Best all around travel-friendly camera setup(s) for $3000-ish?

[timepresent]

Hello,

This is my first post in this recently discovered site + forum (both of which I've been really grateful for the past week -- thanks Andrew and everyone else!)

 

I'm trying to put together the best all around, do (almost) anything, travel kit for around $3000 and under 5 lbs -- for a 3 month trip with a fair bit of moving around, mainly working on a project

 

I am hoping to have:

4K (I plan to export 1080p videos, but the editing possibilities in post afforded by 4k are important for me)

Solid stills

Workable low-ish light performance (does not have to be at 4k or the absolute best low light performance)

…desirable also would be something compact, esp. for down low shooting

 

It seemed impossible in a single camera. So I thought, why not 2 cameras? …which -- since I am a one person crew -- also offers the possibility of having one camera on tripod and another as  B cam

 

My thought is…

 

Camera 1:

Samsung NX1 + Samsung 16-50 S lens 

(Around 2.7 pounds and $2100 buying both used)

For:

4k video

All around video quality (at or under 800 ISO)

Solid stills

 

Camera 2:

LX100

(Around .87 pounds and $650-700 buying used)

For:

Lowish-light (at f1.7)

4K

Compact/pocketable (for more run and gun/downlow shooting)

 

OR alternative possible

 

Camera 2:

Sony Alpha a6000 + Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS (or some other small, light, cheap prime -- I don't know what works well with this camera)

(Around 1.1 pounds and $800 together, by buying body used)

For:

Low-ish light 

Compact/pocketable (for more run and gun/downlow shooting)

 

I couldn't really find a comparison of low-light performance for LX100 vs a6000. Thoughts? Other (better) options?

 

I like the compact, light-weight form and flexibility of the GH4 paired with 12-35 Lumix lens (that combo purchased used is about the same price as the NX1 combo purchased used and has similar focal length equiv on m43), but like many others, I much prefer the quality of the video produced by the NX1 over that of the GH4. The stills are significantly better on the NX1, so already the NX1 can do double duty, which is a huge bonus. (I don't love the NX1 rolling shutter but 1080p seems to help for action or walking shots. I don't love having to convert to Pro-res to edit, but once I do it is pays off since it is much smoother editing -- especially with any effects -- and faster exporting than H264.)

 

I thought about going full frame for low light situations, less rolling shutter, and solid stills, but having worked some with 4k in post, 1080p seems severely limiting by comparison. I would still consider it, but I think it might bust the $3k budget and 5lb weight concerns..

 

And what to do if there's a couple hundo left over?   

 

Samsung 30mm f/2.0 NX Pancake(.18 pounds and $200) for those times when I want the NX1 image quality but not the weight of the lens? (Is there a better option?)

 

Rode video mic?

 

Thanks!

 

Best wishes

 

[hk908]

I love my NX1. Samsung has been very good so far with updates, minus the bugs people are apparently finding in the last one. But with that lens it definitely feels closer to 5 pounds than 2.7. There are rumors samsung is making S versions in pancakes like that 30mm but so far just rumors and no release date that I've seen.

[timepresent]

I agree that the NX1 + 16-50 S lens seems quite heavy; 2.7 pounds is roughly the spec online.

I am curious to see how the NX1 handles with a light, fast, compact, lens.

Options will surely increase over time...

[Cinegain]

Silly idea... FZ1000 (4K super travel friendly flexible allrounder mini-GH4) + A7S (lowlight hog, fullframe, APS-C, 4K externally as future upgrade for it when you can get a recorder).

[richg101]

a7s.  no external recorder - 1080p is fine. a voigtlander 40mm/1.4  a few 64gb sandisks and a few batteries.

a7s's 1080p internal is better than any comparable priced camera's 4k mode - particularly in situations where equipment is limited and lighting is too heavy to bring.  And that's a fact.  aps-c crop mode with the voigtlander will look like a 50mm f2 thanks to its crazy speed.  

[timepresent]

I like both of these ideas, thanks for your thoughts!

