Looking to purchase a new camera and asking the experts!

[havoc315]

P.S. Havoc.... thanks a lot. I am now lusting after a Sony RX-100 as a nice pocketable camera for the times I don't feel like lugging the D700 around. Would have come in handy at Hershey Park last week when I left the DSLR home...

But man... $650 is halfway to a 16-35 lens.... or is more than a couple SB-700 speedlights....

Yowz.

I know the feeling. For me, I have an upcoming trip to Disney in a couple weeks.
I was looking at pictures from some prior trips...
I have a Sony Alpha 100 dSLR... so really a first generation digital SLR. I have 3 lens I mostly used, the standard kit lens, a good zoom lens up to 200mm, and a fix focal length 50 mm with a fast aperture.

Go back a couple of years, I took tons of pics. But I was constantly changing lenses, constantly propping up the tripod. Take a look at the Sony Alpha thread, I posted 1 of my pics there. I mostly shot in RAW, it took months after the trip for me to actually process the shots.

Then, on our last trip... I still took quite a few pics.... but very often, I left the camera in its case on my back. To much trouble to pull out the big camera... change the lens... I just grew tired of it. I was thinking about totally skipping bringing a camera on the next trip, and then I saw the reviews of the RX100. Yes, expensive... but I can still take high quality photos suddenly without lugging around my whole SLR kit...

And given the age of my dSLR, it was probably time to invest in a new body, which would have been the same price. My SLR ISO only goes up to 1600, and misses the features you find common now -- No LCD for picture display before taking the picture, can't shoot video, etc.

So it's certainly not cheap. And as 1 review said, it's not worthwhile if you're just taking a few pictures of your kids smiling at their birthday party. But for my use of it, it feels like a fair price.

 

[havoc315]

Havoc, I think you should start a thread about your camera for people who want to know more about it specifically and share pics, etc. I'm sure many people will be very interested in knowing more about it. It seems like it deserves its own thread.

I'll start such a thread in a month, when I'm back with a few hundred Disney world pictures.
And that will really be the test.
We'll see how the camera does on actual Disney dark rides, fireworks, etc.

For fireworks, I'm debating whether to bring a trippod, get a gorillapod, or just do my best steadying the camera handheld. I didn't want to lug around extra equipment (which is why I decided to buy this thing in the first place), but I do really want to see its potential. I think I may get a gorillapod, and attach the camera to the railing for Illuminations 1 night.

 

[havoc315]

p.s. To everyone in this thread, I want to thank you all for the lively discussion. I wish I spent more time on this part of the board earlier. There is a remarkable amount of photography knowledge here, and I definitely feel my own knowledge is being refreshed and expanded by this discussion.

 

[NLD]

Oh man, a gorillapod and a capable point-and-shoot..... that is surely tempting.

Last Disney trip my tripod came along but then never even left the suitcase. I really have no problem lugging around the camera body and a few lenses, but the external flash and tripod sort of push me over the edge.

 

[havoc315]

Oh man, a gorillapod and a capable point-and-shoot..... that is surely tempting.

Last Disney trip my tripod came along but then never even left the suitcase. I really have no problem lugging around the camera body and a few lenses, but the external flash and tripod sort of push me over the edge.

I never brought the tripod into the parks. I used it a bit at the resort, and occasionally took it in the evening, when we were just resort hopping for dinner. Ultimately though, I found it wasn't worth carrying as my family grew aggravated with "set up" time for pictures.

I did carry my SLR and lenses into the park... but somehow, whenever I wanted to take a picture, it felt like the wrong lens was on my camera, and it would take too long to change lenses. Got my standard lens on, but it would be nice to have the zoom to take pictures of the stage show at the castle... Got my zoom on, but my fast fixed focal length would be nice for the dark ride... etc.. etc. Somehow, it didn't bother me as much a couple trips ago... I think as my kids get older, they want to move around faster, giving me less time and patience to fuss with the camera.

We'll see how this next trip goes. I very well might end up really missing my dSLR, either when I'm there, or after I see the results. We'll see.

 

[havoc315]

This, to me, is sunset, in all its beautiful glory. Also taken with a point and shoot.

