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?
Go with the Nikon. I agree that more is better re: the superzoom (and I'm totally with you on needing the superzoom), but having a good wide angle is really nice at times.
IMO. Sorry your Sony died. I had a Sony and it died quickly. That's why I wouldn't get another or get this one fixed.
Nothing scientific behind it but when I see “Sony” I think television and audio. (Our family’s television happens to be Sony) When I see “Nikon” I think camera.
Go with the Nikon.
And make it clear to Sony how their repair policy factored into the decision. Even if Nikon’s is similar. (Something you should check into regardless)
My photographer friend said to go with a Sony full frame a7 lll. He said lots of other things regarding range and long lenses, but that’s the only thing I retained:).
The a7iii is a fantastic camera, but quite a bit more expensive than the others. I use it for semi professional photography and the sensor is great. It almost demands the best lenses.
I’ve used nikons (last was a d700) and much to my disappointment the sensors just weren’t as good. The ergonomics were a lot better than with the Sony.
It would be hard to go wrong with either.
Most Nikon sensors are made by Sony to Nikon specs.
Go with the Nikon. Here's a review from a publication I respect...
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z50-review
I was going to link to dpreview myself. It is a wonderful resource for the digital photographer. I have a Cannon SLR from gosh about 14 years ago and a few lenses but haven't used it much since phone cameras got good enough and I sort of lost interest in photography, I'm not nearly as good at it as my sibling.
When I think Sony I think planned obsolescence, going with a Nikon or Cannon you get a well regarded body and with the purchase of great lenses you can upgrade the body but keep the lenses for a bunch of cycles.
Go for the bigger sensor. In my experience it makes all the difference (mostly because of shallower depth of field in people shots. Could be great for cat and bird pics) plus it would be interesting for your readers to hear your thoughts on a different format and tech.
Not sure I completely understand your price range but if you’re saying $1600 is possible, I would recommend going to a photo store and trying a Canon 6d mark 2. (Seems to be about $1800 with lens.) Full frame would be a huge leap in quality, you get to really look through the lens (fun!) and 24-105 may not be super zoom but it’s close and remember because of the much bigger sensor you can crop in without loss of quality and treat it like a super zoom. Plus if you enjoy lugging a pro-looking camera around it definitely scratches that itch.
Hmm, maybe I’m totally wrong on the price. Consumer Reports says the price of the 6D2 with 24-105 is $1800 but when I click through it’s more like $2500. My apologies.
You’re a pretty serious photog though. I still recommend taking a look at full frames on the cheaper side.
I can't even look at cameras in this price range, so I have no technical advice for you. But here's what I would say: Don't get the Sony fixed. Use the old Lumix and wait to buy the new iteration of the RX10. Use the time to look at other cameras (and take lots of pix!), so when the new Sony comes out you'll know for sure if you really want it or if you've found something new. You've been using the RX10 for a few years now, and my guess is it's become second nature, an important factor when you're out shooting -- you don't want to be figuring out how the camera works.
Or, go with your heart and get the Nikon today. You'll look good with a bag of lenses.
I say go for it. Nikon's long-zoom lenses are amazing. I switched from a Sony superzoom compact to a Nikon DSLR with an 18-200mm lens years ago and never regretted it for a second. It's excellent for everything from portraits to wildlife to landscapes, and, yes, cat pictures. The current 18-300mm is similarly well regarded.
Nikon's DX (basically APS-C) sensors generate much cleaner images across the whole ISO range than the RX10's 13.2mm sensor can.
You'll need the FTZ adapter to use the 18-300mm on the Z50. With the adapter and the long lens, the kit weighs 40oz vs 28oz for the RX10, so you definitely get to feel like an SLR snob.
Nothing I've read suggests I need the FTZ adapter. Are you sure about this?
UPDATE: OK, I see it now. Bummer. That adds considerable length to the camera.
Yeah, Nikon makes a 24-200mm (36-300mm on the APS-C Z50) superzoom for the Z mount. A review from my go-to Nikon reviews source is here: https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-24-200mm-f4-63-lens.html. He also has a review of the Z50 here: https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-cameras/nikon-z-camera-reviews/nikon-z50-camera-review.html.
Yup. AF-S and Z are different lens standards, and FTZ is the adapter.
The other options for a long-zoom Nikon right now are the Z 24-200mm lens, or a DSLR body that works natively with the AF-S 18-300mm lens. The 24-200 is full-frame, heavy, and not wide enough on an APS-C sensor at the 24mm end. Nikon's AF-S DSLR bodies have barely been updated since 2016.
I'm using my original AF-S 18-200mm lens with a D3400 (2016) body that I got like-new for cheap on ebay, and have been happy with that combination.
