Opinion please

[sallysmom]

I am very much an amateur photographer but looking for a camera a step up from the point and shoots. Just wondering if anyone has an opinion on the Samsung NX300.! I saw an ad for it and it looks intriguing...

TIA

 

[photo_chick]

dpreview.com has pretty good reviews and information for specific cameras.

As far as stepping up.. what is it that you hope to gain with a new camera? Knowing that can help you figure out what features you need and that will point you in the direction of a camera that might fit you.

 

[havoc315]

I am very much an amateur photographer but looking for a camera a step up from the point and shoots. Just wondering if anyone has an opinion on the Samsung NX300.! I saw an ad for it and it looks intriguing...

TIA

Every new camera as looks intriguing. And truthfully, every camera is at least decent.

So to help you evaluate the right camera for you, some basic questions:

Where are you hoping to go with your photography?
What is it that you're hoping to gain over your point and shoot?
What are your priorities (convenience? Size? Ease of use? Cost? Low light? Extra features?)? What intrigued you about the samsung ad?

There are many avenues to step up from point and shoot. There are enthusiast compacts-- varying degrees of improved image quality, dSLR like functionality in compact single lens bodies.
There are medium sensor mirrorless cameras-- Olympic/pen m4:3, and a bit smaller, the Nikon 1. Changeable lenses, improved image quality, while still keeping things smaller. There are aps-c mirrorless like the Samsung nx300, Sony Nex, Sony a3000, fuji x series, that basically put a dSLR sensor in a mirrorless body. A bit smaller than a dSLR, with dSLR level image quality. Then you have you aps-c dslrs, with excellent image quality, nice ergonomics, and fast responsive autofocus systems. Then you have your full frame dslrs, for the ultimate in image quality and low light capabilities.

Then there are even a few other unique options. Sony dSLTs, that are basically a hybrid between dslrs and mirrorless-- dSLR bodies, dSLR autofocus, but great electronic viewfinders instead of mirror based. Or a few cameras that put full frame sensors into small bodies.

So first, need to decide what are your priorities, to narrow down your options.

 

[sallysmom]

Thank you both for such thoughtful replies. I think my biggest desire is control over my settings and focus so that I can manipulate the picture. I am intrigued by "different" kinds of shots--the ones that aren't the obvious ones like having one element stand out while all else is slightly blurry. Those kind of shots.

 

[havoc315]

Thank you both for such thoughtful replies. I think my biggest desire is control over my settings and focus so that I can manipulate the picture. I am intrigued by "different" kinds of shots--the ones that aren't the obvious ones like having one element stand out while all else is slightly blurry. Those kind of shots.

You want to manipulate depth of field, and learn to get the most out of your settings.
You'll need a fairly large sensor and available fast lenses.
A traditional Canon/Nikon/Pentax dSLR or Sony dSLT can be an excellent option as dSLR ergonomics are great to learn manual settings on (some smaller cameras require more menu digging, where a dSLR has more devoted controls), and dslrs have the biggest libraries of available lenses.
But cameras like the Sony Nex and Samsung NX ultimately have the same capabilities. As I said, they often require more menu digging, but in exchange the camera bodies are smaller. Lenses tend to be more limited, and are sometimes lower quality and more expensive. (Though not universally true).

If you're serious, you'll want a system you can grow with.

So what sounded appealing about the Samsung advertisement?

 

[sallysmom]

The ads made the Samsung appeall to a buyer who wants a camera that's not bulky or expensive. Guess they got me intrigued...

 

[havoc315]

The ads made the Samsung appeall to a buyer who wants a camera that's not bulky or expensive. Guess they got me intrigued...

There is a long list of cameras that fit that bill with similar capabilities.
Canon SL1.
Samsung NX series.
Sony Nex, Sony a3000, a5000, a6000.
Olympus/pen micro 4:3 cameras (I know less about these so can't give you model numbers).

