Camera suggestions - Alaska and beyond

I apologize for what I am sure is a much started thread. I did use the search feature but there was so much to go through that just when I thought I understood I realized I had no clue what I needed.

I am going to Alaska this summer and again in 2017. We cruise at least twice a year if not more so the camera will be used primarily for cruises.

My only experience with a camera is using my phone.

Here is what I am looking for:

ZOOM! I want good zoom in order to have the best chance at wildlife, oceanlife, etc. This is important since much of my photo-taking will happen from a cruise ship or on a tour where I can not just get closer to the subject. It sounds like 30x at least, preferably more?

Speed - A lot of the cameras I look at have great zoom (Coolpix 610) but they can be very slow to focus and then take the shot. Not going to cut it when trying to get a shot of a whale breaching the surface of the ocean. Is there anything with a big zoom AND quick response?

VIEW FINDER - I want to be able to look through the view finder and see my shots. I do not want to rely on some LCD screen or whatever. I don't mind having that as an option but I am non-negotiable on the view finder.

Camera size is not an issue, I don't mind carrying it around. I will either be in picture taking mode or I wont so I don't need something to fit in my pocket so I can take pictures all the time. That isn't relaxing to me, anyway.

I feel like I should go with a DSLR as you get the fast reaction time but I am not interested in multiple lenses and the price really adds up. I did look into this camera but not sure what kind of zoom this comes with, would it work with the lens that it comes with if I need good zoom? It is in price range but I am not interested in buying another lens for it at the moment (perhaps later if I really get into this photography thing): Nikon D3200

Ideally, my budget is $400 or less but the more research I do the more I feel like I can not get a good zoom and a fast reaction time for that price. The coolpix 610 is around $350 but I am really worried about the slow focus I have been reading about.

What should I look into? Any suggestions for a newbie to cameras but who wants something nice since he already has cruises booked? I don't want to get something and just decide after a year of cruises that I need to upgrade.

Camera sellers over-market zoom, because it's a cheap feature to add to cheap cameras (it's easy to add a lot of zoom to a cheap small sensor camera... Not easy with a high quality large sensor camera), and it's an obvious advantage over a phone.

The maximum zoom lense for dslrs are actually 15x-20x. (Or approximately 450mm equivalent on a crop dslr), and pros have no trouble getting wildlife with lenses like those.

The basic kit lenses that come with dslrs like the d3200 are usually 3x -- 18mm-55mm.

The thing with superzoom bridge cameras, that have 30x, 40x, 50x.... The extreme parts of the lenses are basically useless outside of super bright day light and/or tripod. Most shots I see taken at those ranges are basically grainy blurry messes.

There are some bridge cameras that are slightly better, faster. Higher quality. They don't tend to have the very extreme zoom range.

Some potential models are the Panasonic fz-200 and fz-300. At an even higher and better level, the fz-1000 and Sony rx10.

Thanks for the information and suggestions. I will look into them.

What about the Nikon 3100? My concern is that it is discontinued. Does that mean I will not be able to get parts or get it fixed if something happens to it? Will I have trouble finding more lenses or do lenses fit all models?

Thanks for the information and suggestions. I will look into them.

 

What about the Nikon 3100? My concern is that it is discontinued. Does that mean I will not be able to get parts or get it fixed if something happens to it? Will I have trouble finding more lenses or do lenses fit all models?

I have no specific comment on the Nikon 3100 but almost all cameras will become discontinued cameras within 1 year of when you buy it. Few of them break. With Nikon, you can buy 20 year old lenses that fit current cameras.

Don't worry about the discontinued issue. Buy a camera that works for you now.

DON

Thanks! One final question (maybe!). How important is the VR lens vs. non-VR? I can get a set with an extra lens that is non VR but getting the VR places it slightly above what I want to spend. Is it worth spending more or is it not essential for people taking non professional photographs?

The D3100 will last you for many years, that isn't a worry.

Yes, VR lenses are worth it. In fact, VR is more valuable to amateurs than to pros, who know how to get sharp photos without VR.

Especially when using telephoto focal lengths, you will lose a lot of images to camera shake without VR.

Ideally, my budget is $400 or less but the more research I do the more I feel like I can not get a good zoom and a fast reaction time for that price. What should I look into? Any suggestions for a newbie to cameras but who wants something nice since he already has cruises booked? I don't want to get something and just decide after a year of cruises that I need to upgrade.