Under your third option, you might consider starting afresh with a MFT (micro four-thirds) system. I realize that you may be reaching for the tuning dial in initial reaction to this, but here's my current recommended setup (I teach this stuff) for a enthusiast photographer:
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9
• General purpose lens (about $180 used):
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH Power OIS
• Telephoto zoom lens:
Panasonic Leica 100-400mm f/4-6.3 ASPH Power OIS
(you may want to consider a shorter zoom range as this model is
specifically for teaching long macro, wildlife and bird photography)
• Wide Angle Lens (optional; more for pro architectural/interior use):
Panasonic Leica 8-18mm f/2.8-4
All lens focal lengths are doubled in the MFT system, e.g., the general purpose lens is a 24–120mm in APC or conventional 35mm terms. The G9 is uniformly excellent and has a nice SLR-like heft, while the lenses are all relatively lightweight and compact, considering their specs. All are available used (mpb-dot-com, for instance). Firmware is still updated, with rather extraordinary face/animal/bird detection added in the latest versions. Updated firmware also fixes bugs, of course!
Anyway … another perspective to consider. Cheers, and good luck in your quest!
Yeah, this is a real option also. I recently bought an Olympus system:
* OM-D E-M1 Mark III
* 7-14/2.8 Pro zoom
* 12-40/2,8 Pro zoom
* 40-150/2.8 Pro zoom
Then I realized that I really did need that reach for wildlife in Yellowstone so I bought (I live very close to YNP and go there all the time):
* 300/4 Pro
* 1.4x TC
I was also planning a short vacation where photography was not the prime objective, but a big family get-together was (since rescheduled for next spring), so I bought a travel zoom:
12-100/4 Pro zoom (this rapidly became my favorite lens for most shooting. Go figure).
And for shooting the Milky Way I got:
12/1.4 Lumix G Leica DG Summilux
This last lens proved to be absolutely perfect for astro-landscapes because of the extra 2 stops.
Between the Olympus and Panasonic lens lines there are probably 70 lenses available, as well as a lot of lenses from some of the Chinese companies. My last DSLR was a Canon D30(!) and I have to say that digital cameras have come a long way since 2000.
Here is the Olympus superzoom, 12-200/3.5-6.3. Looks like it offers both the typical advantages and disadvantages of a lens of this type, but damn, it is small.
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/12-200mm-f3.5-6.3-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/
BTW, Kevin imaging-resource.com has a huge library of lens reviews. I've found it invaluable.
Oh yeah, that is 24-400 in old money (aka full frame).
Well shit. Thats a nice kit!
If I wanted to save some money and still be happy as a pig rolling in mud I'd get:
OM-D E-M1 Mark III
12-100/4 Pro zoom
12/1.4 Leica
300/4 Pro
Still not cheap, but the 12-100 turned out to be an amazingly high quality lens. Extremely versatile with a real solid build. The 300/4 (and TC) are necessary for shooting wildlife, and I know that Kevin likes shooting astro landscapes and that fast Leica wide angle is great for this.
Frankly, I didn't know that I would like standing in the dark for hours shooting things in the sky until I spent several nights shooting Neowise last year. The night sky is so amazingly wonderous and beautiful that I got hooked. My last trip produced an image that was just gorgeous, but I am still trying to learn Lightroom + Photoshop to really bring out all that is there.
One of the cool things about the body I have is the Starry AF focusing mode. This is designed to optimize focus for starry skies, and it works really well, giving you very sharp starry skies with a minimal amount of fuss.
Advice taken to ruminate over!
Perfect camera for the snob wanting that old school feel with all the newest perks: Nikon Z fc
It's pretty much the Nikon Z50, in a classic body - with a few improvements.
You still get the super zoom you want for everyday use, but you can also buy a macro down the road for all those backyard flower and critter pics - or any other just for fun lens. Nikon Z glass lives up to the hype.
Agree. That ZFC is a beauty and would be fun, I imagine, for a technically inclined photographer.
Nice! Holy cow.
As stated above, the 18-300 VR is not a native Nikon Z lens and needs an adaptor to work on the Z50. It is also about 30oz without the adaptor, so the combo will be quite heavy. The difference between 24mm and 27mm (full frame effective focal length) is not insignificant, and you may miss that more than the difference in the long end. Here is a review of the lens:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/778-nikkorafsdx183003556vr
Given the mediocre lens performance, not being a native Z lens, and the weight, this would not be a combination I would go for. Unfortunately you can't go with a sensor 3x larger (1" sensor vs APSC) without increasing the size and weight of the optics that provides the optical reach you want. If you like the Z50, the 2 lens kit is a nice alternative, though it's still not 1 lens solution, and doesn't have the reach of your Sony. It may make sense to repair your Sony and hopefully, Nikon/Fuji/Canon will make an APSC mirrorless option in the future that works better for you.
