Advice - upgrading from point & shoot

[elmoandzoey]

• 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.

While the 50 f1.8 is a great lens, it is a bit useless to do interior shots of the ship. Yes, the cruise ship is on the larger side, but 50mm is just too tight to get anything useable if you ask me. If you use it to shoot people or up close, then this is the best lens to get by all means. But if you want to shoot the interior of the ship, you will need something wider. I had a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for interior architectural shots of our cruise ship through the Caribbean and I found that to be perfect. 50mm is just too tight.


Leslie, daytime parades won't be a problem with a kit lens. Using it for Nighttime parades like the Electrical Parade works in situations when the floats are brightly light. In most instances though the result won't be very good. I used to shoot the nightparade with both kit and 2.8 lens - you definitely will want a fast lens if you want to capture the people in the floats as well. What you do NOT want to do is flash at the floats. Big big no go. The effects will be totally lost.

As for DL's new Paint the Night parade - that one you can most definitely shoot with a kit lens. Everything is so brightly lit you don't really require a fast lens.

 

[dmaxphil]

Another note.. Sure, the slower kit lenses will be able to get you some decent pictures in low light of buildings and other objects that are not moving. Once you attempt to stop motion (prevent blur) all bets are off.

 

[Claireywalsh]

I recently asked a similar question on our cruise meet thread as I wanted to upgrade my point and shoot for Alaskan scenery. I went with the Nikon 3300. I haven't picked it up yet but it sempt like it was enough of a step up not to blow my mind but also offered the scope to progress once I have had time to use it properly.
One of my fellow cruisers did make a good point, it's more about the photographer than the camera. She suggested I read a book understanding exposure which was seconded by another cruiser, so I could understand how to get the best from my camera. And that is exactly what I intend to do. You might not have a lot of time but I would consider what else you may use the camera for in the future and ensure it will help you achieve all that you want, then just practice! We should have a photo off to compare out learnings!

 

[LeslieG]

I really appreciate everyone's advice. It's been very helpful. While I'm still considering the RX100, I have to say I'm leaning towards the Nikon D5300 or D3300. I like the idea of being able to try different lenses in the future. Would it be a good place to start to get the 18-55 mm along with the 55-250 mm zoom? Debating whether the 5300 is worth the extra money over the 3300. I'm wondering if needing the wireless adapter would be an annoyance. There doesn't appear to be a huge difference in the features, unless I'm missing something. Adorama has the 55-250 mm for $96.95 when you bundle.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

There is no way in the world with less than a week until your cruise, I could recommend in good conscience you purchase a DSLR! IF your ultimate goal is to purchase and learn how to use a DSLR, then I would not purchase the Sony RX-100 series camera. The current cost, depending on which model you decide, is from $448-$798. That's a good chunk of change that you could put towards a DSLR system. You do not have the time to learn how to use a DSLR before your cruise. An example of the point I'm trying to make, I have seen recommendations, in this thread, for lenses that will not give you the results you are looking for. Until you learn a little more about photography, I would definitely hold off on any purchases. Of course, I am basing this recommendation on the fact that most of us do not have an unlimited budget. If that's not the case, then have it and buy whatever. If your intent is not to purchase a DSLR, then IMHO the RX-100 would be the camera I would choose on such short notice. As far as the model, I would ask Havoc's opinion because he has extensive knowledge of the Sony systems. Good luck!

 

[havoc315]

I really appreciate everyone's advice. It's been very helpful. While I'm still considering the RX100, I have to say I'm leaning towards the Nikon D5300 or D3300. I like the idea of being able to try different lenses in the future. Would it be a good place to start to get the 18-55 mm along with the 55-250 mm zoom? Debating whether the 5300 is worth the extra money over the 3300. I'm wondering if needing the wireless adapter would be an annoyance. There doesn't appear to be a huge difference in the features, unless I'm missing something. Adorama has the 55-250 mm for $96.95 when you bundle.

I currently shoot Nikon. You wouldn't be going wrong. Just remember, you can get the exact same low light performance, basically the same sensor, and same image quality, with interchangeable lenses, with much faster focus, and MUCH SMALLER in the Sony A6000.

