What digital camera do you recommend?

[LEXIpoo]

Firstly, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask for product suggestions...if not, lo siento. But if I am, I'm in need for a new camera for my upcoming cruise.

 

I'm no photographer, but I would like an amazing digital camera that does it all: "special effects" (like an HDR filter), panoramic views, and a dual view screen...does that exist? Google hasn't been much help.

 

Thanks in advance!

[silentbob007]

Though you'll get suggestions, you really need to go to a store and get the feel for them (research models online and look for them locally). A camera can have every feature you'd want but fit horribly in your hand or otherwise have quirks that you do not like. :)

[misguidedangel]

I would suggest a camera that is rugged and durable. I'd get the Olympus TG820IS or any of the other Olympus shock, water, freeze, and crush proof cameras. They take decent photos and have HD video capabilities as well.

 

If you need a site to complare check out cnet dot com and you can find some good reviews for cameras.

 

I've got uhm, four in-use cameras.....Canon SD1400IS 14MP, Canon A2300 16MP, Olympus TG820IS 12MP (for underwater use specifically), and a Fuji HS30EXR extended manual zoom.

 

Happy camera hunting

[carolinaviking71208]

You may wanna ask this in the digital photography board here on Cruise Critic. I personally like my Nikon AW100. It takes great pics, has special effects, and will shoot panoramic shots. A plus is its waterproof up to 30ft and shockproof up to a 5ft drop.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LEXIpoo]

You may wanna ask this in the digital photography board here on Cruise Critic. I personally like my Nikon AW100. It takes great pics, has special effects, and will shoot panoramic shots. A plus is its waterproof up to 30ft and shockproof up to a 5ft drop.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't know such section existed...thanks!

[JennN]

Honestly - we have an SLR, a few point and shoots and HAD a few underwater cameras. For the cruise, we tend to bring them all. However, the best camera we own for cruising is our underwater camera. It has all the bells and whistles and is the only camera we use (unless we have extra time in port after excursions). This camera is durable, can take solid photos underwater as well as clear ones on land, had filters and is a medium priced camera.

 

We got ours on amazon and bought a chum (floatation device) with it for under $400.

 

We've had other cameras for underwater and they broke and didn't take near the level that this one does. Do a search for:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 12.1 MP Rugged/Waterproof Digital Camera with 4.6x Wide Angle Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 2.7-Inch LCD (Orange)

 

 

 

You won't be disappointed! So easy to see the screen underwater too!

[LEXIpoo]

thanks for the suggestions!!

[LEXIpoo]

Honestly - we have an SLR, a few point and shoots and HAD a few underwater cameras. For the cruise, we tend to bring them all. However, the best camera we own for cruising is our underwater camera. It has all the bells and whistles and is the only camera we use (unless we have extra time in port after excursions). This camera is durable, can take solid photos underwater as well as clear ones on land, had filters and is a medium priced camera.

 

We got ours on amazon and bought a chum (floatation device) with it for under $400.

 

We've had other cameras for underwater and they broke and didn't take near the level that this one does. Do a search for:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 12.1 MP Rugged/Waterproof Digital Camera with 4.6x Wide Angle Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 2.7-Inch LCD (Orange)

 

 

 

You won't be disappointed! So easy to see the screen underwater too!

I definitely will look into those. Thank you!

[SB2788]

I currently have a Nikon D5100 with the kit lens and a 55-300mm telephoto lens. It does a great job at feeding my photography addiction. The camera fully outfitted with the lens and a flash is rather bulky and cumbersome to lug around throughout the ship, though.I recently bought a tiny Sony WX150 as an everyday camera. For such a small camera, it has a really good 10x zoom. Great little camera to put in your pocket and take to dinner or use while hanging around in the casino, piano bar, etc.

 

If you want a really nice Point & Shoot camera with really good zoom, I suggest the Nikon P510. It does HDR, has a 42x zoom and an awesome panoramic mode.

[Nole0202]

I have DSLR, mirror-less, under-water, and have been using high end cameras for 30+ years.

 

I own Nikon, but the best value for consumer cameras is the Canon ELPH line. Any of them will give you great value for the $$ spent.

 

The under-water cameras are great if you want to take snorkle photos or use in the rain, but you will pay 50% MORE for the UW feature....

[havoc315]

Firstly, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask for product suggestions...if not, lo siento. But if I am, I'm in need for a new camera for my upcoming cruise.

