Buying a camera - I think I've narrowed it down

I have an older point and shoot with a 4x zoom. I'm looking to buy a camera that would be great for our Alaska cruise. I'm thinking I need something with a higher zoom and a better camera overall.

I was originally planning on getting the Canon PowerShot SX530 because it has a 52x zoom (and great ratings), and it's a point and shoot. But I got to thinking that if I was going to spend that much money, why not just get a dslr since that's what I'd like in a few years anyway.

So, now I think I've narrowed it down to either a Canon PowerShot SX530 or a Canon EOS Rebel T6.

Any thoughts, recommendations, etc.?

I have an older point and shoot with a 4x zoom. I'm looking to buy a camera that would be great for our Alaska cruise. I'm thinking I need something with a higher zoom and a better camera overall.

I was originally planning on getting the Canon PowerShot SX530 because it has a 52x zoom (and great ratings), and it's a point and shoot. But I got to thinking that if I was going to spend that much money, why not just get a dslr since that's what I'd like in a few years anyway.

So, now I think I've narrowed it down to either a Canon PowerShot SX530 or a Canon EOS Rebel T6.

Any thoughts, recommendations, etc.?

It really comes down to your interest and experience.

If you buy a DSLR what lenses will you get.

Because you will need a few to get the equivalent of 50x.

Then of course comes what do you want to do with the photos?

It really comes down to your interest and experience.

 

If you buy a DSLR what lenses will you get.

 

Because you will need a few to get the equivalent of 50x.

 

Then of course comes what do you want to do with the photos?

I have no experience with a dslr - point and shoot all the way. At some point, I'd like to be able to have the time to learn photography, but that's not going to be for a few years. My main reason for buying a camera NOW is the Alaska cruise.

Bottom line is that I'd like to take better photos. These would primarily be for my own enjoyment - I don't have plans to do anything specific with them.

I have no idea what lenses I would get. The rebel comes with 18 - 55mm and a 75-300mm. The Nikon comes with 8-55MM F/3.5-5.6G VR II and 55-200MM F/4-5.6G. I have no idea what any of that means.

I have no experience with a dslr - point and shoot all the way. At some point, I'd like to be able to have the time to learn photography, but that's not going to be for a few years. My main reason for buying a camera NOW is the Alaska cruise.

Bottom line is that I'd like to take better photos. These would primarily be for my own enjoyment - I don't have plans to do anything specific with them.

I have no idea what lenses I would get. The rebel comes with 18 - 55mm and a 75-300mm. The Nikon comes with 8-55MM F/3.5-5.6G VR II and 55-200MM F/4-5.6G. I have no idea what any of that means.

The same people will likely express the same opinions they've expressed on similar threads. My opinion goes like this: don't buy a DSLR unless you're willing to contemplate spending more money every 1-2 years to grow your lens collection. The magic of DSLRs comes as you learn photography and discover that other lenses available now make sense for where your photography is going. Many of those lenses make no sense at first, nor will you be willing to spend the money (nor should you, as you'd make poor choices).

The "mm" numbers refer to focal length, which indicates how wide or tight the lens shoots. Lower numbers mean wide angle, higher numbers mean tighter ("telephoto"). For Canon Rebels and Nikon entry-level cameras (generically known as "crop-sensor cameras"), 18mm is moderately wide but not tremendously so. 35mm is perhaps comparable to what the human eye sees, and 200+mm is reasonably tight, perhaps enough to shoot small-field sports and whales in Alaska but likely not great for eagles and large-field sports like football or soccer.

The "f" numbers refer to the size of the lens's aperture, with lower numbers corresponding to bigger openings. A bigger opening does two things: lets in more light (which means you can probably take the picture in a shorter time, thereby getting better "stop action") and focuses on a thinner slice of the world (which helps you isolate the subject from the background, which is great for portraits but can be challenging for landscapes). The aperture is adjustable for each shot, so a low number isn't necessarily a problem.

DSLRs (at least entry and most mid-level) will have some "preset" modes that'll help you, but I think you should be ready to practice, learn, make lots of mistakes, and find some classes or mentors. Expect that in at least some ways, your photography may get worse before it gets better, as those presets will adapt the camera for the intended use, but DSLRs won't magically find faces like a P&S (they can, but likely only if you're using the screen not the viewfinder, and this slows them down a lot).

