Affordable Camera for Alaska Cruise

[sh2738]

Hey all.

 

I am looking at possibly getting a new camera for my upcoming cruise to Alaska. Something that is good for taking scenery/outdoor pictures of all the great things and animals to see. Who I am going with has a good camera but I was curious if there was a good one in my price range that I could get? If not, then i will just use my iPhone 6 plus for my pictures.

 

Any recommendations for a good camera for this that would be affordable? Under $200 or a more expensive one that I could buy used or refurbished?

 

Thanks so much!

[Kamloops50]

Hey all.

 

I am looking at possibly getting a new camera for my upcoming cruise to Alaska. Something that is good for taking scenery/outdoor pictures of all the great things and animals to see. Who I am going with has a good camera but I was curious if there was a good one in my price range that I could get? If not, then i will just use my iPhone 6 plus for my pictures.

 

Any recommendations for a good camera for this that would be affordable? Under $200 or a more expensive one that I could buy used or refurbished?

 

Thanks so much!

 

I travel with four camera's.

One is a Canon SX40IS. Two are 500 series Canon . Also a pocket size video/photo camera from Sony. All are basically point and shot camera's. I personally like camera's with view finders because I don't have to worry about glare on the LCD screen or wearing eyeglasses.

[chipmaster]

Under 200 bucks is a challenging price point. For scenic's in good light the iPhone is pretty good. What you should be looking for is something with a lot of zoom to bring scenics closer to you.

 

Here is a good place to start: http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM

 

But I think you should target 300 or so as the price point.

[sh2738]

Under 200 bucks is a challenging price point. For scenic's in good light the iPhone is pretty good. What you should be looking for is something with a lot of zoom to bring scenics closer to you.

 

 

 

Here is a good place to start: http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM

 

 

 

But I think you should target 300 or so as the price point.

 

 

Thanks for the link but no thanks. 300 is much too high for a camera that I will only use a few times a year, if that.

[subtchr]

I would recommend this one: PANASONIC LUMIX DMC-FZ70

 

For about $100 more, you can find the next model up, the FZ200, which is an amazing bridge camera, but the FZ70 is a great choice for your budget and needs.

 

You might find you like it so much you use it more than a couple times a year.

[xlxo]

Something else to consider in your budget..... a second or third backup battery.

 

If you plan to have your camera turned on ready for that caving glacier or breaching whale..... don't be surprised you have a dead battery when that important picture comes.

 

How much is that second or third battery? How much is the camera?

[GUT2407]

Something else to consider in your budget..... a second or third backup battery.

 

If you plan to have your camera turned on ready for that caving glacier or breaching whale..... don't be surprised you have a dead battery when that important picture comes.

 

How much is that second or third battery? How much is the camera?

 

 

Or look for one that uses "AA" batteries.

[GUT2407]

Otherwise a 2nd or 3rd battery is a must have.

[Kamloops50]

I have two Canon cameras that use AA batteries. With a point and shot if I use the viewfinder I can get almost 2000 pictures in the camera . Before changing batteries. The large displays are battery hogs. I suggested to one friend that he use the viewfinder only because was changing batteries about every 500 pictures. He came back and said that was got about 1500 pictures before replacing the batteries.

Also look that the camera uses standard SD cards. You'll need at least two spares. I suggest standard SD cards because they readily available in most camera stores , drugstore or Walmart.

 

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Forums mobile app

[wmjivey]

Alaska is big and beautiful with lots and lots of stuff to take pictures of, even if you don't do photos for a living you still want to take home pictures that look similar to what you experienced. If $200 is your limit and you don't want to invest in a good camera, Just rent.

There are acouple great sites (Borrowlense and Lensrental) where you can get a great point and shoot camera for half the cost of a crappy cheap camera. Just saying...

 

John

[sh2738]

Alaska is big and beautiful with lots and lots of stuff to take pictures of, even if you don't do photos for a living you still want to take home pictures that look similar to what you experienced. If $200 is your limit and you don't want to invest in a good camera, Just rent.

 

There are acouple great sites (Borrowlense and Lensrental) where you can get a great point and shoot camera for half the cost of a crappy cheap camera. Just saying...

 

 

 

John

 

 

A $200 camera is not crappy, that, in my personal opinion, is a good amount of money to spend on a digital camera. I have had digital camera that was only around $100 and it worked great and took great pictures. An exaggeration to say that 200 can't get you a good camera.

[Kamloops50]

When I buy a camera. I expect to get at least three years use or more. My two older Canons are 9 and 5 years old. One was used at work in all weather conditions ( including 40 below and 110 ).

