Digital Camera Suggestions

Dgilpin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2006
3,774
PA
My wife would like a digital camera for Christmas, I don't have a ton of requirements other than it being relatively easy to use and have good battery life. She's not the most tech savvy person and is prone to breaking electronics so I'd like it to be in the 300 or under range. I was considering the new Nikon coolpix S800c just because of the WiFi capability. I'm open to any other suggestions.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
4,323
Boston
My wife would like a digital camera for Christmas, I don't have a ton of requirements other than it being relatively easy to use and have good battery life. She's not the most tech savvy person and is prone to breaking electronics so I'd like it to be in the 300 or under range. I was considering the new Nikon coolpix S800c just because of the WiFi capability. I'm open to any other suggestions.
If you're not looking at 4/3, apsc, or interchangeable lens cameras, you should be able to find one in the ~$150-200 zone. This Panasonic camera is $244 but has better technical specs than the Nikon in every way -
Panasonic http://www.amazon.co...+digital+camera

I mention Panasonic because I have used their point and shoot cameras. They're very good in both absolute and value terms.

For $199, this Canon also has better technical specifications than that Nikon; I personally haven't used a Canon point and shoot in awhile but this model is highly rated.
http://www.amazon.co...rds=wifi+camera

Most current point and shoots will give very good image quality. Megapixels are relatively unimportant on a P&S as the difference between 14 and 16 is less than before and also megapixels are being placed on sensors that are of a fixed (small) size. Optical zoom (including wide angles like 24/25mm equivalent lenses) and usability are more important for current digital cameras.

Edit - I changed the Canon camera link because of the WIFI part of your post. I missed this at first and the Panasonic does not have WIFI. (it does have GPS)
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,968
Somerville, MA
The "Android Camera" segment is still pretty new and immature, I have seen mixed reviews of pretty much all of them and they tend to be expensive for how much camera you get. In that price range, the Canon SX260 seems to be fairly well reviewed (on Amazon and DPreview) and capable. Nothing in that price range will be great in low light, but zoom range and stabilization seem to come standard these days, and they all have pretty good "set and forget" auto modes.

Going up much more in price and ease of use becomes less of a manufacturer concern and things like sensor size, manual controls, and the ability to shoot in a raw format start to come into play. Though I can recommend the Canon G-series (G15 is the current one) if you just want something that is built like a tank and will last.

edit: I was beaten to it while I was typing I see. That Panasonic looks good also, and I've used their cameras before with good result.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,371
Pioneer Valley
I have the Panasonic DMC LZ2, an older version of what's on offer now and I love it, with one exception. It doesn't have a view-finder, so if you want to photograph something far-away and small, like a bird, you have to locate it in the large panel on the rear, which doesn't allow you to put your eye right up to the image that you want to photograph, so that the sun interferes with your eye's ability to focus perfectly. The last time I looked---years ago---cameras with separate view finders were more expensive, but that may have changed. The next camera I get will have to have one.
 

shlincoln

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2009
2,040
Canon SX260
I bought the SX260 two months ago and absolutely love it. I use it mostly for concert photography and it's done an outstanding job. Much better than my old Powershot SD850. The 20x zoom makes all the difference.
 

cgori

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2004
4,007
SF, CA
The low-end Canon cameras are pretty much fire-and-forget. I have the predecessor to this camera and it's pretty much foolproof, in fact I bought one for my retired parents too and they seem to be able to use it without trouble.

It takes good, but not outstanding pictures, the battery lasts a really long time, and it's small enough that I actually take it places to use it. It's $99 on Amazon right now. The other cameras in the thread are definitely better and have nicer features, but if it's semi-disposable (likely to get broken?) perhaps investing less is better?
 

amh03

Tippi Hedren
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 27, 2003
6,638
Canon's point & shoots are awesome...have given as gifts and have relatives who swear by them. My observation of Nikon point & shoots are that zoomed pics are less sharp. Haven't tried the the J1 though, so can't speak to that...
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,371
Pioneer Valley
What words do you look for in a camera's description that indicates that it has a separate view-finder. Is "view finder" the word? Does anyone know a relatively inexpensive camera that has one?
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
...The 20x zoom makes all the difference.
Just a word of caution regarding zoom. The 10x or 18x or 24x, or whatever, is just the ratio of longest to the widest. For example, a 20x zoom could have a DSLR equivalent of 10mm (wide-angle) to 200mm (telephoto) or it could have the equivalent of a 20mm to 400mm zoom. Both of them have a 20x ratio but the second one has as long of a telephoto reach as the first but not as wide of an angle at the other end. Try to find the mm equivalents for the wide-angle and telephoto settings.
 