The Canon sl1 is a traditional dSLR, but shrunken down as much as possible. The others are mirrorless cameras. The big difference for the user, is that the traditional dSLR has a mirror based optical viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras rely on electronic viewfinders and lcds. There are also some differences in auto focus systems, lens availability, and ergonomics.

 

[sallysmom]

You've been very kind in giving advice. Much appreciated.

 

[photo_chick]

Thank you both for such thoughtful replies. I think my biggest desire is control over my settings and focus so that I can manipulate the picture. I am intrigued by "different" kinds of shots--the ones that aren't the obvious ones like having one element stand out while all else is slightly blurry. Those kind of shots.

Like already pointed out, this is controlling the depth of field. That is the area of acceptable sharpness just in front of and behind the point of focus.

One of the easiest ways to control depth of field is to use a wide aperture. It's what most people start with. You want to look at cameras that have a maximum aperture of f/1.8 or larger to really start playing with shallow depth of field. This means that with most cameras that have interchangeable lenses (both mirrorless and DSLR) you will need to buy an additional lens. I'm not saying you cannot get shallow depth of field with a kit lens because distance to subject and focal length are also factors. Just that it's much easier when you're learning about depth of field to get a shallow depth of field a really wide aperture.


So you might want to keep that additional lens purchase in mind when you're shopping. And it doesn't have to be an expensive lens. Canon's 50mm f/1.8 goes for around $100 and other makers have similar options.

Sensor size does not come into play as much as people like to think. When distance to subject, focal length and aperture are all equal sensor size is not an issue at all with depth of field. The problem is those factors are rarely equal because people move to frame the same shot or change the focal length, and that changes the math, so that depth of field appears shallower with larger sensors. So I wouldn't stress to much about sensor size. If you learn how to control depth of field you'll be able to do it with any format.

 

[havoc315]

Sensor size does not come into play as much as people like to think. When distance to subject, focal length and aperture are all equal sensor size is not an issue at all with depth of field. The problem is those factors are rarely equal because people move to frame the same shot or change the focal length, and that changes the math, so that depth of field appears shallower with larger sensors. So I wouldn't stress to much about sensor size. If you learn how to control depth of field you'll be able to do it with any format.

Let's see you do a portrait with a really shallow depth of field with a smart phone camera

Thing is--- with small sensors, you almost never get a large real focal length. Or if you actually do use a large focal length, your equivalent focal length becomes much too long for the shot you were trying to get.

Larger sensors require larger real focal length lenses, which is why you get shallower depth of field.
Take a portrait with your full frame camera, at a focal length of 85mm, medium aperture of 5.6, 6 feet away, and you will get a pretty narrow depth field - about 6 inches.
Take your P&S, stand 6 feet away, use the 5.6 aperture -- and keep the exact same composition, meaning the *equivalent* of 85mm... The real focal length is only 15mm. So the exact same composition, the exact same aperture, the exact same *equivalent* focal length, and get a pretty large depth of field.. instead of 6 inches, it's about 3 feet.
On that typical P&S... A real 85mm, is the equivalent of over 400mm... From 6 feet away, that would mean you are zoomed in on an eye lash in order to get narrow depth of field.

 

[photo_chick]

Let's see you do a portrait with a really shallow depth of field with a smart phone camera

Thing is--- with small sensors, you almost never get a large real focal length. Or if you actually do use a large focal length, your equivalent focal length becomes much too long for the shot you were trying to get.

Larger sensors require larger real focal length lenses, which is why you get shallower depth of field.
Take a portrait with your full frame camera, at a focal length of 85mm, medium aperture of 5.6, 6 feet away, and you will get a pretty narrow depth field - about 6 inches.
Take your P&S, stand 6 feet away, use the 5.6 aperture -- and keep the exact same composition, meaning the *equivalent* of 85mm... The real focal length is only 15mm. So the exact same composition, the exact same aperture, the exact same *equivalent* focal length, and get a pretty large depth of field.. instead of 6 inches, it's about 3 feet.
On that typical P&S... A real 85mm, is the equivalent of over 400mm... From 6 feet away, that would mean you are zoomed in on an eye lash in order to get narrow depth of field.

