Camera recommendation for Hawaii

[lisav018]

I am a beginner level photographer and I'm thinking about upgrading my camera. I have an older model Sony CyberShot DSC-W something with 3.2 megapixels. I don't have it with me now, so I can't reference the exact model. I think it's a 300 series, probably 6 years old now. I mostly use my iphone 4S for photos these days. It's always handy, battery is kept charged and pics are easy to load to Dropbox and share with relatives across the country. I really liked the Sony though. No complaints. It worked fine for a trip to the Grand Canyon a couple of years ago. I do print some photos in 4x6 or 5x7 for scrapbooking and displaying around the house.

I am considering a new camera because I am taking a two week vacation to Hawaii in the spring and thought maybe it's time to upgrade the camera. Woohoo! :mrgreen: We'll be hiking and doing a lot of sightseeing so I don't want anything too bulky or heavy, although I'm not opposed to taking my old Sony along for easy portability. I prefer rechargeable battery pack as opposed to AA batteries, and I do like to have the optical viewfinder. I would like the option of manual controls so that I can learn. I'm just not sure if I should go for another point & shoot or if I should step up to a SLR. I really like the wi-fi option some cameras come with these days.

What better time than Black Friday?

So, what do you all think? Should I stick with what I've got? Upgrade to a new point & shoot or SLR? Is there an upgrade that's not quite into the SLR level but will give me what I'm looking for?

Thanks in advance!

 

[ronlane]

Welcome to the site lisav018. One thing that you haven't mentioned is a budget for this camera. Even without that, I sense that size and weight are something that is important to you, so to get a DSLR, I would tend to look at entry level, smaller cameras for that.

One thing that I would suggest looking at is a bridge camera. They are in between a point & shoot and DSLR. They are also in the middle as for weight and being able to tote them around a lot. I even think that some have interchangeable lenses.

There are plenty of people that will be able to offer suggestions to you on here but it pretty much boils down to budget.

 

[goodguy]

Well you said something small and not bulky, there are some DSLR which are on the smaller size but with the extra lenses you will find yourself with more weight to carry around.
If you see yourself not getting very seriously into photography willing to invest times and money (mostly times to learn) then go with a point and shoot.
Today there are very good point and shoot cameras, they are not big has a fixed lens and will give you full control just like a DSLR.

There are few good cameras to recommend and I will point at one which is the Canon G15 or Canon G16

Excellent camera, compared to a DSLR its smaller and easy to carry around.
Has a very good picture quality, as I said it will give you exact same controls as a DSLR with full manual if you choose to or full auto if you don't want to go too deep into it.
Excellent lens which will be also good for night photography.

If you still choose to go more serious and go with a DSLR then I am forced to guess here as you didn't gave us a price limit so I will recommend the Nikon D3200 with the 18-105mm VR kit lens.
This is an excellent beginners DLSR, very good and capable camera that will ease you into the world of photography and help you grow into it.
If you can afford a bit more then go for the Nikon D5200 or Nikon D5300 which just replaced it, same body as the D3200 but a bit more capable with a slightly better sensor and few more manual controls but the D3200 as I said is already a VERY good capable camera especially for beginners but not just for beginners.

Good luck

 

[lambertpix]

There are some great bridge cameras on the market now. Other than the optical viewfinder, which is getting pretty hard to come by short of a DSLR, these all-in-ones are portable and can produce great results in the right hands. If you're considering a new camera, please be sure to budget plenty of time to learn to use it before your trip -- you absolutely do not want to be trying to learn your camera at the same time you're enjoying your trip!

 

[lisav018]

Well my budget is somewhat flexible. If I decide to go with a SLR, I would not want to go much above $500. I don't really want budget to be my deciding factor between the two. I would much rather have what suits my needs best.

What would be an example of a bridge camera?

I plan to purchase a camera in the next month or so. I won't be traveling for another 5-6 months, so I'll have lots of time to learn the new equipment.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well my budget is somewhat flexible. If I decide to go with a SLR, I would not want to go much above $500. I don't really want budget to be my deciding factor between the two. I would much rather have what suits my needs best.

What would be an example of a bridge camera?

I plan to purchase a camera in the next month or so. I won't be traveling for another 5-6 months, so I'll have lots of time to learn the new equipment.

You might want to take a look at the Panasonic FMZ-200 or possibly the Canon SX-50.

Both are bridge cameras, they are both lightweight and very portable. Either will give you good overall image quality. The canon has the longer zoom range (1200 mm equivalent) whereas the Panasonic has a much faster lens. The FMZ-200 has a 2.8 zoom lens that can maintain F2.8 throughout it's entire 600 mm zoom, which is a pretty nice advantage to have. Both would be well within your budget.