The advantages of both the d3300 and D5300 over the A6000 -- They are bigger, if you feel your hands need room to spread out. The 2 Nikons will have longer battery life (About 600 shots compared to about 400 shots). In terms of the lenses you are considering, the cameras are comparable. But Nikon will have some lens choices that are lacking from the Sony lineup. For example, for $8,000, you can get a Nikon 500/4, you can't get that type of lens for the Sony. For $1500, you can get a 17-55/2.8 for the Nikon, while the closest thing you can get for the sony is 16-70/4 for $999.

For people who want a larger camera, there is no reason not to get a dSLR. For people who want a smaller camera, there is no longer any reason to get a traditional dSLR. I strongly recommend you look at this thread:

http://www.disboards.com/threads/ju...less-for-wdw-vacations.3355908/#post-52746259

And here is the Sony A6000 with kit lens compared to the Nikon D5300 with kit lens:

http://j.mp/1rrbRnI

Now comparing the D3300 to the D5300 -- To me, in the way I shoot, the biggest differences are that the D5300 has a tilty screen (useful on occasion), it has exposure auto bracketing (pretty important if you want to do HDR shots), and it has a more advanced AF system (making it easier to get the shot).

 

[havoc315]

There is no way in the world with less than a week until your cruise, I could recommend in good conscience you purchase a DSLR! IF your ultimate goal is to purchase and learn how to use a DSLR, then I would not purchase the Sony RX-100 series camera. The current cost, depending on which model you decide, is from $448-$798. That's a good chunk of change that you could put towards a DSLR system. You do not have the time to learn how to use a DSLR before your cruise. An example of the point I'm trying to make, I have seen recommendations, in this thread, for lenses that will not give you the results you are looking for. Until you learn a little more about photography, I would definitely hold off on any purchases. Of course, I am basing this recommendation on the fact that most of us do not have an unlimited budget. If that's not the case, then have it and buy whatever. If your intent is not to purchase a DSLR, then IMHO the RX-100 would be the camera I would choose on such short notice. As far as the model, I would ask Havoc's opinion because he has extensive knowledge of the Sony systems. Good luck!

Agree with all the sentiment -- With a week to go, you are unlikely to learn ANY camera well enough to get the results you are hoping for. BUT, there is also no use in waiting. Even in pure auto mode, an enthusiast point & shoot (like the RX100), a good mirrorless, or a good dSLR, will still give better images than a budget P&S. So I'd say go ahead and get the camera and/or system you want, but be prepared to be disappointed in many of the shots until you learn more.

 

[mousehockey37]

Even though I'm outta this discussion as I'm on the Canon side, lol, I'll weigh in that the OP doesn't sound like they have a super budget. They're new to the world of anything over a P&S. Talking about $8,000 this and that to go with a camera, isn't helping at this point. Talking about mirrorless is probably talking Greek to them right now.

Also, I got my Canon about 2 weeks before my trip to WDW in 2012. I have phenomenal pictures from that trip, and they've only gotten better since. As someone else said, it's not always the camera, it's the person using it. So telling someone to be prepared to be disappointed? Seems kinda harsh. Yes, we all have bad pictures, ALL OF US, and there's NO ONE that can deny it. Even Tom Bricker doesn't always have perfect photos and he admits to it.

I really appreciate everyone's advice. It's been very helpful. While I'm still considering the RX100, I have to say I'm leaning towards the Nikon D5300 or D3300. I like the idea of being able to try different lenses in the future. Would it be a good place to start to get the 18-55 mm along with the 55-250 mm zoom? Debating whether the 5300 is worth the extra money over the 3300. I'm wondering if needing the wireless adapter would be an annoyance. There doesn't appear to be a huge difference in the features, unless I'm missing something. Adorama has the 55-250 mm for $96.95 when you bundle.

If you see the difference as nominal and have the budget for the 5300 with the 55-250, then go for it. If I'm looking at it right, the 5300 is a step up from the 3300. So it's got a feature or 2 that isn't on the 3300, again, I'm a Canon guy, so I don't look too much into the Nikon side of things.

 

[havoc315]

Even though I'm outta this discussion as I'm on the Canon side, lol, I'll weigh in that the OP doesn't sound like they have a super budget. They're new to the world of anything over a P&S. Talking about $8,000 this and that to go with a camera, isn't helping at this point. Talking about mirrorless is probably talking Greek to them right now.
.

That's why it's better to be educated before making a big purchase. And the point of the $8,000 lens was -- if this is something you are thinking about in the future, than a mature dSLR system is the better option. If it's not ever going to be a factor for you, than a mirrorless system may be preferable.

