Advice - upgrading from point & shoot

[LeslieG]

I have always just had a point and shoot camera, which has generally been fine for outdoor shots, but of course the problem is indoors. I take a lot of Disney cruises, and I don't have any decent photos from inside the ship, because they are always too dark. I'm thinking once and for all, I'm not going to go on my next cruise with the same old camera.

Can you recommend a camera that would be one step up, something that would work well on an automatic setting until I have time one day to really study its workings? I'm leaving for my next cruise in a week, so I know I won't have much time. I really dislike the idea of lugging a camera bag, but I imagine that is my only option if I want better photos?

 

[mousehockey37]

Canon has great stuff and is pretty user friendly. Nikon is a little bit more intricate, but that's just a preference to me. I have a Canon T3, they don't even sell those anymore I don't think, but I would find one of the older models as an "entry level" DSLR. Adorama.com, Cameta.com, bhphotovideo.com all have about the same thing. I got my T3 in a bundle from Cameta for under $500. It came with a case, kit 18-55 lens, cleaning kit, tripod and so on. I have had no problems with it and it's not that much of a bother to carry around. Right now, Cameta has the Canon T5 in a bundle, like I described for $429.95. That's not bad at all for everything that comes with it.

http://www.cameta.com/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T5-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-EF-S-18-55mm-IS-II-Lens-87944.cfm

ETA: If you're looking for something that's smaller in size, Canon also has the SL1. It would be ideal for your being on the cruise ship. It's a little pricier, but it could be a trade off that's well worth it.

http://www.cameta.com/Canon-EOS-Reb...mera-EF-S-18-55mm-IS-STM-Lens-Black-75040.cfm

Most of these places can get stuff out pretty quick and if you obviously pay a little extra, that helps to get it to you faster as well, since you're leaving in a week.

 

[LeslieG]

I'm looking at the Canon and also the Nikon D3300. Do I need to buy a separate flash? And is it a good idea to get the bundle that comes with the extra lens? I'm not sure I would know what to do with it.

 

[mousehockey37]

I'm looking at the Canon and also the Nikon D3300. Do I need to buy a separate flash? And is it a good idea to get the bundle that comes with the extra lens? I'm not sure I would know what to do with it.

The light gathered by the camera is more than sufficient indoors. Also, I think both Nikon and Canon have ones that pop up, so an external flash probably wouldn't be necessary. You can always get the extra kit, and if you don't want to take the extra lens, then don't. Leave it home. If you want to and have some time, you could always play with it and see what it does for you outside. The kit 18-55 lens will be mostly what you're probably going to use anyway. If you're on Cameta looking, they do have different bundles. I just linked you to the one I did so you could see it.

 

[LeslieG]

What would I use the second lens for? Sorry, I know that's a very novice question.

 

[mousehockey37]

What would I use the second lens for? Sorry, I know that's a very novice question.

Depending on what they offer, it's more than likely a zoom lens. So if you're up on deck and see some dolphins or islands off in the distance and want that "up close" shot even though you're a good distance away, you'll still have it.

 

[LeslieG]

So if I just got the camera without the extra lens, you think the one that comes on the camera does not have a very good zoom?

 

[mousehockey37]

The 18-55 does very well. When at WDW, it's what's on my camera the entire time. When I'm doing figure skating photography, I have my zoom lens on as I need to be able to get up close and personal with the skaters from a distance.

 

[mousehockey37]

Here's a loose example of what I mean:

This is with my 55-250mm zoom lens. I wouldn't be able to capture those details from the street with just the 18-55.

Whereas this picture:

was taken with the 18-55mm kit lens.

I can tell you both pictures were taken in the same spot. This is where I sat for the MNSSHP parade and I wasn't getting up, lol. I just changed the lenses around.

 

[dmaxphil]

I'm looking at the Canon and also the Nikon D3300. Do I need to buy a separate flash? And is it a good idea to get the bundle that comes with the extra lens? I'm not sure I would know what to do with it.

Do you really want a DSLR body or interchangeable lens capability? If so, I recommend a fast prime lens for the dark, indoors situations to go along with the Nikon. The 35mm 1.8 is legendary and a fantastic bang for the buck. If not, look at something like the RX100 from Sony, or if adventurous, the X100S or X100T from Fuji. Both with give you good low light capability in a much smaller package.

 

[havoc315]

If you don't want to lug a camera bag:
The Sony rx100 and Canon gx7 are both "point and shoot" with larger sensor and faster lens. In other words, they are pocketable but present image quality better than many entry level dslrs. They can perform just as well as a dslr with kit lens in low light. If you simply want better pictures with complexity and without learning photography, they are your best options.