Now perhaps you really didn't have an orange glow in your living room when you took the shot. I get that not all sunsets are like that. But I'm illustrating a point that's an important one for users on Auto. Going back to photo_chicks post, is it preferable to get pics at WDW that are bright, or that capture the essence of the atmosphere? That is up to each individual photographer.

DSC00237 by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[baloony]

If you are looking for a fairly simple point and shoot, I would reccomend the Olympus Tough camera. My DD, 19, and I purchased one for our trip this past June. We had LOTS of rain, but the camera is waterproof. Dropped it more than once without effect. Pictures? Incredible quality. Can be used by an experienced photographer (DD) or an amature (me). Purchased for $250 on Amazon.

 

[megan511]

If you are looking for a fairly simple point and shoot, I would reccomend the Olympus Tough camera. My DD, 19, and I purchased one for our trip this past June. We had LOTS of rain, but the camera is waterproof. Dropped it more than once without effect. Pictures? Incredible quality. Can be used by an experienced photographer (DD) or an amature (me). Purchased for $250 on Amazon.

Thanks for the tip! I am looking for a new waterproof camera as well.

I am looking into maybe getting an older model DSLR kit. Maybe a Canon Rebel T2i.

 

[Hunnypaw]

Bought a Nikon AW100 point and shoot a month ago. It works really well. 1080 video, waterproof, impact resistant... great for quick images and for wet rides and wet days!

 

[earthfaries]

I have a Canon T3i, and an Olympus PEN EPL1, and I love them both.

Good luck camera hunting!

​

 

[megan511]

Bought a Nikon AW100 point and shoot a month ago. It works really well. 1080 video, waterproof, impact resistant... great for quick images and for wet rides and wet days!

I have a Canon T3i, and an Olympus PEN EPL1, and I love them both.

Good luck camera hunting!

​

Thanks for the recommendations!

I am now looking at maybe getting a DSLR kit with a Canon T2i or T3i or getting the Sony RX100. Trying to decide if it wouldn't be easier to just get the RX100 or learn to use a DSLR. Is there a big difference in photo quality between these?

Also my husband read tht the T3i may not be the bet for action shots? Does anyone know which would be best for night shots & other low light shots?

I'm also looking into some waterproof cameras. There are just too many options. Decisions, decisions.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks for the recommendations!

I am now looking at maybe getting a DSLR kit with a Canon T2i or T3i or getting the Sony RX100. Trying to decide if it wouldn't be easier to just get the RX100 or learn to use a DSLR. Is there a big difference in photo quality between these?

Also my husband read tht the T3i may not be the bet for action shots? Does anyone know which would be best for night shots & other low light shots?

I'm also looking into some waterproof cameras. There are just too many options. Decisions, decisions.

You'll get a more "pure" learning experience with a dSLR than the RX100, though you can certainly learn photography on either.
The RX100 produces superb quality for a point and shoot, quite comparable to many dSLR photos. It also performs amazingly in low light.

In terms of quality, I'll put it this way --- Someone using the RX100 well, can produce the equivalent of good dSLR photos. But the RX100 won't match what an expert can do with a dSLR.

For the more basic photographer, still learning, I'd say the biggest differences between the RX100 and a dSLR:
1. Size. The RX100 is very compact, can fit in a pocket. A dSLR is bulky. Of course, the larger size has some advantages -- a dSLR is easier to grip, the buttons can be larger and easier to use.
2. Interchangeable lenses. This is where, if you really want a full learning experience, you might want the ability to change lenses. The Sony RX100 come with 1 very good lens built in. It is probably a better lens than the one that would come included in most dSLR kits. But then that's it, you're stuck with it. You can't decide to later on, add a large zoom lens. You can't decide to buy an ultra wide angle lens, or a super fast fixed focal length lens. And part of the learning experience is learning the benefit of the different lens.
Of course, lens are expensive. While the RX100 and Canon SLR may be similarly priced... The RX100 comes with a 28mm-105mm lens. A very capable lens, covering most of the zoom spectrum for most photographs. Wish it went a bit wider, but a good lens. The Canon Rebel 2ti, for a similar price, comes with a 18mm-55mm lens. It's nice that it is wider than the RX100, but lacks the zoom of the RX100, and also lacks the super fast aperture of the RX100. So, to get some of the pictures that you can get with the RX100 out of the box, you would have to spend hundreds of dollars on 1 or 2 additional lenses.
So in terms of lenses -- The RX100 gives you a good every day use lens, already built in. But you can't expand on it.
The Canon gives you a decent lens, but you may quickly find the need to expand and spend extra $$$.