Most of the time I will be shooting outside in good light or inside with adequate light to stay under 800 ISO maybe 85% of the time; that's why I thought about relying on the NX1's 4k image most of the time

I was trying to cover myself a little bit for the times when the NX1 is the wrong camera -- knowing I would I'd still only make it to being maybe 95% covered

I've never used it, but the a7S is definitely a camera of interest especially for the incredible low light, but I couldn't figure out how to make the a7S work for my needs and my budget. The editing possibilities in post afforded by 4k are actually really important for me, personally -- so I did not want to be limited to shooting in 1080p as the only option even if that is a bit higher quality image. The a7S especially would be a nice small package with that lens; but with a recorder attached I feel like that compact, light package and low profile is lost and $3k budget blown. 

FZ1000 I considered for the B cam, but didn't feel it could do the double duty of the LX100 by being 4k and compact (but probably not going to help with low light as much as I want) or the a6000 by being decent in low light -- from what I have read -- and compact. I have only used the LX100 and like it okay. I know it is not even in the same league as the a7S for low light, but I have been curious about the a6000 compares to LX100 and NX1 for lowlight.

[mojo43]

I haven't tried others, but the a7s and a couple of Canon Fds and you would have a great system.

[jax_rox]

There's no other camera I'd want to travel with than the A7s. Most other DSLRs are too big/bulky for my liking to be carrying around everywhere. The A7s feels like you're carrying around an old film SLR - but gives you better 1080p video than any other DSLR/M and low light capabilities unrivaled by just about any other camera.

If 4k really is a deal-breaker for you (I'm not really sure why it would be a deal breaker, but then I'm not sure what you're shooting), then go for something else - but for my money I'd go A7s.

Of course, without knowing what you're trying to achieve visually, it's going to be a lot more difficult. Is this just to capture your travels, or are you shooting a travel doco, or what?

[timepresent]

I have to confess I don't remember what it feels is like to carry around a film SLR. I do wish the NX1 were as light on its feet (or in my bag…) as the a7S and that there seemed to be a lighter option for a good lens than the heavy Samsung 16-50 S lens.

What I'm shooting: I am in an early phase of a project where I'll be starting by shooting archaeological sites, archaeology fieldwork, and laboratory work. So landscape is important, and details/close-ups are important -- and moving between scales is going to be important, for which 4k punch-in ability during editing is great.

I have never used the a7S and I already miss having its low light capabilities. But in the situations mentioned above I'll mostly be in sunlight, outdoor daytime shade, or well lit rooms (lots of fluorescent lights actually -- have had issues with this before in cameras and so definitely need to make sure I don't get banding)

For now I am basing the choice on what I know now which is that I do not foresee low light situations being common, so I have not made it the highest priority. If there was an extra $2.5k in my budget I'd just get NX1 and a7S and be done with it, but I have to choose one or the other as the primary camera. It is the detail the NX1 seems capable of pulling out in its 4k image in adequate light that attracted me; where some say it is "too sharp," that is what I found attractive -- at least for this project.

This two year long project will eventually be part of a video-based installation shown in an art gallery/space. I actually normally shoot in 30p and my work mixes abstract video shot both in and out of a studio, documentary-like material, and sometimes animated 3d scans (these things are not usually in the same video, but in separate channels). I wanted to do something a bit different for this, but not sure yet what the precise aesthetic parameters are. I thought 30p might be too clinical for something already quite analytical; so I wanted something more cinematic for this project than what I normally produce. But looking a bit video-y might be appropriate.

Thanks!

[Liam]

so, could be that the lx100 is all you need, way at the low end of your price range and super light and portable. it's got to be the best budget 4k right now, the next jump being the nx1/gh4 for interchangeable lenses. The g7 coming out "soon" could be great for you, and possibly slightly better low light than the lx100, which is still pretty decent. you might be able to add a used a7s just in your price range, with like a fast, manual 30-ish mm, making use of the crop modes for different focal lengths. there are pretty good low light performers for way less though if it's going to be a rare occasion. might be worth getting an lx100 and just see if you really need anything else. lots of flexibility in that price range really. Hard to say exactly what would be your best bet

[timepresent]

I have used the LX100 a bit, indeed the compactness is amazing and at one time I thought it might be all I needed and I could save a bundle. Tried it with a handle/bracket and a Zoom H1 on the top; not bad and super compact/light. One issue with it is that I it was difficult for me to manually focus on the fly with the focus ring being so close to the body, but maybe I never got used to it.

