Looking for camera suggestions for outdoor work

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.

I have a Moto G phone and the pictures aren't very good, at least not for putting on a website or in a portfolio.
 
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.

#4 is pretty important. But anything more than $500 or $600 just isn't in the budget right now. If I have get a larger camera I will, it's just not real practical for me at the moment.
 

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.

Thanks for the recommendation. How much control would I have in terms of background/foreground focusing effects, etc.?
 

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.

Thanks for the recommendation. How much control would I have in terms of background/foreground focusing effects, etc.?

That's really hard to answer because there are multiple factors involved. So the answer is all the way from next to none to quite a lot. There are two major operative factors in play: magnification and the lens aperture. As you increase magnification your ability to throw the background out of focus increases and vice versa. As you make the aperture in the lens larger you increase background blur and vice versa. The effect of changing magnification is dominant -- it's the bigger effect. Add to those two factors a third factor which is the size of the sensor. This is a bit simplistic but basically you're decreasing magnification to record the subject on smaller and smaller sensors.

So photograph a landscape that has mountains in it. If you're capturing the image of a mountain on a sensor the size of a postage stamp we're talking about some major magnification decrease -- say 3500 meters plus some sky and clouds above and a lake in the foreground all captured on a sensor the size of a stamp and you're not getting a blurry background. For example:

monutain_lake.jpg


Everything right up to the water under your feet is in focus. Could you take a compact camera like the Canon G9 and focus on the foreground rocks and make the mountains blurry? Nope. What about the lens aperture -- what if we make it as large as possible? With the compact camera in a photo like the above making the lens aperture larger isn't going to do you any good -- no blurry background. In fact even with a big sensor camera at a magnification like the photo above you'll get very little blur from a large lens aperture. Magnification is dominant.

So let's go the other way:

trillium.jpg


Now we have a blurry background. You can still tell what's back there but it's certainly blurry. This photo was taken with a camera that has a sensor 1/2 the size of the Canon G9 that Gryph suggested. Again magnification is dominant. Now that the photo is a flower closeup it may be impossible to get the background in focus with any camera no matter what the lens aperture. In fact I used a larger lens aperture in the photo wanting to blur the background. With a sensor as small as this one I could get the background much sharper which the big sensor camera can't do.

How blurry is relative. Here's another flower in a magnification range similar to the one above:

clematis.jpg

Now that's a blurry background. The conditions of this photo aren't that dissimilar from the flower above. Both flowers are close in size and both photos have distant backgrounds. But in this photo of clematis buds I used one of those really long lenses that Tim first talked about and on a large sensor camera. That long lens is magnifying the background immensely more than in the trillium photo (compacts tend toward wider/shorter lenses). The larger sensor adds to the blur and no matter how small I made the lens aperture it wouldn't reduce that blur very much. You're not going to get this photo with the G9.

But you're not going to put the camera and lens that took it in your pocket.

The G9 gives you some control then over focus and background blur but not at all for small magnifications, very little for mid-range magnifications and fair for higher magnifications.

In a head and shoulders portrait the G9 would do a little better than this. I'm not a portrait photographer so you'll have to do with my niece at breakfast:

cherios.jpg


This was taken with the same compact that took the trillium photo. The fan and closet door are blurry but not very much. You can see what they are. Why did I use that camera for this photo? I don't sleep with it but it is rarely beyond my arms reach. Where I go it goes because it's a portable compact.

Joe
 
Last edited:

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.

Thanks for the recommendation. How much control would I have in terms of background/foreground focusing effects, etc.?


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.

Thanks for the recommendation. How much control would I have in terms of background/foreground focusing effects, etc.?

That's really hard to answer because there are multiple factors involved. So the answer is all the way from next to none to quite a lot. There are two major operative factors in play: magnification and the lens aperture. As you increase magnification your ability to throw the background out of focus increases and vice versa. As you make the aperture in the lens larger you increase background blur and vice versa. The effect of changing magnification is dominant -- it's the bigger effect. Add to those two factors a third factor which is the size of the sensor. This is a bit simplistic but basically you're decreasing magnification to record the subject on smaller and smaller sensors.

So photograph a landscape that has mountains in it. If you're capturing the image of a mountain on a sensor the size of a postage stamp we're talking about some major magnification decrease -- say 3500 meters plus some sky and clouds above and a lake in the foreground all captured on a sensor the size of a stamp and you're not getting a blurry background. For example:

View attachment 133217

Everything right up to the water under your feet is in focus. Could you take a compact camera like the Canon G9 and focus on the foreground rocks and make the mountains blurry? Nope. What about the lens aperture -- what if we make it as large as possible? With the compact camera in a photo like the above making the lens aperture larger isn't going to do you any good -- no blurry background. In fact even with a big sensor camera at a magnification like the photo above you'll get very little blur from a large lens aperture. Magnification is dominant.

So let's go the other way:

View attachment 133219

Now we have a blurry background. You can still tell what's back there but it's certainly blurry. This photo was taken with a camera that has a sensor 1/2 the size of the Canon G9 that Gryph suggested. Again magnification is dominant. Now that the photo is a flower closeup it may be impossible to get the background in focus with any camera no matter what the lens aperture. In fact I used a larger lens aperture in the photo wanting to blur the background. With a sensor as small as this one I could get the background much sharper which the big sensor camera can't do.

