Photo gear dilemma: switch to something smaller?

[roybijster]

<p>Photo enthusiasts,</p>

<p>Currently I am experiencing a small identity crisis.</p>

<p>Mid 2011 I purchased my first dSLR camera, a Nikon D3100 that I still own today. I bought it after my mother's passing, when we found out we have little family photos and those that we had at the time were from years before and all separated by many years too. I did not ever want to find myself in such a situation again. <br />I want to document not only the photogenic moments in my life. That combined with a years long interest in photography culminated in the purchase of the Nikon D3100. Over a few years I added a small family of (mainly) portrait lenses (10-22, 35, 50, 85mm), and technically the camera never let me down. I sufficed for 95% of the time I used it. </p>

<p>Fast forward four years and we find ourselves in a new situation. In the meantime I purchased a film medium format camera that I now use for the larger part of the portraiture that I do; I have a dark room at home and I now mainly shoot with a print as final product in mind. I like the analog work flow and am planning on extending it further by some DIY to also enable the RA-4 process. Needless to say, the dSLR has found less and less use. I have traced that to three probable causes:<br />1. I just prefer using my other camera (see above).<br />2. Family and friends never seem to like me bringing my camera to shoot private situations. They rather see me put that camera away before I get to take a decent shot. <br />3. I do not prefer to haul the camera backpack every time, in the case I might want to make some photos.</p>

<p>This brings me here seeking your advice. Do you recognize parts of the problems and how did you deal with them?</p>

<p>I have been thinking about a possible gear change to remedy the issues: go for a lighter, smaller, less noticeable camera. For this I could think of two possible ways:<br />A. Switch to an analog range finder (e.g. the voigtländer R4a or leica R5 with 2 or 3 small lenses). These meet the requirements of being lighter, less noisy and to me they seem less intruding (see issue 2). <br />B. Switch to an digital small format mirrorless camera, combined with a few small lenses (olympus for example seems to have rather small form factor). This option also meets the requirements, but puts me with another few questions. Nowadays there are so many brands making this kind of camera; all have their own unique mount it seems and their own series of lenses.<br />I am not big on the idea of investing into a completely new mount if I am not sure it will still be around in another few years, but I haven't completely written it off either and am still open to the idea.</p>

<p>There is one other option that I could think of, which is <br />C. Buy a point and shoot camera to complement the gear I have. This is my least favourite option at the moment, because I think it is a pity if my dSLR kit just sits there in the corner collecting dust.</p>

<p>Although money is less of an issue then it was when I bought the D3100; I'd prefer to make a well considered decision. I will likely have to sell most if not all of the dSLR kit to finance any new system.<br />Is there an option I have not considered? What option would you advice for or against? I'd be happy to receive your input.</p>

<p>I am by the way not seeking advice on specific gear, but rather on the choice of switching in the first place and on the platform type.</p>

<p>- Roy</p>

[willis]

<p>I have a truck load of photographic equipment.<br>

My family is aware of it and tolerates me.<br>

I usually take a small "pocket" digital camera with me that doesn't distract from the festivities.<br>

With all the "smart" phones around, I just blend in.<br>

I use the other equipment for my own pleasure.</p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>I keep a variety of gear on hand, digital and film, and use whatever suits my fancy at the time. Personally, from your comments, I'd keep what I have and perhaps use my smartphone for those family and friend snapshots. I no longer have a smartphone, so resort to my Leica on occasion, but I see the results my daughter achieves with her smartphone in everyday use, and think they are capable of filling the gap quite nicely.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If you want small, the next question is, how small does it have to be, to be convenient enough to overcome whatever is keeping you from packing your DSLR? A D3100 with a reasonably sized lens isn't exactly huge.</p>

<p>Are we talking pocket camera small (in which case I'd take a good long look at the Sony RX100 series)?</p>

<p>Stepping up a bit from there, you have cameras that don't pocket but are still convenient and small, like a Panasonic LX100 or Fuji X100 series.</p>