Some comments on other similarities and differences:
-- RAW mode -- Better photographers prefer to shoot in RAW mode, which saves more data, and then requires adjustments in post processing. Most P&S cameras do not record RAW mode. The RX100 does record RAW mode, BUT a lot of software is awaiting updates to be able to use the RX100 RAW data.
-- Manual modes. To learn photography, you need to be able to shoot fully manually. dSLRs almost always can be set to full manual. And so can the RX100. But because of the compact size of the RX100, if you really want to control EVERY function manually at the same time, you may find yourself having to scroll through various menus, etc. For example, on the RX100, if I want to control aperture and shutter speed manually -- it's very easy. Use the control ring for aperture, and use the control wheel for shutter. Easy. But if I also switch to manual focus, then the control ring is used for focus, the control wheel goes to aperture, and I don't even know how to control the shutter speed at the same time. (there is a way, just haven't had the need to figure it out yet). If I also want to change the ISO, then I have to start fidgeting with the menu.
So if you want to learn 1-2 manual features at a time, the RX100 can be a great learning device. But if you really want to shoot fully totally completely manually, the Rx100 can be awkward to use.
-Sensor size, focus, etc -- The RX100 has very fast focus FOR a Point and Shoot, and a very large sensor, FOR a point and shoot. But a good dSLR still has a MUCH bigger sensor and can also focus faster. You're not going to see any professional photographers using an RX100 to shoot a basketball game, for example. But this is why, the RX100 will not produce images the same quality as an expert using a dSLR.

For someone who wants the potential to great pictures with a little less work (less need to worry about lenses, less to carry around, etc), I fully recommend the RX100.

For someone who seriously wants to learn everything about photography, and truly become an expert, you must start with a dSLR kit.

I've gone both routes. Though I never obtained "expert" proficiency, I wanted to learn about photography, I've used SLRs, I've invested in lenses, I've learned a bit about post-processing. It was fun. But nowadays, I want something simpler, that I can carry in my pocket. The knowledge I've acquired is still useful with the RX100 -- I do stray away from automatic modes quite often.

In the end, it's 2 completely different experiences, though the 2 experiences can lead to similar quality photographs.

 

[megan511]

Thanks so much for the detailed response.

My top concern with getting the DSLR kit is buying it & then having to invest in higher quality lenses. I just don't know if I know enough to want to make that kind of investment. I really want to learn about photography & with my kids going back to school soon I will have the time to invest. I jut didnt realize how pricey lenses are! There is so much to learn when buying a camera!

My husband is big on the Sony NEX-5n. I don't know what my hesitation is about it but I'm not wowed. It seems similar to the RX100 with the RX100 being easier to use.

 

[zackiedawg]

The NEX-5N is going to be larger overall than the RX100, and a good bit smaller than a DSLR...but also the 5N will be overall more capable and have a better overall IQ than the RX100 especially in low light due to the significantly larger sensor. While the RX sensor is much bigger than those in P&S cameras, it's still much smaller than the ones in DSLRs. The NEX has a regular APS-C DSLR-sized sensor, and so performs identically in IQ throughout the range as a DSLR.

As for ease of use - the RX will have the advantage of not requiring any lens changes...but overall I don't know that I'd consider either 'easier to use' since both can be put in their intelligent auto modes and be controlled with just the shutter button.

Both are fine cameras - just slightly different - the RX prioritizes pocketability and portability, while maintaining much better IQ ability than similar-sized P&S cameras...the NEX prioritizes DSLR sensor and lens-interchangeability but in a package which is overall smaller and lighter than a DSLR.

If it helps you, I've got a gallery of all my NEX-5N shots so far - there are a lot of wildlife shots in there, but dig farther back (there are 10 pages of thumbnails) and you'll find some other types of shots including Disney photos...just to give an idea of the camera's ability and style:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/sony_nex5n

You've already seen some excellent examples from the RX100, so between all that, it might help you decide if either one would work better for you.