If you want the best potential image quality, you're willing to invest in lenses, willing to learn a bit more, deal with the complexity of changing lenses, but you want to keep the size down, then mirrorless is your best option. For example, the Sony a6000 uses a sensor very similar to the one found in Nikon dslrs. You get the exact same image quality produced by bulky dslrs, but in a more compact package. Not quite as pocketable as the rx100 and canon gx7, and you need to upgrade lenses to reach the top potential.

Other great mirrorless cameras are made by Panasonic and Olympus. They use a slightly smaller sensor, which keeps the lenses a bit smaller. There is also the Nikon 1 system -- lesser potential but a super fast autofocus system and very small. Canon is the only brand without a credible mirrorless option in the USA.

Bulky dslrs are for people who want substantive bulk in your hand. Some people are just more comfortable with a larger camera, where the buttons aren't cramped together. Also, if you intend to spend $3,000 to $10,000 building a professional lens collection, traditional dslrs give you more options.

But for regular consumers, if you don't want bulk, you no longer need to buy bulk. There are smaller options just as good as the big dslrs. (And I shoot a large dslr... But I have a semi professional lens collection).

 

[LeslieG]

Wow, now I'm really confused. I don't think I would be one to want a lens collection. I really just want a good zoom and also low light capability. I think if I got the Nikon D5300 or D3300, I would just get one zoom lens. But these other small cameras you're speaking of, they are just as good with the zoom and low light?

 

[dmaxphil]

There is really no point in owning a dslr if you are not planning on buying multiple lenses, in my opinion, unless you like the size. I would say the RX100 would give you comparable image quality (probably better) to the D3300/D5500 with the kit lens. The RX100 will perform better in low light. Lens on the RX100 has a max of f/1.8. Nikon 18-55 kit max is f/3.5. This means that in similar low-light situations, the D3300 +Kit will have to boost ISO more than the RX100iii to produce correct exposures. Image quality suffers from higher ISO.

 

[havoc315]

Wow, now I'm really confused. I don't think I would be one to want a lens collection. I really just want a good zoom and also low light capability. I think if I got the Nikon D5300 or D3300, I would just get one zoom lens. But these other small cameras you're speaking of, they are just as good with the zoom and low light?

Low light, yes.
The mirrorless cameras, just like a dslr -- you can add a zoom lens.
The gx7 and rx100 have a more limited zoom range. Enough for 90% is uses -- people shots, interior shots, landscapes. But not the telephoto zoom range you would use for birds or sports. If you do need to shoot those things, the Sony rx10 and Panasonic FZ1000 have the added telephoto zoom range. But in exchange, those cameras are not pocketable. Fairly small, but not pocketable.

There is no such thing as a pocketable low light/long telephoto camera. Because low light requires a larger sensor. And lens size is proportional to sensor size. So there are poor low light cameras that have big telephoto lenses. But a good low light sensor isn't compatible with a small-big zoom lens.

The rx100 and gx7 -- pocketable, good in low light, no additional lenses, limited zoom range.
The rx10 and fz1000 -- a bit bigger. No additional lenses needed. Good telephoto zoom range. Good in low light.
Nikon 1 series -- pretty small, like fanny pack size. Ok in low light, a bit better than a point and shoot. There are multiple lenses, but you can get by with 2-3 lenses. You can get a good telephoto lens while keeping the package small. Autofocus speed is amazing.
Olympus/Panasonic 4:3 models. They come in many different sizes. Excellent low light potential when paired with the right lens. Telephoto zoom lenses available. Noticeably smaller than a traditional dslr.
Sony a6000/a5100/Fuji/Samsung mirrorless -- exact same image quality potential and low light potential as a dslr, in a bit of a smaller package. Requires pairing with the right lens. With the right lens, amazing low light abilities. With the kit lens, the rx100, etc, would be just as good or better.

 

[elmoandzoey]

A DSLR with a low light zoom lens for all situations would be my dream! I think it would be every photographers dream . Reality is, there is no such thing. You can get a say 18-250 lens which gives you zoom but won't bet very good indoors. Or you can get a good low light lens for indoors (I just took the mentioned Sigma 30mm to Disney and loved it) and an additional zoom lens like the 50-200 - but that means swapping lenses. While the kit lens is a good started lens, I think you might be disappointed with how it performs indoors if you have no knowledge of how to use a DSLR outside of auto mode.

As others have suggested, I would not go for a DSLR - especially if you are not familiar with them and have no time to practice. For good results, you need to understand the camera and how it works. It's not simply point and shoot if you want good results for indoor shots.

I would also suggest the RX100. Much easier to learn than a DSLR in such short time. It would probably also be cheaper than a DSLR plus low light lens and zoom lens. The zoom range isn't that bad. In fact, it might be as well be the same range than your current point and shoot (you didn't mention what camera you currently own). With additional lenses you can get more reach on a DSLR but you said indoors was your preference, so for that I would suggest the RX100 just like others have before me.

