frustrated with my camera

[SLamott1973]

To say I'm below an amateur with a camera is probably correct! I'm tired of being mad at my point and shoot being useless at the parks at night. I'd love to upgrade to a better camera that is user friendly... any sugestions where for a beginner start off with??

 

[cmwade77]

I have the Olympus TG-2, there will be a slight learning curve, but if you are willing to play with the settings, you will be able to get some great nighttime shots with or without a flash.

 

[havoc315]

Camera makers have pretty much mastered "auto" settings. (Though an experienced photographer will still get more out of their images by straying off auto).

So pretty much every camera on the market starts off basically user friendly with an excellent auto mode. Better cameras have more manual modes possible ON TOP of the auto modes, but they all start with the same basic auto modes.

So putting that aside, the question is what do you want out of the camera..
Do you want something with a good auto mode, but that you can grow and learn over time, or want to just stick to auto mode?

Want something for quick outdoor snapshots in good light?
Something with lots of perks like gps and wifi?
Want something ultra compact that fits in your pocket, or something with more substance in your hands?
Want something that can take quality low light photos without a flash? (though this adds considerably to the price).
Want something that is fast and responsive to capture action shots? (typically not found in your cheaper cameras).
Are you ok with a fixed focal length, or do you want to be able to zoom from wide to telephoto? Just want a basic amount of telephoto, or want to be able to shoot a bird from 300 meters away?
What do you want to spend? Obviously, everyone would love to get as much as possible, for as little as possible. But there are elements of a good camera that are costly. Frills come cheap, but really great performance and image quality get costly.

I don't know what you're currently shooting with, so what limitations are you encountering? You might face the same limitations with other cameras, and it is simply a matter of learning how to use it better. Or it may be limitations within the camera itself.

 

[zackiedawg]

As others mentioned, a little more description of what you want and what you can't get out of your current camera would help come up with useful suggestions. I will point out one thing with regards to P&S cameras at night - remember that night shooting can be one of the easiest, or one of the hardest, types of shooting to ask a camera to do. Crazy, right? Well it's very hard if you want the camera to take handheld snaps at night, and have things show up nice and bright, detailed, and not blurred from motion. It requires big apertures, high ISO capabilities, and usually the bigger the sensor the better for avoiding noise and grain and blurred details from noise reduction. This is the hard part - and P&S cameras are usually much smaller sensors making them less capable in this regard. Moving to a larger sensor camera would be just about the only real solution, be it a larger sensor P&S camera, a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, or a DSLR camera.

But on the other hand, night shots can be very easy, even for P&S cameras, if you're talking about scenics of still subjects - architecture, landscape, etc. Because the only thing you really need is a tripod or a flat surface to lay the camera down, and a self-timer to take the photo while you keep your hands off the camera...let the camera take longer exposures to suck in more light, and you can actually get some very nice night shot results even with slim pocket cameras. The only limitations you can run into is with the very simplest P&S cameras - some of them don't have any priority or night scene modes, and are strictly all 'auto' - and if they only have a limited shutter speed of something like 1 or 2 seconds, this may not be enough to get some nice night shots. Even mid-grade P&S, travel zooms, ultrazooms, etc, will have 15-30 second shutter options, and either priority shooting modes, manual modes, or night scene modes, making them fine for getting nice results.

So, depending on what kind of low light or night photos you want to take, your current camera may actually suffice for your needs if you learn how to use it for better night shots, or you may really need to look at moving up to a larger sensor camera if you need faster shutter speeds to shoot moving subjects at night.

And of course, that's not even getting into the third part of the discussion, which is using flash at night! Some folks like flash, some don't, but if you need to shoot portraits or closeups or people shots at night, even on a P&S the flash will help get the shots if needed.

 

[amie416]

What sort of night photos do you want to achieve? Do you want to capture the scenery of the parks at night? Candid photographs of your family in low-light conditions? Fireworks? Night photography offers some of the best opportunity to capture vivid colours and compelling images, but each situation will require a different plan of attack. It helps to understand a few basic things about photography before making your decision:

In very simple terms, a camera regulates the amount of light that enters your image in 3 ways:

1. Shutter Speed: Just like it sounds... the amount of time the shutter opens for. Measured in fractions of a second. (1/60, 1/200, 1/1000, etc.)
   
2. Aperture: How wide the shutter opens. Slightly more complex to explain this measurement, but know that a lower number indicates that the shutter will open wider. The bigger the hole, the more light gets in. (f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, etc.)
   
