Looking to purchase a new camera and asking the experts!

[megan511]

I am a lurker on the photography board and I am in awe of the fantastic pictures on here. We are looking to purchase a new camera. I currently have a Nikon Coolpix L810 but I have not been too happy with it. I can not get decent pictures in low light. My husband and I have both been trying to play with the settings but we just can't figure it out. If anyone has any tips on how to improve the performance of this camera I would so appreciate it.

Some of the cameras we have been looking at are the Canon sx40, the Canon Powershot sx260, the Sony hx20 and the Sony Nex 5n. I'm not sure I'm ready to invest in the Nex 5n if I can get good quality pictures out of one of the point and shoot cameras. My husband is interested in this one based on the shutter speed.

I am looking for the camera with the best low light pictures. We are attending MVMCP this year and nighttime parade & fireworks pictures are a must. I also take a lot of pictures indoors. I would like a camera that could get some decent dark ride photos with no flash. My kids are young & never sit still so I would like a camera where I can get action shots!

Thanks for any input!

 

[zackiedawg]

Well you've got three fairly similar, competitive superzoom cameras that all should be pretty close to eachother, and one large-sensor interchangeable lens camera that will be far better in low light and far more flexible, but also a larger, more dedicated system camera that will need additional lenses to match the overall focal flexibility of the others. Tough choice! I have a Sony NEX-5N which I love - brilliant camera...but it is a totally different category of camera than the others. If you don't need pocketability, it's a great camera which will reward your growth and skill. But if you want to stick to more 'all in one' solutions, the superzoom pocketable type cameras might just be easier to use, acceptable enough in lower light, and overall more flexible with big focal ranges and generous depth of field so you don't miss focus as much.

If you want to consider something 'in between' the NEX and the superzooms...you might have a look at the very new Sony RX100. It's a bit pricey, but it combines a much larger sensor than P&S cameras that will do much better in low light, with a very fast lens also great for low light, and wraps it all in a pocketable body - plus has a high level of manual and customizable controls for advanced photographers, while also being usable completely in Auto mode for those who don't quite know their way around a camera yet. The RX100 will do much better with running kids, action, movement, and low light than the superzoom P&S cameras (though not quite as good as the NEX), but remain completely pocketable unlike the NEX.

 

[photo_chick]

The key to great low light pictures isn't the camera, it's the knowledge of the photographer. The single biggest thing you can do to improve your images is to learn the basics of photography. Learn how shutter speed, aperture and ISO work to make the exposure and how each one affects the image. Then you won't play with the settings hoping to hit one that works, you will know which one to use. At that point you will also understand when you've reached the limits of what your camera can do. And understanding how things work will also help you choose your next camera since you'll understand a whole lot more of certain aspects of the technical specs.

Of the cameras you listed, if low light is a priority I'd go with the NEX simply because you can put a fast prime lens on the thing and in low light that blows the doors off any point and shoot out right now. Don't get me wrong, there are some very capable point and shoots that can do a competent job in low light. But they are not as good as a camera with a fast prime. but even having that, you still have to know how to use it to get great low light shots consistently.

 

[havoc315]

I just unboxed the Sony RX100. Similar in price to the Sony Nex5, but smaller. A true Point and shoot, no interchangeable lenses. But amazing performance for a point and shoot, and very very good in low light.

I'll use it in Disney in a couple weeks.... I grew tired of carrying about a DSLR, and wanted something that would pack a punch, AND fit in my pocket.

Here are some test pics:

Sunset:

Macro:

In camera HDR, taken in evening:

Foodie pic, taken indoors, no flash:

 

[havoc315]

Of the cameras you listed, if low light is a priority I'd go with the NEX simply because you can put a fast prime lens on the thing and in low light that blows the doors off any point and shoot out right now. Don't get me wrong, there are some very capable point and shoots that can do a competent job in low light. But they are not as good as a camera with a fast prime. but even having that, you still have to know how to use it to get great low light shots consistently.

Traditionally true, but the Sony RX100 is the first point & shoot that could possibly change that conventional wisdom. I believe its lens is faster than the lens that is included in the NEX kit. Of course, the NEX has the advantage of ADDING a far superior lens, which will in turn lead to even better pictures.

So for expandability, certainly an interchangeable system like the NEX5.

If you want it to just work out of the box, then the Sony RX100.

 

[hakepb]

Photographically, the NEX and RX-100 recommendations seem to be the best bets.

