Printable View
Looking at getting a new, or lightly used, digital camera. Preferably a easy to use, pocket size, for vacation photos. Something that can work in low light, like home or around a campfire, and can catch some sequences of photos. Trying to keep the budget under $400.
Recommendations?
Why don't you use your phone like everyone else?
Seriously, my last several cell phones have had better cameras that quite a few of the digital cameras out there.
I can't remember if I was using my iPhone or my Galaxy S5 but I took some pictures around a campfire one night and they turned out very nice.
With the quality of cameras in smart phones, I'll never go back to a point and shoot.
To the op you should buy this and it turns your phone into a nice camera or something like it.
http://www.olloclip.com/product/iphone6-4-in-1/
[fail]Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklabel
Even a point-and-shoot often has better glass than the smartphone and most smartphones have pretty poor performance in low light situations like the campfire OP mentioned. I use my smartphone when I didn't think to bring one of my real cameras with me or when I want to use a feature on the smartphone that I don't have on one of my cameras like quickly uploading to WordPress or sending as part of a MMS. In addition, I don't like depending on a single battery hog for everything.
Don't confuse high resolution with high picture quality.
I would recommend looking through the reviews at http://www.dpreview.com/ and seeing what fits with your style and needs. I picked up the Panasonic DMC-ZS30 for under $300 last year after seeing someone else with it. I liked the 20x optical zoom (try THAT on a smartphone), convenient size, GPS tagging, wifi remote control from my smartphone, long battery life, recharging via micro-USB. It was fabulous on my India trip as well as various camping trips and family gatherings. I DON'T like not having RAW as a format option or not being able to charge the batteries outside of the camera.
Sony's new DSC-WX500 (http://www.dpreview.com/products/son...specifications) looks pretty good. 18 MP, 30x optical zoom, full HD video, wireless connection. From the name, I would have thought it would be weather-resistant but I don't see anything about that in their press release.
The Nikon Coolpix S9900 (http://www.dpreview.com/products/nik.../nikon_cps9900) also looks very good for about $300.
Of course, there's Canon with their new PowerShot SX410 IS (http://www.dpreview.com/products/can.../canon_sx410is) and its amazing 40x zoom for $250 but it's too bulky to throw in your pocket. Their PowerShot SX710 HS (http://www.dpreview.com/products/can.../canon_sx710hs) on the other hand is less than 4.5 inches long and a little over 1.5 inches thick for $330 -- "only" 30x optical zoom but the big drawback I see is the ISO limitation of 3200 (the Nikon goes to 6400 and the Sony goes to 12800).
Of the models I mentioned, I'd probably go with the Nikon for bang-for-the-buck but your priorities may be different -- peruse the reviews and see what strikes your fancy. Especially pay attention to their detailed analysis of the image quality from each camera so you know what you're getting.
What aloha said. You wanna take a picture: use your cell. A nice picture that you will watch over and over again, and that people will give you kudos for? Get a real camera.
To the op: recently saw a sony rx 100 II on sale at best buy for 450$. Best point and shoot by far. If you can stretch your budget, get the more recent one rx100 III
Point and shoots are kind of useless in my opinion. They don't do much that a smart phone doesn't and they aren't good enough to use for serious photos. I like mirrorless cameras, some have a full DSLR sensor and they can easily fit in your pocket with a 22mm pancake lense. I have a Canon Eos M1 and I love it. I pop on the pancake for casual environments where my iPhone won't do but I also have the adapter to use any EF-S lense I want for more serious photos.
I would agree with you if you said they don't get software updates and improvements like a smartphone but even the most basic point-and-shoot has better glass and better optical zoom than a smartphone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honey Badger282.8
I took this with a 12 MP DSLR using a 400mm zoom with a 2x Extender (effectively an 800 mm lens):
http://gadget-travels.net/travelog/w...61-400x266.jpg
Today's point-and-shoots will give you the equivalent of a 720 or 960 mm lens. I'd still rather use the DSLR with a high quality zoom for this shot but there are perfectly good point-and-shoots that will get you pretty close to this and the only way you're doing this with a smartphone is putting it up against a pair of binoculars or a telescope (doable but awkward for a handheld situation).
For an outdoor, hiking, camping, etc camera... Something like this is nice: http://www.dpreview.com/products/ric...s/ricoh_wg5gps
I have an older model, but pretty much the same features. You can set it to record GPS coordinates on your images, then you know where they were. Also, can log GPS at set intervals. Sort of neat to see the trail you took on an outing.
Plus, it's waterproof (10ft I think), shockproof, etc...
I agree a point and shoot is better than a smartphone camera, my thing is they aren't good enough to justify the purchase of one if I already have a smartphone. Plus if you're that worried about optical zooms you can get the case for a smartphone that allows the use of lenses, those run about $70 bucks and narrow the gap between point and shoots and phones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Once upon a time, I got tired of taking really crappy pictures for my website, and bought a Canon DSLR. An entry level Rebel, circa 2006, to be exact. For the next five years, I went hog wild and spent thousands of dollars on L glass, plates, ball-heads, flashes, strobes, very fancy tripods, books, software, and eventually a new camera body (5D Mk II).
