Need a new camera - help needed! :)

[Disneyqueendenmark]

Hello Photography Board!

I could really use your help! I'm looking for a camera to replace my iPhone 5s camera and my old digital camera. I'm tired of walking around with my phone in my hand all the time and use all my phone battery and space. I have an upcoming California road trip including DL this Christmas and would like a camera I can take with me on this trip.
I'm having a hard time deciding on which type of camera that would be best for my needs. (Point-and-shoot, compact, DSLR.....)

What I'm looking for in a camera is:

- Good pictures both indoors and outdoors both day and night. (Without having to push too many buttons and changing lenses all the time.) It is really important for me that my camera can take great pictures all day - from morning to late night. I've had cameras that could only take decent pictures when in good natural daylight and was useless at night - so now I don't want to worry about the picture quality no matter what time of day it is.

- A camera I can have with me all day long on a vacation (don't mind if it can't fit in my pocket or a small purse. I like having it around my neck) and a camera that is good for everyday photos, birthdays ect.

- A pretty long zoom range

- A camera that is easy to navigate (since I'm a total newbee....)

- I want a fast camera that can take multible photos so I'm sure that I get a great picture. (e.g. when I'm trying to get a picture of my dog, the parade in DL or other things moving/in action.)

- The ability to take videos in decent quality

- A price of maximum $500

From what I've read online I've been thinking that a point-and-shoot camera might be the best for what I need. But, my local electronic store has the Nikon D3200 on sale and there is just something about it that got my attention. Do you think this could be a camera for me? Or do you have any other suggestions or advice??


Thanks!
- Rebekka

 

[havoc315]

The d3200 would be great for your needs except:
If you really want to truly use it in a variety of settings, you will need to buy additional lenses and change lenses. For basics, the regular kit lens, plus a long range zoom (and dSLR lenses almost never have as much long range zoom as cheap point and shoots, due to the larger sensor), plus a low light prime lens (for those very low light situations).

There are lots of basic p&s cameras that fit most of your needs, except... Within your budget, you have two opposite things:
Long range zoom + night/lowlight.

Except for a handful of very expensive cameras, you need to pick one.
Budget cameras with a long zoom have small sensors ( which makes it easier and cheaper to create a long zoom lens), and slow lenses-- so they are poor at night/low light.

There are some exceptional p&s cameras that have recently dropped into your price range, but they have limited zoom range. The RX100, original version, is now around $400, and meets all your needs except a long zoom range.

 

[Disneyqueendenmark]

Oh... Thank you so much
I'll certainly look into the RX100.

The d3200 comes with a 18-55 mm lens. I have no clue what this means. And that is the thing, I'm not a pro and I know so little about cameras.
If I bought the D3200 would I then be able to take beautiful pictures e.g on Christmas eve in DL? From early morning to night. Of Cars Land, character photos, on rides , the parade and capture the magic of the castle at night? Or do I need to buy other lenses to be able to take pictures in the dark? And another lens to capture things in action?

If I should choose between long zoom range and low light, I think I would choose low light. I just thought that a long zoom range would be fun and nice to have when e.g taking pictures of Alcatraz or Golden Gate

I would love to have a camera that I can set on auto mode and be sure to get some good pictures. But it would be great if I had the opportunity to get more into it, buy new lenses, and be more specific in the camera settings, if I want to.

The Nikon D3200 is on sale for just about $500 comes with the 18-55 mm lens, a camera bag and a 16gb SD card. Is that an okay price compared to US prices including taxes?
I like that it comes with a bag, since they can be pretty expensive.

 

[Disneyqueendenmark]

Also looked at Nikon Coolpix P530.... Would this meet my needs?

 

[havoc315]

Oh... Thank you so much
I'll certainly look into the RX100.

