In the market for a new camera. Have previously owned a Canon G11 which took good shots but felt compromised; it was too big as a point and shot, and couldn’t take as good a photo as those I’ve seen from DSLR’s.

Looking to spend £300-£400, either for something small which is robust and can take decent shots with control over shutter speed etc, or going large with a DSLR. If it’s the latter I’m considering the Nikon D3200.

Any considerations or suggestions welcomed.

Try a CSC such as Olympus Pen. You can get an E-PL5 for that kind of money EDIT well nearly, £450. E-PL3 is under your budget though.

But really, what was it about the G11’s output that you weren’t happy with? Spending money doesn’t automatically make better pictures. You need to understand what you’re buying and why.

I had a similar thread a little while ago HERE.

I ended up getting the Panasonic DMC G3 in Conqueror’s link – if they still have any it’s a fantastic camera & really good value at that price.

Sony rx100 falls somewhere between the two extremes you’re considering.

I’d have a look at the sony nex3n as well here…

+1 for sony RX100,

Great photos, small enough to go out far more frequently than a DSLR. Unobtrusive enough.

It takes better photos than my DSLR ever did because it gets to go out with me where as the DSLR didn’t.

But really, what was it about the G11’s output that you weren’t happy with? Spending money doesn’t automatically make better pictures. You need to understand what you’re buying and why.

That’s what I was thinking. I have a G12 and find it irreplaceable. I bought it because I know what I’m doing and can fully utilise the manual functions, shoot RAW and I like a few of the built in features like exposure bracketing etc… Awesome camera. Yeah it’s bulky but it’s 90% as useful as an SLR without the extra size, weight and faff.

I do still use SLR’s but not on a daily basis.

+1 for RX100

Unless you need a viewfinder or something rugged/waterproof I can’t think of anything to touch it as it’s in your budget.

couldn’t take as good a photo as those I’ve seen from DSLR’s.

This is a difficult statement to interpret.

In good light, it should be perfectly capable.
In low light taking shots of moving subjects or handheld will probably produce a little more noise than a DSLR, but should still be good.

Photography is an immensely complex subject. Very little to do with success is down to the camera.
Obviously, you might already know this, but between us, I’m sure we could help you get better results with the G11.

In low light taking shots of moving subjects or handheld will probably produce a little more noise than a DSLR, but should still be good.

That would depend what dslr (or vintage of) you’re comparing it to. It actually has better dynamic range and colour depth than the latest canons while only giving away a stop of noise.

I can take some bloody awful pictures with my DSLR – it’s easier to get ‘wrong’ than with a P&S/full auto. Obviously done ‘right’ you can get better results.

It took me a week or two to start getting decent results, when I started actually learning how to use the camera – still get some duffers though

I can take some bloody awful pictures with my DSLR

Glad it’s not just me!
Imagine if we had no way of seeing the photo we’d just taken – until we got to a camera shop/chemist – had to wait a couple of days – and then had to pay for all the bad photos!

It actually has better dynamic range

Only really applicable though if you’re going to be processing the RAWs by hand. Which is a big step up from simply taking photos.

There’s very little a DSLR will automatically do better than a bridge cam. Better low light and tracking moving objects* are the two I can think of.

* although this is far from foolproof I reckon in DSLRs.

We’ve been very pleased with a Nikon D5100 bought this time last year. Some great deals available on these as the D5200 is available now. How about,
Nikon D5100 + 18-55mm + 55-200mm Double Kit Our Price: £405.00

http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-d5100–18-55mm–55-200mm-double-kit-852-p.asp

Only really applicable though if you’re going to be processing the RAWs by hand. Which is a big step up from simply taking photos.

That’s true to some extent but expanded DR modes are normal automated features and the better dynamic range does compensate for the lesser noise control in the shadows. The end result is the rx100 does compete with dslrs from a couple of years ago and modern canons.

A good point, but it brings us back to the question of why the op is not happy with his existing cam.

A lot of people seem to buy SLRs expecting great pictures, and don’t get them.