My first camera was $100 and wasn't a very good one. Lasted all of one trip thru the Panama Canal. Pictures where poor quality .

Edited June 21, 2015 by Kamloops50

[TruckerDave]

I have two Canon cameras that use AA batteries. With a point and shot if I use the viewfinder I can get almost 2000 pictures in the camera . Before changing batteries. The large displays are battery hogs. I suggested to one friend that he use the viewfinder only because was changing batteries about every 500 pictures. He came back and said that was got about 1500 pictures before replacing the batteries.

Also look that the camera uses standard SD cards. You'll need at least two spares. I suggest standard SD cards because they readily available in most camera stores , drugstore or Walmart.

 

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Forums mobile app

 

Two spares why?

 

Assuming a point and shoot, jpegs and a file size of about 3mb per shot....a 16gb card should get you in the neighborhood of 5000 pics. I shot with a 24 mp DSLR, shoot raw (at about 22mb per file) and can still get over 700 shots on a 16gb card.

[Kamloops50]

Two spares why?

 

Assuming a point and shoot, jpegs and a file size of about 3mb per shot....a 16gb card should get you in the neighborhood of 5000 pics. I shot with a 24 mp DSLR, shoot raw (at about 22mb per file) and can still get over 700 shots on a 16gb card.

 

Some cameras restrict you how many gb of memory they can access. The cheaper the camera the less memory they can access. The other reason is security. I don't want all my pictures on one card. Unless you download to a laptop , I don't trust them to survive.

My newest Canon only allows me to store 3000 pictures or 3.5 gb total. My SIL has a DSLR that restricts 10 gb of storage.

 

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Forums mobile app

Edited June 21, 2015 by Kamloops50

[Turtles06]

A $200 camera is not crappy, that, in my personal opinion, is a good amount of money to spend on a digital camera. I have had digital camera that was only around $100 and it worked great and took great pictures. An exaggeration to say that 200 can't get you a good camera.

 

The word "good" is very subjective in the context of this thread; no one is trying to be insulting here. Most digital cameras now, even inexpensive ones, will be "good" enough in bright light to get you excellent images of landscapes and other non-moving subjects. Heck, your iPhone 6 will do a great job there.

 

Where things get tougher are in low light, and/or when your subject is moving, especially when it's moving quickly, and/or when it's far away. Your original post asked about a camera that would get you shots not only of landscapes, but of wildlife. What posters above were trying to tell you is that at the $200 price point, you will have a tough time getting a camera for the purposes you set out in your post (and especially for things like whales breaching, or birds in flight, etc.).

 

I hope you have a great trip.

[Turtles06]

Two spares why?

 

Assuming a point and shoot, jpegs and a file size of about 3mb per shot....a 16gb card should get you in the neighborhood of 5000 pics. I shot with a 24 mp DSLR, shoot raw (at about 22mb per file) and can still get over 700 shots on a 16gb card.

 

It's not a good idea to shoot an entire trip on one memory card. In the event your camera is lost or stolen, or the card becomes corrupted beyond recovery, you'll have lost your whole trip. Memory is pretty cheap now; on an important trip, it makes sense to swap out your cards daily, or at least pretty frequently.

[sh2738]

The word "good" is very subjective in the context of this thread; no one is trying to be insulting here. Most digital cameras now, even inexpensive ones, will be "good" enough in bright light to get you excellent images of landscapes and other non-moving subjects. Heck, your iPhone 6 will do a great job there.

 

 

 

Where things get tougher are in low light, and/or when your subject is moving, especially when it's moving quickly, and/or when it's far away. Your original post asked about a camera that would get you shots not only of landscapes, but of wildlife. What posters above were trying to tell you is that at the $200 price point, you will have a tough time getting a camera for the purposes you set out in your post (and especially for things like whales breaching, or birds in flight, etc.).

 

 

 

I hope you have a great trip.

 

 

Disagree completely. I have used a $150 digital camera to take excellent zoomed in shots of moving wildlife and other objects when I have done traveling in Europe and the Caribbean. But different people have different ideas of what excellent is I guess. Not a professional photographer so I don't need some insane $500 camera to take nice vacation pics. But to each their own within their own budget.

[havoc315]

A $200 camera is not crappy, that, in my personal opinion, is a good amount of money to spend on a digital camera. I have had digital camera that was only around $100 and it worked great and took great pictures. An exaggeration to say that 200 can't get you a good camera.

 

Yes and no. Technology has progressed, so that EVERY camera is half-decent. You can get a camera for $50, that is better than a $400 camera 10 years ago.

