Upcoming vacation - which small camera?

[greybeard35 8]

OK, my final word on this post. You want a small camera that has killer auto modes and has a big enough sensor and MP count to give you mural size pictures without pixelation, right? The Sony a6000 can do this but, you wrote that you didn't like the NEX.

 

[LakeFX]

Makes sense that you are an educator. Teachers always hated me. I did things different than everyone else, and didn't read the instructions. After a while I stopped asking for help because they would always get mad at me for not doing it their way. No surprise that our interaction has been was it has.

I have time to learn. I don't have time to practice and perfect. Knowledge is useless without application is it not?

There are a lot of bad teachers out there who insist on "doing it their way." I'm not one of them and I'm not telling you to take pictures my way. I'm telling you that the technology you want doesn't exist. And the auto mode on an expensive DSLR is not better than on a cheap point and shoot. Actually, most P&S cameras a better at guessing what you want than the DSLR will be.

Finally, from what you say about how you use your photos, a new TV will probably make you happier than a new camera. TVs have much lower resolution screens than computer monitors do. Picture will look pixelated on a TV because the pixels of the TV are bigger.

But again, that's not the answer you're looking for, or to put it another way, "I'm not doing it your way," so why don't you tell me what the right answer is.

 

[sashbar]

Why do I bother coming here? Obviously some cameras are better than others. One camera's auto focus may be faster than another. One may perform better in low light than others. But camera snobs don't want to talk about equipment. They want to lecture on ability and passion and expertise.

I DO NOT WANT TO BECOME A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER. I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DEVOTE TO LEARNING EVERYTHING. I DO NOT WANT TO BE LECTURED ABOUT HOW I COULD DO MORE WITH LESS. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHICH CAMERAS ARE MORE LIKELY TO FIT THE NEEDS OF MY SITUATION.

And I am more than tired of hearing that they don't exist. BS. So many people out there taking good pictures, no way all of them are experts.

All you need is to go to a good camera shop, talk to a salesperson, try 3 or 4 cameras on his recommendation within your budget and buy one you like most. Put it on auto and start taking pictures. Do not waste your time searching the internet? reading reviews and discussing things you do not even want to know.
If I had to give you one advice I would say - do not spend too much. Spend the money that you can easily afford.

 

[jtyson]

Am I stubborn, yes. I guess I'm expecting too much. I like my money to go as far as it can. If it is genuinely true that a $40 P&S has the same functions as a $7000 DSLR, I can't see the point in buying a nice camera. I just have a really hard time believing that. Oh well. I give up.

Thanks to those who gave actual suggestions. Thanks to the others who surely stuck a fork in any interest I did have in photography.

 

[LakeFX]

Am I stubborn, yes. I guess I'm expecting too much. I like my money to go as far as it can. If it is genuinely true that a $40 P&S has the same functions as a $7000 DSLR, I can't see the point in buying a nice camera. I just have a really hard time believing that. Oh well. I give up.

Thanks to those who gave actual suggestions. Thanks to the others who surely stuck a fork in any interest I did have in photography.

A $40 P&S won't have the same functions as a $7000 DSLR, but you very explicitly said you don't want the functions of a $7000 DSLR, you want the automatic functions that are found on a P&S. They are completely different tools meant for different users. The $40 P&S won't really be any better than a good cell phone camera. A $300 P&S will produce better images than the cell phone and still be automatic.

The reason you aren't getting specific recommendations is that the quality of P&S cameras are all about the same within a price category. If you want specific recommendations, you need to be pretty specific about what you want. Do you want a large zoom range or better image quality? Those are direct trade-offs in a P&S. Do you want a variety of automatic scene modes that will suit different situations but require you to switch between them, or do you want to simplify operation at the expense of missing shots because the camera picks the wrong settings?

There is no camera that is great at everything, so you need to decide which tradeoffs you want to make. Once YOU make that decision, we can help with specific recommendations. At this point, you have just been insisting that some camera must exist that does everything great, but that just isn't the case even among $7000 DSLRs.