Maybe rent a couple and try them out.
I think you should follow the sage advice of the Arnold Rothstein character in Boardwalk Empire:
“Flip a coin. When it's in the air, you'll know what side you're hoping for.”
Rothstein
+1
I think Nikon lenses are in a totally higher category. For a different approach, look at the Nikon Coolpix P1000. The zoom is huge but the camera is manageable.
Get the new camera! You might feel a little buyer's remorse now, but you'll thank your past self later. And besides, obsolescence seems to get more expensive with every passing year.
Plus, if you're anything like me, you know you want the new camera 🙂
You always want the new camera. Or the new lens. Or, for me, I'm always looking for the perfect tripod and head. Christ, it never ends, although the tripod hunt is almost over.
1. Simple. Repair the Sony. Our throwaway culture is a disaster.
2. Take hostages and get them to give you a 5-year warranty. (Not going to happen.)
What's that line from Fried Green Tomatoes?
"We're younger and faster!"
“Face it girls. I'm older and I have more insurance.”
So, you are suggesting Kevin should smash his camera into someone else's?-)
Well, then h'e have to buy a new camera, the repair option being off the table.
If you can find some place that will let you take one out for a spin you'll know how much you want it inside an hour.
I've thought about this for the past couple of hours since I wrote my earlier comment, and here's my new advice: Get the Nikon. Buy it today. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that you are out doing that right now. It's what you want. Deal with the complexities, the extra lenses, and the extra weight. It's what you want, and it's time to step up. Give yourself a new and powerful tool to enhance your artistry, AND a shiny new toy to play with. Send the Sony in for repairs. Then, one day, you'll have two great cameras to choose from, or one to sell.
I was going to make a witty comment, but I'm having trouble focusing.
Any camera I use has to fit in my shirt pocket. Be there and ready to shoot or be square. It has to be cheap so when it falls with me off the horse and gets broken no great loss.
The pictures I take get shared on the internet so great lenses and resolution are wasted.
I don't think pixs are allowed. this is a test
45d6500cffe5699cb37a521c1b14785868c199f09d9d8d1e9e890f8723ce2f87.jpg
Didn't work.
Maybe if you host it somewhere like Imgur or Photobucket you can get a link that will work in Kevin's blog comments.
You should go for the z5 or z6. Your photography skills are good enough to notice and take advantage of the difference btw full frame and apsc. That 24-200 z lens looks good. just get a teleconverter also if you need more length. you'll spend more than originally planned, but seems you like to keep your equipment for a relatively long period of time, and you use them enough so you'll get full value out of them. And again your photo skills are good enough to notice and take advantage of what this equipment has to offer.
Best thing would be to rent the camera + lens and try them for a week or so.
At one point, I was deciding whether to get the biggest zoom lens (100-400) for my Fuji mirrorless camera. I got it from lensrentals dot com but there are others I'm sure. (Not to keep everyone in suspense, I decided that it was a great lens, but the kit 50-230 lens was enough for me.)
i do a lot of wildlife photography for a website i've run since 2013. i've used a succession of nikon equipment starting from an entry level d3000 my wife bought for me along with lens kit that came with a 55-200mm nikkor zoom and an 18-55 mm zoom. since then i've bought a d7200 and a d750 and a 150-600 tamron zoom. when i'm hiking, i take the two newer bodies, the smaller zoom attached to the d7200 and the tamron zoom on the d750. recently, i've gotten the 55-200 out of the closet and probably will start carrying that with me.
bottom line: i'm extremely happy with the nikkor (nikon) lenses and the d750-tamron combo. the tamron lens is terrific for the price; i've seen a lot of photographers using it — there are versions for both canon and nikon mounts — and everyone i've talked to about it loves it.
oh and one more thing. the nikon bodies and the lens are rugged. i've been caught carrying them during several of south florida's notoriously sudden and heavy downpours, one actually fell into the fringes of a lake when i turned my ankle and fell. they've been dropped multiple times. all still work like new.
I've always enjoyed Ken Rockwell's site for reviews: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/
My experience has been that his reviews are spot on. I'm sure other ppl crib from him and post elsewhere on the internet.
Ken says the Z50 (15.7oz) is the best APS-C mirrorless out there. Go for it, if mirrorless is what you want.
But, there are lighter dSLR cameras for less, namely the D3500 DX (14.6oz).
My budget is in the ultra-low category. I would have gone with the D3500 DX ($597), not because it's Nikon's lightest dSLR, but because I already have paired two zoom DX lenses (1 for wide, 1 for telephoto).