In my opinion, it’s not the camera that takes great pictures, it’s the photographer. Whether you buy a P&S or a DSLR learn the features available on the camera and buy a book on photography. Then go out and practice with it a lot. Learning how to use the camera while you’re on an Alaskan cruise would be a mistake.

Since you’re taking photos for your own enjoyment, I think you should buy the P&S for your cruise because of the long lens. That 50X on the P&S is the equivalent of a 24 - 1200mm DSLR zoom lens. Have fun on your cruise.

First off, there really is no equivalent to 50x on a dslr, at least without spending thousands of dollars and carrying several bricks of weight. The huge zoom power in a relatively cheap small package is exclusive to dslrs.

But contrary to some, you can enjoy the benefits of a dslr without spending thousands of dollars on lenses. In fact, most shooters will never outgrow a couple of affordable lenses. (if you become a great photographer, and then need lenses that can keep up with your skills, then you can easily spend $2,000-$20,000 in lenses).

The main benefit of a dslr over a sx5300 type of p&s is a much larger sensor. The benefits of the much larger sensor:

1. More ability to gather light, and therefore far superior low light capability.

2. The superior sensor also has more dynamic range, allowing capture of richer images with more shadow and highlight detail.

3. The greater low light ability of the sensor allows faster shooting speeds, allowing for better capture of action.

4. Indirectly due to the sensor, you can get narrower depth of field = background blur, which many photographers find preferable.

Other advantages:

5. The ability to shoot RAW, getting more versatility in post processing. (some but not all p&s have raw shooting)

6. The ability to add and change lenses, to have the perfect lens for the right moment.

7. More capability to take manual control. (though they will have full auto modes).

The advantages of something like the sx5300:

1. smaller and lighter. Easy to take everywhere. Some people feel weighted down by even a small dslr.

2. Huge zoom range in a small package without ever having to change lenses. But be warned, unless used in absolutely ideal circumstances, many of those long zoom shots will end up looking like crap.

3. Fewer controls, greater simplicity.

4. The small sensor is more forgiving of focus errors-- the errors are more obviously on a dslr due to the narrower depth of field.

You may also want to consider mirrorless, which gives you all the benefits of dslr, but in a size closer to p&s.

I will start out by stating that I am not a fan of Canon. It is a personal thing.

From what you have stated, I would recommend a bridge camera (what you are referring to as point and shoot) as being the best for your needs. There isn't a need to switch lenses for different focal lengths. But at the extreme length a tripod is almost required for decent clarity. A good bridge camera will come very, very close to a DSLR using more than the kit lenses.

With that said, I suggest doing comparisons with the Canon SX530 vs other manufacturers such as Sony RX10 and Panasonic Lumix FZ300. Both are more in the dollar ballpark of a DSLR and more $ than the Canon. For example the RX10 uses a Carl Zeiss lens, one of the best lenses made. The Lumix FZ200 is a popular camera here on CC. The newer Lumix FZ300 is advertised as being weatherproof, a plus on cruises.

The same people will likely express the same opinions they've expressed on similar threads. My opinion goes like this: don't buy a DSLR unless you're willing to contemplate spending more money every 1-2 years to grow your lens collection. The magic of DSLRs comes as you learn photography and discover that other lenses available now make sense for where your photography is going. Many of those lenses make no sense at first, nor will you be willing to spend the money (nor should you, as you'd make poor choices).

 

The "mm" numbers refer to focal length, which indicates how wide or tight the lens shoots. Lower numbers mean wide angle, higher numbers mean tighter ("telephoto"). For Canon Rebels and Nikon entry-level cameras (generically known as "crop-sensor cameras"), 18mm is moderately wide but not tremendously so. 35mm is perhaps comparable to what the human eye sees, and 200+mm is reasonably tight, perhaps enough to shoot small-field sports and whales in Alaska but likely not great for eagles and large-field sports like football or soccer.

 

The "f" numbers refer to the size of the lens's aperture, with lower numbers corresponding to bigger openings. A bigger opening does two things: lets in more light (which means you can probably take the picture in a shorter time, thereby getting better "stop action") and focuses on a thinner slice of the world (which helps you isolate the subject from the background, which is great for portraits but can be challenging for landscapes). The aperture is adjustable for each shot, so a low number isn't necessarily a problem.