The RX-100 with its large(huge for a compact point and shoot) sensor and lens that starts at a fast f/1.8 Is basically like a mirrorless with a fast prime and a kit zoom, in something that all fits in your pocket. And for a lot of people, that may be all you need. The NEX may be a better bang for the buck and is more expandable though.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/08/06/the-sony-rx100-a-somewhat-comparative-review

The NEX Sensor is the large 4/3. The RX-100 is 1" like the Nikon CX, and your Nikon and my Sony HX is the tiny 2/3:

You can also see how much smaller the 1/1.7 sensor in the highly regarded Canon s95/s100 is from the RX.
Now I do not have any experience with your L810. But last year, I had a Sony H70 that also had a tiny 16mp CCD, and it had terrible low light IQ. My current HX-30 (same camera as HX-20) is significantly better with its CMOS sensor. So it is possible the HX-20 would be a nice improvement, and I do get some nice low light shots in rides, but sometimes the movement + low light results in blurs with long exposures. So if you want more quality low light pictures, then the RX or NEX would be a better choice.

The Sony HX has a fast overall AF response. I believe the RX and NEX are better. (is the shutter press to actual picture the "slow shutter" your DH asked about?) I've read a few reviews saying the Canon is slower AF in low light.

 

[zackiedawg]

Just a quick correction...the NEX sensor actually goes one size bigger than the micro 4:3 sensor...it's the APS-C one shown here:

Same general point - it's a much bigger sensor than P&S cameras, including even the RX series...but the Four Thirds sensor (Olympus Pen, Panasonic G and GH series) is a bit smaller than the APS-C sensor seen on most DSLRs and the NEX series.

 

[megan511]

Thanks for the replies!

My only hang up with the Nex 5 and the RX100 would be the price. Those pictures are great though! So clear, I can't wait to see some from Disney.

Are there any sites or books out there that are good for helping with settings for low light pictures? I am very new to this.

 

[photo_chick]

Traditionally true, but the Sony RX100 is the first point & shoot that could possibly change that conventional wisdom. I believe its lens is faster than the lens that is included in the NEX kit. Of course, the NEX has the advantage of ADDING a far superior lens, which will in turn lead to even better pictures.

So for expandability, certainly an interchangeable system like the NEX5.

If you want it to just work out of the box, then the Sony RX100.

True... the f/1.8 does give you the speed on the wide end, but f/4.9 at 100mm equivalent is pretty slow. If it were f/2.8 or wider on the long end it might be a different story. Although for the casual shooter it could serve them very well.

Thanks for the replies!

My only hang up with the Nex 5 and the RX100 would be the price. Those pictures are great though! So clear, I can't wait to see some from Disney.

Are there any sites or books out there that are good for helping with settings for low light pictures? I am very new to this.

Understanding Exposure is a great book and will lay out the basics. That's really the key to knowing what settings to choose when. Whether it's manual or auto mode understanding why you'd give priority to shutter speed, ISO or aperture in a given situation makes a world of difference.

 

[Tiradan]

I'm glad I found this post because I'm looking for a new camera as well. I've had very good luck with Canon cameras so I'm looking at either the T4i or the EOS M. Which one do you guys think would be better? Or would you recommend a completely different one?

(BTW, havoc315's pictures are really nice, I wish I could take pictures like that)

 

[photo_chick]

I'm glad I found this post because I'm looking for a new camera as well. I've had very good luck with Canon cameras so I'm looking at either the T4i or the EOS M. Which one do you guys think would be better? Or would you recommend a completely different one?

(BTW, havoc315's pictures are really nice, I wish I could take pictures like that)

It really comes down to what you want out of the camera. If you want a mirrorless I'd look at the Sony Nex line before considering the Canon... unless you have an investment in Canon EF lenses you want to use with an adapter. If you want an optical through the lens viewfinder then I'd consider all DSLR's on teh market and find the one that has the features you want for a price in your budget that also feels good in your hands.

 

[havoc315]

(BTW, havoc315's pictures are really nice, I wish I could take pictures like that)

Thank you, but I really can't take much credit. I randomly pointed and shot for the most part. The camera did the rest.

When you see a great photograph, 3 elements go into it:
1-- The composure of the shot. This is basically purely a function of the skill of the photographer, how well they frame the shot. Thats why you often will see cell phone pictures taken by professional photographers, still looking amazing despite the mediocre camera. A great camera doesn't help, except that a good zoom gives you more composure options. In the case of the Rx100, there is a little gimmick where it will automatically suggest a cropping for portraits (while a gimmick, it actually works pretty well). But other than little things like that, the composure is purely the skill of the photographer.