GeorgeThomas

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 4, 2007
105
Virginia
Optical viewfinder is the standard term.

The small point-and-shoots lost them some time ago. If you should find a small point and shoot that still has an optical viewfinder, be aware that they are generally poor at helping compose a shot.

Larger, higher end ones, such as the Canon G12 & G15 and Nikon P7100 still have them as do the non-pocketable Canon SX40 or Nikon P510 style cameras. These cameras cost a bit more, too. You're looking at $400+ for the first group and $300+ for the second.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,371
Pioneer Valley
Optical viewfinder is the standard term.

The small point-and-shoots lost them some time ago. If you should find a small point and shoot that still has an optical viewfinder, be aware that they are generally poor at helping compose a shot.

Larger, higher end ones, such as the Canon G12 & G15 and Nikon P7100 still have them as do the non-pocketable Canon SX40 or Nikon P510 style cameras. These cameras cost a bit more, too. You're looking at $400+ for the first group and $300+ for the second.
Thank you! That lets me out, but it is good to know the answer.
 

5050HindSight

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,390
Upstate NY
I'm in the market for a new camera, and paralyzed a bit by all the information out there, I was hoping to get a little advice from the folks of SoSH.
 
I am not much of a photographer at all... having mostly used pocket-sized point and shoot cameras in the past. My wife has a bit more experience than me, and we have a nice (albeit older) DSLR (I think Canon 5D mark II or III), but we are looking for something that is in between. We have set a goal of taking 12 trips in 2014... so it would be great to have something more portable than the DSLR but more powerful/versatile than a little point and shoot to capture those memories. 
 
We both have been pretty familiar with Canon's offerings but would definitely be willing to go with a different brand if it meant more bang for the buck. Ideally we'd like to stay in the $200-400 range, but if there was a real good reason could probably go as high as $800.
 
Without any additional input, our choice right now would be the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-2-8-Inch/dp/B009B0MZ1M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386183112&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+sx50 As it seems to be well reviewed, and has a lot of great features in a good price point.
 
That said...
 
1. Given what we are planning to use the camera for (travel, getting more into photography) is this the camera that you would buy? If not, what would you recommend?
 
2. It seems like this camera hasn't been updated since Fall 2012, is this something that is likely to be updated soon?
 
3. Are there any compelling reasons to jump into a higher price point?
 
Thanks!
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/DMC-ZS30K

I have this camera and I love it.
 

SteveF

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,936
The Sony rx100s and Canon s95,s100,s110,s120 are good pocketable DSLRs.  You really only have to give up the high zoom, but I can see how that could be a deal breaker.
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,968
Somerville, MA
I use the first revision RX100 and I think it's pretty great.  My only caveat has been that the shutter release is so quick that sometimes I don't pay attn to the exposure time and get hand shake in my shots.  If your wife has a 5D then you probably have something that can process RAW files so you'll benefit from a camera that can do that.  If you are concerned about size of the camera this is definitely the most bang, with the lack of zoom on the long end being the biggest weakness.  The Panasonic Lumix LX7 is also pretty solid in that category.
 
If you want a medium between a strong sensor/featureset and reasonable zoom I'd look at the latest G-series from Canon, I forget what number they're up to.  My sister bought one when my first nephew was born and has had great luck with it.  It's a little less in terms of sensor capability vs the RX100 or LX7, but a bit longer on the zoom.
 
If you move into the superzooms you're likely giving up RAW processing and low light performance vs the others, and they're (sometimes much) bigger.  Having said that my dad has a Lumix superzoom and loves it (FZ28, which has been updated since).
 

BillMuellerFanClub

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,388
echoing what others have already said the sony rx100 or the canon g16 are great options. the trade off in a better sensor is definitely top end zoom, which the sx50 has plenty of. if you're looking for something with more versatility on that front, take a look at the sony hx50 or wx300, or perhaps the canon sx280/Nikon s9500, however they are significant steps down from what else is being recommended.
 

5050HindSight

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,390
Upstate NY
Thanks for the advice, everyone.
 