I also need solid stills at a high resolution that can be printed fairly large, though. So hard to rely on LX100 alone.

So could be LX100 and a7S is a good combo indeed. But indeed low light will be a rare occasion so I was looking more at the NX1 for its internal 4K recording (4K is important for me for this project and I prefer the image a bit to the a7S). So I am still leaning to NX1 for the main camera but looking for a second. Wish it could be the a7S but not possible in my budget.

I'm more struggling + looking for help with the idea of the second camera. I was hoping there was something that could maintain in low light beyond ISO1600 where the NX1 falls off. I am not so familiar with the smaller body camera options.

@Liam, when you say there are "pretty good low light performers for way less" than a7S, what are you thinking about in particular? I was wondering about NX1 vs <$1000 cameras at higher than ISO1600. I saw the EOSHD article on the a6000 and GX7 but it didn't sound like either of those would be better? Maybe the f/1.7 on LX100 is helpful, but overall I don't think the LX100 is? RX100? Others?

If not -- then it seems NX1 + LX100 may be my best bet.

Thanks!

[Cinegain]

Yeah, if you don't need a more elaborate optical range than that, have no need to push it beyond ISO1250, don't mind the lacking audio interface, vari-angle screen (remember wanting to use it at low angles?) and Cinelike profiles, the LX100 might be the camera of choice. If you don't mind the smaller sensor, the FZ1000 gives you mic-in, vari-angle screen, Cinelike profiles and that more useful range optically. Might look a little more videoey though.

From what I'm picking up, you already have let go the idea of the A7S. So... that indeed would leave the GH4 perhaps. Which is pretty great if you use a speedbooster or just some fast glass in general. It does pretty much everything in a pretty awesome way... hopefully VLOG will roll out soon too. You might not really like the colors, but that might just be a thing of proper color correction and grading. Of course, it kinda suffers at the lowlight end of things. Perhaps you can ETTR your way out of that and it's just as useful up to ISO1600 as the NX1. The NX1. Nice. But personally I believe the M43 has a bit more flexibility, especially if you also want some native electronic glass in front of your camera. And if you want that glass to be small and light. And if you want to have the most choice (also budgetwise). Same problem I have with the A7S. Really comes down to personal preference though.

Too bad you're set on 4K. Indeed the A6000 (I believe it should perform similar to the next two I'll mention?), although perhaps also the D5300/D5500 would appear to be sweet choices what lowlight concerned. Perhaps, if you really care for a more hybrid approach of stills and video... the Nikon D750 might be king of the hill. Awesome for stills, very good at video, especially lowlight. Superb colors too. Little expensive, but I believe with a flexible kitlens it still fits your budget. If you spend 700 more, there's even the D750 in a filmmaker's kit. But then the question becomes... how travel friendly does it needs to be (but then again, you seem to be willing to carry two cameras with you)?

[timepresent]

Thanks @Cinegain

Things would indeed be easier if I did not find the 4k editing possibilities necessary (from previous use and for my style); I am willing to sacrifice other things. But I know 4k opens up all kinds of problems too; in the end I am not coming in with a lot of "proper" film making experience, so it could be self defeating whippersnapper logic : )

But further... in terms of NX1 + LX100 combo, wondering if the LX100 could pick up in the lowlight, I just found this comparison -- LX100 actually holds up more at 3200 (seems usable at 4k and in downscaled on screen to1080p seems completely usable) and even at 6400 in 1080p it looks okay in a real pinch. Much better than NX1 in both cases. It seems to do very well in low light, almost pleasingly so. So at f/1.7 and 3200 ISO and 4k it might be just the ticket for cheap, light, low key, low light shooting.