 

DSLRs (at least entry and most mid-level) will have some "preset" modes that'll help you, but I think you should be ready to practice, learn, make lots of mistakes, and find some classes or mentors. Expect that in at least some ways, your photography may get worse before it gets better, as those presets will adapt the camera for the intended use, but DSLRs won't magically find faces like a P&S (they can, but likely only if you're using the screen not the viewfinder, and this slows them down a lot).

Thank you for all the explanations. Very Helpful!

My plan was to learn as much as I can before the cruise, but utilize the "auto" features if needed. Would that be problematic?

After reading your response, I'm starting to lean back to a point and shoot again.

In my opinion, it’s not the camera that takes great pictures, it’s the photographer. Whether you buy a P&S or a DSLR learn the features available on the camera and buy a book on photography. Then go out and practice with it a lot. Learning how to use the camera while you’re on an Alaskan cruise would be a mistake.

 

Since you’re taking photos for your own enjoyment, I think you should buy the P&S for your cruise because of the long lens. That 50X on the P&S is the equivalent of a 24 - 1200mm DSLR zoom lens. Have fun on your cruise.

I'm sure you're right. I am leaning towards the p&s now, but was hoping to make the best utilization of the money for now and for a few years from now.

Thank you!

First off, there really is no equivalent to 50x on a dslr, at least without spending thousands of dollars and carrying several bricks of weight. The huge zoom power in a relatively cheap small package is exclusive to dslrs.

But contrary to some, you can enjoy the benefits of a dslr without spending thousands of dollars on lenses. In fact, most shooters will never outgrow a couple of affordable lenses. (if you become a great photographer, and then need lenses that can keep up with your skills, then you can easily spend $2,000-$20,000 in lenses).

 

The main benefit of a dslr over a sx5300 type of p&s is a much larger sensor. The benefits of the much larger sensor:

1. More ability to gather light, and therefore far superior low light capability.

2. The superior sensor also has more dynamic range, allowing capture of richer images with more shadow and highlight detail.

3. The greater low light ability of the sensor allows faster shooting speeds, allowing for better capture of action.

4. Indirectly due to the sensor, you can get narrower depth of field = background blur, which many photographers find preferable.

Other advantages:

5. The ability to shoot RAW, getting more versatility in post processing. (some but not all p&s have raw shooting)

6. The ability to add and change lenses, to have the perfect lens for the right moment.

7. More capability to take manual control. (though they will have full auto modes).

 

The advantages of something like the sx5300:

1. smaller and lighter. Easy to take everywhere. Some people feel weighted down by even a small dslr.

2. Huge zoom range in a small package without ever having to change lenses. But be warned, unless used in absolutely ideal circumstances, many of those long zoom shots will end up looking like crap.

3. Fewer controls, greater simplicity.

4. The small sensor is more forgiving of focus errors-- the errors are more obviously on a dslr due to the narrower depth of field.

 

You may also want to consider mirrorless, which gives you all the benefits of dslr, but in a size closer to p&s.

Wow, thanks for the comparison!

Could you recommend any mirrorless?

I will start out by stating that I am not a fan of Canon. It is a personal thing.

 

From what you have stated, I would recommend a bridge camera (what you are referring to as point and shoot) as being the best for your needs. There isn't a need to switch lenses for different focal lengths. But at the extreme length a tripod is almost required for decent clarity. A good bridge camera will come very, very close to a DSLR using more than the kit lenses.

 

With that said, I suggest doing comparisons with the Canon SX530 vs other manufacturers such as Sony RX10 and Panasonic Lumix FZ300. Both are more in the dollar ballpark of a DSLR and more $ than the Canon. For example the RX10 uses a Carl Zeiss lens, one of the best lenses made. The Lumix FZ200 is a popular camera here on CC. The newer Lumix FZ300 is advertised as being weatherproof, a plus on cruises.

Thank you! I'm going to go check out your recommendations.

Wow, thanks for the comparison!

Could you recommend any mirrorless?

You'll find the Sony a6300 and a6000 are very popular on this board. Olympus and Panasonic are also leaders in mirrorless. Fuji makes some exceptional mirrorless, but geared more towards enthusiasts.

