SuperKirby

That doesn't change image quality at all, does it?

sea_jeff

Definitely maybe. Rolling shutter if your subject is moving and weird banding artifacts from some artificial light sources are 2 ways ES can dramatically affect your images.

Tiki

As a birder, I need a super zoom lens. I used to have a Canon 60D and 100-400 lens, But I downsized last year to the Nikon P9000 (has 83x zoom) because like others here I got sick of lugging all that weight around. Plus the DSLR was killing my neck! I still get good enough pics for my hobbyist purposes.

Polytonic

With cellphone cameras improving at a rapid rate, has anyone switched to exclusively bringing a telephoto prime on travel instead? (say ... 80mm or maybe even 135mm)

wco81

I have a 70-200 which I always take but I don't find myself using it too much.

Last time I did use it was to shoot a pano of a cityscape at distance to capture more details stitched together.

It really depends on the types of things you tend to photograph.

Landscapes and architecture is mostly going to be wide-angle. Maybe if you see a big cathedral, you would use a telephoto to photograph the gargoyles, which would be the equivalent of 10 stories up from street level.

Otherwise, mid telephotos would be more useful for street photography, taking pictures of people from a distance, I would think.

richarddd

I'm tending towards a cellphone camera and a Sony RX100 III for travel photography. The cellphone is adequate for almost all travel photography. In some cases, especially low light, the RX100 on a small tripod is a better choice.

What this doesn't give me and I miss is wider then 24mm FF equivalent. Does anyone know of a truly pocketable camera that will do ultrawide?

I would carry more if I needed to shoot subjects that move or if I needed a longer lens or shallower depth of field. I shoot mainly art and architecture, as well as some we-were-there pictures of my wife and me, so those are not serious issues.

lsquare

I wouldn't say it was pocketable, but Nikon use to have the 1 series which used a 1" sensor. Unfortunately, it was discontinued as sales were disappointing since everyone wanted a big sensor camera.

Polytonic

My iPhone has supplanted my camera for pretty much everything except portraits and "shots that would look better from 80mm" ... I know the whole "zoom with your feet" phrase is thrown around a lot. For street photography though, I don't always want to get up close and personal with a camera, so ... yeah.

I've found the iPhone camera is good enough for most wide shots (35mm-ish?). Could always take a couple steps closer maybe, and then try to fix any glaring issues in post. I can shoot RAW using a few different apps now.

richarddd

The problems with zoom with your feet include perspective issues and personal space issues.

The Google camera app lets you choose to save raw files. My most frequent corrections are camera tilt (i.e., horizon not level) and keystone correction, so raw is not as important for me, although I leave the raw setting on..

lamphs

I am a novice at photography. I have used a 'point and shoot' for a number of years. Simple and it works well for quick memorabilia pics. And if I lose it, not a big deal.

I am going to Machu Picchu and I'd like to acquire a camera with a wider angle view. A point and shoot is preferred, but I am not sure of what 'range' I should be looking for. Any suggestions as to reliable models? If a point and shoot is not available, any other suggestions?

Many thanks!

wco81

Point and shoot camera really has declined.

That said, there's still a wide range of products in the category, ranging in price from around $150 to over $1000.

You pay more for image quality, particularly the cameras with 1-inch sensors, or convenience, like the super zooms. Of course with super zooms, they're more bulky, probably won't fit in a jacket pocket.

I haven't used the guides and feature search on this site but it's a good site, which attracts a lot of enthusiasts. Their guide list the "best of" for different types of photography and different price levels.

https://www.dpreview.com/buying-guides

They also have a nice feature search engine that lets you select which features are important.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras#!

Good brands to look for are the higher-end Sonys (RX100, though the price will be approaching $1000 if not go over it) and the Panasonics, which may be better in the lower priced categories.

RSSrsvp

I went to Machu Picchu with my Olympus E-M5 Mark ll and the Olympus 12-40 mm f2.8 Pro lens and took home some fabulous shots. 12mm on a M43 camera is the equivalent of 24mm on a full frame camera and their 12-40 f2.8 Pro lens has amazing IQ.

Also this is a weatherproof kit and Machu Picchu can be dusty.

Dave510

Too many options available. The various RX-100s are solid choices for a zoom compact, as others have pointed out. The new Fuji X100V is also great if a 35mm equivalent prime works for you. You get a faster lens and weather sealing if you go with the Fuji, but lose the zoom capabilities of Sony.

tfred

As a former Fujifilm employee, I still follow the camera world. What is happening is that the market is cell phone for amateurs or $1,000 cameras for pros and very advanced amateurs. You can imagine the sales volume of $1k cameras is way less than the old amateur units with prices of $200-500 point and shoots. PS cameras are essentially gone. Nikon, canon and others are actually hurting financially with the dramatic sales drop.

The question for most users is justifying a $1000 purchase to themselves or their spouse. Not easy and you really have to love photography to buy it.

lsquare

35mm may not be wide enough for the OP. I recommend that the OP gets the RX100 VII. I have it and it's a fantastic camera.