 

I'm no photographer, but I would like an amazing digital camera that does it all: "special effects" (like an HDR filter), panoramic views, and a dual view screen...does that exist? Google hasn't been much help.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

With such a broad question, you're just going to get answers of, "I have the _____ and love it."

 

Questions to ask yourself when looking for a new camera:

-First, I would ask what size are you comfortable with.

 

Do you want something that will literally fit in your pocket. Or you're ok with something that needs a bag or strap, but don't want too bulky. Or you don't mind something a bit bulky and substantive in the hand.

 

-Second, I would ask what types of shots are your highest priority.

 

Snapshots taken from a mid-range? Or do you want to zoom in to get close up shots of distant birds? Do you want to take lots of pictures underwater? Do you want to capture fast-paced action? Do you want to take gorgeous portraits where the backgrounds have a creamy blur? Do you plan on taking lots of indoor pictures in artificial lighting? Do you plan on mostly just posting pictures to facebook, or make small prints, or sometimes blow up large prints? Do you want to be able to adjust the photos in post-processing?

 

I see several people have recommended waterproof cameras. Those can be great for vacations, if you literally want something to take to the beach and into the water. But it is a major sacrifice for other types of pictures. If your greater priority is a camera that will take great pictures away from the water, I'd avoid the waterproof cameras.

 

Overall, you get the most versatility with an "interchangeable lens camera" -- A dSLR or something like the Sony NEX, or a Micro 4/3rds camera. They allow you to switch the lenses, so you have the right lens for the right job. Of course, it also means investing in lenses. And those cameras come in varying sizes, but are bigger than your tiny compact cameras.

 

Third, after answering the first two questions, I'd finally look at budget. I don't look at this first, as we would all like to spend less, to get more. But now that you have an idea of what you want/need, now you look at the prices to get it.

 

Fourth, by now you have settled on a camera type. A basic price range. So now look at the extra "features" that you may prefer. A panorama mode. Wifi? Built in GPS? etc, etc.

 

As an example -- Let's say you decided you want the best possible image quality, you want something you can use indoors, something good in low light, something with a quick focus. You want something that will fit in your pocket. You'd like extra features such as built-in HDR, panorama, and various special-effect picture modes.

 

Probably the best camera to match that profile is the Sony RX100. Not cheap --- Still over $600 at most vendors. But far superior than any of the cheaper options for the needs listed above.

On the other hand, it's not water proof.... and it doesn't have a big telephoto range.

 

So if being water proof was more important, than you give up some of the image quality, you give up the low light ability, and you steer towards the waterproof models.

 

Or... if zooming in on distant wildlife was a higher priority, you move away from those, and go towards the "super zooms" like the Canon SX260.... cheaper, lower overall image quality, won't perform as well in low light, but you get a big zoom.

 

Or, if you want something more flexible, and don't mind carrying something slightly bigger, you go towards a interchangeable lens camera like the Sony Nex.

 

Or if you want maximum versatility, don't mind the bulk, and want the best instrument to learn all aspects of photography, you move towards a dSLR.

[compulady]

So many camera options today. Waterproof point & shoots, high end point & shoots, mirrorless and DSLR would be the main categories.

 

How much do you want to spend? How much do want to carry? Do you want to add accessories such as lenses and flash? Great photos can be taken with any of those as well as camera phones.

 

Once you narrow it down you can check out dpreview.com but to start there may lead to more confusion.

[dileep]

look into Panasonic Lumix FZ60 on sale for $270.

[bukieco]

use an iPhone. does pano and hdr.

[LEXIpoo]

use an iPhone. does pano and hdr.

 

With all due respect, I asked about a camera...not a phone.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LEXIpoo]

I ended up getting the Samsung TL225...it was on sale for $63 and it has the dual view feature that I really wanted.

