Camera novice wants better pictures

Cruising to Alaska this summer and would love to get some great photos. I do not know anything about how to use a DSLR type camera. I have an older Canon point and shoot but my iphone probably takes better photos.

I think I need better zoom and a way to deal with different light conditions. Really don't want to spend a lot as I do not believe I would use it too much. Any thoughts for me? Thanks.

TMC

Depending on what you're shooting, you'll never have enough "zoom" (correct term would be focal length). If you want to get a new camera, shop for optical zoom, but don't focus too exclusively on just zoom range. There are lots of other relevant features.

As far as different lighting conditions, in broad terms, two different things to consider: quantity of light (bright sun versus interior mood lighting, and everywhere in between) and quality of light (sharp shadows from a cloudless day versus soft shadows from big puffy clouds versus overhead "can" lighting versus so many other things). One of the best defenses, where permissible, is a "bounce flash": an external flash on your camera that can be aimed up or perhaps sideways to a white/neutral wall, to recreate a more natural angle than what you get when the cop pulls you over, asks for your license and insurance card, and shines that Maglite into your eyes.

I did a series of shots on a cruise last year to show the range across the lenses we took "to Alaska". Start here then click to the right through the series. You'll see a lens, then a shot taken through that lens, towards the phone on the port-side bridge wing from a tripod that did not move through the series. If it was a zoom lens, I took a shot at the wide end, then a shot at the long end. For the final shot, I added a 1.4x teleconverter, which "changed" the 600mm lens into an 840mm. A phenomenal range, yes, but if you look back through shots we took, I still couldn't get great closeups of eagles from the tour boat we were on.

A new P&S will probably do better. A "bridge" camera might work well for you. However, the best thing you can do is to take it out and practice with it before your cruise.

Lets start with whats your budget. the most that you can spend on a camera.

Lets start with whats your budget. the most that you can spend on a camera.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\

This is where you start. Any recommendation we could make is useless with out a starting budget. Keep in mind also..you get what you pay for with camera gear. A $100 point and shoot will NOT give you the same quality as a top of the line DSLR with good high quality glass. But there is a wide range of options between the two.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\

This is where you start. Any recommendation we could make is useless with out a starting budget. Keep in mind also..you get what you pay for with camera gear. A $100 point and shoot will NOT give you the same quality as a top of the line DSLR with good high quality glass. But there is a wide range of options between the two.

A $100 camera will be generally inferior to an iphone except for getting a tiny bit of zoom ability.

You want zoom and a better camera?

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-COOLPIX-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B00U2W4JEY/ref=sr_1_3?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1454811000&sr=1-3&refinements=p_89%3ANikon

:D

Thanks for all the info so far. I was thinking of $500-$600.

TMC

Thanks for all the info so far. I was thinking of $500-$600.

 

TMC

In that ballpark...... The board favorite a6000 is a great dslr alternative. It's actually all-around better than comparably priced dslrs in a smaller package. With the basic 55-210 lens, you can get reasonable telephoto performance. Being an aps-c dslr sensor, you get pretty good low light performance. (As good as anything in the price range)

If you want all-in-one without changing lenses, look at the Panasonic fz1000 or Rx10. Slightly smaller sensor,good lens, decent telephoto reach, in one body. So decent low light performance. A good compromise camera.

You can look at the cameras in the Nikon 1 series. Same size sensor as the rx10 and fz1000, but interchangeable lenses. You can rent a super long telephoto lens for Alaska (the lens is a tad expensive), and thereby get extra long telephoto reach. In a small camera with ok image quality and low light performance.

You have your traditional bridge cameras -- extra long telephoto reach. But tiny sensors, bad low light performance, poorer image quality. But great convenience.

Thanks for all the info so far. I was thinking of $500-$600.

 

TMC

I would recommend the FZ300. Being a novice, use it in the Intelligent Auto mode (iA). It as f2.8 across the entire 24X zoom. It is an improvement over the 3+ year old FZ200 that I use. It will cost you about $500 unless you catch a good sale.

The FZ200 is now only $300 on Amazon and works well too.

Compare at http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-fz300/panasonic-fz300A.HTM

Thanks so much for these great suggestions. I will research them further.

TMC

I have been doing some research and have used CNET for reviews in the past for electronic purchases and been happy with their information. Any thoughts from the photo experts here on their reviews?

Being a novice I like the idea of not having to change the lens to get a great zoom. I was also hoping to improve quality in low light situations but these two features don't seem to come together. I am guessing that when zoomed not much light will be "getting in" but can I expect decent low light performance when not using the zoom?