Count me as one of the A6000 fans! I've gone through 6 cameras in the last 10 years. My favorites were the Sony HX-V series point and shoots.

I have the 9V, which I took to Europe in 2012 and took some fantastic pictures. It has a 16x zoom. I took it to the Caribbean this year and used it in a waterproof bag for underwater shots.

Then I went to the 200V, much larger with a 30x zoom which I took to Alaska. I didn't like this one as much, but I got some fantastic pictures. It is much larger than the others.

Then I got the 50V, which I love. It has a 30x zoom but no viewfinder. I took it to Europe last year and once again got some fantastic pictures, closer to what I think I took :o. I still use this one and I will take it to Yellowstone later this year as a backup.

This year I got the A6000. It is a mirrorless. I wasn't willing to go to the price of the A6300. I love this camera. I have the kit with the 18-55 and 55-210 lenses. I bought it reconditioned for $700. I love this camera. If you look at the weekly pictures mine were taken with the A6000. I'm not a professional photographer, I'm barely a hobbyist. I do like to travel (obviously) and take pictures when I travel.

Depending on your budget and time I'd look at the RX or A6x00. I'm glad I went with the mirrorless this time, but it took some growth to get me here. I'm not sure I would have liked it as much if I hadn't gone through at least a couple of the others.

Vic

You'll find the Sony a6300 and a6000 are very popular on this board. Olympus and Panasonic are also leaders in mirrorless. Fuji makes some exceptional mirrorless, but geared more towards enthusiasts.

Thank you!

Count me as one of the A6000 fans! I've gone through 6 cameras in the last 10 years. My favorites were the Sony HX-V series point and shoots.

 

I have the 9V, which I took to Europe in 2012 and took some fantastic pictures. It has a 16x zoom. I took it to the Caribbean this year and used it in a waterproof bag for underwater shots.

 

Then I went to the 200V, much larger with a 30x zoom which I took to Alaska. I didn't like this one as much, but I got some fantastic pictures. It is much larger than the others.

 

Then I got the 50V, which I love. It has a 30x zoom but no viewfinder. I took it to Europe last year and once again got some fantastic pictures, closer to what I think I took :o. I still use this one and I will take it to Yellowstone later this year as a backup.

 

This year I got the A6000. It is a mirrorless. I wasn't willing to go to the price of the A6300. I love this camera. I have the kit with the 18-55 and 55-210 lenses. I bought it reconditioned for $700. I love this camera. If you look at the weekly pictures mine were taken with the A6000. I'm not a professional photographer, I'm barely a hobbyist. I do like to travel (obviously) and take pictures when I travel.

 

Depending on your budget and time I'd look at the RX or A6x00. I'm glad I went with the mirrorless this time, but it took some growth to get me here. I'm not sure I would have liked it as much if I hadn't gone through at least a couple of the others.

 

Vic

Thank you, Vic!

Thank you for all the explanations. Very Helpful!

My plan was to learn as much as I can before the cruise, but utilize the "auto" features if needed. Would that be problematic?

After reading your response, I'm starting to lean back to a point and shoot again.

I just wanted to clear that "auto" isn't always as automatic as a P&S.

As far as the focal lengths available, I did a live comparison last year on the Ruby Princess. I went up to a platform at the back of the ship and aimed at the bridge with most of the different lenses we brought. Go there, and arrow-right through the series (I apologize for the ads that pop in there). You'll see a lens with a number or a range of numbers; for example, that first lens is an 11-24mm ultra-wide lens. You'll then see a shot at its widest (lowest number) then a shot at its tightest. One thing I have to point out for reference sake: on a crop-sensor camera such as a Canon Rebel, other Canon DSLRs with two-digit model number, Nikon DSLRs with a four-digit number, and perhaps other Nikon models, all lenses behave as though they've been multiplied by 1.6x (Canon) or 1.5x (Nikon). That means that a 24mm lens on our cameras behaves like a 39mm (Canon) or 36mm (Nikon) lens when on a crop camera. As such, the 18-55mm lens behaves like it's a 28-88mm lens as seen in this comparison. In other words, to get wide, you have to get a really low focal length lens, but to get tight, you don't have to go as crazy as I do (a 400mm on a Rebel would be even tighter than the 600mm shot you see in this comparison).