To be honest, I had no idea what a lot of the differences were between say, the Sony RX100 and the Canon SX 50. Frankly I had thought that the body size of the SX50 meant that it was more of a hybrid... that it would give more of the manual features of our bigger 5D in a more manageable size and that the built in zoom was just a huge bonus. I had no idea about RAW or sensors or F-Stops. I've done a little more research and understand the features a little bit more but I'm still missing a source that sort of ties everything together.
 
So... stepping back a second... I probably need to understand what features will be the most important to me before I understand which cameras would work best. I know that we want something that travels better than our heavy DSLR, but that has some more advanced features and will take a better picture.
 

KiltedFool

has a terminal case of creeping sharia
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,400
Wife has asked for an updated digital camera for her Christmas present, and since she's normally hard to shop for, off I go to search.
 
We've historically used Canon Powershot cameras, our current one we've had a few years, but it and the Flip camera have fallen into disuse.  The Powershot is slow on shutter speed so we constantly miss pictures.  She's mostly used her iphone recently, especially since she got an app that allows her to take an assload of pics quickly.  She's been reading that cameras these days can be wireless capable and interface with facebook and stuff like that.
 
So I guess the feature list is point and shoot, easy to handle, fast shutter speed, wifi/network capable/friendly, drop in purse kind of camera.
 
Most of our pictures are things like kids sporting events or the Christmas singing event, that sort of thing. Couple hundred cap on cost.
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,968
Somerville, MA
I'd say the Canon S110 may be a winner for you.  $220 most places, can probably find something to get it down to 200, has the fast shutter, the wireless, and advanced controls if you choose to learn them.  There is an S120 out but the cost is higher, anything else in that price range I think you'll be making some major sacrifices.
 

KiltedFool

has a terminal case of creeping sharia
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,400
That does look nice, some rumbles about lens errors with the Powershot S line.  I see the S120 at $400, doubt I go to that. Will read on the S110 some more.
 

KiltedFool

has a terminal case of creeping sharia
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,400
Wife interested in greater zoom capability, looking at the SX280HS now. Not really getting the feature differences that are driving the price points between the S120 and SX280HS. RAW is apparently a big factor in the difference but I don't know enough to know what that translates to. Touch screen too I guess.

The old camera is an Elph SD1300 IS.
 

Couperin47

Member
SoSH Member
KiltedFool said:
Wife interested in greater zoom capability, looking at the SX280HS now. Not really getting the feature differences that are driving the price points between the S120 and SX280HS. RAW is apparently a big factor in the difference but I don't know enough to know what that translates to. Touch screen too I guess.

The old camera is an Elph SD1300 IS.
RAW = totally uncompressed image, of course MUCH larger files than any compressed option, but if you're a Pro or otherwise do any extensive manipulation of images with Photoshop (or any other image software) only raw images will totally avoid artifacts of such manipulation.  If you don't do that sort of thing, then odds are you would never utilize raw images in any event. These days so many cameras are now packing in features that formerly were only available in much higher priced models that all the major makers now withhold RAW from these cameras as a way to insure serious users are forced to the more expensive model.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Actually, some cameras have a lossless compressed RAW and lossy compressed RAW1 as well as different bit-depths of RAW. For example, my Nikon DSLRs can shoot in either 12-bit or 14-bit RAW files, compressed or uncompressed. You basically won't notice much difference in appearance between 12-bit and 14-bit shots (although the latter is slightly better). One thing you will notice is that 14-bit files take longer to record to storage media and as a result I use 12-bit because I frequently use the continuous high speed for the shutter release (fast, randomly moving subjects) and 14-bit files slow the speed down from 6 frames per second to about 4 fps.
 
JPEG is a lossy compression file type. The amount of compression is variable but the more you compress the file, the more you lose in color and even detail. It is fine for web purposes because of much smaller file sizes but if you intend making "fine art" prints then you  probably want a lossless file type.
 
1 Lossless compressed RAW has reversible compression while lossy compressed RAW can't recover the discarded data.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,900
Alexandria, VA
OttoC said:
Actually, some cameras have a lossless compressed RAW and lossy compressed RAW1 as well as different bit-depths of RAW.
RAW is a well-defined lossless image format (it originated in Image Alchemy, and has the extension .raw).