BTW, I also shoot with a DSLR - I like having both the smaller NEX and the larger DSLR. The DSLR can be used when size doesn't matter and ultimate lens capability and ergonomics are needed...the NEX for when I want DSLR IQ but a smaller, lighter package. The RX fits a whole third category, which would be for when you want a camera without looking like you have a camera - something pocketable and inconspicuous, but that doesn't compromise IQ and limit your flexibility in poor light the way most P&S cameras will. I don't need that type of camera myself, but I wouldn't turn down an RX100 if someone was offering it to me. You just need to figure out what size level (large, medium, small) fits you best, then choose between DSLR/SLT, mirrorless, or RX/P&S.

 

[havoc315]

Zack gave a good answer.
You can also look at this website for camera comparisons:
snapsort.com/compare/Sony-Cybershot-DSC-RX100-vs-Sony-NEX-5N

The Nex5N really has the pros and cons of a dSLR. The main advantage over a straight dSLR, is that it is a bit smaller than a dSLR.

But it provides a good lesson compared to the RX100. As Zack said, it will be able to give you true dSLR quality photographs. So where the RX100 can come very very very close, the Nex5N will actually match the quality.
Though in terms of future investments -- The Nex5N doesn't have a built-in flash. So if you want a flash, you'd have to buy it and attach it. (Truthfully, I try to avoid using the flash on the RX100 but I do use it sometimes).
And then you have the lens issues. The Nex5N is listed on Amazon for $599, without ANY lenses included.
Remember, the RX100 gives you 28mm-105mm, with a fast aperture of 1.8 at the 28mm setting.
For an extra $100, Amazon includes the 18mm-55mm lens. So now you're spending more than the RX100. You have a lens wider than the RX100, but with only half the zoom, and without the fast aperture. The aperture of the included lens is 3.5-5.6. So despite the bigger sensor, you will probably get better low light performance from the RX100, due to the faster lens. Of course, you can add a fast lens to the Nex5N-- Sony sells a 50mm f/1.8 Mid-Range Prime Lens for $275. (though you can probably get a similar lens cheaper elsewhere) That lens will give you superior low light performance. But now you're spending far more than the Rx100.

So the Nex5N will give you many of the similar pros and cons of a dSLR compared to the RX100. Bigger than a point and shoot, but not as big as a dSLR. The ability/need to buy additionally lenses/flash. In making it more compact, the buttons are closer together, as with a point & shoot.

I don't think you would go "wrong" with either camera. I think it comes down to whether you want something ultraportable, fully ready to go out of the box. Or something a bit bigger, with slightly more potential, with the ability/need to add additional hardware as you go.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

My top concern with getting the DSLR kit is buying it & then having to invest in higher quality lenses. I just don't know if I know enough to want to make that kind of investment. I really want to learn about photography & with my kids going back to school soon I will have the time to invest. I jut didnt realize how pricey lenses are! There is so much to learn when buying a camera!

My husband is big on the Sony NEX-5n. I don't know what my hesitation is about it but I'm not wowed. It seems similar to the RX100 with the RX100 being easier to use.

Not really.

You are talking apples (dSLR) and oranges (point and shoot) - and pears (mirrorless).

Three entirely different types of cameras entirely.

The dSLR and the mirrorless (NEX) are most simlar to eachother. They have larger sensors (the "film" of today) and interchangable lenses. You can get excellent quality pictures with these and grow as a photographer. If you want smaller, the mirrorless would make most sense as it is, well, smaller. (The mirror mechanism of the SLR is taken out; other than that they're pretty similar.)

You seem to be thinking of interchangable lenses as a negative, but they're actually a positive as they give you a better variety of shooting options than one fixed lens ever will. You will likely find one or two that you like best and you'll use those most often. (Which is why there's controversy over buying "kit" lenses vs. just starting off with a better quality lens in the first place.) Yet you still have the option to have others and it sounds like your husband may enjoy that option. It's natural to be intimidated by lenses if you haven't used them before, but once you get past a small learning curve, it's not that bad. Really. Cost of lenses will have to be balanced by buying a camera that you find is limited once you start using it; or you just want more. Then you're buying again anyway. It's not uncommon to buy something and then realize you should have chosen something else, and it can go either way.

