a contrast of atmospheric conditions/some editing.

Just to nail the point home 🙂

Taken in 2012 on ye olde Lumix TZ10 (jpg)
Aperture 3.4
ISO 100.
300mm optical zoom (35mm equiv)

The cow was three fields away. Would have looked like a dot on the iPhone. No competition.

And (again from same TZ10 shoot) four frames (shot full-wide) stitched together. Spot the same cow on the right!

I often take only my smartphone but am always aware it’s far less versatile, especially in low light (early morn, sunsets etc) or if far away from intended subject.

The rendering of the green is more than likely down to it not being an iPhone capture, but a Sigma DP2 Merrill.

Er, so it was. Ignore everything I said I really don’t know what happened there. I was sure that the EXIF credited it as an iPhone 6.

Well that explains a lot. I am very familiar with the Foveon sensor; it is excellent indeed even if the files the Sigmas (of that era) produced were incredibly difficult to work with and it had about as much ISO capability as an iPhone!

A Panasonic Lumix TZ would be my choice, the TZ-70 is around £265 now, and it’s a fine little camera, electronic viewfinder, 30x optical zoom, it’s a good, all-round camera that’s very compact.
For landscapes, though, if you have nothing else an iPhone is great, you just have to work within the limitations, just like using a DSLR with a single fixed range lens, like a 35 or 50mm, which forces you to really work at making the composition.

Thanks for the info, I’ll take a look at some of those listed. The iphone isn’t bad for landscapes, I’ll admit, particularly in good light, but I’d really like to get some stuff printed/made available online possibly at a decent resolution, a half decent camera is definitely going to be better for that I’d have thought.

but I’d really like to get some stuff printed/made available online possibly at a decent resolution, a half decent camera is definitely going to be better for that I’d have thought.

If you’re aspiring to that, then you’re not in the market for a £200 camera. I think for personal use a £200 camera is, well, a personal choice. But if you want to make your work commercially viable, you’re in a very different league.

You don’t half talk some shite geetee.

You don’t half talk some shite geetee.

Says the man whose entire thread history has been closed for some reason.

geetee1972 – Member

Says the man whose entire thread history has been closed for some reason.

Every thread gets closed after a year of inactivity, I think…take a look at your own threads that are older than a year old…… 😆

I’d really like to get some stuff printed/made available online possibly at a decent resolution, a half decent camera is definitely going to be better for that I’d have thought.

Depends entirely on the expectations of the customer. Whether that is you or people buying from you. At 20mp the RX100 mk1 (used for £200) would be yr best bang for buck. It’s capable of putting out some pretty nice images from RAW, and would print to a decent/large size for viewing from normal viewing distances. It will to a degree have that compact zoom ‘look’ about it, but again, it all depends on your customer’s expectations (and, again to varying degrees, yr PP skills). I sometimes look at my early wide-format prints/advertising spreads made from images from a 6mp DSLR. If I look too closely I might cringe at their lack of pixel-peepworthy prowess, yet they still hang on people’s/businesses walls and they still look great. I also worked with a very good imaging company and co-developed custom profiles. It can make all the difference.

Opinions do vary

Every thread gets closed after a year of inactivity, I think…take a look at your own threads that are older than a year old……

So it does! Well there you go.

You don’t half talk some shite geetee.

Well I aim to please Grum and since I am not a professional photographer it’s highly likely that I haven’t got any idea about what I’m talking about.

Well I aim to please Grum and since I am not a professional photographer it’s highly likely that I haven’t got any idea about what I’m talking about.

It’s not that you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about but you pontificate like you’re some sort of expert when stuff you are saying is frankly utter bollocks.

Like this:

For £200 I’m not sure there is anything materially better than a modern smart phone for landscape shooting.

Or this:

it’s still the best image quality you can put into a jeans pocket (much better than the Sony RX100)

Or the example of the iPhone 6 shot you posted as being really good which actually looks rubbish.

Malvern Rider knows what he’s on about. And doesn’t sound so **** pompous about it either.

You take some very good photos but Ive pretty much given up on the photo thread on here because it’s 75% your pictures.

BTW RX100 is accepted as good enough quality for Alamy – one of the top stock image agencies.

But you know…. If you’re aspiring to that, then you’re not in the market for a £200 camera. I think for personal use a £200 camera is, well, a personal choice. But if you want to make your work commercially viable, you’re in a very different league. 🙄

It’s not that you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about but you pontificate like you’re some sort of expert

Yeah you’re probably right, seriously you have a point and I accept that.

BTW RX100 is accepted as good enough quality for Alamy – one of the top stock image agencies.

I was looking at an RX100 IV and a V in a camera shop in Bath on Monday, as a ‘grown-up’ replacement for my LUMIX, the low-light performance, fast lens and large sensor, along with its compact size and unobtrusive nature makes it ideal for taking photos in the small music venues I frequent, I’m this > < close to buying one, the only issue is the £450 it’s going to cost me this weekend for repairs to a much-loved watch, and the increasing need to get a replacement for my rather aged iPad.
Beautiful camera, just perfect for the sort of photography I do, along with my phone; can I resist the temptation?

Life is short Count. There is a lot of truth, beauty and love in the world to engage with and you’re a long time dead.

I’m loving my Canon G9X. Had an RX100 mk 1. Lovely images, camera, didn’t get on with it ad I’d hoped, slow zoom imo.

Tried an RX100 mk3? Viewfinder version, too small for my massive hands, felt errrm, delicate.

Sorry, should have perhaps been a bit clearer, I’m not looking to make anything comercially available, just good enough prints for home/family, and maybe a blog/website to share some stuff.

Sorry, should have perhaps been a bit clearer, I’m not looking to make anything comercially available, just good enough prints for home/family, and maybe a blog/website to share some stuff.

Now you tell us! We could have avoided all that nastiness with Grum and I wouldn’t have had to spend the whole day yesterday feeling emotionally vulnerable.

Worth looking at LX3, LX5, LX7, depending on budget. LX7 is latest and best, all available second hand.

Great, fast wide angle lens, 24mm equivalent. Lost of manual adjustment with physical controls rather than menu options. I particularly like the aspect ratio switch on the lens – 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. 16:9 is perfect for landscapes, but all sorts of wrong for portrait orientation. I’ve been using 1:1 more and more, too.

Don’t let the pixel count put you off, the sensor is a good size, and the quality of the lens means image quality is on a par with the RX. I like the controls on the LX7 and reckon it’s easier and more enjoyable to get the shots you want. Zoom range isn’t huge, but do you need that for landscapes?

You might find this helpful:

[video]https://youtu.be/l2uIFk5EBXQ[/video]

Worth looking at LX3, LX5, LX7, depending on budget. LX7 is latest and best, all available second hand.

+1. And maybe add an Olympus XZ-2 in the mix, if you can find one. Arguably the more usable camera with very nice image quality and build. When the RX100 died I bagged a Pentax MX-1 to use as main compact/carry-around, which is nearly identical to the XZ-2, same lens etc. Lovely pics and much prefer it in use to the Sony. Not so pocketable, but swings and roundabouts…

LX7 vs RX100 vs XZ-2