<p>A step up from there would be a mirrorless with interchangeable lenses - the notable ones currently being the Olympus OM-D series (smaller than most interchangeable lens options, but the sensor is small), Fuji X-E and X-T series (IMO these have the best APSC lenses available) and the Sonies (take your pick based on how expensive you want the system to get - A6000 is good, A7II with Zeiss glass is amazing but expensive).</p>

[Ken Katz]

The D3100 with 1 or 2 lenses is really not very big or heavy and I don't see a compact DSLR or mirrorless camera (used without flash) any more or less intrusive than a rangefinder. Taking the 10-22 plus either 35 or 50 to a gathering would work for me, and if you want to spend money, some of the new Nikon APSC cameras are even smaller and lighter than your D3100, with an increase in resolution, high ISO performance, dynamic range and other features. If you want to go compact, Andy had some good suggestions.

[roybijster]

<p>Steve, Willis, I get the point of the smartphone. That would indeed be an interesting option if I would own a smartphone. I actually ditched the smartphone about 6 months ago for completely different reasons. <br /><br />Andy, thanks for the great suggestions. I am not necessarily talking pocketable, but the RX100 seems a nice one in that class. Definitely worth a view in any case. I see that there are 4 versions available, ranging in price from 350 - 1200 EUR. Which one were you getting at?</p>

<p>Kenneth, I agree that the D3100 isn't exactly huge; especially with the 35 or 50mm mounted (I consider the 85mm and 10-22mm to make it a bit bulkier). So far taking the D3100 with either of the options you mentioned didn't work for me so far, as I would normally find myself taking the entire bag anyway. The 35 is on there 90% of the time. Perhaps taking a smaller bag with me, might help. Or my family and friends are just not that camera-friendly or tolerant, as Willis puts it ;-).</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I have already made the transition to smaller, lighter gear. I bought an used Leica M9 for use with lenses I purchased in 1964, and added a few more. The camera and lenses are much smaller, and less imposing to non-photographers. The entire kit fit in a small shoulder bag, weighing less than 9 pounds. My D3 kit, on the other hand, tips the scales at 30-35 lbs. I am not ready to forgo interchangeable lenses to save a few more ounces, nor sacrifice image quality.</p>

<p>I later bought a Sony A7ii when it came out in December, which also uses Nikon and Leica lenses with adapters, adding a couple of Zeiss lenses (Loxia 35 and 50) in the late Spring of this year. Together, the Leica and Sony fit in a small backpack, weighing 18 lbs, which is much easier to manage and fits under an airline seat.</p>

<p>I haven't use the Nikon D3 kit since last summer, but my adult son uses it for event photography. Even so, I plan to keep it. The D3 batteries last for at least 600 shots on a charge, compared to 300 or 3 hours for the Sony/Leica, whichever comes first. My Nikon lenses are auto focus and f/2.8 or faster, suitable for action shots, whereas my smaller kit is manual except for a Sony 70-200 f/4.</p>

<p>Both the Leica and Sony have much higher image quality than the D3, not only higher sensor resolution, but lenses are sharper, especially in the corners. Performance is well into the medium format category, and more improvements are in the pipeline. It helps that they are much quieter than the D3, but not as quiet as a Canon 5D or an older film Leica. The upcoming Sony A7Rii has nearly twice the resolution, 4K (4,2,2) video, and a completely silent shutter.</p>

[andylynn]

Roy, the RX100's are all good cameras. I think the IV is the new model so the III could probably be found at a discount.

The usual camera review web sites cover the improvements in the newer iterations.

[GerrySiegel]

You need a small point and shoot. Low cost and handy to augment your larger camera. As a good backup and grab and run item. There are some fine ones out there. Even Consumer Reports has a table of what the features are or dpreview. All makers offer them and some just discontinued can be had for a song, or a reasonably frugal tune. Not a big problem actually.

[James G. Dainis]

I have a Nikon D3000 DSLR and a Canon A570 point and shoot. I take the Nikon when I am going out to take some photos. I stick the small Canon A570 in my pocket when I am going somewhere and I may or may not want to take some photos. On my last trip to visit my granddaughter in Alaska I didn't even bother to take the Nikon. The Canon was always with me and ready to whip out of my pocket if I saw an interesting photo opportunity. I don't know how many times I missed taking a great photo because would step out of my hotel to go to the diner and see a moose or something crossing the street and my big Nikon was up in the room. Now the Canon is always in my pocket.