 

Thanks for your suggestions though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TruckerDave]

HDR is not a filter. It is done by combing multiple exposures into one final photo. Panoramic views are usually done by combining multiple pictures together to form one large one. Both use software to do this (though some newer cameras do HDR in the camera the results I have seen are not even close to what you can get with software designed for the task. )

[LEXIpoo]

HDR is a filter on certain apps. That's what I was referring to.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zackiedawg]

HDR is not a filter. It is done by combing multiple exposures into one final photo. Panoramic views are usually done by combining multiple pictures together to form one large one. Both use software to do this (though some newer cameras do HDR in the camera the results I have seen are not even close to what you can get with software designed for the task. )

 

Some cameras actually achieve excellent merging in HDR mode - Sony invented the feature and is still the best at doing it - the 3 photos, with EV range up to 6EV, that can be auto or manually set, with excellent alignment algorithms, and even good control over ghosting from moving subjects - usable entirely handheld with no tripod. And the amount of dynamic range you can capture is very good. Note that what you might be thinking of is tone-mapping. HDR itself is separate from tone-mapping, but tone-mapping is what's often done in post processing to HDR results that gives it that far-out, comic book, fantasy look which is quite popular with HDR processing lately. Many people mistakenly think that the tone-mapped look IS HDR, but it's not - HDR is just taking multiple shots to capture a greater dynamic range than is possible in a single shot - tone-mapping is a processing method that pulls the contrast and tone curves to tune the look from mild to wild...you can even do tone mapping to an out-of-camera HDR if you want it to look more like those post-processed HDRs.

 

Admittedly, some other in-camera HDRs are fairly poor at the merging, which is why some require you be on a tripod...and some companies don't allow manual settings of the EV range, or can't handle movement/ghost-removal...so not all in-camera HDRs are equal.

[TruckerDave]

Some cameras actually achieve excellent merging in HDR mode - Sony invented the feature and is still the best at doing it - the 3 photos, with EV range up to 6EV, that can be auto or manually set, with excellent alignment algorithms, and even good control over ghosting from moving subjects - usable entirely handheld with no tripod. And the amount of dynamic range you can capture is very good. Note that what you might be thinking of is tone-mapping. HDR itself is separate from tone-mapping, but tone-mapping is what's often done in post processing to HDR results that gives it that far-out, comic book, fantasy look which is quite popular with HDR processing lately. Many people mistakenly think that the tone-mapped look IS HDR, but it's not - HDR is just taking multiple shots to capture a greater dynamic range than is possible in a single shot - tone-mapping is a processing method that pulls the contrast and tone curves to tune the look from mild to wild...you can even do tone mapping to an out-of-camera HDR if you want it to look more like those post-processed HDRs.

 

Admittedly, some other in-camera HDRs are fairly poor at the merging, which is why some require you be on a tripod...and some companies don't allow manual settings of the EV range, or can't handle movement/ghost-removal...so not all in-camera HDRs are equal.

 

I get all that, my point is that HDR is not a filter. You (or the camera) is still combining multiple images to form a final image.

[pierces]

I get all that, my point is that HDR is not a filter. You (or the camera) is still combining multiple images to form a final image.

 

Some apps perform a "faux-HDR" process to an image. Not really a filter in the traditional sense but popular use has shifted the meaning to include "looks" applied to an image after the fact in software.

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

Indeed - I wasn't countering that point of yours TruckerDave - Indeed, true HDR in-camera involves multiple frames...I was just commenting in particular about the success of the in-camera HDR that some cameras produce - some clearly better than others. It might be part of the reason you were never impressed with in-camera results, as you might not have seen the results from some of the better versions.

 

And as Dave mentioned, there are actually 'scene' modes in some cameras that use the term 'HDR', but that only take one shot and perform in-camera tone-mapping to produce that look that most people mistakenly think is 'HDR', but is actually just tone-mapping. No actual HDR was ever performed, yet if you presented the results to most people, they would think of the tone-mapped single frame as being 'HDR' and would think the actual HDR without tone-mapping is not an HDR photo. The irony is that the tone-mapping is what many people believe is HDR. Here's a quick example, just on that point...

 

Here's a classic 'HDR' type photo of the look that is popular on Flickr - it has that 'HDR look':

 

But it's NOT an HDR photo - it's a single snap, that's been processed through tone-mapping.

 

Here's a true 3-frame HDR photo with a 4 EV range between the 3 frames, done in-camera:

 

Most people would assume the first shot is HDR, because of the tone-mapping applied to it, even though it's just a single snap. And most would assume the 2nd shot is simply a single exposure because it has no tone-mapping applied which is what people are used to when they think HDR...even though that shot is 3 shots merged into one - and something that wouldn't have been possible in a single shot (the trees in the foreground would be far too dark if exposing the lighted building, and if exposing the trees, the building would be a blown-out mess).

 

I just wanted to clarify for those who may not realize the difference between HDR and tone-mapping...not meant as a challenge to your post.