3. ISO: How light-sensitive the sensor or film is. The greater the number, the quicker the sensor or film will react to the light that the shutter lets in, but higher ISO tends to result in poorer image quality and graininess. (ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, etc.)

Photographers use these three variables differently depending on the subject and lighting situation. For example: when shooting sports or fast moving subjects, they know they will need a fast shutter speed so the subject is not blurred. Since that would reduce the amount of light hitting the sensor or film, they will adjust the other variables of aperture and ISO to compensate. By contrast, a point and shoot camera doesn't really know what you're trying to photograph, so it takes whatever information it can get from its meters and tries to balance the 3 variables to give you decent photos in most common situations. That's okay for daytime snapshots, but definitely less than optimal when shooting at night, as I'm sure you know from experience! The better the P&S camera, the more flexible it will be... but you'll still need to give it some info in order for the computer to determine the best settings for your photograph, because no camera is smart enough to know exactly what image you're trying to capture.

If you want to get a great point-and-shoot, look for one that has a really good quality lens with a wide aperture (some high-end compacts go to f1.8 or even f1.4) and features that you can enable to help you shoot in low-light conditions. There are a lot of trade-offs when camera manufactures build compact cameras, so in addition to aperture, there are bunch of other factors to compare like sensor size (bigger is usually better) and other technical factors that make my head spin when I try to figure out which camera is best. Generally though, a great lens will make a greater impact on a camera's performance than small differences in sensor size and resolution.

When you find a camera that you're interested in, look for reviews on CNet.com, DPReview.com, and other photo/technology websites to see how that camera stacks up against others in it's price category. If I were looking to purchase the kind of camera you're describing, I would consider the Panasonic LX7 as one of my choices and then compare it to a few similar models. (One informative review here: http://www.itproportal.com/2012/12/28/panasonic-lumix-lx7-vs-canon-7d/) From what I've seen, the LX7 has a pretty impressive iHDR feature that I think would be useful for Disney at night. See this review and scroll down to the iHDR sample pictures: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_LX7/

A DSLR can be bulky to carry around and can be intimidating to use when you first get started, but they are the most flexible and can adapt to just about any shooting condition. KenRockwell.com is a fantastic resource to look at if you consider getting a DSLR.

 

[havoc315]

If I were looking to purchase the kind of camera you're describing, I would consider the Panasonic LX7 as one of my choices and then compare it to a few similar models.

I always forget the LX7, not sure why. Along with the Canon S110, they are probably the best "point and shoot compacts" under $400.
With the LX7 currently selling for $350 on Amazon..
The Sony RX100 at $600..
And the RX100 M2 at $750...

Certainly, objectively, the RX100 M2 is the best of the 3 cameras, but for lots of people, it's not going to be worth $400 more than the LX7.
The LX7 actually has a faster lens than the RX100, it has some features lacking from the RX100, and it has a lens between the size of the RX100 and the typical tiny compact. It has better macro ability than the RX100 as well.

So basically, if budget isn't an issue, and you want to stick to compacts -- The Canon G1x and Sony RX100 are the best options. For a slightly scaled back budget, the LX7 and Canon S110 are pretty darn good compromises.

If you don't necessarily need to go "compact".. then a dSLR or ILC, even a used model that is a few years old, will outperform any of the above-mentioned compacts. (And won't necessarily cost any more than a compact).

 

[photo_chick]

Whatever kind of camera you choose OP, if you really want to improve your night and low light photography you have to learn a little about how the camera works. Get the book Understanding Exposure to go along with what you buy. It will help you get more out of whatever camera you choose.

 

[Scottwdw]

You need to learn the settings on your camera. Also, a tripod, even for a Point & Shoot camera, is a good investment as is the book mentioned in the post just before this one.

 

[DisneyTog]

Whether you have a $90 Point and Shoot or a $8000 D3x like we use, if you don't have a tripod you might as well not bother with night photography. That being said a good DSLR will serve you well being able to adjust for the perfect exposures which point and shoots wont allow.

I am a nikon man and as such will always recommend them however there is nothing wrong with Canon either. During my photography courses I ALWAYS recommend people buy one of the other.

I would suggest as an entry DSLR the Nikon D90 is a good camera. It allows to a multitude of different experiments as well as not being too expensive. You may have seen my offer of a free photography course on here but if not please sign up and we will most likely discuss many of the settings you are talking about. Just search Free Photography Course on the forum.