 

That little point and shoot Canon takes great photos, has manual controls and is far less intimidating when you point it at someone. It has been said many times - the best camera is the one you have with you. It's true.

[roybijster]

<p>The point-and-shoot options seems to be a recurring one. On your advice I will start delving into the options for a point-and-shoot. <br /><br />Are there any points in favour or against options A (rangefinder) or B (mirrorless)? </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Rangefinder cameras are expensive, and the only real digital option is Leica. So, expensive. Mirrorless - plenty options, but as others said, compared to a D3100 not a massive saving in weight and size. Bringing a smaller bag is a really simple solution, to be honest. It works quite often for me - I still own way more gear than makes sense, and have large bags (which are still useful). But most of the time, I'm using my small and lovely Thinktank Retrospective 5 bag with one (D)SLR and 1-2 primes, and be perfectly fine. I admit, backpains made it easy to learn to bring less gear. Either way, it's more a matter of habit and restraining yourself (D3100, 35 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8 makes a very nice kit, and not large nor heavy).</p>

<p>The level of discomfort that others experience while you are making photos - if I may be blunt, I doubt whether that depends really only on the size of the camera. A D3100 with 85mm f/1.8 isn't bulky and can do terrific portraits from a distance that isn't disturbing others. Asking others to pose, or to hold a pose so you can take that shot is often more an issue (as it interrupts people). I'm not saying it is the case here, but working a bit stealth and without interrupting can solve a lot.</p>

<p>A P&S camera can make an awful lot of sense too, no doubt. But whether it is the solution to all issues raised, I doubt, and I'd be very hesitant to sell off a DSLR with perfectly fine lenses in order to get a compact camera.</p>

[willis]

<p>One of the cons about cameras without a rangefinder is that you can not see the image on the screen in bright sunlight unless that has been improved.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>You mention that you are a film shooter and have a working darkroom as well. Another option is to keep everything you have and go find a small film rangefinder like an Olympus, Canon, Rollei or other small camera along those lines. They don't cost much and are able to produce very good images. They are easy to find in good working order and are available for nearly nothing. Lots of digital options too these days but just a thought.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Rangefinder (RF) v electronic view finder (EVF)</p>

<p>The first rangefinder that comes to mind is a Leica, either film or digital. Used digital M8's (APS-C) are under $2K these days, and the full-framed M9 can be found in the vicinity of $3200. The lenses are nearly unequaled, although Zeiss is always a serious competitor with their ZM line. Compatible Voigtlander lenses can be had very reasonably, at some sacrifice in optical and mechanical quality. Leica (and Zeiss) lenses are sharp from corner to corner, even at their maximum aperture. Rangefinder lenses are also very small compared to SLR lenses.</p>

<p>The viewfinder is very bright, and extends well beyond frame lines for all but the widest compatible lens, 28 mm. The viewfinder of an M9, for example, covers lenses with a length of 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 and 130 mm. Focusing is done in a small, central window by aligning superimposed images. In practice, you look for a "snap" when the images are aligned, much like focusing on a ground glass.It's easy to follow action because you can see so much outside the frame lines. The actual image is usually significantly larger than indicated, despite automatic parallax correction. The precision of the rangefinder is limited by the effective width between windows. It is very quick and accurate for lenses up to 50mm, but less accurate for longer lenses. It is almost impossible to focus a 135 mm lens accurately. There is no viewfinder blackout, which helps continuity, but you may not notice that the lens cap is still on.</p>

<p>An EVF is similar to the finder of a DSLR, except the image is electronic rather than optical. The lens fills the entire field of view rather than frame lines, like an SLR. Focusing is very precise, augmented by peaking (highlighting contrasting edges) or magnification. Newer EVFs do not exhibit the lag of early versions (possibly still consumer cameras). The brightness is held fairly constant, based on ambient light levels. However it is not as bright as an optical finder, and can be hard to see in bright daylight, even with an eye-level finder.</p>