LX100 really keeps up in good conditions and pulls ahead when the lights drop. If LX100 shot high res stills I would probably roll with only that as Liam suggested. LX100 does have fantastic picture quality to size/price ratio, certainly a better ratio there than the NX1. But still I think NX1 4k image in good and average conditions is great for the fine detail that is important for me; I also find that the NX1 is easier to handle and focus than the LX100.

I couldn't find much comparing LX100 in low light to other cameras (except vs GH4 which it seems to best). a6000 seems good in low light but I can't find a comparison with LX100. How do you think the a6000 compares to LX100, @Cinegain?

I don't necessarily want the weight of the 16-50 S on the NX1, but it does seem to be the best option for the main camera. I planned to only get/carry 1 lens (thus the zoom makes sense to me); so I really only need 1 good lens rather than flexibility. I think the quality difference I see in the image b/t NX1 and the GH4 with 12-35 Lumix lens is worth the extra weight of the NX1 combo -- trade offs. I haven't used a GH4 w/ speedbooster (only without), so I don't know if I'd feel differently about it vs NX1 in that situation. Those two combos used are about the same price. Speedbooster for GH4 is an extra $500. Even if that brought them closer together, I think shelling out an extra couple hundred for used LX100 as a second camera makes more sense.

I don't know the Nikon cameras at all. NX1 vs D750 I see more detail in the NX1 in this test at 1080p, but it could be partially an optical effect of the higher contrast in the NX1 straight from camera. And I am sure some prefer the look of the Nikon to the NX1 regardless of detail differences. I guess if lowlight were the top priority I would still take used smaller a7S over Nikon D750 for same price.

So NX1 + D3300 is an interesting thought. Two cameras this size or lots of lenses starts to seem a bit travel unfriendly to me, but perhaps possible if the Nikon had a lightweight, cheap prime (keeping body and lens around the LX100 $800 price point). And D5300 low light looks great so I assume D5500 would as well. I wonder how much better in low light would it be than the LX100?

Maybe I was thinking backwards and LX100 for 4k + another larger body camera for lowlight and stills (like the D3300) is the better option where I could come in at under $2k and a little lighter.

Good stuff

[Liam]

Yeah, a5100, a6000, lower end nikons, maybe an eos m? That's sort of what I had in mind. D5200 looks good at 12800iso for example. Haven't looked into it too much honestly. There was a thread on here recently for the best sub-$1000 low light cameras. Really, a7s with that new pix-e5 recorder and one lens could still be sort of close to $3000... Shame you didn't say $4000 budget. Anyway, best of luck, sounds like you're on the right track. This type of thing is never going to be an easy choice

[timepresent]

As soon as one says $4k then it becomes $5k, etc.... so yes $3k is the budget, but pix-e5 recorder looks very cool and nice to know there is a smaller, cheaper option to grab 4k from the a7S for future possibilities.

In the real world (and traveling) in my case I think an external recorder will trip me up, hold me back, and importantly change how people relate to the presence of the camera which is why a7S never seemed like the best choice for me. (Also... say you run out of SD cards, you can find them relatively easily -- probably around the corner if you are in a city -- but you run out of space on this pix-e5 and you might not as quickly find the SSD you need)

So I think for me it comes down to what's going to complement the NX1 best or pick up where the NX1 lacks for under $1000 -- LX100, a6000, or D5300?

I don't have a clear idea of how they compare in low light (I had seen the low light thread you mentioned though)

D5300 seems best for low light but adds more weight -- the weight is why I passed it over initially

LX100 is not as good in low light but still extends beyond NX1 capabilities a bit; lightest, smallest; has 4k

a6000 seems to be the compromise camera -- second best in low light but not as bulky as D5300

I wonder then which would be easiest to match the footage to NX1?

Thanks!

[Liam]

Canon or Nikon are probably easiest to match to nx1 colors. eos m is small and affordable with improving image quality and low light it seems with the latest one, along with those canon colors