If your heart is set on the 18-300 DX lens (which is a spectacular choice), your least cumbersome option is to get a DX camera.
Added benefit of going dSLR is the ability to play with extension tubes to do macro from far away.
Don't buy the D3500 unless you're getting it with lenses for under $400 (a past Costco Black Friday sale) and you really can't stretch the budget.
You can get a Z5, Z50, or Zfc for just a little more than the everyday sticker price of a D3500. The D3500 takes fine pictures, but it lacks too many convenience features that will only cause remorse.
The Zs have MUCH better autofocus, better low light shooting, articulating screens, actually work easily tethered to a PC (eg, for tabletop macro, like shooting collectibles), actually work with Snapbridge in the field, etc etc.
Perhaps. But, none of my nikkor lenses including 55mm manual macro and 85mm AF would work unless I spend even more money on an adaptor. So you see, it's still expensive.
Would be nice to have Snapbridge and an articulating screen, tho. Maybe some day.
Current ebay price for a used rx10 III is about $800, so on an economic basis, well worth repairing. I never knew any serious photog who was happy with a travel zoom lens, but if you want to try it, rent one (and an appropriate camera) from lensrental.com. My reading of recent reviews (mostly at Imaging Resource) indicates that only the Canon g3x can rival the rx10 III, and it doen't quite make it. As for the advice to buy a full frame, sure, get a used Canon or Nikon and any of the many inexpensive superwides now available, but realize a long telephoto for a FF will be a veritable cannon. (The weapon, not the camera company).
By the way, sorry to hear about the reliability problems with Sony, but I have 60 yo Canons that are still going strong.
First off, if Sony does release a new superzoom camera this year, I think you might experience regret. Sony's ergonomics have been getting much better in its recent cameras (A7RIV, A1), and we could expect the same from the next superzoom.
That said, I have gone with APS-C as for me it is the best trade off between image quality, price, and weight - even though I could certainly afford full frame. The best APS-C system hands down is Fujifilm; there's nothing else close. No, Fujifilm does not make a superzoom lens; but Tamron is releasing an 18-300mm lens for Fujifilm X mount soon. You can already pre-order it for Sony, where the pricing is $700. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1654621-REG/tamron_b016e_18_300mm_f_3_5_6_3_di_iii_a.html/SID/EZ) I'll bet the IQ beats the Nikor too.
A new S-10 costs $1,000 and you can currently buy a used one from B&H for $800: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/1597411/fujifilm_x_s10_mirrorless_digital_camera.html
What about the instant gratification factor though? If you really think you might want a wide-angle zoom, the Fujifilm XF10-24 F4 is an excellent zoom and you can find it used under $700. Or buy a new Samyang/Rokinon fixed 12mm F2 (manual focus) for $250.
*Nikkor
Dump the Sony. Yes, Sony has good technology, but in my experience and from being 'into' cameras for some time, Sony products break. A lot. I will second (I think) the Micro Four Thirds recommendation. The range of lenses (that can be had pretty cheap too) are great. Based on your photos I promise you will like the 9-18mm also. I'd suggest getting an Olympus body for the stellar IBIS and jpegs.
To start: get an Olympus E-M1 mark 2 with the Panasonic 14-140mm lens to get you started (together $1447 at B&H). And later get the 9-18mm or any of the dozens of great lenses for the system. You'll see.
Another option available soon:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7103666356/tamron-announces-699-18-300mm-f3-5-6-3-aps-c-lens-for-sony-e-mount-cameras
Initially to be available for Sony E mount apsc cameras. Though if Sony has left a bad taste in your mouth, it should be available in Fuji X mount later this year. Obviously no test results, but most newly developed mirrorless lenses have been quite good.
Best of luck!
I'm going to be the outlier and suggest the Fuji Film cameras. The lenses are pricey but the quality is phenomenal. I've taken great shots with the TX-20 3/4 camera, but if you are going full frame, there's lot of excitement about their new GDX100 series.
https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/
I was under the impression that the Fuji G-series cameras were MF, not 35mm sized.
When I was shopping last year, I took a long hard look at Fuji since lots of pros and reviewers seem to like them, but ultimately couldn't pull the trigger because of the limited lens selection. For example, the super-zoom that Kevin craves is not available in the Fuji system AFAIK. Same thing for long telephoto lenses. And when I looked around the situation from 3rd party manufacturers was similarly limited.
If the lenses available from Fuji fulfill your photographic style then it might well be a good system to get into, for example if you like landscapes or portraiture or just general street photography it might be a good system. That covers a lot of range! But as was drilled into me when I first started buying serious equipment, you are buying into a system.