It looks like there are some trade offs between the mirrorless and DSLR. I notice more frames per second on mirrorless, which may help me get a great whale pic.

Thanks,

TMC

I do not know anything about how to use a DSLR type camera.

 

TMC

If you want a easy to use DSLR camera, then go for Nikon D3300. A good DSLR camera that gives great value for your bucks.

I started with a D3000 kit (older model of D3300) with a 55-200mm f/4-5.6 and a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 back in 2010. Loved it! More than enough camera for me at that time. Now I got a D7200, and that will most likely be more than enough camera for me for the next 5 years..

In addition to budget, you should ask yourself what you will use your photo equipment to. Mostly SoMe? Print? No need to be equipment-addict, and no need to use thousands of dollars on equipment you almost never will use..

What do you consider low-light?

You are right about the long-zoom versus low-light issue. Larger sensors are more sensitive and better in low light. However, longer zoom is easier with smaller image sensors. As the sensor size gets larger, the diameter, length, weight, and cost of the lens increases for the same focal length (magnification/zoom).

The c-net review for the FZ-200 (2012 introduction) would be a good read. It does a good job of explaining the good and bad aspects of a super-zoom (bridge) camera.

http://www.cnet.com/products/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200/

Another factor to consider is accessories like spare batteries, extra memory cards, carry case, tripod/monopod, lens filters, etc. Are they included in the $500-$600 budget? They're important for the big trip.

I have been doing some research and have used CNET for reviews in the past for electronic purchases and been happy with their information. Any thoughts from the photo experts here on their reviews?

 

Being a novice I like the idea of not having to change the lens to get a great zoom. I was also hoping to improve quality in low light situations but these two features don't seem to come together. I am guessing that when zoomed not much light will be "getting in" but can I expect decent low light performance when not using the zoom?

 

It looks like there are some trade offs between the mirrorless and DSLR. I notice more frames per second on mirrorless, which may help me get a great whale pic.

 

Thanks,

TMC

There are few real trade offs between dslr and mirrorless now. In terms of pro lenses, there are more options for dslrs, but you're not going to be buying pro lenses. Battery life on mirrorless is horrible. Mirrorless have far superior live view and buffer viewfinder but it's an EVF. Some prefer a good EVF, some swear by OVFs. But in every day use, the cameras will give the same quality and performance.

You are half right about low light. When zoomed far in, in their variable aperture lenses, they get even less light. But even zoomed out, the low light performance is poor. You will find lots of people who own small sensor cameras who claim the low light performance is good enough. But the whole reason people spend $2000 on full frame cameras, is low light performance.

[YOUTUBE]vFv-cgweGiE[/YOUTUBE]

Here is a great site for you to compare cameras.

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ200-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ300

Just input the camera title and then can you review/compare 2 cameras.

I'm partial to the FZ300, great camera than can do it all.

Another GREAT Site for photography/cameras is

http://www.dpreview.com

You get great reviews and other peoples input on photography and cameras.

GOOD LUCK.

Tom

Dileep - loved your pics of Jaipur. What time of year did you go? Was it on a cruise? If so, who?

What do you consider low-light?

That is a good question that got me thinking. I often read in reviews about low light performance and figure that I need it but maybe not. I can think of times that I have taken photos in low light conditions that did not turn out well. I would say things like a dimly lit room indoors or possibly in a museum, etc.

I really do appreciate all the advice I have gotten here.

TMC

That is a good question that got me thinking. I often read in reviews about low light performance and figure that I need it but maybe not. I can think of times that I have taken photos in low light conditions that did not turn out well. I would say things like a dimly lit room indoors or possibly in a museum, etc.

 

I really do appreciate all the advice I have gotten here.

 

TMC

A bridge camera would not work well in those environments. Bridge cameras can do ok in bright sunlight.

For challenging situations like that, you need to shoot high ISO.... ISO 6400 or higher.

So let's see how some cameras look at ISO 6400:

This is a basic bridge camera (the Nikon P900) vs an advanced larger sensor bridge camera (the RX10):

compare1 by Adam Brown, on Flickr

And then moving up in size, this is an APS-C camera (the Sony A6000), versus a full frame camera (the Nikon D750)

compare2 by Adam Brown, on Flickr

This doesn't even take into account other factors like the lens, just high ISO performance.

Thanks for all the info so far. I was thinking of $500-$600.

If you're going into this camera purchase with the strong intention that you're going to spend $500-600 now, and nothing more for perhaps 4+ years, I would highly advise AGAINST a DSLR, and probably even against a mirrorless camera. At that price point, you're basically going to buy a camera and a lens, which means you're paying for the ability to interchange lenses but essentially never going to do so. You're better off buying an all-in-one camera (P&S, "bridge") that fills your budget and does what you need, as you'll get more camera for the same dollar since you're not paying for the complexity and physical stuff to be able to change lenses.

