Looking for camera suggestions for outdoor work

[coconutman]

I'm looking for a good camera and was hoping some knowledgeable folks here could help me. I've done quite a bit of research online, but I feel like I need some guidance. I take pictures of outdoor scenes quite often for my job, such as landscape, hardscape, trees, plants and buildings. I was thinking some sort of point-and-shoot might do the job but I'm not sure. I need something that fits the following:

1) cost under $500

2) portability - I'd like something I can carry in a pocket.

3) wide-angle shot capability.

4) manual focus capability (I'm just assuming I need this to get interesting shots where foreground is in focus and background is blurred?)

5) ability to manipulate photos in photoshop. Is it really that important to have RAW files, or is JPEG sufficient? I may possibly put these files on a website one day, so I need these to be high quality.

Thanks!

 

[tirediron]

A P&S will fit everything except #4. Very few non-interchangeable lens cameras offer a manual focus capability, and if they do, the sensor is likely to be small enough that achieving selective focus with a shallow depth of field (sharp foreground, blurred background) will be pretty much impossible. these days, JPG results are pretty darn good, BUT... JPG is a lossy format; that is: Each time you open, edit and save it, you lose some data, so if you're like me and go through a lot of edits and versions of edits, RAW is definitely a better way to go. You can get a used entry-level DSLR and a couple of lenses for under $500, but that's not so portable. You can get a compact EVIL that will fit in your pocket and allow you to control focus, but likely not for <$500...

 

[coconutman]

A P&S will fit everything except #4. Very few non-interchangeable lens cameras offer a manual focus capability, and if they do, the sensor is likely to be small enough that achieving selective focus with a shallow depth of field (sharp foreground, blurred background) will be pretty much impossible. these days, JPG results are pretty darn good, BUT... JPG is a lossy format; that is: Each time you open, edit and save it, you lose some data, so if you're like me and go through a lot of edits and versions of edits, RAW is definitely a better way to go. You can get a used entry-level DSLR and a couple of lenses for under $500, but that's not so portable. You can get a compact EVIL that will fit in your pocket and allow you to control focus, but likely not for <$500...

Thanks tirediron. Are there any EVIL compacts that you'd recommend?

 

[tirediron]

I'm afraid not; I'm strictly an SLR guy, but there are a number of people here who shoot them, some exclusively, so hopefully one or more of them will be along soon to offer some suggestions.

 

[table1349]

Canon PowerShot G9 X Silver | Canon Online Store

 

[Ysarex]

I'm looking for a good camera and was hoping some knowledgeable folks here good help me. I've done quite a bit of research online, but I feel like I need some guidance. I take pictures of outdoor scenes quite often for my job, such as landscape, hardscape, trees, plants and buildings. I was thinking some sort of point-and-shoot might do the job but I'm not sure. I need something that fits the following:

1) cost under $500

2) portability - I'd like something I can carry in a pocket.

3) wide-angle shot capability.

Camera feature search: Digital Photography Review : Digital Photography Review!

4) manual focus capability (I'm just assuming I need this to get interesting shots where foreground is in focus and background is blurred?)

You don't need manual focus ability to blur the background but you do need at least Program shift control over the exposure. However your requirements #2 and #3 kind of preclude an ability to do that or do it very well. A small pocket camera means a small sensor and a small sensor means photos with deep DOF so backgrounds aren't very blurry. You also note a need for wide-angle which likewise tends to defeat blurry backgrounds as wide angle is typically used to produce small magnifications (no blur).

5) ability to manipulate photos in photoshop.

You can manipulate any photo in PS. But the old rule applies: garbage in garbage out.

Is it really that important to have RAW files, or is JPEG sufficient? I may possibly put these files on a website one day, so I need these to be high quality.

Thanks!

Raw or JPEG really depends on just how stringent and in what ways you want to define that term high quality.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Canon PowerShot G9 X Silver | Canon Online Store

Sweet little camera. I was looking at the mkII at the shop and I've been thinking of picking one up. Don't like the touch screen interface though. A lot of camera in a very small package though -- truly a pocket size camera.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Canon PowerShot G9 X Silver | Canon Online Store

Sweet little camera. I was looking at the mkII at the shop and I've been thinking of picking one up. Don't like the touch screen interface though. A lot of camera in a very small package though -- truly a pocket size camera.

Joe

Look BACKWARD, to the more-mechanical, classical control interface models.

 

[flosphotos]

Sony a5000. i got that as my first camera and it never failed me. Probably around $300-400 now. my kit lens was 15mm-50mm so it can shoot wide angle. It's not manual focus. it's auto focus though. my background always blurred if i had it on the right settings. it shoots raw and jpegg so regardless it shouldn't matter. But i'd always edit in raw you'll get better resolution. Let me know if this is of help. It's a mirrorless camera so it'd fit in your pocket.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[coconutman]

You don't need manual focus ability to blur the background but you do need at least Program shift control over the exposure. However your requirements #2 and #3 kind of preclude an ability to do that or do it very well.