 

[PrincessInOz]

I have always just had a point and shoot camera, which has generally been fine for outdoor shots, but of course the problem is indoors. I take a lot of Disney cruises, and I don't have any decent photos from inside the ship, because they are always too dark. I'm thinking once and for all, I'm not going to go on my next cruise with the same old camera.

Can you recommend a camera that would be one step up, something that would work well on an automatic setting until I have time one day to really study its workings? I'm leaving for my next cruise in a week, so I know I won't have much time. I really dislike the idea of lugging a camera bag, but I imagine that is my only option if I want better photos?

@LeslieG - There are a lot of options already suggested here. What type of camera you get will come down to what type of pictures you want to take and what you want to use the camera for:

• What is your current camera? Have you spent time on learning about the features of your current camera (do you plan to if you got a new camera) or are you just after something that you can point...and shoot?
• Aside from taking pictures of inside the cruise ship and of your vacation, what else do you use your current camera for?
• What is your budget?

I picked this link because it's the first one I found that details out the aperture and zoom capabilities of the cameras in a table form. If you're after something that shoots better in low light, indoors, I'd recommend that you pick something that has a 'fast' lens. An aperture setting of at least f/2.8 would be your minimum. In your shoes, I'd be looking for something with an aperture setting of f/2.0 or f/1.8 (or better).

http://www.switchbacktravel.com/best-point-and-shoot-cameras-2015

It may be worth checking out your existing camera against some of the options and working out what features you already have. That way, you can figure out which ones are important for you by way on an 'upgrade'.


Good luck with your decision.

 

[xlxo]

Some thoughts...

• I like the D3300
• DSLR offer great images with their large sensors. Their large sensors means large pricey lenses if you crave large zoom ranges.
• If you like large zoom ranges, Nikon offers an 18-300mm lens. Canon does not.
• larger sensors means you can increase the ISO (light sensitivity) and have less image noise compared small sensor compact cameras
• DSLRs allow you to take better low light images with f/2.8 to f/1.4 lenses. 50mm f/1.8 lenses are very affordable.
• external flashes can be entry level right up to the high powered flagship models. The premium models allow you to explore bounce lighting and increased power/range. Want more power? Barebulb is another option.
• larger sensor cameras also means increased bulk when travelling.

 

[havoc315]

Some thoughts...

• I like the D3300
• DSLR offer great images with their large sensors. Their large sensors means large pricey lenses if you crave large zoom ranges.
• If you like large zoom ranges, Nikon offers an 18-300mm lens. Canon does not.
• larger sensors means you can increase the ISO (light sensitivity) and have less image noise compared small sensor compact cameras
• DSLRs allow you to take better low light images with f/2.8 to f/1.4 lenses. 50mm f/1.8 lenses are very affordable.
• external flashes can be entry level right up to the high powered flagship models. The premium models allow you to explore bounce lighting and increased power/range. Want more power? Barebulb is another option.
• larger sensor cameras also means increased bulk when travelling.

Thing is... Everything on that list is also true of mirrorless cameras like the Sony a6000. Same large sensor, same 1.8 lenses. More advanced autofocus system than any budget dslr. All in a much smaller size.

And another note... Yes, you can get 18-300, 16-300, 18-270, etc, for Canon. Tamron and Sigma both make such lenses for Canon. Mirrorless cameras do have slightly different lens offerings (the standard Sony kit would be 16-50 paired with 55-210. Though there is a 24-240).

The differences between Canon and Nikon are trivial for most users, especially in the entry level cameras.

The differences between dslr and mirrorless are a bit more significant, but there is no difference in image quality. For an entry-level type shooter, there are virtually no objective advantages of a dslr over a mirrorless, but there may be some subjective preferences: some people prefer the feel of a larger camera body, some prefer smaller. Some prefer an ovf, even a small dark ovf, while some prefer the benefits of a large bright evf. The newest mirrorless shoot much faster, with faster frame rates, and faster more accurate AF than dslrs, but pro-level dslrs perform better in low light (less significant differences with entry level dslrs.).

 

[LeslieG]

Here's a loose example of what I mean:

This is with my 55-250mm zoom lens. I wouldn't be able to capture those details from the street with just the 18-55.

Whereas this picture:

was taken with the 18-55mm kit lens.

I can tell you both pictures were taken in the same spot. This is where I sat for the MNSSHP parade and I wasn't getting up, lol. I just changed the lenses around.

Did you use a special lens to take pictures at the parade at night?

 

[mousehockey37]

Did you use a special lens to take pictures at the parade at night?

Nope. Kit lens 18-55mm.