I say this as a DSLR owner who bought a Minolta DSLR ten years ago, then bought a second lens, then a third, then other stuff...ten years later I'm now a Canon user along with my wife, and we have enough camera gear to equip a small army... ;) If you KNOW that you're just not going to be in that boat for years, detour now and return to the DSLR world later.

If you're going into this camera purchase with the strong intention that you're going to spend $500-600 now, and nothing more for perhaps 4+ years, I would highly advise AGAINST a DSLR, and probably even against a mirrorless camera. At that price point, you're basically going to buy a camera and a lens, which means you're paying for the ability to interchange lenses but essentially never going to do so. You're better off buying an all-in-one camera (P&S, "bridge") that fills your budget and does what you need, as you'll get more camera for the same dollar since you're not paying for the complexity and physical stuff to be able to change lenses.

 

I say this as a DSLR owner who bought a Minolta DSLR ten years ago, then bought a second lens, then a third, then other stuff...ten years later I'm now a Canon user along with my wife, and we have enough camera gear to equip a small army... ;) If you KNOW that you're just not going to be in that boat for years, detour now and return to the DSLR world later.

I'll respectfully disagree. Yes, to maximize the value of dslr/mirrorless, you need to spend more than $600.

But the next question is, even if you only spend $600, do you get more out of dslr/mirrorless or a bridge camera?

You can get a refurbished or used a6000 + 16-50 lens plus 55-210 lens for about $600. Or you can get the a5100 new with those 2 lenses.

So how will that compare to the newest 50x bridge cameras?

The 50x bridge camera is a little simpler, as you never need to change lenses. And in theory, the 50x camera has a much much longer reach. The a6000 has a reach of 315mm equivalent. Some of the newest bridge cameras get to 900mm or higher. But I say "in theory" because most of those 900mm shots I've seen, are pretty crappy. Often by cropping from a good camera/lens, you can get better results than a long reach bridge camera.

For $600... Those 2 lenses aren't great, but they are better than what you find on a bridge camera.

And the image quality of the dslr/mirrorless is leagues superior.

So to me, my advice would be avoid the basic bridge cameras. Either go for an advanced bridge camera (Panasonic fz1000 or Sony rx10), or look at dslr/mirrorless.

I'll respectfully disagree. Yes, to maximize the value of dslr/mirrorless, you need to spend more than $600.

But the next question is, even if you only spend $600, do you get more out of dslr/mirrorless or a bridge camera?

 

You can get a refurbished or used a6000 + 16-50 lens plus 55-210 lens for about $600. Or you can get the a5100 new with those 2 lenses.

 

For $600... Those 2 lenses aren't great, but they are better than what you find on a bridge camera.

And the image quality of the dslr/mirrorless is leagues superior.

Apparently you didn't read the part where I made a guess that they'd buy just one lens. A one-lens DSLR or ML that stays a one-lens camera is a waste. And frankly, IMHO, a two-lens DSLR kit at the $600 price point is going to be junk: that long lens is going to be an outdoor, sunny day lens only. Yes, sometimes in Alaska it's sunny, but plenty of times it's dark and cloudy, and you might as well leave the long lens home then if it's cheap junk.

I'd also argue that the larger sensor of the DSLR and perhaps ML lends itself to more focus challenges, combined with the fact that DSLRs focus using phase detection on a select few focus points. If the user is willing to invest the time and frustration to learn how to deal with the AF in a DSLR, they'll do OK, but without conquering that learning curve, they'll have too many misfocused shots, and will come home rather disappointed. The smaller sensor in a bridge camera will provide some forgiveness that makes the overall experience better.

Again, my humble opinion...which is probably dead wrong.

The average DSLR or mirrorless user seldom owns more than the two basic lenses and might add a 50mm prime later for portraits and such.

That said, for a novice I would strongly suggest a quality superzoom without a stupidly long zoom range and a smart auto setting. Not having to change lenses and learn a bunch of settings on your first few serious vacation photo outings reduces frustration and lets one enjoy the photography while learning the basics of composition and exposure. The Panasonic FZ200 or FZ300 models are a great place to look in this class of camera.