I've often seen the misperception that "bigger cameras must be better." There are still many people who subscribe to the myth that dSLRs are the best cameras. And in many ways, that was true as recently as 2-3 years ago. Nowadays, there are many many options that can produce the same final results. I'm a traditional dSLR user... but I'm shooting full frame, I'm shooting with a big investment in lenses. I think 90% of shooters are ultimately better off with a non-dSLR. Depending on what they are shooting and trying to achieve, even a good smart phone may be better than a traditional dSLR for them. I see way too many people who buy a dSLR thinking they "need it to take family pictures".. but then it sits in a closet forever, because they never really figured it out, and/or it's simply to bulky to carry around often. For people who WANT to lug around a big camera bag and fancy gear, a dSLR is fantastic. For people who just want a capture a few nice family shots to share on facebook, scrapbook, and print an occasional 8x10, an informed consumer simply has no use for a dSLR.

 

[LeslieG]

Well, I'm just having such a difficult time deciding. If I decide to stay with a point and shoot, is it the consensus that the Sony Rx100 is the best option? I see the RX100-ii is 599 and RX100-iii is 799. I think 799 is a bit more than I'd want to spend, but for 599, it's an option. I have to say the biggest complaint I have with my little Panasonic DMC-TZ3 is low light photos. If I can solve that problem without going the DSLR route, that would probably be my first choice. But my current camera has a 10X optical zoom. The RX100 says it's just 3.6.

 

[havoc315]

Well, I'm just having such a difficult time deciding. If I decide to stay with a point and shoot, is it the consensus that the Sony Rx100 is the best option? I see the RX100-ii is 599 and RX100-iii is 799. I think 799 is a bit more than I'd want to spend, but for 599, it's an option. I have to say the biggest complaint I have with my little Panasonic DMC-TZ3 is low light photos. If I can solve that problem without going the DSLR route, that would probably be my first choice. But my current camera has a 10X optical zoom. The RX100 says it's just 3.6.

A typical dSLR lens is about 3x.... Larger sensors have less zoom. Take a professional wedding photographer, they typically have a "3x" zoom lens on their camera when they are shooting. (or a 1x in many cases).

I know it's confusing.... But this "x factor" is irrelevant, but it's a question of mm equivalence. A 200-400mm lens is only "2x" but it has a heck of a lot more telephoto reach than a 18-55, which is 3x. So in that example, the 2x lens gives you massively more magnification than the 3x lens.

The kit lens for the Nikon D3300 and D5500 is the equivalent to 27mm - 82mm.
The RX100ii is the equivalent of 28mm - 100mm.
THe RX100iii is the equivalent of 24mm-70mm.

Most knowledgeable photographers prefer the 24-70 over the 28-100 --- The aperture is faster, so it's better in low light. Plus, many like the nice wide angle options you get at 24mm, while being more willing to sacrifice the 70-100mm range.

The Canon gx7 uses the same sensor as the Sony RX100iii, and it has a lens range of 24-100mm.

If you are shooting wildlife and sports, then it can be critical to have a lens longer than 100mm. For most every day use, it's not too important.

Here is a good comparison of the GX7 and Sony RX100iii. They are very similar cameras. The Canon has a slightly longer lens. The Sony has a viewfinder and a longer battery life.

http://www.gizmag.com/canon-g7x-vs-sony-rx100iii/33898/

You absolutely do not NEED to go dSLR just to improve in low light. Mirrorless cameras and enthusiast P&S cameras are just as good in low light as dSLRs. dSLRs are for people who want bulky cameras. (And yes, some of us want a bulky camera with easy to reach buttons, etc).

 

[mousehockey37]

Ultimately @LeslieG, it's your call. We can go on and on about the specs and this and that, but it's you that will make the purchase. As @havoc315 eluded to, an iPhone or any recent cell phone will give you decent results picture wise. There are options to rent cameras for vacations, you'd have to probably find somewhere local that does it this close to your trip. Also, havoc315 brought up other good points too. Is this just a vacation camera or will you have more uses for it? You're talking about P&S cameras that are more than DSLR's and such... so it's not exactly a short term investment.

There is a lot of confusion. I'll admit I was confused with all of this a couple years ago. Now, I love my Canon's and am looking to upgrade from the T3 to something better but keeping my T3 as a backup. I do more than just vacation photos, so there's that as well.

So there's some questions you need to ask yourself (quickly) and compare and contrast and ultimately make a decision.