I've trimmed your post down to this. If your budget is $400 AND you are adamant about not upgrading, DSLR is absolutely wrong for you. Go shop for a $400 point&shoot, and accept that it's what you could financially justify. DSLRs are made with interchangeable lenses...essentially, that means they are to be upgraded with lenses as your skills progress. You're also not going to get "good zoom" in a DSLR for anything close to $400. No sense paying for the complexity of a lens mount if you're not going to use it.

I admit that I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, but in the past three months I've purchased five new lenses to upgrade our assortment of gear.

Personally, I'd never buy a camera that was released >24-30 months ago. They're doing so much with the technology these days that you're missing out significantly with an older model.

I've trimmed your post down to this. If your budget is $400 AND you are adamant about not upgrading, DSLR is absolutely wrong for you. Go shop for a $400 point&shoot, and accept that it's what you could financially justify. DSLRs are made with interchangeable lenses...essentially, that means they are to be upgraded with lenses as your skills progress. You're also not going to get "good zoom" in a DSLR for anything close to $400. No sense paying for the complexity of a lens mount if you're not going to use it.

 

I admit that I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, but in the past three months I've purchased five new lenses to upgrade our assortment of gear.

 

Personally, I'd never buy a camera that was released >24-30 months ago. They're doing so much with the technology these days that you're missing out significantly with an older model.

But prices of older models can be so much cheaper, the price drops faster than the quality gets outdated.

Personally, I'm more with you -- I have thousands of dollars in lenses.

But I also keep a different perspective on the consumer market.

A 3-year-old dSLR will be a similar price to a brand new P&S, but the 3-year-old dSLR will still have better performance and better image quality. (But may miss the newest wifi implementation or touch screen, or selfy-mode).

And yes, if you don't intend on investing in lenses, you are wasting the potential of a dSLR. If you don't learn the exposure triangle, if you don't learn how to manipulate depth of field, you are wasting the potential ofa dSLR.

But here is the thing, even when using auto and semi-auto modes, even using the cheap kit 18-55 lens and 55-250 kit-type lenses, on that 3-year-old dSLR, you still have the potential to get better images than most P&S cameras. (Though the difference in the images will be far greater if you know what you're doing, if you get the right lenses and flashes, etc).

If only enthusiasts, willing to spend thousands on lenses, were to buy dSLRs... then the market for dSLRs would disappear. There aren't enough of us enthusiasts!

For $495, on Amazon, brand new, you can get the Nikon D3100 with 18-55 and 55-200 VR lenses. Giving you the equivalent of 27mm - 300mm.

That is similar in price to the Canon SX60HS -- a super zoom, which far longer telephoto reach. But which camera will really give better images?

They are both 14mp cameras. But the D3100 will use phase detection for fast autofocus, while the Canon will use a slower contrast detect AF.

According to DXO testing -- the Canon's low light ISO score is only 127 -- meaning the image quality is only acceptable at base ISO. The D3100 scores 919, so nearly 3 stops better. The total IQ score on the newer Canon SX60 is 39, while the total score on the ancient D3100 is 67.

So if looking for better image quality and autofocus, the old dSLR certainly still beats the newer P&S by a wide margin. Sure, the newer P&S may have a nicer LCD, more fancy video options, etc.

So it depends on if your priority is consumer features, or great images. Someone most concerned with great images, is better off with an old dSLR over a new P&S, for the similar price.

The D3100 will last you for many years, that isn't a worry.

Yes, VR lenses are worth it. In fact, VR is more valuable to amateurs than to pros, who know how to get sharp photos without VR.

Especially when using telephoto focal lengths, you will lose a lot of images to camera shake without VR.

• It means the lens can work better in low light, especially without the flash.
  
• Zoom lenses will be benefit with VR if you have shaky hands.
  

Watch out for "D" lenses with the Nikon D3100. D lenses require an autofocus motor on the body (eg D7%00 series) if you don't want to be manually focusing. Cheaper, older lenses are sometimes D.

I'm another VR lover.

• It means the lens can work better in low light, especially without the flash.
  
• Zoom lenses will be benefit with VR if you have shaky hands.
  

Zoom lenses benefit from VR if you have shaky hands, and so do lenses that don't zoom. VR means the lens can get a shake-free shot in lower light than non-VR, but that doesn't mean that it won't be blurry - if the shutter speed ends up so slow that everyone "walked right through the shot", it's not a usable shot.