Does this mean the fixed lens point and shoots are out of the picture for me? My knowledge of cameras is fairly limited. I guess you could say this is a starter camera for me, one day a more advanced camera is possible (ie. one with interchangeable lenses).

 

[coconutman]

Sony a5000. i got that as my first camera and it never failed me. Probably around $300-400 now. my kit lens was 15mm-50mm so it can shoot wide angle. It's not manual focus. it's auto focus though. my background always blurred if i had it on the right settings. it shoots raw and jpegg so regardless it shouldn't matter. But i'd always edit in raw you'll get better resolution. Let me know if this is of help. It's a mirrorless camera so it'd fit in your pocket.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Hmm, well that is pretty small. I guess I could consider something this size, although it doesn't look like it would fit in pants pocket.

 

[flosphotos]

it's an amazing camera. i highly suggest it


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Ysarex]

You don't need manual focus ability to blur the background but you do need at least Program shift control over the exposure. However your requirements #2 and #3 kind of preclude an ability to do that or do it very well.

Does this mean the fixed lens point and shoots are out of the picture for me? My knowledge of cameras is fairly limited. I guess you could say this is a starter camera for me, one day a more advanced camera is possible (ie. one with interchangeable lenses).

No, they're wonderful cameras. I use one constantly and I love it. It's important to me to be able to take a camera with me everywhere I go and I won't do that if it's not small and easy to carry. You just need to adjust your expectations and make sure your priorities are sorted out.

That Canon that gryph noted will fit in a shirt pocket -- seriously nice and small. And it packs a lot of photo punch but there are things it can't do. You want the camera to do more at some point the camera is going to get bigger and bigger and heavier and bigger and so you have to realize you can't have everything and then chose.

Joe

edit: there's a camera in your phone. Why isn't that good enough? What exactly do you need that it won't do? And then weigh what you need against how big and heavy it's going to get and will you carry it and use it.

 

[table1349]

Canon PowerShot G9 X Silver | Canon Online Store

Sweet little camera. I was looking at the mkII at the shop and I've been thinking of picking one up. Don't like the touch screen interface though. A lot of camera in a very small package though -- truly a pocket size camera.

Joe

I'm using the G1X MkII for travel carry around and love it for the most part. Do miss the viewfinder but that is the nature of the beast for the most part these days. Added a 270 EX and it makes a nice compact little kit. I wish Canon would make a camera with the G3x specifications with the G1x MkII sensor size. 1.5" sensor is pretty big for a compact P&S.

 

[TCampbell]

How important is #4? Also... is it more important than #2. Because the odds of getting the effect with a camera that actually fits in your pocket is pretty slim. (Although Apple claims the iPhone 7 Plus can do this).

In order to get a shot where a foreground subject is sharp but the background is blurred you'll need more than the right camera... you'll need the right lens. Point & shoot cameras are usually terrible at this sort of thing (for a lot of reasons but it all comes down the physics of light and what causes a foreground object to be sharp and a background to be blurred.)

It helps to have a physically large sensor.
It helps to have a "low focal ratio" lens.
It helps to have a long focal length lens (TRUE focal length... many point & shoots report as "35mm equivalent" focal lengths which aren't true and in a point in shoot the true focal length is normally extremely short.)

Apart from that, it helps to have a good amount of distance between the subject and the background (preferably a close subject.)

Any Nikon or Canon DSLR can do this with the right lens (or even a Sony). However "the right lens" can be tricky depending on the needs and the subject and the distance.

I have a 300mm f/2.8 lens (it's not a zoom) and it's ability to create background blur is stunning (you can get diabetes just by looking at all the nice creamy background it produces). But these are $5-6k lenses (Sony's sells for $7500).

You can use shorter focal lengths but the effect weakens as the focal length is reduced. So for example the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lenses are very popular and most pros have one of these lenses... but they're still not cheap... around $2k for such a lens.

Now that I've softened you up a bit with $2k to $7.5k price tags... we can get a bit more down to earth...

You could get an 85mm f/1.8 lens (both Nikon & Canon make them). Nikon's is $476 and Canon's is $369 (checking B&H Photo's prices). So while that "roughly" $400 price range JUST for the lens may seem like a lot of money... consider that the people who are paid to produce shots that look like this are probably using lenses that cost north of $2k... suddenly a sub $500 lens is a bargain!

None of this fits in your pocket. And you could use a 50mm f/1.8 lens and it would cost even less (a LOT less... Canon has a 50mm f/1.8 STM lens that costs about $125). It will produce background blur IF the subject is close and there's a lot of distance between subject and background. No... it wont compete with what you could do with a longer focal length lens ... but then it is only $125. The effect wont be much unless the subject is VERY close. This is where the really long lenses can show off... because they can produce the effect even for subjects that are dozens of feet away.