 

[kofslinky]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the D90 is an "entry level" camera? I'm just curious!

 

[havoc315]

Whether you have a $90 Point and Shoot or a $8000 D3x like we use, if you don't have a tripod you might as well not bother with night photography. That being said a good DSLR will serve you well being able to adjust for the perfect exposures which point and shoots wont allow.

I am a nikon man and as such will always recommend them however there is nothing wrong with Canon either. During my photography courses I ALWAYS recommend people buy one of the other.

I would suggest as an entry DSLR the Nikon D90 is a good camera. It allows to a multitude of different experiments as well as not being too expensive. You may have seen my offer of a free photography course on here but if not please sign up and we will most likely discuss many of the settings you are talking about. Just search Free Photography Course on the forum.

I'm going to disagree with some of that.

First off, though a tripod is useful for many night time shots, you absolutely can take night pics handheld, with the right camera and right settings. A fast lens is critical but it can totally be done.

Second, a dSLR is great for someone who wants to learn the intricacies of photography, but it is not a necessity.
It's a fairly recent phenomenon, but you can now get larger sensors and fast lenses in non-dSLR bodies, ranging from compact to mirrorless systems.

Finally, there is nothing magically exclusive to Canon and Nikon. They certainly make excellent cameras, but you will get similar performance out of Sony/Pentax and others, with each choice having a few unique pros/cons.

Where I do agree --- the cheapest way for anybody to improve their night photography, is to simply add a tripod.

 

[DisneyTog]

I'm going to disagree with some of that.

First off, though a tripod is useful for many night time shots, you absolutely can take night pics handheld, with the right camera and right settings. A fast lens is critical but it can totally be done.

Second, a dSLR is great for someone who wants to learn the intricacies of photography, but it is not a necessity.
It's a fairly recent phenomenon, but you can now get larger sensors and fast lenses in non-dSLR bodies, ranging from compact to mirrorless systems.

Finally, there is nothing magically exclusive to Canon and Nikon. They certainly make excellent cameras, but you will get similar performance out of Sony/Pentax and others, with each choice having a few unique pros/cons.

Where I do agree --- the cheapest way for anybody to improve their night photography, is to simply add a tripod.

You can do night shots without a Tripod yes if you have a lot of money to spend on kit (if you want them to look decent)

I agree with the second part to an extent but if you want to progress and when people get the feel I find in my 15 years experience as a photographer that they want to go further and further. So why spend money on a bridge then find that doesn't do what you want and have to buy a DSLR.

I didn't say you only have to buy Nikon or Cannon all I said was those would be my recommendation.

Being a photography tutor and pro tog I agree there are no right answers but if you buy a bridge I guarantee you will only end up spending more money with you want to go further and find you need a DSLR.

 

[photo_chick]

I'm going to disagree with some of that.

First off, though a tripod is useful for many night time shots, you absolutely can take night pics handheld, with the right camera and right settings. A fast lens is critical but it can totally be done.

Second, a dSLR is great for someone who wants to learn the intricacies of photography, but it is not a necessity.
It's a fairly recent phenomenon, but you can now get larger sensors and fast lenses in non-dSLR bodies, ranging from compact to mirrorless systems.

Finally, there is nothing magically exclusive to Canon and Nikon. They certainly make excellent cameras, but you will get similar performance out of Sony/Pentax and others, with each choice having a few unique pros/cons.

Where I do agree --- the cheapest way for anybody to improve their night photography, is to simply add a tripod.

+1 to all of this.

I do a lot of hand held night shooting. With some point and shoots having lenses as fast as f/1.8 on the wide end you don't even necessarily need a DSLR to get the shot.

You can do night shots without a Tripod yes if you have a lot of money to spend on kit (if you want them to look decent)

If you really think that then you're relying way too much on your gear to do the work. There are many low cost solutions to get hand held night shots if you know how to push the gear to get what you want. I'm not saying higher end gear won't make it easier or give you cleaner images but you can certainly get nice images from a lot less. Just go take a look at some of the dark ride shots from members of this board.

 

[havoc315]

I agree with the second part to an extent but if you want to progress and when people get the feel I find in my 15 years experience as a photographer that they want to go further and further. So why spend money on a bridge then find that doesn't do what you want and have to buy a DSLR.


Being a photography tutor and pro tog I agree there are no right answers but if you buy a bridge I guarantee you will only end up spending more money with you want to go further and find you need a DSLR.

Are you referring to "bridge" cameras or using the word bridge to mean something else?