 

[havoc315]

Low light with the RX100:

museumnightrx-29.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-60.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

DSC02168 by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Tower of Terror lobby by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Pirates of the Caribbean by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[elmoandzoey]

Also, I got my Canon about 2 weeks before my trip to WDW in 2012. I have phenomenal pictures from that trip, and they've only gotten better since. As someone else said, it's not always the camera, it's the person using it. So telling someone to be prepared to be disappointed? Seems kinda harsh. Yes, we all have bad pictures, ALL OF US, and there's NO ONE that can deny it. Even Tom Bricker doesn't always have perfect photos and he admits to it.

I don't think anyone was trying to the OP that pictures will come out crap if she doesn't know the camera. A lot of people do have the misconception though that when upgrading to a DSLR they instantly will have phenomenal pictures. But as you have noted, it's not not just the camera, it's also the photographer. I guess that is what people were trying to say. A better camera doesn't instantly give you better picture. Yes, the quality will be better, but there is more to a great picture than quality and that's not something you get by just upgrading.

 

[LeslieG]

I've done further reading and research, and I'm looking closer at the Sony RX100 and the Sony A6000. The small size just really is attractive vs. the DSLR. And it seems the learning curve would not be so great as with a DSLR. I still have a lot to learn about the lenses. For example, if I were to travel on an Alaskan cruise and want to take wildlife photos, would I be better off with the A6000 so I can add a zoom lens? Am I correct the zoom isn't so great out of the box on either camera?

 

[havoc315]

I've done further reading and research, and I'm looking closer at the Sony RX100 and the Sony A6000. The small size just really is attractive vs. the DSLR. And it seems the learning curve would not be so great as with a DSLR. I still have a lot to learn about the lenses. For example, if I were to travel on an Alaskan cruise and want to take wildlife photos, would I be better off with the A6000 so I can add a zoom lens? Am I correct the zoom isn't so great out of the box on either camera?

Learning curve is similar on any good camera. They all have simple auto modes. And they all let you dive into manual controls.

Seems you are asking about telephoto range. If you want wildlife pics on an Alaska cruise, then you might want a long telephoto reach. That's something you don't get with the rx100, the a6000 kit lens, or any dslr kit lens.
I am doing an Alaska cruise this summer where I will bring a 300mm lens. (Technically it is just 1x zoom, but has the same telephoto reach as you would see in a 10-12x point and shoot).
The a6000, like a dslr, will let you add a telephoto lens as necessary, or rent a truly spectacular lens for a single trip. The a6000 can be found in packages with the 55-210 lens, which is equivalent to 82mm-315mm. So that is indeed a pretty good telephoto range. You'll find slightly longer lenses for traditional dslrs, but they are much much more bulky.

Not my shot, but an example of the A6000 with 55-210 lens in Alaska:
DSC06221-Edit.jpg by Steven Johnson, on Flickr

 

[SuperDave531]

Aidunno if this will help any, but I pack both my DSLR and my mirrorless camera whenever I go places of interest. My mirrorless one stays with me all the time so I can pull it out at a moment's notice, and my DSLR I will use for places of "more occasion" (concerts, dinner-dances, sports)

Purchase the one that comfortably fits your budget. It'll have less bells and whistles so you'll learn how to work with the elements before messing with compounds. It may not seem very personal at first, but your first dslr in time will show you what you like to shoot, and what your predominant style is. Having so many choices of gear to pick from in the beginning is daunting, but picking something simple and having a direction in which to go is better for the development of the skills vs. the acquisition of the equipment, and in time you'll naturally expand to learn to use other tools as well.

 

[dmaxphil]

Not my shot, but an example of the A6000 with 55-210 lens in Alaska:
DSC06221-Edit.jpg by Steven Johnson, on Flickr

Cropped or not, that picture tells me he was way too close to that bear.

 

[dmaxphil]

I've done further reading and research, and I'm looking closer at the Sony RX100 and the Sony A6000. The small size just really is attractive vs. the DSLR. And it seems the learning curve would not be so great as with a DSLR. I still have a lot to learn about the lenses. For example, if I were to travel on an Alaskan cruise and want to take wildlife photos, would I be better off with the A6000 so I can add a zoom lens? Am I correct the zoom isn't so great out of the box on either camera?

So what have you decided? You are running out of time Inquiring minds and all...

 

[Bucfantitan]

If you used the kit lens to take the night parade, what were some of the settings and do you have any examples?