The d3200 comes with a 18-55 mm lens. I have no clue what this means. And that is the thing, I'm not a pro and I know so little about cameras.
If I bought the D3200 would I then be able to take beautiful pictures e.g on Christmas eve in DL? From early morning to night. Of Cars Land, character photos, on rides , the parade and capture the magic of the castle at night? Or do I need to buy other lenses to be able to take pictures in the dark? And another lens to capture things in action?

In point and shoot terms, 18-55 is a 3x lens. It is the equivalent to 27mm to 82mm on full frame. The RX100 is equivalent to 28-100mm on full frame.
So the RX100 has *slightly* more zoom compared to the D3200 kit lens... but the D3200 lets you add/change lenses. With the RX100, that's all you get.

The kit lens is actually a very good lens on the D3200.... But in terms of what it can do....
During the daytime, in outside daylight, it will capture all your wide-angle to normal view shots, no problem. (won't do telephoto, won't do ultra-wide angle).
At night, it can do pretty well depending on what you're taking pictures of.... And especially if you can use a tripod. With a tripod, you can use any lens.

The "magic of the castle at night" -- You're basically taking pictures of lights -- So the kit lens can be okay.

Now, dark rides --- Here, you are taking pictures in very very low light. Kit lens would not be very effective there. Need something like a 35/1.4 lens. The RX100, with it's 1.8 aperture, *can* take some half-decent shots (slightly better than the D3200 with kit lens). I just posted some examples in another thread.

Parades, things like that -- Depends how close you get. Depends on whether you want wide angles taking in the parade, or to zoom in on a character on a float.

 

[havoc315]

Also looked at Nikon Coolpix P530.... Would this meet my needs?

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-Coolpix-P530-vs-Sony-Cybershot-DSC-RX100

Totally different type of camera. That is a consumer budget super-zoom. It will give you a long zoom range. But it's sensor is much smaller, it's lens is much slower... You are basically sacrificing everything else, in order to get a long zoom range.

 

[PA Disneymania]

I just bought the CoolPix P530 and was out today taking pictures of anything and everything to learn the different manual settings. The camera auto setting pictures were brighter than the ones I played with. We leave in 2 weeks and I want to take some dynamite pictures this time since no kids so no rush from attraction to attraction. I am trying to achieve that milky waterfall look that I have seen, but I didn't get it with any of the setting combinations. Any suggestions?
Thanks.

 

[boBQuincy]

I just bought the CoolPix P530 ...
I am trying to achieve that milky waterfall look that I have seen, but I didn't get it with any of the setting combinations. Any suggestions?
Thanks.

Not to hijack the thread too badly, the milky waterfall look takes a long shutter speed to blur the water. The amount of time varies depending on the look you want but a few seconds is a good start. To get your camera to do this without overexposing means you have to greatly reduce the amount of light entering the lens, usually with a dark filter. As an example I used a Neutral Density filter that reduces the light by about 256 times (8 stops) to get a shutter speed of 3 seconds at f/8 for a good waterfall photo on a sunny day. The basic exposure without the filter would have been about 1/100 at f/16, mostly freezing the motion of the water.

 

[boBQuincy]

Back to the original thread: it seems you are looking for a camera that many of us are looking for but I am afraid it does not exist, at least not without making some compromises.

A dSLR or other interchangeable lens camera will require multiple lenses, going well over the $500 price point.

A P&S will either not have the lowlight capability or it will not have the long zoom range or it will not be small and light.

As a compromise Sony's RX100 (version II) may be as close as it gets for now.

 

[hakepb]

I just bought the CoolPix P530 and was out today taking pictures of anything and everything to learn the different manual settings. The camera auto setting pictures were brighter than the ones I played with. We leave in 2 weeks and I want to take some dynamite pictures this time since no kids so no rush from attraction to attraction. I am trying to achieve that milky waterfall look that I have seen, but I didn't get it with any of the setting combinations. Any suggestions?
Thanks.

As mentioned, a ND filter and a tripod make it much easier.

Without it, you may want to seek out shade or less natural light (like dusk). Either way, you'd set ISO to 100, your smallest Aperature (high f/ yours might be f/8.3?) and the longest shutter speed you can get without overexposure.