I know professional photographers who have tossed away their dSLRs and rely on mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras are not "bridge" cameras... They have sensors ranging from 1" to 4/3rds systems to APS-C, and even some full frame. (Sony is rumored to be releasing a fullframe NEX in the next couple of months).

I personally prefer the ergonomics of a dSLR, but the technology have evolved to the point that in terms of functionality, performance, and image quality -- there really is nothing that you can do with a dSLR that you can't do with a mirrorless/dSLT or some other variation.

And of course, interchangeable lens systems aren't for everyone. And some people simply prefer the ergonomics of a compact system. In most situations, the Sony RX100 will outperform an entry level dSLR with kit lens. The Sony RX1 will outperform most dSLRs! (DXOMark scores the image quality of the RX1 at a 93 -- The Nikon D90 scores a 73... not even close).

I'm a strong advocate of a dSLR as a learning tool --- The performance of larger sensors, with nicely laid out manual controls. And typically more affordable than a mirrorless system of comparable quality.
But it's a fallacy to say that there is no substitute for a dSLR.

Anyway..... Here are handheld night/dark shots with the RX100 -- Not cheap, but not ultra expensive either, now selling for $600:


Tower of Terror lobby by Havoc315, on Flickr


Great Movie Ride, Wizard of Oz by Havoc315, on Flickr


Sep 2, 2012-91 by Havoc315, on Flickr


Sep 2, 2012-96 by Havoc315, on Flickr


Sep 2, 2012-97 by Havoc315, on Flickr


Aug 31, 2012-147 by Havoc315, on Flickr


Aug 31, 2012-148 by Havoc315, on Flickr


Aug 31, 2012-110 by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[Pixel Dust]

To say I'm below an amateur with a camera is probably correct! I'm tired of being mad at my point and shoot being useless at the parks at night. I'd love to upgrade to a better camera that is user friendly... any sugestions where for a beginner start off with??

I agree with the second part to an extent but if you want to progress and when people get the feel I find in my 15 years experience as a photographer that they want to go further and further. So why spend money on a bridge then find that doesn't do what you want and have to buy a DSLR.

Yes, a DSLR is the best solution for low light situations. However, a DSLR is not going to solve the "below an amateur" issue.

You have to consider the individual here. Some beginners just want a camera that works, but have no interest in diving deeper into photography (these people do exist). Others are intimidated by the complexity and size of a DSLR. A person jumping into a DSLR, from only using a point-and-shoot, is not going to have a user friendly experience. That is why there is a huge market for advanced PnS and Mirroless cameras.

As havoc315 and photo_chick have said, technology is advancing quite rapidly. There are some really good PnS and mirrorless cameras on the market. And for a lot of people, the quality will be more than good enough. They are not professionals, nor do they want to be, concerned if their 36MP D800 at 100% got a blurry eyelash because of mirror slap. (That's for you and me to worry about ) Advanced PnS will have manual controls and some mirrorless cameras have the same functionality as entry DSLR. So, there is room to grow, if they want to.

It seems that the OP, saying she is "below an amateur", looking for a user friendly camera, for a beginner, is not in the market for a DSLR. (I'm just assuming here. The OP has to clarify what she is looking for.)

 

[SkaGoat]

And of course, interchangeable lens systems aren't for everyone. And some people simply prefer the ergonomics of a compact system. In most situations, the Sony RX100 will outperform an entry level dSLR with kit lens. The Sony RX1 will outperform most dSLRs! (DXOMark scores the image quality of the RX1 at a 93 -- The Nikon D90 scores a 73... not even close).

DxOMark means almost nothing to anyone. 99% of lenses will outperform 98% of photographers, a great column by Scott Bourne on the subject of DxOMark is here. http://photofocus.com/2013/08/01/why-i-couldnt-care-less-what-dxomark-says-about-my-lens-or-yours/

The RX1 outperforms the D90 in the useless DxOMark test for two reasons:

1: RX1 is full frame, D90 is APS-C
2: D90 is 4 yrs older it was announced Aug 2008 vs. Sept 2012 for the RX1

But I agree with your premise, none interchangeable lens, mirrorless cameras are often a great solution for a lot of people. The image quality is equal to or greater than consumer dSLRs on some models for sure.

 

[photo_chick]

It seems that the OP, saying she is "below an amateur", looking for a user friendly camera, for a beginner, is not in the market for a DSLR. (I'm just assuming here. The OP has to clarify what she is looking for.)

You hit the nail on the head right there.