I took many awesome photos that looked very nice, but still life work (guns) aside, I began to notice myself becoming a bystander to my own family vacations and events. I was lugging around a ton of equipment, light metering everything, and spending scads of time setting up good shots instead of being part of them. So I decided to get something a little more user friendly and compact. I bought a Canon S90, which was a very expensive point and shoot at around $400. I used the hell out of it, and when I finally broke it irrepairably, I bought the S110.
These cameras are in a different league than a point and shoot or a cell phone camera. They take images in RAW, which opens up the entire gamut of post processing options. They have full manual control on the camera body, making it very quick and efficient to set the shots as I want them, rather than rely on the camera to make my choices. It fits in my shirt pocket and allows me to be part of the action. Not a lot of accessories, not a lot of things to set up. Several years in, and I haven't used my DSLR gear more than once or twice a year.
There are several makers who offer manual-on-the-body Point & Shoots. I just don't recall any other than the Canon S 95-120 series. But they are way more than a cell phone and do for me 90%+ of what my high end rig did, while allowing me to be making memories instead of just recording them.
There are a number of "point & shoot" cameras that vastly exceed the output quality of even the best current phone. That said, it's often a case of results owing more to the indian than the arrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honey Badger282.8
Bought a Coolpix 9700 last year. Excellent zoom capability. Poor flash placement. Specs are similar to the 9900 mentioned in previous post.
One thing I can't stand about point and shoot cameras is that there is no eyepiece to look through to get your sight picture. You have to use the screen on the back. I hate that and it is the reason I do not own one. So, anybody know of a compact point and shoot that you can look through with your eye, instead of looking at a screen. ? I have not looked for a while.
Do a filter search on Digital Photography Reviews. I believe they have a setting to specify cameras with viewfinders. Companies have gotten away from viewfinders in most of the cheap compact consumer models because people have gotten used to using the preview screens instead -- and frankly, the preview screens are a better way to take them because you get a better feel for what the picture will actually look like.Quote:
Originally Posted by colorider
Chevy!
Ford!
Budweiser!
Coors!
Nikon!
Canon!
Cell phone!
Real camera!
Pissing match any way ya look at it.
Myself personally, I prefer Nikon DSLR's. IMO, cell phones are for snapshots at best. I do have a small Nikon Coolpix pocket camera that I used for years, and was generally very happy with it. So I'd have to recommend looking at the Nikon offerings. But really, in this day and age, I'd wager that most any of them out there are good quality, and I'd certainly use most any pocket camera over a cell phone.
Sorry, I'd argue about that. IMO they really suck in bright sunlight and very low light. Plus, you're not looking at/watching the subject and action, you're looking at/watching a stupid little screen. Not to mention your reaction time. Try shooting fast-moving action like sports/cars/bikes etc. with a DSLR vs. a preview screen, worlds of difference.Quote:
the preview screens are a better way to take them because you get a better feel for what the picture will actually look like.
Pretty hard to get shots like this with a cell phone or a camera with a view screen.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...e/DSC_0094.jpg
rondog, I'm not trying to be elitist in this. The OP specifically asked for a pocket-size point-and-shoot and has specific applications in mind like taking shots at a campfire. I agree, my preferred medium is with my DSLR but there are times when the DSLR is impractical or unnecessary but I can do a better job with composition using a 3-inch (or even 2-inch) display that shows me exactly what the focal plane sensor is seeing than with a tiny viewfinder that has an offset angle. I even use a smartphone at times.
What I was arguing with was the presumption that point-and-shoots are useless because smartphones are "so good" these days. I have some gorgeous pictures using my smartphone:
Attachment 59060
but that shot started with a LOT of light and was trying to get a full field. Putting a lens in front of your smartphone, even binoculars or a telescope, is good in a pinch but not really as good as these modern point-and-shoots. When I wanted to get detail of one of these balloons in front of Pikes Peak, I used my DSLR with a 400mm lens. My point is, each type of camera has its purpose and universal statements that dismiss point-and-shoots as not "good enough to justify the purchase of one if I already have a smartphone" are just wrong -- it depends on what the intended use is. Most smartphones will absolutely suck at campfire pictures (one use cited by the OP).
View screens simply are not an option for me. I hate using them and won't. An optical view finder is manditory. I will do some searching. i can't see the screens in daylight and can't follow a moving subject with them. I find them useful for a housewife taking pics for use on eBay, but not for my use. I currently use a canon dslr and like it. Just need something smaller I can take on motorcycle rides.
I see this as a reply to me, in that case I stand by my point. I already have an iPhone which does great for the vast majority of casual pictures I take. I have a mirrorless camera with the same CMOS sensor as an entry level DSLR that is just as small as some of the point-and-shoots. I also have a older Canon SLR that still takes really great photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
What I don't like about point-and-shoots is that there is no expanding them, you're stuck with the lens that comes with it. I got a lot more capability with my mirrorless camera for less money than my ex spent on her point-and-shoot. The point-and-shoot has been relegated to a niche market, that's not to say it doesn't have it's uses but there are better options at the price point.
Aloha is right, dpreview has filters to ID viewfinder cameras. I would use the filters to build a short list and read the comparos.
The Sony cybershot and Panasonic compacts seem to get top marks in their class/price range.