2-- The mechanics of the camera. These standards really haven't changed in years, except that sensors replaced film. So 10 years ago, we would be discussing aperture, shutter speed, focal length, and film. Now, it's aperture, shutter speed, focal length, and sensor, etc, etc. Fundamentally, a top of the line SLR camera and lens from 1998 isn't going to be all that different than 2012.
The big change in technology, is putting some of the superior mechanics into smaller cameras -- So here, I give the RX100 credit -- While the mechanics still can't compare to a high quality SLR, the mechanics are far better than other point & shoots.

3-- The "smarts" -- primarily used for setting exposure. For the most part, you use all those different mechanics to get the exposure --- the right amount of light and focus for the picture you're taking. Now, this is where 2012 is VERY different than 1998. Back before computers had advanced micro chips, the photographer had to use their own skill to properly adjust the mechanics, to get the right exposure.
Now, most advanced cameras have very advanced computers built in, that are pretty darn good at adjusting the exposure, etc.
And this is also where the RX100 stands out -- It has a really smart computer, allowing it to get the most out of mechanics of the camera.

Understanding all the different factors of good exposure is still very helpful, but far less necessary than it used to be.

So I appreciate the compliment on the pictures, but really the camera did most of the work in this case.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Thank you, but I really can't take much credit. I randomly pointed and shot for the most part. The camera did the rest.

When you see a great photograph, 3 elements go into it:
1-- The composure of the shot. This is basically purely a function of the skill of the photographer, how well they frame the shot. Thats why you often will see cell phone pictures taken by professional photographers, still looking amazing despite the mediocre camera. A great camera doesn't help, except that a good zoom gives you more composure options. In the case of the Rx100, there is a little gimmick where it will automatically suggest a cropping for portraits (while a gimmick, it actually works pretty well). But other than little things like that, the composure is purely the skill of the photographer.

2-- The mechanics of the camera. These standards really haven't changed in years, except that sensors replaced film. So 10 years ago, we would be discussing aperture, shutter speed, focal length, and film. Now, it's aperture, shutter speed, focal length, and sensor, etc, etc. Fundamentally, a top of the line SLR camera and lens from 1998 isn't going to be all that different than 2012.
The big change in technology, is putting some of the superior mechanics into smaller cameras -- So here, I give the RX100 credit -- While the mechanics still can't compare to a high quality SLR, the mechanics are far better than other point & shoots.

3-- The "smarts" -- primarily used for setting exposure. For the most part, you use all those different mechanics to get the exposure --- the right amount of light and focus for the picture you're taking. Now, this is where 2012 is VERY different than 1998. Back before computers had advanced micro chips, the photographer had to use their own skill to properly adjust the mechanics, to get the right exposure.
Now, most advanced cameras have very advanced computers built in, that are pretty darn good at adjusting the exposure, etc.
And this is also where the RX100 stands out -- It has a really smart computer, allowing it to get the most out of mechanics of the camera.

Understanding all the different factors of good exposure is still very helpful, but far less necessary than it used to be.

So I appreciate the compliment on the pictures, but really the camera did most of the work in this case.

Certain cameras are still very limited in the types of pictures they can yield, which are often the types of pictures people ooh and aah over.

Daylight pictures are fairly easy for most cameras. (Like the ones you posted.) It's the low light and movement pictures that are most challenging - for people to get and for cameras to take. (Can you post some of those, for comparison?)

With skill, a good photographer can eek out a few good pics with just about any camera. But the vast majority of people are not going to get good photos in those situations with just any camera.

I think believing otherwise is what keeps people still looking for that elusive Holy Grail of cameras.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

The key to great low light pictures isn't the camera, it's the knowledge of the photographer. The single biggest thing you can do to improve your images is to learn the basics of photography. Learn how shutter speed, aperture and ISO work to make the exposure and how each one affects the image. Then you won't play with the settings hoping to hit one that works, you will know which one to use. At that point you will also understand when you've reached the limits of what your camera can do. And understanding how things work will also help you choose your next camera since you'll understand a whole lot more of certain aspects of the technical specs.

This.

 

[havoc315]

Certain cameras are still very limited in the types of pictures they can yield, which are often the types of pictures people ooh and aah over.