<p>Because there is no mirror, EVF cameras are very quiet, comparable to a Leica. Some have (optional) electronic shutters, which are completely silent. Since the sensor is also the viewfinder source, the shutter is normally open, and closed at the moment before exposure, opened for the exposure, and closed to end the exposure. An electronic "first shutter" is a compromise wherein the shutter is first "closed" and "opened" electronically, then mechanically closed and reopened for viewing. While not silent, the electronic first shutter is completely vibration free for closeups and long exposures. A viewfinder blackout time occurs, but is very short, less than an eyeblink.</p>

<p>Since there is no mirror, lenses are smaller and the flange to sensor distance is short, even shorter than for a Leica (18 mm). Consequently, nearly any lens will fit with a suitable adapter. Since there is no mechanical rangefinder, lenses require no mechanical coupling.</p>

<p>The future probably belongs to the EVF, while rangefinders and SLRs will go the way of vinyl records and VHS tapes - present but not voting.</p>

[roybijster]

<p>Thanks for all the helpful answers, I have quite some things to think over now.<br>

Rick, I might indeed just pick up one of those smaller rangefinders to add to the collection and see if I like shooting a rangefinder in the first place. I saw one at a local photo store for roughly 40 euro the other day, so that won't break the bank.<br>

Edward, thanks for the explanation. Especially the part on the different flavours of EVF and digital/mechanical shutter mechanisms is new to me. Very informative. If I ever go for a rangefinder, it will definitely not be a 2000 euro one, more likely something in the 500 euro range. <br>