How blurry is relative. Here's another flower in a magnification range similar to the one above:

The one advantage you would have with a camera like the G9 is having full manual controls, allowing you to select your aperture, shutter speed, ISO as well as manual focus.
 

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.

Thanks for the recommendation. How much control would I have in terms of background/foreground focusing effects, etc.?


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.

Thanks for the recommendation. How much control would I have in terms of background/foreground focusing effects, etc.?

That's really hard to answer because there are multiple factors involved. So the answer is all the way from next to none to quite a lot. There are two major operative factors in play: magnification and the lens aperture. As you increase magnification your ability to throw the background out of focus increases and vice versa. As you make the aperture in the lens larger you increase background blur and vice versa. The effect of changing magnification is dominant -- it's the bigger effect. Add to those two factors a third factor which is the size of the sensor. This is a bit simplistic but basically you're decreasing magnification to record the subject on smaller and smaller sensors.

So photograph a landscape that has mountains in it. If you're capturing the image of a mountain on a sensor the size of a postage stamp we're talking about some major magnification decrease -- say 3500 meters plus some sky and clouds above and a lake in the foreground all captured on a sensor the size of a stamp and you're not getting a blurry background. For example:

View attachment 133217

Everything right up to the water under your feet is in focus. Could you take a compact camera like the Canon G9 and focus on the foreground rocks and make the mountains blurry? Nope. What about the lens aperture -- what if we make it as large as possible? With the compact camera in a photo like the above making the lens aperture larger isn't going to do you any good -- no blurry background. In fact even with a big sensor camera at a magnification like the photo above you'll get very little blur from a large lens aperture. Magnification is dominant.

So let's go the other way:

View attachment 133219

Now we have a blurry background. You can still tell what's back there but it's certainly blurry. This photo was taken with a camera that has a sensor 1/2 the size of the Canon G9 that Gryph suggested. Again magnification is dominant. Now that the photo is a flower closeup it may be impossible to get the background in focus with any camera no matter what the lens aperture. In fact I used a larger lens aperture in the photo wanting to blur the background. With a sensor as small as this one I could get the background much sharper which the big sensor camera can't do.

How blurry is relative. Here's another flower in a magnification range similar to the one above:

The one advantage you would have with a camera like the G9 is having full manual controls, allowing you to select your aperture, shutter speed, ISO as well as manual focus.

It also saves raw files which I couldn't live without. I nearly bought it last time I was in the shop. My compact is getting old and no matter what other cameras I own I can't live without a compact camera always there and always ready. Maybe it's my tax refund!

Joe
 
Prices when new....$4995 12.2 MP Nikon d-slr using 80-200 f/4 manual focus zoom and AF confirmation. (Current prices, $550 camera, $89 lens.) Compact 12 MP Nikon camera, $199 when new in 2009, but $10 last week at a thrift shop. Pictures made on consecutive days....d-slr from RAW, compact straight off of the memory card as 12-MP Lg JPEG, Medium Compression. Not exactly the same output sizes, but....astoundingly....very close on the detail at native size...
DAY 1_CLOUDY weather.JPG




DAY 2_SUNNY weather.JPG
 

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.

Thanks for the recommendation. How much control would I have in terms of background/foreground focusing effects, etc.?

That's really hard to answer because there are multiple factors involved. So the answer is all the way from next to none to quite a lot. There are two major operative factors in play: magnification and the lens aperture. As you increase magnification your ability to throw the background out of focus increases and vice versa. As you make the aperture in the lens larger you increase background blur and vice versa. The effect of changing magnification is dominant -- it's the bigger effect. Add to those two factors a third factor which is the size of the sensor. This is a bit simplistic but basically you're decreasing magnification to record the subject on smaller and smaller sensors.

So photograph a landscape that has mountains in it. If you're capturing the image of a mountain on a sensor the size of a postage stamp we're talking about some major magnification decrease -- say 3500 meters plus some sky and clouds above and a lake in the foreground all captured on a sensor the size of a stamp and you're not getting a blurry background. For example:

View attachment 133217

Everything right up to the water under your feet is in focus. Could you take a compact camera like the Canon G9 and focus on the foreground rocks and make the mountains blurry? Nope. What about the lens aperture -- what if we make it as large as possible? With the compact camera in a photo like the above making the lens aperture larger isn't going to do you any good -- no blurry background. In fact even with a big sensor camera at a magnification like the photo above you'll get very little blur from a large lens aperture. Magnification is dominant.

So let's go the other way:

View attachment 133219

Now we have a blurry background. You can still tell what's back there but it's certainly blurry. This photo was taken with a camera that has a sensor 1/2 the size of the Canon G9 that Gryph suggested. Again magnification is dominant. Now that the photo is a flower closeup it may be impossible to get the background in focus with any camera no matter what the lens aperture. In fact I used a larger lens aperture in the photo wanting to blur the background. With a sensor as small as this one I could get the background much sharper which the big sensor camera can't do.