Lots of modern cameras claim that they have raw image support, but in actuality they use other formats (Canon's .crw and Adobe's .dng are two common ones, but there are dozens). Calling them "raw" has become popular because that implies high quality images, but they aren't actually .RAW files. As a consumer, you should be pretty livid if you have a camera that purports to support RAW images but actually uses a lossy compression format--that isn't a RAW image, and should (IMO) be subject to false advertising or other fraud charges if the manufacturer claims their proprietary lossy format is raw image support.

A RAW image is a well-defined lossless standard (the first 6 bits will be "mhwanh" in ASCII or hex "6D 68 77 61 6E 68", followed by hex "00 04" (ASCII NUL and EOT) in both cases.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
SumnerH said:
RAW is a well-defined lossless image format (it originated in Image Alchemy, and has the extension .raw).

Lots of modern cameras claim that they have raw image support, but in actuality they use other formats (Canon's .crw and Adobe's .dng are two common ones, but there are dozens). Calling them "raw" has become popular because that implies high quality images, but they aren't actually .RAW files. As a consumer, you should be pretty livid if you have a camera that purports to support RAW images but actually uses a lossy compression format--that isn't a RAW image, and should (IMO) be subject to false advertising or other fraud charges if the manufacturer claims their proprietary lossy format is raw image support.

A RAW image is a well-defined lossless standard (the first 6 bits will be "mhwanh" in ASCII or hex "6D 68 77 61 6E 68", followed by hex "00 04" (ASCII NUL and EOT) in both cases.
 
Hey, Sport, from page 334 of of the Nikon D600 User's Manual--Memory Card Capacity:
 
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 12-bit -- file size: 23.4 MB
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 14-bit -- file size: 29.2 MB
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 12-bit -- file size: 20.7 MB
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 14-bit -- file size: 25.4 MB
 
If Nikon wants to call them RAW files, I am not going to argue with them, much less be livid. It is a whole lot easier to just refer to my files as RAW instead of NEF when talking with other camera owners because each one has its own file extension name, e.g., CRW for Canon, PEF for Pentax, et al.
 
These many manufacturer-specific names for their RAW files generally have non-standard file headers, include additional image tags, and encrypt some of the file data in an attempt to prevent third-party software from accessing file content unless they are licensed to do so.
 
KiltedFool said: "RAW is apparently a big factor in the difference but I don't know enough to know what that translates to." I tried to provide an answer to that and your post on the true meaning of RAW is rather irrelevant.
 

Couperin47

Member
SoSH Member
LOL, the OP is looking for differences and issues on cameras in the $200-$400 price range, he should be aware that these 2 posters above are arguing about RAW options made available in prosumer/pro cams in the price range where the body alone is over $1,500 (that's with no lenses). If he steps up to a cam that has "RAW" it will be one, simple option, it will save as images easily 3x larger than the 'best' compressed option the cam offers, and it will, again, only make sense to use if he does serious post processing using computer software...in which case, yes, he should be looking at a far more serious cam.
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,968
Somerville, MA
The S110, at just over $200, is actually known for having quite decent RAW capture and outstanding for its price range and portability.  I found it to be a revelation when I switched to using RAW on my old Lumix-LX3, as the in camera JPEG processing was noisy and tinted and I could get much better results with very little effort on the computer with their RAW format.
 
Back to KiltedFool's question though, this page on SnapSort breaks down the specs between the S110 and SX280HS, which are comparable in price currently.
 
 
The SX280HS has an obvious advantage in zoom range, and includes a GPS to auto-tag location on your photos which may or may not be something you want (personal preference). The longer zoom likely comes with significant distortion, as you need to make a compromise in the name of physics.
 
The S110 has a much faster aperture at the wide end (f/2.8 vs f/3.8) which basically means that it lets in more light.  It also has a signifcantly larger sensor (see pixel size on the page), which generally equates to less noise for the light that it gets.  So that one will be better at having a fast shutter speed, and be more forgiving in low light.  It also offers the aforementioned RAW format, and has manual controls which seems to hold less appeal here but can go a long way in getting more out of a camera if you learn a bit of photography theory.
 