 

On the other hand, in terms of image quality and most features, a $200 will not be better than any good smart phone camera. In fact, a good smart phone camera has many advantages over a $200 point and shoot.

The only real advantage of a typical $200 P&S over a good smart phone, is to get some optical zoom.

 

 

Advantages of a good smart phone over a under $200 P&S:

1 -- smaller and already carrying it

2 -- Very comparable image quality. Often, the smart phone will be better in low light due to faster aperture lens.

3-- More built in features in the smart phone -- in camera editing, HDR modes, panorama modes, etc.

4-- Big high definition touch screen, which you won't find in budget P&S cameras.

5-- Easy photo sharing, posting to facebook, emailing, etc.

 

Advantages of a $200 P&S over a good smart phone:

1-- Some optical zoom range.

2-- Often, a stronger and better flash.

 

So no, a $200 P&S is not a horrible awful camera. But if you already have a good smart phone camera (I mean the top models of the last 1-2 years), then you aren't getting a whole lot of advantages with the $200 P&S.

You said you have an iPhone 6+ --- Except for optical zoom, the iPhone 6+ will beat just about every $200 P&S in most ways. Including better image quality.

Edited June 21, 2015 by havoc315

[havoc315]

Disagree completely. I have used a $150 digital camera to take excellent zoomed in shots of moving wildlife and other objects when I have done traveling in Europe and the Caribbean. But different people have different ideas of what excellent is I guess. Not a professional photographer so I don't need some insane $500 camera to take nice vacation pics. But to each their own within their own budget.

 

Shows you how relative everything is. To me, $500 would be cheap for a camera. My Alaska camera set-up is approximately $7,000.... Whole family cameras combined, about $8,000.

[Viv0828]

To me it's a combo of photographer and camera - some folks with relatively inexpensive cameras take better pics than others with an expensive set up.

[Turtles06]

Disagree completely. I have used a $150 digital camera to take excellent zoomed in shots of moving wildlife and other objects when I have done traveling in Europe and the Caribbean. But different people have different ideas of what excellent is I guess. Not a professional photographer so I don't need some insane $500 camera to take nice vacation pics. But to each their own within their own budget.

 

Hey, I was trying to be polite to you, no need for the attitude. Personally, I don't think $500 is "insane" for a camera. You do, and that's fine. Since you seem to know what you need and what it will cost, why not find today's version of that great $150 camera you used in Europe.

[havoc315]

It's not a good idea to shoot an entire trip on one memory card. In the event your camera is lost or stolen, or the card becomes corrupted beyond recovery, you'll have lost your whole trip. Memory is pretty cheap now; on an important trip, it makes sense to swap out your cards daily, or at least pretty frequently.

 

You know.... that has drawbacks to. More likely to lose memory cards or corrupt them when removing them from the camera. Stick 1 huge memory card in the camera, and don't bother touching it until the trip is over!

 

Or ideally, back up your photos every night. But that isn't very realistic, especially with the huge resolution of many modern cameras. Even if your camera has wifi, not easy to back up hundreds or thousands of high resolution images.

[GUT2407]

Hey, I was trying to be polite to you, no need for the attitude. Personally, I don't think $500 is "insane" for a camera. You do, and that's fine. Since you seem to know what you need and what it will cost, why not find today's version of that great $150 camera you used in Europe.

 

 

Whereas I do think $500 is insane for a camera.

 

Couldn't tell you when I last paid that little (probably in the 70s).

 

Now I accept that I pay more here in Aus that you do in the USA but $500?? Way too low. Looks like my next "bridge" camera will be about $1000.

[sh2738]

Hey, I was trying to be polite to you, no need for the attitude. Personally, I don't think $500 is "insane" for a camera. You do, and that's fine. Since you seem to know what you need and what it will cost, why not find today's version of that great $150 camera you used in Europe.

 

 

I didn't have an attitude, just giving my very valid opinion. You have an attitude which is fine. Good luck.

[GUT2407]

You know.... that has drawbacks to. More likely to lose memory cards or corrupt them when removing them from the camera. Stick 1 huge memory card in the camera, and don't bother touching it until the trip is over!

 

Or ideally, back up your photos every night. But that isn't very realistic, especially with the huge resolution of many modern cameras. Even if your camera has wifi, not easy to back up hundreds or thousands of high resolution images.

 

 

That's what I do, a compact notebook, back-up overnight, burn to DVD and external HDD over breakfast.

 

New card the next day, don't format the card till I am sure that the back-up has worked.