Zoom lenses benefit from VR if you have shaky hands, and so do lenses that don't zoom. VR means the lens can get a shake-free shot in lower light than non-VR, but that doesn't mean that it won't be blurry - if the shutter speed ends up so slow that everyone "walked right through the shot", it's not a usable shot.

Depends on the technique and skill of the shooter. Yes, VR won't let you take any better shots of birds in flight or a game of basketball.. you need a very fast shutter.

But when you are dealing with slow moving or stationary subjects.. the rule of thumb is 1/focal length. For me, if the lens is not VR, I lose a lot of 1/focal length shots to some camera shake. But if I have VR, then I can shoot consistently at 1/focal length (or a bit slower) without camera shake ever being an issue.

Well I ended up with the Nikon 3100 and I feel happy in my choice. I know someone has said they didn't recommend the DSLR but most people seem to recommend it. I said I didn't want to upgrade but I meant constantly buying a new point and shoot because the one I have I had grown out of. I want to pick this up as a hobby so I think DSLR is the way to go, as I learn and get more confident then I can spend the money on new lenses.

VR means the lens can get a shake-free shot in lower light than non-VR, but that doesn't mean that it won't be blurry - if the shutter speed ends up so slow that everyone "walked right through the shot", it's not a usable shot.

But when you are dealing with slow moving or stationary subjects.. the rule of thumb is 1/focal length. For me, if the lens is not VR, I lose a lot of 1/focal length shots to some camera shake. But if I have VR, then I can shoot consistently at 1/focal length (or a bit slower) without camera shake ever being an issue.

Did you read what I wrote, at all? "If the shutter speed ends up so slow that everyone walked right through the shot..." People standing still on solid ground start to look blurry at perhaps 1/60th. People standing still on a moving cruise ship probably start to look blurry at 1/125th.

Yes, the rule of thumb says 1/FL for non-VR, and it actually says 8/FL for VR lenses with three stops of correction, 16/FL for VR lenses with four stops of correction, etc. So yes, a 400mm lens with a fancy new four-stop IS unit could be handheld to 1/25th of a second for some folks, but trying to shoot that speed on a cruise ship will result in a blurry shot. Point (re-)made.

Well I ended up with the Nikon 3100 and I feel happy in my choice. I know someone has said they didn't recommend the DSLR but most people seem to recommend it. I said I didn't want to upgrade but I meant constantly buying a new point and shoot because the one I have I had grown out of. I want to pick this up as a hobby so I think DSLR is the way to go, as I learn and get more confident then I can spend the money on new lenses.

Congratulations. As others have said, make sure that all of the lenses you buy have an AF motor inside. If you buy an AF (autofocus) lens that doesn't have a motor inside, even though your camera can AF and the lens can AF, without a motor in one or the other, the combo won't AF.

I'd consider this a must-read: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/lenses-dont-collect-the-whole-set/ I fully concur with their recommendation: add an inexpensive 50mm or 85mm, a medium-level flash, and a tripod.

peety3, I'd like to read the link you posted, but it doesn't work for me. Do you have the article saved offline? I think your link is correct, but the article isn't there anymore.

peety3, I'd like to read the link you posted, but it doesn't work for me. Do you have the article saved offline? I think your link is correct, but the article isn't there anymore.

That's odd...I googled "lenses don't collect the whole set" and that's the link that came up. ??? Does that work for you?

That's odd...I googled "lenses don't collect the whole set" and that's the link that came up. ??? Does that work for you?

I did a similar search and came to the overall blog, but the individual article you pointed to does not seem to be there. That was why I'd hoped you'd saved the article and could re-post it directly. Can you see the actual article? I can't.

I did a similar search and came to the overall blog, but the individual article you pointed to does not seem to be there. That was why I'd hoped you'd saved the article and could re-post it directly. Can you see the actual article? I can't.

I can see it fine, and have gone back to it again just now. I saved it as a PDF...not the best formatting (sorry!), but at least it should be visible at http://photos.templin.org/images/lenscollect.pdf for your viewing pleasure.

I can see it fine, and have gone back to it again just now. I saved it as a PDF...not the best formatting (sorry!), but at least it should be visible at http://photos.templin.org/images/lenscollect.pdf for your viewing pleasure.

I can see it at your link. Mucho thanks for taking the trouble to repost. It seems like a humorous read so far.