Just my opinion here.

Keep in mind Chocolate Rose that while the two cameras you mentioned in your original post aren’t that much different in price, the Canon DSLR will require additional lenses that aren’t cheap. The Canon SX530 can be bought for just under $300 while the DSLR and just one additional good lens will cost you around $1000 (probably more) and you still won’t have the telephoto capabilities of the SX530. For the average person just wanting vacation photos I always think the bridge camera is the best choice.

I just wanted to clear that "auto" isn't always as automatic as a P&S.

 

As far as the focal lengths available, I did a live comparison last year on the Ruby Princess. I went up to a platform at the back of the ship and aimed at the bridge with most of the different lenses we brought. Go there, and arrow-right through the series (I apologize for the ads that pop in there). You'll see a lens with a number or a range of numbers; for example, that first lens is an 11-24mm ultra-wide lens. You'll then see a shot at its widest (lowest number) then a shot at its tightest. One thing I have to point out for reference sake: on a crop-sensor camera such as a Canon Rebel, other Canon DSLRs with two-digit model number, Nikon DSLRs with a four-digit number, and perhaps other Nikon models, all lenses behave as though they've been multiplied by 1.6x (Canon) or 1.5x (Nikon). That means that a 24mm lens on our cameras behaves like a 39mm (Canon) or 36mm (Nikon) lens when on a crop camera. As such, the 18-55mm lens behaves like it's a 28-88mm lens as seen in this comparison. In other words, to get wide, you have to get a really low focal length lens, but to get tight, you don't have to go as crazy as I do (a 400mm on a Rebel would be even tighter than the 600mm shot you see in this comparison).

Great comparisons! Thank you for sharing these!

Just my opinion here.

 

Keep in mind Chocolate Rose that while the two cameras you mentioned in your original post aren’t that much different in price, the Canon DSLR will require additional lenses that aren’t cheap. The Canon SX530 can be bought for just under $300 while the DSLR and just one additional good lens will cost you around $1000 (probably more) and you still won’t have the telephoto capabilities of the SX530. For the average person just wanting vacation photos I always think the bridge camera is the best choice.

Right. And that was why I had initially decided on the SX530. But, I know that in a couple of years I'll want a dslr and was trying to make the most of my money. I'm still really torn.

I just noticed that I made a mistake in my original post. I've actually been looking at 2 dslrs. Both on sale at Costco right now. The second one is the Nikon D3300. It's the one that comes with the 8-55MM F/3.5-5.6G VR II and 55-200MM F/4-5.6G lenses. The sale on the SC530 ends next Saturday and the sale on the 2 dslrs ends at the end of the month. Just trying to make a decision I won't regret. ;)

Bottom line is that I'd like to take better photos.

What about your current photos needs to be "better"? Having additional zoom certainly seems to be one of your goals, but what else? Beyond greater zoom range (which is a perfectly reasonable, valid desire), what are you expecting from a new camera that your current camera doesn't provide?

A lot of people think that buying a new camera will somehow "magically" make their pictures better and are disappointed after purchasing to find they look basically the same. As someone posted before, Cameras don't take great pictures - people do.

What about your current photos needs to be "better"? Having additional zoom certainly seems to be one of your goals, but what else? Beyond greater zoom range (which is a perfectly reasonable, valid desire), what are you expecting from a new camera that your current camera doesn't provide?

 

A lot of people think that buying a new camera will somehow "magically" make their pictures better and are disappointed after purchasing to find they look basically the same. As someone posted before, Cameras don't take great pictures - people do.

I'm pretty positive a newer camera will take "better" photos than the camera I have.

I'm basically looking for more clarity, clearer colors, ability to zoom, etc.

I'm pretty positive a newer camera will take "better" photos than the camera I have.

I'm basically looking for more clarity, clearer colors, ability to zoom, etc.

The absolute best device for zoom is... your two feet. With any consumer P&S or kit lens, zooming reduces the quality of the image. Whether a 10x zoom or a 50x zoom.

