Camera for 13/14 yo...

[ge0rgette2]

Older?

[havoc315]

Older?

 

It's a discontinued 2012 model....but there is nothing wrong with that. Warranty still valid, still a good bridge camera. In 2012, it was one of the best p&s available.

[pierces]

It isn't unusual for companies to continue production of a popular model after a newer version comes out. The older model is usually offered as a lower cost option. The Sony A6000, A6300 and A6500 are three consecutive generations of their top APS-C model and are all still for sale at different price points.

 

The FZ200 was a great camera when it came out and still is. A camera becomes obsolete when it can't do what you need it to do.

 

Dave

Edited November 11, 2016 by pierces

[ge0rgette2]

Oh I see.

 

I means it's NEW in a box. You had me scared.

For $60 more I can get the Wony but the zoom isn't the same. It's higher megapixels.

[pierces]

Oh I see.

 

I means it's NEW in a box. You had me scared.

For $60 more I can get the Wony but the zoom isn't the same. It's higher megapixels.

 

When I was 14 and using my Dad's old Leica C3, I had access to 35mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses. All I wanted at that age was MORE ZOOM, even though 95% of my photos were with the 50mm and 35mm. A couple of years later I bought my first SLR and a few lenses, including a long zoom. I still took 95% of my photos at 35mm and 50mm. The FZ200 is a great all-around camera for a beginner because it gives them a taste of a wide range of focal lengths. She may choose something like the RX100 next if she sticks with photography or choose an interchangeable lens camera. Time will tell.

 

I have always said that the best camera for every situation is two (or three!) cameras.

 

 

Dave

[havoc315]

Oh I see.

 

I means it's NEW in a box. You had me scared.

For $60 more I can get the Wony but the zoom isn't the same. It's higher megapixels.

 

Megapixels are nearly meaningless. Zoom is a snake-oil sale. Don't get me wrong, there are benefits to a big zoom, there are times when a big zoom is necessary. But a big zoom is really to cheap to add to a poor sensor (a small sensor camera). So it's a way to sell those poor image quality cameras. If you have a bigger and better sensor, due to the laws of physics, you can't have as much zoom (without making the camera incredibly large and heavy).

As camera-makers wanted to find ways to move large volume of cheap-to-make cameras, they heavily promoted zoom. You never saw them promoting the sensor size, though it is a thousand times more important.

 

Thus, as a result, cheaper cameras will often have more zoom than a similar-sized more expensive camera.

 

In the end, your image quality depends on the sensor and the lens.

 

Don't get me wrong, the FZ200 is a good compromise choice. The Sony RX100 has far superior image quality because it has a great lens and a great sensor, about 4 times the size of the FZ200 sensor.

But the FZ200 does have a pretty darn good lens. So while it has the same small sensor of really cheap P&S cameras, it is at least paired with a very good lens.

So you're getting more zoom than a camera like the RX100... while thanks to the lens, also getting better image quality potential than most run-of-the-mill P&S. As I said, it was one of the best options available when it was launched --- At that time, the were really no big sensor P&S cameras except for the Sony RX100 which hit the market at the same time.

[havoc315]

It isn't unusual for companies to continue production of a popular model after a newer version comes out. The older model is usually offered as a lower cost option. The Sony A6000, A6300 and A6500 are three consecutive generations of their top APS-C model and are all still for sale at different price points.

 

 

Dave

 

Yes and no. It used to be pretty unusual in most cases. A new model meant a big clearance sale on the old model and they would disappear. But then something funny happened in the camera market --- The market suddenly and massively shrunk. As a result, production way way overshot demand. Meaning when Nikon, for example, would say it's time to update the D3200.... they would still have a ton of D3200 in inventory. So as a necessity, they had to keep selling the old, alongside the new.

 

At the same time, it has also become a strategy, especially for Sony. Instead of introducing lower-end models, they simply allow the older models to become the lower-end entry level models.

The A6000 was considered a somewhat upper tier model when it was released... the lower level camera was the A5100. Since then, Sony hasn't released any any A5___ models -- But the A6000 now essentially occupies that price point and consumer demand. (they still might eventually release an A5____ update).

At this point, the Sony A6000 is their entry-mid level consumer camera (Canon Rebel, Nikon D5500 level), the A6300 is their enthusiast (Canon 80D, Nikon D7200), and the A6500 is their pro, semi-pro. (Canon 7dii, Nikon D500)

[ge0rgette2]

Wahhh.

 

I am hoping I did the right thing.

I want her to have a great quality camera.

Salesman said zoom is better for her. I'm not so sure.

 

I still have the opportunity to take it back and switch it out.

It's also smaller.

 

I just want her to get a feel of a decent camera instead of her phone.