You could also try taking a burst of pictures, and combine them all via software.

 

[Disneyqueendenmark]

In point and shoot terms, 18-55 is a 3x lens. It is the equivalent to 27mm to 82mm on full frame. The RX100 is equivalent to 28-100mm on full frame.
So the RX100 has *slightly* more zoom compared to the D3200 kit lens... but the D3200 lets you add/change lenses. With the RX100, that's all you get.

The kit lens is actually a very good lens on the D3200.... But in terms of what it can do....
During the daytime, in outside daylight, it will capture all your wide-angle to normal view shots, no problem. (won't do telephoto, won't do ultra-wide angle).
At night, it can do pretty well depending on what you're taking pictures of.... And especially if you can use a tripod. With a tripod, you can use any lens.

The "magic of the castle at night" -- You're basically taking pictures of lights -- So the kit lens can be okay.

Now, dark rides --- Here, you are taking pictures in very very low light. Kit lens would not be very effective there. Need something like a 35/1.4 lens. The RX100, with it's 1.8 aperture, *can* take some half-decent shots (slightly better than the D3200 with kit lens). I just posted some examples in another thread.

Parades, things like that -- Depends how close you get. Depends on whether you want wide angles taking in the parade, or to zoom in on a character on a float.

Thanks A few things are now a bit clearer.... Guess I still have a lot to think about..

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-Coolpix-P530-vs-Sony-Cybershot-DSC-RX100

Totally different type of camera. That is a consumer budget super-zoom. It will give you a long zoom range. But it's sensor is much smaller, it's lens is much slower... You are basically sacrificing everything else, in order to get a long zoom range.

Thanks! Yeah, I know it's a completely different type of camera - but I just thought that I might get just as much out if it as I will with the D3200, since I'm not that passionated about taking great pics. And using 'auto' all the time might turn out pretty much the same on both cameras? But well, I really don't want a long zoom range that much, so I'm willing to give up anything else...

Back to the original thread: it seems you are looking for a camera that many of us are looking for but I am afraid it does not exist, at least not without making some compromises.

A dSLR or other interchangeable lens camera will require multiple lenses, going well over the $500 price point.

A P&S will either not have the lowlight capability or it will not have the long zoom range or it will not be small and light.

As a compromise Sony's RX100 (version II) may be as close as it gets for now.

I get your point... I'm also afraid that I will need to buy more lenses - on the other hand, I like that I have the option to buy more lenses if I got interested in photography...


Just found Sony's RX100 in a store, and I just didn't like it. I have no clue if it would be great taking pictures, but I just didn't like the feel of it... sounds strange I know, but still.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks! Yeah, I know it's a completely different type of camera - but I just thought that I might get just as much out if it as I will with the D3200, since I'm not that passionated about taking great pics. And using 'auto' all the time might turn out pretty much the same on both cameras? But well, I really don't want a long zoom range that much, so I'm willing to give up anything else...


Just found Sony's RX100 in a store, and I just didn't like it. I have no clue if it would be great taking pictures, but I just didn't like the feel of it... sounds strange I know, but still.

Almost especially in auto-mode, in some ways, the larger sensor and faster lens makes all the difference. Really, whether you are manually adjusting the settings, or letting the camera do it for you, a larger sensor and faster lens gives more to work with. A small sensor/slow lens -- The camera just doesn't have much to work with. So it will "automatically" take cruddy shots.

Nothing strange about just not liking the feel of a camera. If you don't like how it feels, you are less inclined to like it.

You might also want to get the feel of some mirrorless cameras -- Olympus and Pen m4:3 cameras, and Sony mirrorless, like the A5100.
And of course, try out the "feel" of dSLRs.

There are finally some compact cameras that can compete with the RX100, but they are brand new and expensive -- The Canon G7x, the Panasonic LX100.