Daylight pictures are fairly easy for most cameras. (Like the ones you posted.) It's the low light and movement pictures that are most challenging - for people to get and for cameras to take. (Can you post some of those, for comparison?)

With skill, a good photographer can eek out a few good pics with just about any camera. But the vast majority of people are not going to get good photos in those situations with just any camera.

I think believing otherwise is what keeps people still looking for that elusive Holy Grail of cameras.

I'll try to post some in the next day or 2.
I played around with some truly low light yesterday, and I was *shocked* by the quality of the results. Yes, I had to use very high ISO, so the pictures would be noisy if blown up to a large size. But I got shockingly good pictures in very very limited light, with no flash. (By the way, the sushi picture was indoors, with dim lights, no flash).

There is certainly no holy grail of cameras. The skill of the photographer will ALWAYS be important... BUT... as the computer systems get more advanced, the photographer needs less and less knowledge to obtain the right exposure. (The knowledge to click the "low light mode," as opposed to the full knowledge of the workings of ISO/shutter speed/aperture/ The knowledge to click "sports mode" as opposed to the knowledge of how fast to set the shutter speed and ISO--- Those pre-set modes are far more advanced than they used to be).

 

[photo_chick]

2-- The mechanics of the camera. These standards really haven't changed in years, except that sensors replaced film. So 10 years ago, we would be discussing aperture, shutter speed, focal length, and film. Now, it's aperture, shutter speed, focal length, and sensor, etc, etc. Fundamentally, a top of the line SLR camera and lens from 1998 isn't going to be all that different than 2012.
The big change in technology, is putting some of the superior mechanics into smaller cameras -- So here, I give the RX100 credit -- While the mechanics still can't compare to a high quality SLR, the mechanics are far better than other point & shoots.

The biggest difference in the mechanics of how an exposure is made between film and digital is ISO. With film many casual photographers gave little though to what ISO speed their film was and it was a constant for an entire roll of film. Heck, many people settled on one ISO and never bought anything else. But with digital ISO is a variable in your camera. It seems like that third variable to deal with every shot trips some people up. We're also shooting in lower light than we did with film because digital ISO has surpassed the ISO 6400 limit of 35mm film.

3-- The "smarts" -- primarily used for setting exposure. For the most part, you use all those different mechanics to get the exposure --- the right amount of light and focus for the picture you're taking. Now, this is where 2012 is VERY different than 1998. Back before computers had advanced micro chips, the photographer had to use their own skill to properly adjust the mechanics, to get the right exposure.
Now, most advanced cameras have very advanced computers built in, that are pretty darn good at adjusting the exposure, etc.
And this is also where the RX100 stands out -- It has a really smart computer, allowing it to get the most out of mechanics of the camera.

My circa 1962 light meter works just as well as my circa 2010 DSLR's light meter. The new one isn't any smarter than my old analog one. It still takes skill to consistently get good shots. but rather than having a spot meter and an ambient meter like I used to I have it all in my DSLR. I still need to understand what metering mode to use when to get the shot I want. I still need to understand about dynamic range, how that affects my image and how to expose accordingly. The camera still cannot make those decisions for me.

Understanding all the different factors of good exposure is still very helpful, but far less necessary than it used to be.

I'm going to vehemently disagree here. As someone who has been involved in photography for close to 30 years (who still avidly works with film and in the darkroom) the basics are still just as important with digital if you want consistently well exposed images. And I'm going to add well focused images as well. Because auto focus is just as fallible as a light meter and you need to understand how that system works as well if you want consistently good focus. That includes how depth of field comes into play. Good focus is just as important as good exposure. Probably more so because you can't fix bad focus in post.

Knowledge is still the most advantageous item to have in your arsenal when it comes to making consistently good images. It's also by far the cheapest.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

There is certainly no holy grail of cameras. The skill of the photographer will ALWAYS be important... BUT... as the computer systems get more advanced, the photographer needs less and less knowledge to obtain the right exposure. (The knowledge to click the "low light mode," as opposed to the full knowledge of the workings of ISO/shutter speed/aperture/ The knowledge to click "sports mode" as opposed to the knowledge of how fast to set the shutter speed and ISO--- Those pre-set modes are far more advanced than they used to be).

I agree that advances are improving cameras as we know them today.

However (how can I say this?)... I don't think that

the photographer needs less and less knowledge to obtain the right exposure

or that advocating this approach is a good one.

*Perhaps* this one camera *may* be the exception to this rule. I don't know.

But having photography knowledge allows the shooter to get the best results they can with *any* camera. KWIM?