You're using "equivalents" and trying to keep framing the same to justify the shift. Use the ACUTAL numbers and depth of field is the same. It's all about perception anyway.

 

[havoc315]

You're using "equivalents" and trying to keep framing the same to justify the shift. Use the ACUTAL numbers and depth of field is the same. It's all about perception anyway.

But that's my point... You CANT use the same actual numbers. On full frame, I often use 200mm for very narrow depth if field. I don't think there exists a small sensor p&s camera on earth that has a real 200mm lens.

 

[hakepb]

But that's my point... You CANT use the same actual numbers. On full frame, I often use 200mm for very narrow depth if field. I don't think there exists a small sensor p&s camera on earth that has a real 200mm lens.

Superzoom point and shoots do.

For example, the Sony HX400 has a real 4.3mm-215mm lens, but most know it as a "50x" 25-1250mm equivilent. I guess that's why birders get pleasant pictures of birds with nice, fuzzy backgrounds.

 

[havoc315]

Superzoom point and shoots do.

For example, the Sony HX400 has a real 4.3mm-215mm lens, but most know it as a "50x" 25-1250mm equivilent. I guess that's why birders get pleasant pictures of birds with nice, fuzzy backgrounds.

ok, lol... Didn't realize that superzooms had gotten out quite that far.

But my point remains.... You can't get the same background separation with the HX400 that you could get with a large sensor camera.... Yes, in theory you can still get narrow DOF.. but the equivalent focal length becomes so large, that it's not practical for most types of shots. (How would you take a full body portrait at 1250mm?!??)

The effect of sensor size on DOF is indirect. So yes, technically, increasing the sensor size doesn't automatically decrease the depth of field.
But to get the same composition, as sensor size increase, you need a larger lens and/or you need to get closer to your subject, both of which cause depth of field to decrease.

Therefore, in practical terms, you can't get the same narrow DOF with a small sensor camera.

For example, on the HX400... You might shoot a portrait at 15mm. From the same distance, for the same composition, on a full frame camera, you'd shoot that portrait at about 80mm. At 15mm, even with a wide aperture, you're not going to get much background blur. The DOF is nearly 3 feet wide at 5.6 aperture. Take the same shot, on full frame with a focal length of 80, the depth of field is only 6 inches.

So yes, the effect of full frame on depth of field is indirect. But it is misleading to suggest that you can get the same DOF with a small sensor camera. While there are circumstances where you can get narrow DOF with a small sensor camera (like shooting birds at 1250mm), in practical terms, for the same types of shots, you can't get the same DOF.

 

[photo_chick]

But that's my point... You CANT use the same actual numbers. On full frame, I often use 200mm for very narrow depth if field. I don't think there exists a small sensor p&s camera on earth that has a real 200mm lens.

You can use the same actual numbers it just might not be the shot you want. But that does not change the fact that the depth of field equation stays the same. If you're going to really get into this discussion it has to be about more than focal length because that's just one piece of a large set of variables that come into play with depth of field. You can push other factors in the equation if you want to achieve a practical solution with different formats. There's also the matter of perception. Since depth of field is just the area of acceptable sharpness what one person considers within the depth of field another may consider woefully out of focus. And you can't forget the effect print and display size have on that perception. A very large print will appear to have a shallower depth of field than a small print. While this is manipulation after the fact it's still another factor. Then there's contrast. It affects sharpness and some feel that muddy images have a faster fall of in sharpness than images with stronger contrast. Perception is a powerful tool in photography. You can use it to support a lot of arguments on this subject.

We can go round and round. But it's kind of pointless in this thread anyway and we've gone way beyond what the OP wanted to know. LOL

You also took my original statement to be quite literal. When it's really just a comment on how people take sensor size and depth of field, especially that between m4/3, crop and full frame, way too seriously. It's not that big of a deal when there are so many other factors that can be manipulated in the image.