As soon as I make up my mind, I will let you know. Any other suggestions or comments remain welcome of course. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Agfa Super Isolette? <- Ultra compact 6x6 RF folder, 75mm f3.5 lens, unfortunately not cheap. - There are tempting Zeiss Ikon (6x9?) - RF folders too. All of those have less bright RFs than Leica M but could be sufficiently usable.<br /> Big warning: I started spiraling down the Leica lane too. The system is addictive, but not really efficient. I think you have to "intimidate" your subjects longer than with the Nikon DSLR, at least with the longer lenses that demand careful focusing. - You might also be rather flash dependant. - Is Fujicolor 1600 still available? - The less expensive digital color Leicas aren't very good for high ISO with their CCDs. - If you are pressed to get shooting permission from family, you might be better of taking 3 shots with a Nikon SLR instead of one with a Leica RF. BTW: did I read "R5"? - Thats an SLR! - M5 might be getting long in the tooth and bless you with the mercury cell replacement issues too. Leica R is surely a great manual 35mm SLR system but dead. - Its lenses were awesome in their day & on film but the bodies don't have the Nikon F - F3 reputation. And Pentax or Olympus are more like a synonym for light and compact among 35mm SLRs.<br /> It makes little sense to discuss "film vs. digital" but honestly: are you a sufficiently disciplined printer to handle lots of 35mm? - I know: I never was. - I could burn a roll and turn around 3 prints tomorrow but thats all. I haven't done wet darkroom color work, and am not saying it would be impossible, but: I do suggest going through your first pack of paper before you ponder acquiring another camera to shoot even more color film. Get a feeling for color work and judge yourself if you'll enjoy lots of it. <br /> I'd suggest looking at something with an articulate screen and fast AF in the mirrorless field. The WLF like shooting with such a camera might be less intrusive than aiming something bigger. Of course Willis is right about displays in bright sunlight, so I'd suggest nothing without a built in EVF.<br /> The really big questions are: Where are you shooting and when? Plus since you started working with final prints in mind: How big? <br /> Back in film days I had Mamiya TLR(s) as my serious system (after starting from the Agfa mentioned above). I also managed to go out with just a Pentacon Six and 120mm f2.8. <br /> For tourism or press work I used Pentax SLRs (up to 3) and migrated later to their DSLR(s) and Leica M.<br /> My smallest enjoyed camera is a Retina II, a folding 35mm RF with 50mm f2 lens. - It just ended in the sidepocket of my everyday backpack.<br /> I once in a while owned or handled digital P&Ss and must honestly confess: They don't convince or fascinate me. "P&S" is so missleading; shouldn't it be "P&W(ait)"? I'm simply not happy with me pressing the shutter and the world changing significantly until the camera takes some image. <br /> My suggestion #1: "<strong>Demothball your kit zoom!</strong>" - Honestly, those are usually awesome bang for the buck pieces of fantastic plastic and tend to take better pictures than any P&S. Get a holster like bag (that holds the camera and one lens) or wrap your Nikon into a towel or spare sweater and sink that into a everyday backpack. - Kit zooms are good enough to await the touristic moments in life. Combined with a mid sized hotshoe flash they should be really fine even indoors. - IDK if you got the VR zoom but if so it should get you very far even with office light indoors (at insane ISO). My rough guess: Anything P&S at the same price level as a basic DSLR trades responsiveness and or IQ against bulk. - Feel free to pick any other (single!) lens once in a while but try to go out with just one and keep hunting subjects until the full backpack mood strikes you again.<br /> I did jump on elderly Fuji MILCs with a pair of kit zooms. Since I am kind of bulk-ignorant they do the P&S job quite well for me. Unfortunately their AF- / shutter- & VF lag are once again vexing. So no, they aren't really for shooting my people. <br /> I assume Sony might build better MILCs. I'd be tempted by the APSC Alpha 7000 with EVF and might give the Sigma primes a try. There are just 2 f2.8 lenses which are luckily pretty inexpensive. <br /> I haven't yet tried MFT. - I am confident that this mount will be around for quite a while even although Leica stopped contributing, Panasonic and Olympus together seem worth looking at. - Sony are to big & too mirrorless to give up the Nex mount and Fuji just started out. - I can't predict Samsung, but aren't they conquering the market on their own right now? (I recall them selling rebadged Pentax)<br /> I'm not sure where MFT will get <em>me. - </em>Right now Leica M is substituting the homeprocessed MF for me (and more portable than the TLRs) and I understand that I'll have to bite the Nikon (FF) bullet sooner or later. - I don't like the thought and will try to at least keep the 12-24 on Pentax or 'll try to get away with Leica on the wide end. But fort the low light AF performance I am craving there seems no real alternative for me yet. - I simply have nothing to gun down sports or events. <br /> <br />My basic demand (on any new digital camera) would be awesome images filling my 4K screen. The compromise currently: either a Sony P&S below iphone level (compact and better than nothing) or the old 6MP DSLRs ($100 left resting on the pool side). - Looking up Panasonic's almost MFT P&S on dpreview I wasn't sure if it would float my boat. - If I'll be out in the sun I see a chance to deploy just the Leica M8 and be content. Less bulk might be nice but is it worth another investment?<br /> I respect Edward's opinion & experience a lot. - I am just doubting mentioning Leica M & Sony Alpha A7 is the currently right advice for the OP who is apparently content with a D3100. <br /> As a general thought: Small formats (MFT & less) are nice to have with sun or flash. Shooting FF wide open doesn't generate enough DOF for 2 stacked faces. And "family pictures" look better with everybody in focus. - I am awaiting a next big step into the insanely high ISO realm, like maybe a Sony A7S II (not even announced yet), that might provide DOF for some handheld indoors available light shots.<br /> Back at Roy's issue: Unfortunately I can easily imagine a personality like Dame Edna being a royal pain in their family's behinds while snapping away with a Minox EC and flash (tiniest camera that comes to my mind, something like an Instamatic would suit the personality better). We still don't have anythjing like "the lighter" from the Hepburn movie Roman Holliday. / Dorothea Lange was known to soothe people by just fiddling with her Rolleiflex while the Graflex was rigged up next to her. <br /> And a side note on RF noise: The old film Leica Ms were the benchmark for "bearable" (according to some American court). - They are louder than leaf shuttered alternatives. - I believe the Cosina Voigtländers & Zeiss are louder since they have a metal FP shutter. - The same is true about the digital Leica Ms and their audible recocking. <br /> To be somewhat happy with a P&S (sized camera) I'd crave direct access to zone focusing, like back on Minox A - C / LX (assuming there won't be any sufficiently lighting fast AF soon). I haven't tried it with my old Sony which offers a menu for that purpose. - When you are downsizing gear keep an eye on its user interface / lag sources. - If you are noticable vexed by / unhappy with your camera you put distress on your subject too...<br /> A cheap, just time consuming thought on the side: Since your folks don't like your camera in their privacy, couldn't you do a 180° turn and grow further into their formal photographer's role, snapping a few intimate bits by accident on the side and sweep them below the carpet?<br /> In any bulk discussion: Don't forget your light! (Yes, I'm still chewing on that bit of my own advice) but take a look at: https://pixls.us/blog/2015/05/what-s-in-your-bag/ (Pat David's bag 1 MFT with zoom, a reflector and 2 radio triggered capable hotshoe flashes) Or the Strobist blog. <br /> Good luck and sorry for adding confusion.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>You don't think winding a film Leica or leaf-shuttered Rollei is noisy? Sorry, but I've been there, done that. The difference is that you don't have to wind immediately, and with the Leica it's easy to move the camera to your lap or under your coat to mitigate the noise. One of the options of the M-9 is the so-called "discrete" shutter, which "winds" the shutter only when you let go of the shutter release button. One of the options of some EVF cameras is a completely silent electronic shutter. It's somewhat unnerving to use that option when you're so used to something mechanical happening, or even a subtle "chirp" from a smart phone.</p>

