NOTE: I decided to rent the Nikon combo for a week and give it a try. This is kind of pricey, but it seemed worth it. I might as well find out for sure how good it is.
I mentioned yesterday that my beloved Sony RX10 is kaput. There are no local repair options, and the authorized repair center has quoted a minimum price of about $400.
So should I get it repaired? Or should I consider a different camera? It's been three years since I bought the Sony, after all, and there's new stuff on the market. Let's see what the hive mind thinks.
But first, an absolute requirement: Whatever camera I get, it will come with a superzoom lens. I know that lots of people think these are toys, but I don't care. The fact is that lots of superzooms are pretty sharp these days, and I've just flatly given up on carrying around a bag with a bunch of separate lenses. The slight difference in quality is more than made up for by the fact that a superzoom allows me to catch lots of pictures that I wouldn't if I had to change lenses all the time.
Anyway, don't bother trying to talk me out of this. The question I'm pondering boils down to these three options:
- Get the Sony repaired.
- Use my old Lumix for a while until Sony releases the next version of the RX10, supposedly scheduled for later this year—with an accent on "supposedly."
- Buy an entirely new APS-C camera and a separate superzoom lens.
The third option is the one I'm currently fixated on. But which one? Given my price range, I'm currently looking at the Nikon Z50 along with the Nikon 18-300mm lens. Here are the pros and cons:
Pros
Much, much better ergonomics. Sony cameras have legendarily crappy controls, and even after three years I still get frustrated with the controls on the RX10. It's inexplicable, really.
The Z50 uses an APS-C sensor, which is much larger than the 1-inch sensor in the Sony. This provides better low-light performance, shallower depth of field when I want it, and better resolution if I create big enlargements (which I do).
The lens is interchangeable. I know I said I didn't want this on a routine basis, but I wouldn't mind having an ultra wide-angle prime for occasional use. Nikon makes a decent 10-20mm lens at a surprisingly low price.
It's a little smaller and lighter than the Sony. Oddly enough, I'm not actually sure if I prefer this. I'm just enough of a snob to like the idea of hauling around a camera that looks and feels like an old-school SLR.
Cons
I'm not an absolute stickler for lens quality, but neither do I want a piece of junk. Unfortunately, I've not been able to get a firm idea of just how good the Nikon 18-300mm is.
Fixed lens cameras allow you to zoom using a small knob around the shutter button. This is handy! Bigger cameras don't support this, so you have to zoom manually using the zoom ring on the lens. It's been a long time since I've had to do this, but I suppose I'd get used to it again pretty quickly, wouldn't I?
The zoom range of the Nikon lens is smaller than the zoom range on the Sony. In 35mm terms, it's 27-450 vs 24-600. This isn't a huge deal, but still, more is better.
That's about it. The retail price of the Nikon + lens is about the same as the Sony, but then again, I can get the Sony repaired for about a quarter the price. Beyond that, there are specific features here and there that favor one camera over the other. Most of them favor the Nikon, but not all, and none of them are deal breakers.
So . . . what to do? What to do?
“We conduct effective counterterrorism missions against terrorist groups in multiple countries where we don’t have permanent military presence,” Mr. Biden said this month. “If necessary, we’ll do the same in Afghanistan. We’ve developed counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed on the direct threats to the United States in the region, and act quickly and decisively if needed.”
Go be a war photographer. Apparently this is all the US government can do.
Counterterrorism? Where is the terrorism? Is Biden going to finally start killing republicans?
Who needs a jury? We can trust the U.S. government to know who the bad apples are, and we can believe them when they tell us the guy they just killed was a bad apple. Just like when they told us about those WMD in Iraq...
I would buy a new guitar, myself. But it's harder to take a quality picture with an axe.
Others mention above the micro four thirds cameras by Panasonic and Olympus. I think these are really good options to consider. They have bigger sensors than your Sony, but weigh about the same and have interchangeable lenses. There are lots of good body and lens combos. They generally the favorite portable cameras for the birding community. I think they at lease deserve a look.
Is depth of field greater? Bigger sensor but slower lens.
f2.4 vs. f3.5 wide, f4 vs f5.6 tele, about a stop slower. Will you actually get shallower depth of field,? Yes, barely.
As far as sharpness, I don't see why you are sure you would get more enlargeability. That's more about lens sharpness after you get away from really tiny sensors, and the RX10 1 inch sensors is not really tiny.