I personally don't think there will ever be a substitute for knowledge in photography. It takes you from getting a good picture, to getting a great picture.

There is no substitution for that.

 

[havoc315]

I'm going to vehemently disagree here. As someone who has been involved in photography for close to 30 years (who still avidly works with film and in the darkroom) the basics are still just as important with digital if you want consistently well exposed images. And I'm going to add well focused images as well. Because auto focus is just as fallible as a light meter and you need to understand how that system works as well if you want consistently good focus. That includes how depth of field comes into play. Good focus is just as important as good exposure. Probably more so because you can't fix bad focus in post.

Knowledge is still the most advantageous item to have in your arsenal when it comes to making consistently good images. It's also by far the cheapest.

I've developed my own photographs in a dark room... Though that would be back in 1986 or so.

Knowledge is always advantageous. Knowing how to compose a photograph will always be a skill and art. A smart camera will never master that ability.
And fully understanding exposure, and its elements, will always be helpful. Helpful is picking how to position your camera, helpful is getting more consistency due to the fallibility of camera computers. And yes, Mastering use of depth of field, etc.

I'll never make the claim that an amateur photographer with a good camera can match a photography expert.

But the claim I am making -- advances in the technology allow amateurs to take high level photographs, that could only be taken by a professional 10 years ago.

If you took an amateur with practically no camera experience...
Set the clock to 1999... Told them they could use any camera on the market, to get a low-light photograph of a kid with his birthday candles--- No amateur would be able to get a usable photograph.

Take that same set up in 2012, hand them the RX100 in anti-motion blur mode, and most amateurs will take a pretty good usable picture.

The quality of an expert in the 1990s... can be approximated by someone with moderate knowledge today. The quality of someone with moderate knowledge in the 1990s, can be approximated by an amateur today.
And with advances such as ISO and post-processing that you mentioned, the expert of today can surpass the experts of the 1990s.

 

[havoc315]

*Perhaps* this one camera *may* be the exception to this rule. I don't know.

But having photography knowledge allows the shooter to get the best results they can with *any* camera. KWIM?

I personally don't think there will ever be a substitute for knowledge in photography. It takes you from getting a good picture, to getting a great picture.

There is no substitution for that.

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you.
Let me compare it to golf ---
The professionals rarely get a hole in one. And amateurs are capable of sometimes getting a hole in one. Professionals will do it more often -- they will also birdie holes more often than an amateur, but an amateur will sometimes birdie holes as well.

The professional/expert will always be better overall. More consistent. Get a high frequency of better photographs.
But technology ups the amateur to a great degree, allowing them to also get more birdies and more holes in one.

And exposure being 1 huge element of a great photograph, where technology really helps the amateur.
9 times out of 10, my camera *knows* how to get the best possible exposure, with me doing no work. Okay, the professional knows how to get the best exposure, 10 times out of 10. So the professional is certainly better, but the amateur is going to get some great photographs as well.

To continue the golf comparison -- The great golfer needs to be able to hit for distance, being able to aim, account for wind, hills, slopes, needs fine control over putting....
So an amazing camera... umm.. golf club... imagine it gives the same ability to hit for distance as the professional. There are still lots of other factors where the professional exceeds.

As I said early, for a photographer, the single biggest element of a good picture is composure of the shot -- which is why a pro with a lousy camera can exceed an amateur with a great camera.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Sorry, have to disagree with much of your last two posts. Too much to quote.

Look, lots of people are reading here, and are going by what's being said because this is where the "experts" are. Further, if I had a buck for every thread where someone is coming here asking about the Holy Grail of point and shoot cameras, I'd be able to have a really fun day somewhere. Clearly people still aren't getting the great shots they want in 2012. So no, I can't agree with your premise. (But it's JMO and take it for what it's worth.)

Anyway, IMO you are stating the exception more than the rule.

And btw, in the 90s with a 35mm automatic camera, I could get better shots in many conditions than I can today with a digital point and shoot camera, despite my knowing far more about photography today than I did back then. Why? Because the film size was a lot bigger than the tiny sensor in most digital point and shoot cameras of today. I use a 4:3 dSLR and a Mirrorless today and I still need photoraphy knowledge to get good pictures. This can be said even of users of APS-C and full frame sensors. Big disappointment to buyers who think that that will be the key to better pictures to find out they're still not like the ones that make them ooh and aah. Getting those takes work, no matter how you slice it. Composition is important, but there's so much more.