Time to upgrade...looking for advice from more knowledgeable

[GoBirds]

I have just gotten into taking photos and videos in the last ~18 months. I currently own a Canon ELPH 300 HS. It is a quite a nice, tiny camera that takes nice stills in proper light and equally good video in 1080p.

The reasons for me wanting to upgrade include:
- Want more manual control (doesn't have to be full manual operations though)
- Would like something that offers better IQ for stills
- Would like a FAST autofocus
- Mechanical/manual focus AND adjustable aperture would be awesome
- Would like some zoom, but this is not mandatory like those listed above

I have just learned about RAW shooting, unsure what that entirely entails...not sure if I would be able to fully take advantage of it.

I have been researching superzooms like the Canon SX40 HS, interchangeables like the Canon 1 V1 and others of both types. (just so happens I can get either of those two for $299 right now, but open to the others).

I take portrait photos and landscape photos when I am mountain biking, running, rock climbing and vacation shots including the caribbean, mountains, etc.

BUDGET: I would like to stay around $400, BUT I am willing to spend upwards of $600. (I can buy a zoom lens in a month or two for my birthday)

 

[brunerww]

Hi GoBirds, superzooms like the SX40 and small sensor interchangeables like the Nikon 1 are great, but in a few years, you will probably find yourself frustrated with their image quality and control limitations. For a little more money, you can get a lightning fast Panasonic G5 ($445), Sony A37 ($468), or Nikon D3100 ($449) from Amazon Warehouse Deals.

All of these cameras are easy to use and any of them will provide better IQ, more manual control and a better upgrade path than the SX40 or Nikon 1 V1. And they are not a lot bigger than the SX40 - especially the Panasonic G5: Compare camera dimensions side by side

Here are some stills from the G5: Flickr: The Flickr Panasonic DMC-G5 Pool

From the A37: Flickr: The Sony SLT-A37 Pool

And from the D3100: Flickr: The Nikon D3100 Pool

Hope this is helpful and best of the holidays,

Bill

 

[GoBirds]

Thanks...I will go read up on those. I'm curious as to how they perform video-wise, ideally they record in 1080p/24fps (or 60fps) and even better are very good at focusing during that video capteure.

 

[brunerww]

The Nikon D3100 was the first DSLR with video autofocus a couple of years ago, and its autofocus is slow and noisy.

If you want camcorder-like video autofocus, the Nikon is probably not the best choice. Nikons are great still cameras, but not very good at point and shoot video.

Here is an example (I will post Panasonic G5 DSLM (M is for mirrorless) and Sony A37 DSLT (T is for translucent) examples separately because the forum does not allow linking to more than one video in a single post):

 

[brunerww]

The A37 is the latest entry-level DSLT from Sony. It shoots 1080/24p and 1080/60i in AVCHD compression and 1080/30p MP4 videos. It has full time, fast video autofocus, but, again, Sony lenses are noisy. This test from CNET UK was only posted at 480p, and it is in a noisy outdoor environment, but you can clearly hear the autofocus motor cranking when the camera shifts focus. This would sound much worse indoors:

 

[brunerww]

The Panasonic G5 is the latest G series camera from Panasonic. It shoots 1080/60p AVCHD and 1080/30p in MP4. It too has full time, fast, video autofocus. But most Panasonic lenses are video optimized, with silent autofocus motors. Here is an example of fast, silent G5 autofocus. There are lots of examples of this camera's stunning video quality, but here is one that shows its fast, silent autofocus. Canon, Nikon and Sony lenses would be disturbingly noisy in this scenario:





If video is important to you, I would get the G5. It is the best combination of image quality, ease of use, upgradeability and video performance.

Again, hope this is helpful. Good luck with your decision and best of the holidays!

Bill

 

[Awiserbud]

Shooting in RAW is very similar to having the negative of an old film camera prior to printing, Digital cameras will shoot the RAW file and then convert it to a usable JPEG or TIFF file, so the camera basically does all the processing for you, By selecting RAW instead of JPEG etc you are basically telling the camera not to process the image, leaving you free to process it yourself using suitable software (Adobe lightroom for example).
It allows more control over the final edit as you manually select certain features (Exposure, White Balance etc) as you process the image.
There are many other advantages to shooting RAW too (as well as disadvantages) The image is uncompressed, has more dynamic range (often used to create HDR images)
On the downside the images are a lot bigger, often twice the size and take a lot more computer processing power to work with therefore will fill up your memory cards a lot quicker.
Its a personal preference, some people only shoot in RAW, some only in JPEG, some both, Really depends how much control you want over the images.