You can put faster and sharper lenses on the Z50, but then you are fumbling with lenses and limiting your zoom range.
Your pictures are really good. The Sony controls are lousy but you adapted to them. I say pay the $400.
> Given my price range
How much would each of your readers have to contribute to change your price range?
How much would each of your readers have to contribute to let you do each of your options?
Oh hell Kevin
Sell the cats - get the camera
Ok, Ok I do have a heart
Sell the Porsche - heck its not even turbo charged !!!
And I don't know a thing about camera's
I have enjoyed your many pictures and it's apparent you have talent and a real interest in photography. I think you would benefit from an aps-c or a full-frame sensor. Any of the new FF mirrorless cameras from Cannon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji would give you the greatest potential but the lenses are expensive. At a minimum I would suggest an aps-c camera with a mature range of lenses. That might rule out the Nikon. You talk about not wanting interchangeable lenses. My feelng is now is the time to embrce them and all the recent technological advances in the bodies. Yes, it's more trouble, but the flexibility and increased capabilities are well worth the bother. Don't be afraid of used lenses (or cameras either, potentially). I've bought a number of used pieces with good results. Fwiw, I have lived in the Sony A7 system from the beginning and love it.
You only live once.
It sounds like you can afford the cost of a new camera rig ....
Can you do both? Having 2 cameras of recent vintage can be really useful.
Just noting, $400 for a camera repair is not that bad. I have a DSLR that needs about that much in repairs every few years (it gets dirt in it, and it's bumped and bashed on hikes & trips enough so that eventually something doesn't work right). But I would hope a mirrorless would be a lot less fussy.
I own the Nikon 18-300mm lens. A few years ago it was considered very good for a superzoom. My copy is sharpest at 35mm and softest at 200mm and beyond, which seems to be typical for this lens. If you downsize your images to 1.5 megapixels for posting to the web, that will completely hide the optical defects of this lens at most focal lengths, but perhaps not quite completely at 200mm and beyond.
If you buy the 18-300mm, you have the option of buying the 70-300mm at some point. (Be sure to buy the VR version.) The 70-300mm lens is inexpensive, and will give you a lot more sharpness at long focal lengths in situations where you have time to switch lenses.
Idle bomb-throwing comment: A camera should last more than 3 years, particularly a mirrorless....the only moving parts are the shutter and the lens zooming gear. That's baloney from Sony.
You have received excellent comments so far. The only addition I will make is that I find zooming with the ring on the lens MUCH faster and more convenient than zooming with the zoom knob on the body of the camera. Not even comparable. I would take the zoom ring any day of the week.
Renting is a great idea. I really look forward to reading your thoughts on a bigger sensor and different camera.
I'm a pretty casual photographer, so I learned a lot from reading the comments here. Seems this is a tricky time to buy because the camera industry is in transition. After trying micro 4/3rds, DX format, etc, it seems the key companies have settled on a new mirrorless format (i.e., a new lens mount, which means new lenses or an adapter required) with APS-C sized sensors. Sony and Fuji are ahead in the race but Canon and Nikon now have a number of bodies available and will be producing a lot of new lenses for those bodies in the near future.
All in all, I think that suggests there's a lot of wisdom in getting the Nikon mirrorless body (the Z50 that is). Even though the ideal lens now requires an adapter, I'd bet that pretty soon Nikon will have the lens you want for that camera, no adapter needed. No doubt, however, it's a pain to be buying and selling lenses while you wait for what you really want.
I have the Sony RX10 IV, as well as the latest Canon R5 mirrorless with a 500mm lens. Guess which one gets taken out on hikes more often? I love the Canon for its detail, etc. but I don't take it very far from the car. The Sony is very easy just to sling over my shoulder and go.
If I were you, I would repair the Sony RX10 IV. For its size / weight it is by far the best quality all-in-one out there.
Suggest checking out https://www.kenrockwell.com/. He's got excellent reviews on cameras he purchases.
What about a Sony APS-C mirrorless from the A6x00 series? They are great cameras. If you prefer a point and shoot with a long lens, I'd get the your RX repaired. I have an RX100-vi and it makes a great back up camera when I don't want to schlep the A7RIV around.
Hey, look what just popped up on CNet:
https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/the-dslr-is-fading-away-now-what/
Renting the Nikon for a week is a good idea, post your findings after you try it out.