I'll try to explain it simply -- Consumer kits lenses and P&S cameras use smaller apertures as you zoom in --- That means they let less light into the camera. As they let in less light, they need to reduce the shutter speed -- which leads to blurry images. Or they need to boost the sensitivity/ISO -- leading to grainy images, though the camera may try to blur away the graininess. Additionally, longer zoom requires a faster shutter speed for steadiness, but due to the smaller aperture, you often need to use a slower shutter speed, again increasing the chances of a blurry image. In other words, by zooming in significantly with any P&S or kit zoom lens, you are more and more likely to get blurry/dark/grainy images. The lower the quality of the camera and/or lens, the more significant the difference.

The way you get sharp clear photos -- beyond making sure you use good technique to hold the camera really steady, is to get more light.

The ways to get more light are: Bright sunny days! On a bright sunny day, you can get a sharp clear image with any camera ever built. If you can't get a sharp clear image even with a 10 year old P&S, on a bright and sunny day, then you're doing something wrong.

Assuming you don't have a super bright sunny day... that's when you get into the capabilities of the camera and the skill of the photographer -- If a camera has a bigger sensor -- it can absorb more light. Thus, a dSLR/mirrorless has a bigger sensor than most P&S cameras. If a lens has a larger aperture, then it can also let in more light. (typically expensive lenses versus cheaper lenses).

And if the photographer understands how to manually adjust the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, as well as know how to make proper use of off camera lighting, or tripods, it also ultimately lets in more light.

You mention wanting to get a DSLR now because in a couple of years you'll want that. In a couple of years, the DSLR you buy today will likely to have been replaced (twice) with models with better options, like the ability to use higher ISO with less noise or something we haven't even conceived yet. If you're buying just for this trip and then not planning to use it much for the next couple years, your better choice might be the point and shoot now, because it is the cheaper option. It too will be close to obsolete in 2 years, but you will have all your lovely cruise shots to make it worth-while. Having been bit by the camera bug, I consider buying the camera you need for the trip as part of the cruise expense (the cruise is a BIG expense and the camera is a small expense to help you remember and appreciate the trip.)

Most people using DSLRs invest in their lenses, and replace their camera bodies every 2-3 years, although I have kept some of mine and used them a lot for about 5 years.

Here is my take. I believe that if you are only going to own one camera, and you are interested in photography, want to learn about photography, and want to grow as a photographer, that one camera should be a DSLR. I don't say this because it will take better pictures than a point and shoot, or mirrorless. It won't. The quality of photos depends almost exclusively on the skill of the photographer.

I say this because of the flexibility of DSLS's. At this time, there is simply a much wider variety of lenses, flashes, and other accessories that are available from any of the major camera providers (Canon, Nikon, etc.) As one grows as a photographer, the flexibility will be appreciated.

I disagree that a modern DSLR will need to be replaced in two to three years. SLR's are a very mature technology. For the last few years, their picture taking ability has not improved greatly. Granted, a few years from now, the newest SLR's will have more and different features. But I doubt very much that they will take much better pictures.

This is not to diminish the value of having a mirrorless, point and shoot, etc. I own several DSLR's, a point and shoot, and use my iPhone on occasion. I am considering buying a mirrorless for the small size. But, in my opinion, if you are serious about photography, and only want to own one camera, it should be a DSLR.

I'm pretty positive a newer camera will take "better" photos than the camera I have.

I'm basically looking for more clarity, clearer colors, ability to zoom, etc.

Unless your old camera is an entry level, very cheap P&S, you might be surprised how little difference there is. I have a Canon S100 that is "only" 5x zoom, but it's a pretty good 5x zoom camera ($350 retail when it was new) that takes pictures nearly as well as my Nikon DSLRs in good conditions and the differences that are there may be "invisible" to the average camera user.

If you current P&S is entry level, then that Canon, and any DSLR will definitely take technically better (better dynamic range, better tones,saturation, less noise, etc...) pictures.

Do you have any existing pictures that you can post that demonstrate the shortcomings of your current camera? posting the model would help also.

I just don't want you to "buy into" the DSLR hype*, spend a bunch of money on a body and a couple lens and camera bag to haul it all around in, only to find the pictures are not significantly better than what you already have and in exchange you get to carry a boat anchor everywhere you go.

* for the record I don't think DSLR is hype - I love my DSLRs - but I do think a lot of people buy them thinking they'll get amazingly better photos and are often quite dissapointed.