 

[fractal]

Almost especially in auto-mode, in some ways, the larger sensor and faster lens makes all the difference. Really, whether you are manually adjusting the settings, or letting the camera do it for you, a larger sensor and faster lens gives more to work with. A small sensor/slow lens -- The camera just doesn't have much to work with. So it will "automatically" take cruddy shots.

Nothing strange about just not liking the feel of a camera. If you don't like how it feels, you are less inclined to like it.

You might also want to get the feel of some mirrorless cameras -- Olympus and Pen m4:3 cameras, and Sony mirrorless, like the A5100.
And of course, try out the "feel" of dSLRs.

There are finally some compact cameras that can compete with the RX100, but they are brand new and expensive -- The Canon G7x, the Panasonic LX100.

Havoc,

that Panasonic really does look impressive. Can't wait to see some full reviews on it.

 

[havoc315]

Havoc,

that Panasonic really does look impressive. Can't wait to see some full reviews on it.

Saw an early review somewhere..... Looked good, but I wouldn't call it a direct competitor of the RX100. It looks a bit big to be a pocket camera -- So more a competitor of the Canon G1X.
While the G7x looks like a real direct competitor of the RX100, perhaps even superior.

 

[boBQuincy]

I get your point... (about the camera being a compromise)...I'm also afraid that I will need to buy more lenses - on the other hand, I like that I have the option to buy more lenses if I got interested in photography...


Just found Sony's RX100 in a store, and I just didn't like it. I have no clue if it would be great taking pictures, but I just didn't like the feel of it... sounds strange I know, but still.

If you are considering buying lenses then some small interchangeable lens cameras may work out. The micro 4/3 line (silly name, good system) has more lenses available than almost any except Canon and Nikon, partly because more than one manufacturer is part of this system. Olympus, Panasonic, Kodak, and others make cameras that can use all the others lenses!

Panasonic's GF6 is in your price range and should meet most of your wish list. The G3 and maybe G5 are also in that range and may be worth a look.

 

[boBQuincy]

Saw an early review somewhere..... Looked good, but I wouldn't call it a direct competitor of the RX100. It looks a bit big to be a pocket camera -- So more a competitor of the Canon G1X.
While the G7x looks like a real direct competitor of the RX100, perhaps even superior.

Panasonic's LX100 is enough larger than the Sony to probably keep it from being a direct competitor. It is still a really nice camera. Panasonic's GM1 and now GM5 however, are barely larger than the RX100 and offer a larger sensor and interchangeable lenses. Still not direct competition in specifications or camera type but for the price I would go with the GM5 (disclaimer: I already have a line of micro 4/3 lenses for it).

 

[havoc315]

Panasonic's LX100 is enough larger than the Sony to probably keep it from being a direct competitor. It is still a really nice camera. Panasonic's GM1 and now GM5 however, are barely larger than the RX100 and offer a larger sensor and interchangeable lenses. Still not direct competition in specifications or camera type but for the price I would go with the GM5 (disclaimer: I already have a line of micro 4/3 lenses for it).

What's great, is that there are so many choices.
For me, my RX100 is my second camera, so I want it to be as small as possible, and I don't want a second "system." So for me, the RX100, fitting in my pocket, good IQ without ever changing a lens, serves the particular need.
The GMs may be "barely larger"... but that starts to depend on the lens. Once you attach a lens that is the equivalent of the RX100 (24-70 1.8-2.8, or 28-100 1.8-4.9), it becomes much much bigger than the RX100.

All depends on how small you want to go, and whether you want to change lenses or not.

 

[Disneyqueendenmark]

Thank you all for your help! - but I might still need some
A few days ago, I went to my local electronic store to just look and get a feel of what cameras that are out there on the market, and how they feel and look like.
I got some guidance from one of the employees, and he told me about the Nikon D3200. I wasn't sure if it was the right camera for me or not. The store has a 14 day full refund if you return an item, eventhough it has been used So he recommended buying it, so that I could go home and take some photos and see if it was a camera for me.