[ge0rgette2]

Megapixels are nearly meaningless. Zoom is a snake-oil sale. Don't get me wrong, there are benefits to a big zoom, there are times when a big zoom is necessary. But a big zoom is really to cheap to add to a poor sensor (a small sensor camera). So it's a way to sell those poor image quality cameras. If you have a bigger and better sensor, due to the laws of physics, you can't have as much zoom (without making the camera incredibly large and heavy).

As camera-makers wanted to find ways to move large volume of cheap-to-make cameras, they heavily promoted zoom. You never saw them promoting the sensor size, though it is a thousand times more important.

 

Thus, as a result, cheaper cameras will often have more zoom than a similar-sized more expensive camera.

 

In the end, your image quality depends on the sensor and the lens.

 

Don't get me wrong, the FZ200 is a good compromise choice. The Sony RX100 has far superior image quality because it has a great lens and a great sensor, about 4 times the size of the FZ200 sensor.

But the FZ200 does have a pretty darn good lens. So while it has the same small sensor of really cheap P&S cameras, it is at least paired with a very good lens.

So you're getting more zoom than a camera like the RX100... while thanks to the lens, also getting better image quality potential than most run-of-the-mill P&S. As I said, it was one of the best options available when it was launched --- At that time, the were really no big sensor P&S cameras except for the Sony RX100 which hit the market at the same time.

 

I want good quality. I don't think she particularly care about the zoom right now

[pierces]

I want good quality. I don't think she particularly care about the zoom right now

 

This is why I have more than one camera! :)

 

If she is the type of shooter that likes people shots, still life, scenery or (God help humanity) selfies, the RX100 is very hard to beat for the money and remains pocketable (purseable). If she likes shooting wildlife (including zoos) or is a big fan of her school's sports teams, the long reach of the FZ200 will be appreciated.

 

Neither will do all that the other will, but y'all got to start somewhere! ;)

 

Dave

[havoc315]

I want good quality. I don't think she particularly care about the zoom right now

 

Then tough to beat the RX100.

Mind you -- Go take a picture on a bright sunny day of a static-scene, you will never notice the differences between the FZ200, and the RX100. But you also will never notice the differences between her phone and a $5,000 camera.

In wide angle situations, the FZ200 will have the same image quality as her phone, but lack some of the features of the phone (no touch screen, it is larger, etc). In telephoto situations.... well, the phone doesn't do telephoto, and the FZ200 does do telephoto.

 

It is in challenging situations, when you look closely, that you see huge differences in image quality.

 

Thanks to imaging-resource.com --- Here is a direct comparison between the FZ200 and the RX100, when you look very closely in a low light situation:

 

comparerx100 by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

As you can see, the difference is pretty significant.

 

On the other hand, in good light, if you aren't looking that closely, you won't see any difference between the RX100, the FZ200 and the iphone.

[ge0rgette2]

Hahahahaha at Selfies. I agree!

That's what her phone is for.

 

As for what she seems to like is scenes, up close flowers, wildlife, clouds and rainbows (not kidding, not being funny).

 

I think I'm going to take it back and invest a little more in the Sony.

That was my first instinct and the salesman sorta directed me into this one.

 

As for our Alaska trip she can use my camera with more lens.

 

I have a Canon SX 50 HS. Also another Canon and I can't remember lol

[ge0rgette2]

Then tough to beat the RX100.

Mind you -- Go take a picture on a bright sunny day of a static-scene, you will never notice the differences between the FZ200, and the RX100. But you also will never notice the differences between her phone and a $5,000 camera.

In wide angle situations, the FZ200 will have the same image quality as her phone, but lack some of the features of the phone (no touch screen, it is larger, etc). In telephoto situations.... well, the phone doesn't do telephoto, and the FZ200 does do telephoto.

 

It is in challenging situations, when you look closely, that you see huge differences in image quality.

 

Thanks to imaging-resource.com --- Here is a direct comparison between the FZ200 and the RX100, when you look very closely in a low light situation:

 

comparerx100 by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

As you can see, the difference is pretty significant.

 

On the other hand, in good light, if you aren't looking that closely, you won't see any difference between the RX100, the FZ200 and the iphone.

 

Which side is which!? Rx on right ?

[pierces]

Which side is which!? Rx on right ?

 

Correct.

 

Note that this is in light representing shooting inside without a flash. Outside in bright light, the difference is much less.

 

Dave

[ge0rgette2]

Thank you

[havoc315]

Correct.

 

Note that this is in light representing shooting inside without a flash. Outside in bright light, the difference is much less.

 

Dave

 

Exactly... much less difference in bright light. And this is basically an enlargement of the differences -- Much less noticeable difference when you're looking at a 4x6 or the image on your phone.

 

But that's also why for many people, the iphone is the only camera you need. If you are taking your photos in good light, and only looking at 4X6's and facebook images, then there will be no noticeable differences between an iphone and a $5,000 camera.