Also, better equipment doesn't necessarily result in better images. I recently sold all of my DSLR gear and bought a cheap ($300) Sony a5000 and a bunch of old manual focus lenses. My pictures are coming out better than ever, but not because the a5000 is a better camera. Instead, it is because the a5000 is small enough that I have it with me more often and the manual lenses make me take more time to think about what I'm doing. This obviously is not what you want, but just another anecdote to show the way these tradeoffs can function and how you need to define the specific tradeoffs you are willing to make.

 

[Microbois]

Thanks to the others who surely stuck a fork in any interest I did have in photography.

Wow, this is surreal... Now it's my fault if I killed the interest you never had in photography!

 

[jtyson]

Am I stubborn, yes. I guess I'm expecting too much. I like my money to go as far as it can. If it is genuinely true that a $40 P&S has the same functions as a $7000 DSLR, I can't see the point in buying a nice camera. I just have a really hard time believing that. Oh well. I give up.

Thanks to those who gave actual suggestions. Thanks to the others who surely stuck a fork in any interest I did have in photography.

A $40 P&S won't have the same functions as a $7000 DSLR, but you very explicitly said you don't want the functions of a $7000 DSLR, you want the automatic functions that are found on a P&S. They are completely different tools meant for different users. The $40 P&S won't really be any better than a good cell phone camera. A $300 P&S will produce better images than the cell phone and still be automatic.

The reason you aren't getting specific recommendations is that the quality of P&S cameras are all about the same within a price category. If you want specific recommendations, you need to be pretty specific about what you want. Do you want a large zoom range or better image quality? Those are direct trade-offs in a P&S. Do you want a variety of automatic scene modes that will suit different situations but require you to switch between them, or do you want to simplify operation at the expense of missing shots because the camera picks the wrong settings?

There is no camera that is great at everything, so you need to decide which tradeoffs you want to make. Once YOU make that decision, we can help with specific recommendations. At this point, you have just been insisting that some camera must exist that does everything great, but that just isn't the case even among $7000 DSLRs.

Also, better equipment doesn't necessarily result in better images. I recently sold all of my DSLR gear and bought a cheap ($300) Sony a5000 and a bunch of old manual focus lenses. My pictures are coming out better than ever, but not because the a5000 is a better camera. Instead, it is because the a5000 is small enough that I have it with me more often and the manual lenses make me take more time to think about what I'm doing. This obviously is not what you want, but just another anecdote to show the way these tradeoffs can function and how you need to define the specific tradeoffs you are willing to make.

Frankly, I don't know what I want anymore. I wanted a camera capable of catching a genuine smile, a speeding car, a passing train, a dog chasing a ball, the Eiffel tower, all naturally. Without having to take time to change something every single shot and take multiple shots of the same thing just to get a picture that is good. Everything becomes fake at that point, living creatures especially. Moments I wanted to capture, that aren't repeating constantly are not attainable. It just isn't realistic.

I'll never experience anything if I spend all my time trying to capture it. I was under the impression that one could be both the cameraman, and a human being. I guess there is a reason that you always have that one friend that goes to every event, but isn't in any of the pictures.

Thanks to the others who surely stuck a fork in any interest I did have in photography.

Wow, this is surreal... Now it's my fault if I killed the interest you never had in photography!

Not surreal at all. You've saved me time and money. I was mildly interested in being somewhat capable of taking good pictures. Again, middle ground. Now, I've realized that I either have to be Michelangelo or give up my finger paints. Nothing in between is worth it, and even still, it'd take me too much time to figure out how to do it right.

 

[Microbois]

I guess there is a reason that you always have that one friend that goes to every event, but isn't in any of the pictures.

Yup, but most photographers like it that way.

Now, I've realized that I either have to be Michelangelo or give up my finger paints.

You finally came to accept that there's no such thing as a camera with a unique "do-it-all" automatic mode. That's already a great step ahead, and you saved money, time, and a big deception! Now, no one said you need to aim at becoming the best photographer in the world. Just do like the rest of us, learn the basics of photography, practice with your camera, ask questions here, and you will soon see a lot of improvement in the quality of your pictures. Eventually, what you saw as being a lot of work to fiddle with the settings to get the picture you envision will soon become second nature.

Good luck!