 

[lambertpix]

For $500, you're not going to wind up with a whole lot of SLR. Bridge cameras are the whole range of cameras that are too big to be compacts, but have non-interchangeable-lenses (thus, aren't DSLR's). The term was actually coined before mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILC) showed up, and before that point, they were seen as a "bridge" between compacts and DSLR's. You might also see the term "superzoom" applied to some of these -- these terms aren't exactly interchangeable, but they frequently apply to the same set of cameras due to the wide range of focal lengths typically seen on them.

At this point, there's enough variety out there in terms of sensors & lenses that you've got a lot of great choices. The bad news may also be that you've got a lot of great choices. :-(

A couple of *really* nice "bridge" cameras I've seen announced recently include these:

Sony Cyber-shot DSC RX10 First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review
Olympus Stylus 1 First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review

Both of these exceed your budget, but not by much in the case of the Olympus. The two most attractive features of both of these cameras are the (relatively) large sensors and the fast (f/2.8 constant-aperture) lenses. There's a paragraph in the article about the Olympus that explains a bit about why sensor size is important, and it also compares both of these cameras to a Panasonic bridge camera that *is* in your budget:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200: Digital Photography Review

Now, I owned a great-great grand-relative of that Panny (still do, in fact), and I can attest to the fact that they make a pretty nice bridge camera, too.

These high-end bridge cameras live in a somewhat precarious place in the market today, because you can, in fact, run out and pick up a cheap DSLR for less than the cost of one of these all-in-one's. In order to match 24-200 (or 28-300) of focal length worth of f/2.8 glass, of course, you'd then also have to drop several grand on lens(es), which you'd then have to cart all over Hawaii, trying hard not to let salt spray and sand get into the body of your new DSLR while you're changing lenses on the beach. Lots of people don't appreciate nuances like that when they're ogling that new DSLR! Don't get me wrong -- ultimately, you can't touch the expandability and ultimate responsiveness of a good DSLR even with today's bridge cameras, but they've come an awful long way since I owned one. Having hauled a Canon 40D and three lenses up and down 100 miles of mountain trails last year, I can appreciate the benefit of "almost as good at a fraction of the size, weight, and cost", and that's where these bridge cameras shine.

So, at the risk of really over-generalizing, I think you can look at camera classes (with a lot of overlap among these) along these lines:

* Compact cameras - pocketable and better than a phone. A few have good sensors and glass.
* Bridge cameras - nearly the size of a small SLR, some have insane zoom ranges, and there are some good sensors and glass on the high end.
* MILC - "mini" SLR's with most of the benefits of an SLR, and most of the downsides, too.
* DSLR - good-to-great quality; comes with the privilege of spending limitless amounts of money on lenses and accessories.

 

[robbins.photo]

For $500, you're not going to wind up with a whole lot of SLR. Bridge cameras are the whole range of cameras that are too big to be compacts, but have non-interchangeable-lenses (thus, aren't DSLR's). The term was actually coined before mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILC) showed up, and before that point, they were seen as a "bridge" between compacts and DSLR's. You might also see the term "superzoom" applied to some of these -- these terms aren't exactly interchangeable, but they frequently apply to the same set of cameras due to the wide range of focal lengths typically seen on them.

At this point, there's enough variety out there in terms of sensors & lenses that you've got a lot of great choices. The bad news may also be that you've got a lot of great choices. :-(

A couple of *really* nice "bridge" cameras I've seen announced recently include these:

Sony Cyber-shot DSC RX10 First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review
Olympus Stylus 1 First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review

Both of these exceed your budget, but not by much in the case of the Olympus. The two most attractive features of both of these cameras are the (relatively) large sensors and the fast (f/2.8 constant-aperture) lenses. There's a paragraph in the article about the Olympus that explains a bit about why sensor size is important, and it also compares both of these cameras to a Panasonic bridge camera that *is* in your budget:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200: Digital Photography Review

Now, I owned a great-great grand-relative of that Panny (still do, in fact), and I can attest to the fact that they make a pretty nice bridge camera, too.

These high-end bridge cameras live in a somewhat precarious place in the market today, because you can, in fact, run out and pick up a cheap DSLR for less than the cost of one of these all-in-one's. In order to match 24-200 (or 28-300) of focal length worth of f/2.8 glass, of course, you'd then also have to drop several grand on lens(es), which you'd then have to cart all over Hawaii, trying hard not to let salt spray and sand get into the body of your new DSLR while you're changing lenses on the beach. Lots of people don't appreciate nuances like that when they're ogling that new DSLR! Don't get me wrong -- ultimately, you can't touch the expandability and ultimate responsiveness of a good DSLR even with today's bridge cameras, but they've come an awful long way since I owned one. Having hauled a Canon 40D and three lenses up and down 100 miles of mountain trails last year, I can appreciate the benefit of "almost as good at a fraction of the size, weight, and cost", and that's where these bridge cameras shine.