How blurry is relative. Here's another flower in a magnification range similar to the one above:

View attachment 133220
Now that's a blurry background. The conditions of this photo aren't that dissimilar from the flower above. Both flowers are close in size and both photos have distant backgrounds. But in this photo of clematis buds I used one of those really long lenses that Tim first talked about and on a large sensor camera. That long lens is magnifying the background immensely more than in the trillium photo (compacts tend toward wider/shorter lenses). The larger sensor adds to the blur and no matter how small I made the lens aperture it wouldn't reduce that blur very much. You're not going to get this photo with the G9.

But you're not going to put the camera and lens that took it in your pocket.

The G9 gives you some control then over focus and background blur but not at all for small magnifications, very little for mid-range magnifications and fair for higher magnifications.

In a head and shoulders portrait the G9 would do a little better than this. I'm not a portrait photographer so you'll have to do with my niece at breakfast:

View attachment 133224

This was taken with the same compact that took the trillium photo. The fan and closet door are blurry but not very much. You can see what they are. Why did I use that camera for this photo? I don't sleep with it but it is rarely beyond my arms reach. Where I go it goes because it's a portable compact.

Joe

Great post, thanks for all the info. I think my needs probably fall closer to the middle picture. While the getting pictures like the 3rd one would be great, I'd settle for door #2 at this stage. So, it sounds like maybe the G9 would suffice? It sounds like I'd be in the $1000's to get something that would give me pic number 3?
 

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.

Thanks for the recommendation. How much control would I have in terms of background/foreground focusing effects, etc.?

That's really hard to answer because there are multiple factors involved. So the answer is all the way from next to none to quite a lot. There are two major operative factors in play: magnification and the lens aperture. As you increase magnification your ability to throw the background out of focus increases and vice versa. As you make the aperture in the lens larger you increase background blur and vice versa. The effect of changing magnification is dominant -- it's the bigger effect. Add to those two factors a third factor which is the size of the sensor. This is a bit simplistic but basically you're decreasing magnification to record the subject on smaller and smaller sensors.

So photograph a landscape that has mountains in it. If you're capturing the image of a mountain on a sensor the size of a postage stamp we're talking about some major magnification decrease -- say 3500 meters plus some sky and clouds above and a lake in the foreground all captured on a sensor the size of a stamp and you're not getting a blurry background. For example:

View attachment 133217

Everything right up to the water under your feet is in focus. Could you take a compact camera like the Canon G9 and focus on the foreground rocks and make the mountains blurry? Nope. What about the lens aperture -- what if we make it as large as possible? With the compact camera in a photo like the above making the lens aperture larger isn't going to do you any good -- no blurry background. In fact even with a big sensor camera at a magnification like the photo above you'll get very little blur from a large lens aperture. Magnification is dominant.

So let's go the other way:

View attachment 133219

Now we have a blurry background. You can still tell what's back there but it's certainly blurry. This photo was taken with a camera that has a sensor 1/2 the size of the Canon G9 that Gryph suggested. Again magnification is dominant. Now that the photo is a flower closeup it may be impossible to get the background in focus with any camera no matter what the lens aperture. In fact I used a larger lens aperture in the photo wanting to blur the background. With a sensor as small as this one I could get the background much sharper which the big sensor camera can't do.

How blurry is relative. Here's another flower in a magnification range similar to the one above:

View attachment 133220
Now that's a blurry background. The conditions of this photo aren't that dissimilar from the flower above. Both flowers are close in size and both photos have distant backgrounds. But in this photo of clematis buds I used one of those really long lenses that Tim first talked about and on a large sensor camera. That long lens is magnifying the background immensely more than in the trillium photo (compacts tend toward wider/shorter lenses). The larger sensor adds to the blur and no matter how small I made the lens aperture it wouldn't reduce that blur very much. You're not going to get this photo with the G9.

But you're not going to put the camera and lens that took it in your pocket.

The G9 gives you some control then over focus and background blur but not at all for small magnifications, very little for mid-range magnifications and fair for higher magnifications.

In a head and shoulders portrait the G9 would do a little better than this. I'm not a portrait photographer so you'll have to do with my niece at breakfast:

View attachment 133224

This was taken with the same compact that took the trillium photo. The fan and closet door are blurry but not very much. You can see what they are. Why did I use that camera for this photo? I don't sleep with it but it is rarely beyond my arms reach. Where I go it goes because it's a portable compact.

Joe

Great post, thanks for all the info. I think my needs probably fall closer to the middle picture. While the getting pictures like the 3rd one would be great, I'd settle for door #2 at this stage. So, it sounds like maybe the G9 would suffice? It sounds like I'd be in the $1000's to get something that would give me pic number 3?

Yes, picture #3 would be thousands. You could do noticeably better than picture #2 however by looking at what are called m4/3 sensor cameras. Some of them are quite small (Olympus and Panasonic) but you'll need lenses and say goodbye to "pocket." One of the Olympus Pen cameras might be a nice compromise.

Joe
 

Most reactions

Back
Top