Really either would be a good choice.  In a small camera it's always a matter of what you want to tradeoff.  I've got a bias towards more control and sensor quality, but my choices aren't necessarily right for your wife's use.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,900
Alexandria, VA
OttoC said:
Hey, Sport, from page 334 of of the Nikon D600 User's Manual--Memory Card Capacity:
... 
If Nikon wants to call them RAW files, I am not going to argue with them, much less be livid. It is a whole lot easier to just refer to my files as RAW instead of NEF when talking with other camera owners because each one has its own file extension name, e.g., CRW for Canon, PEF for Pentax, et al.
 ...
KiltedFool said: "RAW is apparently a big factor in the difference but I don't know enough to know what that translates to." I tried to provide an answer to that and your post on the true meaning of RAW is rather irrelevant.
It is important to the user, though. I have programs that I use to manipulate my photos. They all support JPG and RAW images. You'd expect that if your camera claims to take RAW images, you'd have no problem editing them with those programs, but that isn't the case: they don't all support CR2 (used in the Canon S110 mentioned above) and other proprietary formats, so you wind up having to seek out a plug-in to read them, a conversion utility, or some other way of dealing with them.

It's no different than if a flash drive manufacturer claimed that their drives used USB connectors, and then you got them home and discovered that it was some proprietary plug that looks nothing like USB and wouldn't plug into your computer and left you scrambling to find and adapter. Actually it's worse because as you noted it's done deliberately to screw the user.
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,968
Somerville, MA
That's a great deal for that camera, those are very well-regarded.  I'd look at one of those, a Lumix LX7, or one of the Canon S series (as discussed above).  Any of them will start well and get better as you learn.
 

BostonFan23

Randy Hickey
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
1,723
I went with the XF1...I compared it to a ton of different cameras and I just liked the combination of technical specs/style/uniqueness. Now I'll check out Lightroom...how does it compare to Photoshop (which I already have)?
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,968
Somerville, MA
If you already have Photoshop and a system for organizing things it may not bring you much.  I use it for organization and basic/bulk changes, if I just want to adjust white balance/exposure type things on a lot of pics it's great.  The same tools in Photoshop tend to be more powerful but less "interactive" for cases of working on pictures in bulk.
 
I suggested it mainly because if you don't have Photoshop then it costs a lot less, and I think it's the next step for an enthusiast compact in terms of getting good results out of RAW files.
 
Coworker of mine ordered the XF1 also just now, that price is just too good to pass up.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Adobe is offering Photoshop CC and Lightroom 5 for $9.99 per month as long as you sign up by December 31. CC is Creative Cloud. Rather than sort through everything, here, anyone interested should just go to www.adobe.com. The upshot, though, is that all new Photoshop features will go to CC and they won't be doing upgrades for stand-alone programs (with the exception of Camera RAW that will be updated for new cameras).
 
I think Lightroom has a high learning curve, at least from the library side. If you can post-process images in Photoshop, you should be able to do it with Lightroom, but if you are going into Lightroom with a large collection of photographs that you want to catalogue, It is not that simple. Ideally, you should start from scratch or with only a small backlog.
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,968
Somerville, MA
I already had mine in folders with dates in the titles, so I just imported that tree into LR and went forward from there.  Then I just make new folders with dates in the titles, copy the files into them, and "import" the folder manually into LR when I go shoot.  I realize it's probably not the best workflow but it works for the volume I shoot.  It does make me copy the files by hand but it's not that often, I really should get out and shoot more.
 
As for the RAW debate, I was totally surprised at how well a compact can do.  Shot this on my pocketable camera (Sony RX100) and had to do very little to the file, but being able to tweak the exposure and white balance a bit in post was key. 
 
 
 

 
Shot on a tripod, ISO 200, f/11, 30 seconds.  Hardest part was pushing the shutter button without shaking it.  No reason this couldn't have been done on the Fuji XF1, the Canon S110/120, or the Lumix LX7 that have been mentioned above as they all offer a similar level of control.
 
(edit: when I go in this edit box I can see the picture, when I post it isn't showing up.  New server problems?)
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
It shows up. I like the picture but I'd probably use Content-aware Fill on the top half of the building in the background.
 
Does your camera let you delay the shutter (self-timer) that lets you get into the picture? If so, couldn't you use that in place of a remote-shutter-release?
 
I have years of photographs, strewn over various external hard drives that need organization and I am currently copying them to a 2TB USB3 drive. I've already filled up about 40% of the external drive. I'm really looking forward to importing all this into Lightroom (/sarcasm).
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,968
Somerville, MA
Yeah I tried it quickly but the dock below gets too close to the pilings to safely cut it there, and the trees above the dock go into the building so it's tough to cut up that way too.  I did somewhat desaturate that corner, the lighting was much more yellow/distracting.