I read the manual and took some test shots yesterday. I was very pleased with some of the photos, but others not so much. So yesterday I returned it. I think it is a great camera and I think that you get a lot for your money, I just don't think it is for me. To get really good pictures I need to learn how to, and I need to use the different settings and modes on the camera. I don't think I'm going to do that, and even though it takes good pics on 'auto-mode' too, I just don't think they are that much better than taken with a camera half the price. I don't think that I will get that much out of it, I won't be using its full potential.
The thing that made me want to return it too, was that I couldn't get it to take just okay pictures in low light, they got blurred when not using flash and the colors and “feeling” just went away using the flash. I'm a student, so $500 is not something I use every day, and I just didn't feel that it did enough for the money paid. I'm sure it can - you just have to learn how to, but I've discovered that I wan't a camera where I don't need to think that much about it.....

So now I'm starting again....
I still have a maximum price of $500 - but would of course be pleased if I found a camera for $200
- I need a camera that can do pretty well all day long, from early morning to late at night. So it need to be pretty good in all kinds of light.
- I want to take pictures of the Christmas parade at night, world of color, the castle, maybe fireworks and so on – without getting a total blurred picture (and sometimes without using the flash).
I've given up on the zoom and hope that I might be able to crop the pic afterwards if I want to get closer.

Of course I am aware of the fact that I (usually) get what I pay for – so I don’t expect that quality from a $2000 camera in a $400 camera. I’m just sick and tired of running around switching between taking pictures/videos with my iPhone, my Fujifilm Finepix S1500, my Fujifilm Finepix Z70 and my Sony HD snap video camera.
I’ve been able to take quite good pictures with my S1500 and my iPhone, and I’m actually pleased with what they can do. I need a camera that can combine these two in one camera that is also faster and more reliable.
The RX100 seems to have almost everything? I just don’t like how it feels in my hand (RX100 mark II is out of my price range….)
I really like Panasonic’s GF6 – I just can’t find a store where they sell it.. I would love to get my hands on it.
Read that Sony NEX-5T works really well in low light – and I don’t know why, but there is just something about I like. I like the Wifi and I like the touchscreen. Unfortunately it is about $100 over my budget here in Denmark…. But if it is a camera that would do the job for me, I could wait for it to be on sale and if it doesn’t I could just buy it when I come to the US in mid-December. Any comments on the camera?

On Monday my local store has Samsung’s NX 1100 20-50 mm lens on sale for $250. I’ve actually been looking at it preciously – I just don’t know if it will do it for me???


These are pictures that I'm happy with: (for many of you they might be blurred and not satisfying - so I thought I would show you what I expect from a camera )

Even though I'm happy with the pictures above, I would like them to be alot more sharp!

But this is where it gets harder......

It should be possible to buy a camera for under $500 that can take pictures like this in sharp beautiful quality, right?

 

[havoc315]

Several points:

-No camera will really be better on "auto" than the d5200. To get the most out of the potential of any camera, you need to learn at least some of the settings. Auto modes are pretty consistent across the board.
-Of the cameras you are looking at, the d5200 is the best in low light. The Panasonic gf6 is not quite as good. The Nex is about the same. These are all interchangeable lens cameras -- so for those flashless indoor shots, you need to change to a low light lens and/or really adjust your settings.
-A camera like the rx100 can deliver a little better in low light than the above cameras, when comparing the kit lens. (Though if you change to a low light lens, the d5200, etc, are far better)
-honestly, any camera can match the quality of the pictures you posted. Little easier to achieve when the camera has a larger sensor (like the d5200), and a faster lens (the rx100, fast lens, medium sized sensor), compared to a typical p&s. (Slow lens and small sensor)

 

[mom2rtk]

No camera is going to take great shots in low light without a little input from the user. Before you spend the money on a camera, it might be best to invest a little time learning a bit about photography and the exposure triangle. Reading Understanding Exposure is a great place to start.