A point and shoot is really for people who want extremely small and easy to use, do not want to worry about changing lenses, etc. Many pns users are either novice users who don't care to be bothered with more, or those who have dSLRs that don't always want to take their equipment all the time. Naturally the dSLR users are going to get "more" out of a point and shoot camera because they're adept at using a more complex camera and usually know more principles of photography - which is really the thing that makes photos sing. Users who "want to know nothing" will generally get ho hum pictures no matter what camera they use. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's a preference.)

You can see why people "in the middle", i.e. those who want to grow more but are unknowing or intimidated, have a harder time deciding but might be better off with more from the get go.

I think you should consider getting a point and shoot for yourself, and a NEX for your DH. In our family we all have cameras, and then some, of all levels - point and shoot, mirrorless, dSLRs and phone cameras. We can all use whatever we feel like using that day, and it's not unusual for all of us to be going in different directions shooting different things. We all have different knowledge bases and likes, so it works for us to use different cameras. Maybe this is the case for you and your DH, too.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

So despite the bigger sensor, you will probably get better low light performance from the RX100, due to the faster lens.

Not necessarily true due to other factors involved in low light performance.

 

[zackiedawg]

The Nex5N doesn't have a built-in flash. So if you want a flash, you'd have to buy it and attach it. (Truthfully, I try to avoid using the flash on the RX100 but I do use it sometimes).

Just a quickie correction - though the NEX-5N doesn't have a 'built in' flash, it does actually come with a compact flash in the box...you don't have to buy it separately. Those who need or use flashes a lot often just leave it attached to the camera as it's a slim little thing that sits right atop the lens mount. It is worth mentioning though that if you want to buy and use the separate Electronic Viewfinder with the 5N, you can't use it and the flash together, since they mount in the same spot. I love the EVF and never use flash on the NEX, so it's not an issue for me...just something to mention!

I don't think you would go "wrong" with either camera. I think it comes down to whether you want something ultraportable, fully ready to go out of the box. Or something a bit bigger, with slightly more potential, with the ability/need to add additional hardware as you go.

Yep - the great upside, AND downside to any interchangeable-lens system or modular type system - you have the ability to expand and grow to suit virtually any needs you may have, but this also requires money, and with the ability to expand often comes the temptation to do so...the well known 'GAS', or Gear Acquisition Syndrome'.

 

[havoc315]

Not necessarily true due to other factors involved in low light performance.

I've gotten far better low light performance from the RX100 than my Sony Alpha dSLR. It's an older SLR, so the ISO is a bit limited. But at the same ISO, the RX100 is outperforming my DSLR, unless I switch to my 1.8 lens. Using the basic kit lens, my RX100 is getting better low light performance than my dSLR.

Low light performance is dictated by ISO (where the RX100 matches most DSLRs and can outperform older DSLRs as in my case), aperture (where the RX100 outperforms most kit lenses), and sensor size (where all dSLRs outperform the RX100).

 

[havoc315]

Just a quickie correction - though the NEX-5N doesn't have a 'built in' flash, it does actually come with a compact flash in the box...you don't have to buy it separately. Those who need or use flashes a lot often just leave it attached to the camera as it's a slim little thing that sits right atop the lens mount. It is worth mentioning though that if you want to buy and use the separate Electronic Viewfinder with the 5N, you can't use it and the flash together, since they mount in the same spot. I love the EVF and never use flash on the NEX, so it's not an issue for me...just something to mention!



Yep - the great upside, AND downside to any interchangeable-lens system or modular type system - you have the ability to expand and grow to suit virtually any needs you may have, but this also requires money, and with the ability to expand often comes the temptation to do so...the well known 'GAS', or Gear Acquisition Syndrome'.

Thanks for the clarification on the flash. I thought it didn't come with one at all.

And yes, there is the major temptation to continue to acquire lenses. I only fell into the Sony ecosystem, because I had a minolta film camera, and wanted to keep the lenses.. which which interchangeable with the Sony Alpha. And overtime, of course, I added additional lenses and filters. As well as tripods, camera bags, etc, etc.

For a true "hobbyist"-- No point and shoot will ever equal the joy of the DSLR. But it also kind of becomes like baking cookies from scratch or buying the pre-made dough. To the untrained taste buds, they can taste identical. But you have more potential when going fully homemade, and you get a certain self-satisfaction of mastering a craft.

If you truly want to become a hobbyist, I'd go full dSLR route.