<p>Using a point-and-shoot camera is always an option, but one with a price in quality and versatility. A system comparable to a DSLR will have interchangeable lenses and flexibility in operation including fully manual control. The latter is not only difficult on most point-and-shoot cameras, it goes away when the power is cycled and you are returned to what the manufacturer considers the best default situation.</p>

<p>All things considered, the smallest, least imposing and most available camera is probably a smart phone. It is everything a point-and-shoot camera should be, with all of the limitations. With an iPhone, images can be automatically uploaded to iCloud, where they can't be accidentally dropped into the ocean or lost to some pickpocket's craft.</p>

<p>Remaining inconspicuous as a photographer is not so much technology as technique. Working quickly, with confidence, makes you practically invisible. Zone focusing and one-handed operation is your friend. Sulking in the shadows or peeking around corners looks and is "sneaky", and can attract a lot more than a bad look from your intended victim or his associates. Knowing when NOT to take a picture can save more than your dignity.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If you want total silence, some decent cameras are being made now with silent electronic shutters. The Fuji X-T series, for example, has an option to choose electronic or physical shutter mode (or electronic that kicks in at speeds faster than the physical shutter can do) and electronic is completely silent. I think some other companies have this but I don't know them as well. Combine with wireless control from a smartphone, and you can have the camera discretely pointing somewhere while you are on your iPhone, but you're actually shooting.</p>

[roybijster]

<p>I have some long posts to reply to, so let me break it up.<br>

@ <strong>Jochen</strong>, thanks for the extensive reply. You make some interesting points.<br />I indeed meant to say M5, not R5, by the way. The R system never interested me. As you already point out, I'd rather get a Nikon F3 in that case ;).</p>

<p>"are you a sufficiently disciplined printer to handle lots of 35mm? - I know: I never was. - I could burn a roll and turn around 3 prints tomorrow but thats all."<br />So far I have been. I am not super productive in printing, as I am very selective in what I print, but I tend to print on a weekly basis.<br>

<br />You make a good point about going through a pack of colour film before buying another camera to shoot even more colour film, although I am also happy shooting black and white.<br />The colour dark room is more of a side project and not a goal in itself at the moment. As an engineer I enjoy these kinds of DIY projects.<br>

<br />When it comes to print size I normally print at 20x30cm, but am contemplating making bigger prints as well. <br />I currently use a Bronica ETRS system for medium format work and have both prism finder as well as the waist level finder. I tend to prefer shooting using the prism finder, as I dominantly shoot vertically. You are completely right though in saying that the waist level finder is considered less intrusive as you dont have a relatively large camera up in your face.</p>

<p>"A cheap, just time consuming thought on the side: Since your folks don't like your camera in their privacy, couldn't you do a 180° turn and grow further into their formal photographer's role, snapping a few intimate bits by accident on the side and sweep them below the carpet?"<br />Do you have suggestions on how to do that?</p>