Ah yes, dunno.

I’d start with choosing the size first personally.

No point getting the ultimate image machine and leave it at home. Or… getting something smaller and fiddlier than you need to…

Yeah. A woman came up to me as I was taking pictures of my sister’s barbecue. “Ooh, I’ve got one of those cameras…. never use it though”. She was using her phone to take snaps.

I tend to use my phone most, as it’s always there – and can give some decent results, but obviously lots of limitations.

I have a ‘tough’ camera for holidays etc – great for throwing in a bag/biking/underwater.

And then my DSLR – which I will generally only take when I have the sole intention of going on my own little ‘shoot’.

thanks for the response.

I loved the G11 at first – used the auto setting mostly but also took some great shots using the manual features. But it started to feel limited and the photos (particularly of people) lacked depth when compared to those taken by friends on DSLRs. I also didn’t like the swivel screen.

I thought I’d either get something smaller (The G11 was too big to go in a pocket) and accept the limitations of the photos, or go large and make the most of all the features.

The RX100 looks lovely so will investigate that further.

Sounds like shallow depth of field might be what you were missing.
Check that you can get the results you desire with the RX100 (look for shots of people in particular as you can get deceived by macro shots).

The chances are that you can only get the background out of focus when you are max tele and close to your subject.

If I’m right and it’s DoF that you require, there’s no substitute for large sensors and large lenses.

But it started to feel limited and the photos (particularly of people) lacked depth when compared to those taken by friends on DSLRs

It might be that your friends are doing a bit of post processing? If you are taking pic’s straight out of the camera, a little bit of PP can make a hell of a difference.

If you want a camera upgrade, personally, I’d go for a RX100, and a tripod.

Looking to spend £300-£400, either for something small which is robust and can take decent shots with control over shutter speed etc, or going large with a DSLR. If it’s the latter I’m considering the Nikon D3200.

Remove ‘small’ from that (its still small compared to sat a 5D), and SRS had Pentax K-5 for £350, OK it’s a generation behind now, likely to be 2 when the k-5ii sucessor comes out soon (as the k-30”s successor has just been released putting it close to the k-5ii), but it’s

a) magnesium bodied (tough)
b) weatherproof (including pentax WR lenses), theres a US marine on Youtube burrying it in sand then taking it in the shower to wash! (ideal for soggy camelpacks)
c) primes from the 70s film cameras are dirt cheep and still work on the digital bodies (shake reduction cant cope with zooms, but they still function)
d) shake reduction is in the body, which means lenses are cheeper (or in the case of the kit lenses, better built and better opticaly for the same price as the cannon / nikon competition).

Imagine if we had no way of seeing the photo we’d just taken – until we got to a camera shop/chemist – had to wait a couple of days – and then had to pay for all the bad photos!

Photos on my old film SLR blow the digital ones out the water on a one for one basis. I think because hand on heart I know a lot would be crap before I press the shutter release so 36 film expoures makes probably 12 worth keeping. Whereas the DSLR I can take 100 and pick 1. I think digital isn’t as cheep as people think. I justified film untill recently on the basis that per photo worth keeping/printing (10 in a film?) framing (10 in a year?) it was cheeper.

I’d go for a RX100, and a tripod.

Lol yeah.. that’s really convenient! 🙂

How about a canon Eos M, seems to tick all of your requirements

I don’t think he asked for the worst mirrorless camera on the market with no redeeming features. 😯

Really 🙂 Thanks for your input

Went thru similar decision process last spring and opted for Olympus XZ2, being predisposed to Oly’s via my E620, but not wanting the complication of interchangeable lenses with a PEN. Very happy with results over the summer.

I don’t think he asked for the worst mirrorless camera on the market with no redeeming features.

‘Tis true, what a pile of poop that is.

Thanks again for all the advice. I went for the RX100 and it’s just arrived; lovely camera and exactly what I wanted. Here’s the first shot – a sunset over Clerkenwell (with a tiny bit of Pixelmator to bring out the sunset).