So, at the risk of really over-generalizing, I think you can look at camera classes (with a lot of overlap among these) along these lines:

* Compact cameras - pocketable and better than a phone. A few have good sensors and glass.
* Bridge cameras - nearly the size of a small SLR, some have insane zoom ranges, and there are some good sensors and glass on the high end.
* MILC - "mini" SLR's with most of the benefits of an SLR, and most of the downsides, too.
* DSLR - good-to-great quality; comes with the privilege of spending limitless amounts of money on lenses and accessories.

I do still own the FZ-200 - Doesn't really get much use anymore since I went DSLR but it's a pretty capable little camera. Big thing I liked most, aside from the f/2.8 lens, was the viewfinder. Most of the other EVF's I looked at were really awful, especially for me since I wear glasses. The FZ200 was one of the few who's EVF was useable.

 

[lambertpix]

I do still own the FZ-200 - Doesn't really get much use anymore since I went DSLR but it's a pretty capable little camera. Big thing I liked most, aside from the f/2.8 lens, was the viewfinder. Most of the other EVF's I looked at were really awful, especially for me since I wear glasses. The FZ200 was one of the few who's EVF was useable.

Another often-overlooked benefit of lots of bridge cameras is that they're pretty capable for macros, too, which is tough on a DSLR without tubes or a macro lens. I liked my Panny FZ-28 a lot, but I have to admit that after using a 30D and 40D, I went back and picked up the Panny (I was contemplating taking it on my backpacking trip) and I knew almost immediately that I couldn't go back.

 

[hirejn]

There's no question some technology is simply more enjoyable to use. Ultimately, it's only tools, so its impact on the merits of your photography is minimal. There's a new market called MILCs, or mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, that are in between DSLRs and P&S. They're like DSLRs but smaller and less expensive, and essentially not quite as high-end, which won't matter if you don't have the skills to max it anyway. Buy what you want, but remember it's only tools. If you weren't a painter, would you buy all the best painting supplies in hopes they'd make you better?

 

[brunerww]

Hi Lisa - I'll second (or third) the FZ200 recommendation at the $500 price point, if you want a fixed lens "bridge" camera to learn with. I have its predecessor, the FZ150, and it is a great camera.

For about the same price, though, if you want the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, you can step up to a $497 Nikon D3200 DSLR with the 18-55 kit lens.

The D3200 is not that much bigger than the FZ200: Compare camera dimensions side by side and, in most cases, will give you higher quality images for your money.

If you want to post your pictures before you get home, you can transfer the D3200's images to your phone or tablet with a $46 WU-1a adapter.

Hope this is helpful and good luck with your decision!

Bill

 

[robbins.photo]

I do still own the FZ-200 - Doesn't really get much use anymore since I went DSLR but it's a pretty capable little camera. Big thing I liked most, aside from the f/2.8 lens, was the viewfinder. Most of the other EVF's I looked at were really awful, especially for me since I wear glasses. The FZ200 was one of the few who's EVF was useable.

Another often-overlooked benefit of lots of bridge cameras is that they're pretty capable for macros, too, which is tough on a DSLR without tubes or a macro lens. I liked my Panny FZ-28 a lot, but I have to admit that after using a 30D and 40D, I went back and picked up the Panny (I was contemplating taking it on my backpacking trip) and I knew almost immediately that I couldn't go back.

Same problem I have - it's a nice little camera and it does produce some nice images, but after shooting with the D5100 I guess it just feels like I'm putting training wheels back on the bike or something.

 

[lambertpix]

Same problem I have - it's a nice little camera and it does produce some nice images, but after shooting with the D5100 I guess it just feels like I'm putting training wheels back on the bike or something.

For me, the two things that drove me batty right out of the bag were the tiny delay in the Panny vs. the *right now* response of my (then) 40D. It's not much, but I sure noticed it. The other problem I ran into was that I could shoot RAW *or* I could shoot a bracket (AEB), but not both. Silly, I know, but it bugged me no end.

 

[robbins.photo]

Same problem I have - it's a nice little camera and it does produce some nice images, but after shooting with the D5100 I guess it just feels like I'm putting training wheels back on the bike or something.

For me, the two things that drove me batty right out of the bag were the tiny delay in the Panny vs. the *right now* response of my (then) 40D. It's not much, but I sure noticed it. The other problem I ran into was that I could shoot RAW *or* I could shoot a bracket (AEB), but not both. Silly, I know, but it bugged me no end.

For me it was I could shoot raw - for a few frames, then I was waiting for several seconds for the camera to recover. For anything that you want a decent sized burst on you pretty much are stuck in jpg only.

 

[mishele]

Which island are you going to? :mrgreen: Is this your first time to the islands?