<p>Don't feel sorry for adding to the confusion. It is chaos that ultimately leads to order.</p>

<p>@ <strong>Edward</strong>, "Knowing when NOT to take a picture can save more than your dignity." That is most certainly true. I read some stories the other day of photographers getting hussled on the streets by people that did not like that pictures taken without permission.</p>

<p>@ <strong>Andy</strong>, "Combine with wireless control from a smartphone, and you can have the camera discretely pointing somewhere while you are on your iPhone, but you're actually shooting." That sounds awfully voyeuristic to me. A quiet camera is preferred in some cases, not to disturb whatever it is you are documenting, but completely silent is not necessary in many cases I think. Especially not so secretively ;-).</p>

[ray .]

A small quiet camera is nice, but the idea that one is needed in order to take pictures of people is

certainly not a given. Oftentimes, not hiding your intentions is better than acting secretive. If you have

confidence that what you are doing is legitimate, that can go a long way. If you just go about your business

and work your camera, even if it's large, people will tend not to care, or might respond positively if you want to engage them. When your body language translates that you're hiding something, that can put people on the defensive.

[klaus_k_nielsen]

<p>I have a Canon 7D with a bag of lenses and speedlights, plus a few monolights for portrait studio work.<br>

For holidays and social occasions where I am not invited with the purpose of photographing the event, I bring my Canon PowerShot S120. I brought the DSLR on a holiday once, but the pictures were not significantly better for the intended use (Social media and viewing on our tv screen) and I were much more prone to leave the camera in the room or in the car.<br>

So I live by the rule that the best camera is the one you have with you.<br>

In your case I would sell the Nikon gear and go the Sony RX100 route. Good luck.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>Ray's comment above is spot-on Also, being at ease and open with your camera rather than secretive/deceptive usually results in stronger photographs produced. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

Your least favored option you say you wrote as follows up top:

 

<< Buy a point and shoot camera to complement the gear I have. This is my least favourite option at the moment, because I think it is a pity if my dSLR kit just sits there in the corner collecting dust.>>

 

 

-------Does not have to be,-------------

Least favored in your opinion, but most sensible/ low investment/ try- on one. I still reallly do not know why your family and friends object to your Nikon, but that is more an interpersonal problem that you have to deal with not an existential gear one IMO. I used to be implored to carry an SLR camera. Especially if I shared the results with my family and fellows....so they shrink from it at first, big deal.... My thinking is that you can read and solicit opinion, and gnaw at the options, but no way will be definitive or test out for you withoug just buying and using a decent single lens miniature digital camera, call it a P and S or what you will...they are smart little devils despite the name P and S.

 

Like cars, you know the old story. One may want a family sedan and also a compact for commuting. Or add a motorcycle. Or bicycle. Why not give that DSLR and small carry- friendly one-even a wee Nikon or Canon- option a try. Mirrorless is the path for most of these new models for sensible reasons, including cost and light weight and live viewing, ...(such as info overlay on the EVF window, so nice to know what is going on etc you will learn to appreciate that).

 

And gosh keep the Nikon kit which did such good service for you and will be versatile and handy for a long time. And do not over intellectualize choice making if you can avoid it.. It gets as complicated as we like when we approach the buffet of possibilities. Be well and do plunge in to the choice for what you fancy for now (and can afford to risk).

[roybijster]

<p><< And do not over intellectualize choice making if you can avoid it.. >><br>

You make a fair point there, Gerry. I am afraid that is a character trait I always have to look out for in these kinds of decisions ;-).<br>

I have decided not to sell my complete Nikon kit and to put a further purchase on hold for now. I will first invest some more time in the social aspect of it all. Perhaps I was just going about it all wrong and need to practice more (or be more persistant) in using my dSLR for the shots I want to take (bringing just a single lens, a smaller bag, better reading opinions etc.). In the meantime I will be exploring the current options for a small pocketable camera to complement the set. I have some reading up to do on dpreview and the likes. <br>

Thank you all for the comments and advice. <br>

<br />- Roy</p>