The next step would be a quality mirrorless like the two-lens A6000 kit with the 16-50 and 55-210 zoom (can be found for $700-ish). The A6000 has continuous focusing with 179 focus points that trumps any entry-level DSLR and even rivals most of the enthusiast/semi-pro models. The two kit lenses are well above average for image quality and are stabilized as well. It has a sophisticated auto exposure mode and has the full range of manual and semi-manual settings. (A6000 user thread on the forum is here: http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2215195)

The best camera is the one you will use. Some people love carrying a big ol' DSLR or two with a half-dozen lenses on vacation and some will use an iPhone. Most are somewhere in-between and it is up to you to figure out where you are on that scale. The most important thing it to keep it fun. Start out with affordable and easy. If you get bitten by the bug, you can budget for how much your hobby is worth to you and grow your gear as you learn.

Dave

Apparently you didn't read the part where I made a guess that they'd buy just one lens. A one-lens DSLR or ML that stays a one-lens camera is a waste. And frankly, IMHO, a two-lens DSLR kit at the $600 price point is going to be junk: that long lens is going to be an outdoor, sunny day lens only. Yes, sometimes in Alaska it's sunny, but plenty of times it's dark and cloudy, and you might as well leave the long lens home then if it's cheap junk.

I have the Sony A6000 with its "cheap junky 55-210." I have also shot with a $1200 Nikon 70-200/4. I've also shot with a $2000 Nikon 300/4.

Does the "cheap" lens match the expensive lenses? No, not even close in my eyes. But can the "cheap" 55-210 lens produce ok photos? Absolutely. In fact, when I showed some people the difference between the "cheap" lens and the "expensive lens" -- non-critical eyes couldn't even tell the difference. I could tell the difference, but other people couldn't even see a difference.

Thing is, a "cheap telephoto kit" lens is actually good enough for 95% of dSLR owners. People like me and you, who invest in enthusiast and pro lenses, we are the minority.

And the "cheap telephoto kit" lens isn't going to be any worse than a typical bridge camera.

And for $600, you have lots of dSLR/mirrorless 2-lens kits to choose from. The Canon T5, the Nikon D3300, the Sony A5100/A6000, can all be found with 2 lens kits in that price range. You can also get a Nikon J5 2-lens kit in that price range, if you want smaller.

I'd also argue that the larger sensor of the DSLR and perhaps ML lends itself to more focus challenges, combined with the fact that DSLRs focus using phase detection on a select few focus points. If the user is willing to invest the time and frustration to learn how to deal with the AF in a DSLR, they'll do OK, but without conquering that learning curve, they'll have too many misfocused shots, and will come home rather disappointed. The smaller sensor in a bridge camera will provide some forgiveness that makes the overall experience better.

I'd agree with you there, kinda. It's one of the things that makes a small-sensor camera easier -- much more forgiving on focus. OTOH, lots of people want the ability to blur the background. I've had people ask me, how do they set their little P&S to get the same type of creamy background blur that I get with a full frame camera and 85/1.8 lens. My answer is that it simply can't be done.

So this does come into the consideration:

1-- want the simplicity of never having to change lenses? Point towards bridge camera.

2-- Want easier and more forgiving focus? Point towards bridge camera.

3-- Want a very very very long optical reach in a camera, understanding that the images may not be so great? Then point towards bridge camera.

4-- Want a camera with good telephoto reach and better low light performance? Point towards mirrorless/dSLR.

5-- Want the option of making the camera better in the future by upgrading lenses? Point towards mirrorless/dSLR.

6-- Want superior image quality, sharper images? Point towards mirrorless/dSLR.

7-- Want the ability to blur backgrounds for portraits and artistic shots? Point towards mirrorless/dSLR. (Even with kit lenses, it will be far better than a bridge camera).

8-- Want superior ability to track action and capture more precise focus? Point towards mirrorless/dSLR. (a bridge camera makes it easier to achieve roughly focused shots, due to the wide depth of field. But a dSLR/mirrorless make it easier to achieve precise focus, due to far more advanced AF systems).

Fact is, most dSLR/mirrorless buyers never purchase more than 2-3 lenses kit lenses. Thus, the devotion to spend thousands on advanced lenses really isn't a requirement.

As dSLRs/mirrorless have become cheaper, the market for typical bridge cameras has been becoming squeezed. They are still a good product for people who want maximum convenience over image quality, with a huge zoom range. Though I think many buyers of such cameras don't really appreciate the necessity (or lack of necessity) of a huge zoom range. The camera makers have convinced a lot of buyers that the higher X factor is better... that 50x is better than 40x. It's led a lot of novice buyers to think that the X-factor is the most important camera spec there is. I remember speaking to one person... they had a 20x P&S... They wanted to buy a dSLR with 18-55 lens, because they thought that meant it would be a 55x camera. And it took a long explanation to get them to understand that a big dSLR with 18-55 lens was actually far less reach than their 20x P&S... Including a response of, "well.. why would anybody buy a dSLR then?"