 

[chuasam]

Get the Sony RX100 Mk III, 1" sesnor, fast lens and excellent image quality.
I consider it to be one of the best point and shoot cameras available, its not big either.

you can save a bundle going with the Mk 1 or Mk 2

 

[jtyson]

Considering my lack of extreme interest, would the RX100 be too much for me though? I am fumbling through reviews and suggestions all over the web and see a lot of people saying the RX100 is a tough camera to get good shots with. Saw a recommendation of Lumix LX100.

I'm truly torn. I'm so impressed by so many pictures I see on here, dpreview, flickr, etc but I know that so much practice and work went into making them happen. I'm afraid that I'll just buy another camera to take awful pictures because I don't have the time/desire to learn as much as I need to.

 

[greybeard35 8]

I'm truly torn. I'm so impressed by so many pictures I see on here, dpreview, flickr, etc but I know that so much practice and work went into making them happen. I'm afraid that I'll just buy another camera to take awful pictures because I don't have the time/desire to learn as much as I need to.

I know I wrote that this was my final post, I changed my mind. Reads like you are stuck in a catch 22 situation. If you buy a camera and your pictures are not perfect, you will throw down the camera and will have wasted your time and money. I don't think any amount of advice can really help you.

 

[goodguy]

Get the Sony RX100 Mk III, 1" sesnor, fast lens and excellent image quality.
I consider it to be one of the best point and shoot cameras available, its not big either.

you can save a bundle going with the Mk 1 or Mk 2

Which are good cameras but the MkIII has the much faster lens which is a big improvement and very helpful in low light situation, after all 1" sensor really isn't a huge sensor so it needs all the help it can get.

 

[goodguy]

I'm truly torn. I'm so impressed by so many pictures I see on here, dpreview, flickr, etc but I know that so much practice and work went into making them happen. I'm afraid that I'll just buy another camera to take awful pictures because I don't have the time/desire to learn as much as I need to.

I know I wrote that this was my final post, I changed my mind. Reads like you are stuck in a catch 22 situation. If you buy a camera and your pictures are not perfect, you will throw down the camera and will have wasted your time and money. I don't think any amount of advice can really help you.

You are right, this is just getting less and less helpful.
Here are few more words to think of.
Today I dont think there are bad cameras, technology has moved so far that all cameras are capable to create good pictures!
Buy a camera put it on Auto mode and enjoy your trip,
If you will want to take your pictures to the next level you will have to get a bit busier and learn the basics and more, skills are much more important and I assume you know that already.

 

[Microbois]

I'm truly torn. I'm so impressed by so many pictures I see on here, dpreview, flickr, etc but I know that so much practice and work went into making them happen. I'm afraid that I'll just buy another camera to take awful pictures because I don't have the time/desire to learn as much as I need to.

I think you make it a much bigger thing than it really is. You said that you already have a vague understanding of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc. Then, you are honestly half way there, and all you need to learn a little more in depth is what they are exactly, and how they interact with each other. There are tons of online videos explaining just that. If you prefer to read, there are websites, books, etc. Once you understand that concept well, and know what to use when, you will have completed 75% of the work of learning photography. You could almost stop there and have enough technical knowledge to get great pictures. And I'm not even kidding! But I suspect you will enjoy taking much better pictures then and you'll pick up the remaining 25% quickly.

As far as suggesting a specific model of camera, I would hesitate to do so at this point. Without knowing if you will actually learn the basics of photography, if you will succeed in doing so, and not knowing any other preferences you may want (zoom span, image quality, camera size, interchangeable lenses or not, type of photography, etc.), it's very hard to offer any valid suggestions. Seriously. For example, if you say you'll use your camera for stuff around the house or on vacations, but you just trow in that you'd really like to take good pictures of birds, then that very last item will trow off all the cameras we could have suggested for the first part. Tell us more about what kind of photography you want to get into, and you'll get some very good suggestions.

Good luck.

 

[chuasam]

Get the Sony RX100 Mk III, 1" sesnor, fast lens and excellent image quality.
I consider it to be one of the best point and shoot cameras available, its not big either.

you can save a bundle going with the Mk 1 or Mk 2

Which are good cameras but the MkIII has the much faster lens which is a big improvement and very helpful in low light situation, after all 1" sensor really isn't a huge sensor so it needs all the help it can get.

In for a penny, in for a pound. If you're going to go as much as the MkIII...just giv'er and get the mighty Lumix LX100 *(my dream camera)*