Thinking about a new camera

[nj swb]

I'm thinking about buying a new camera, as I use my current camera for work, and I think I can justify buying a new one. But what to get?

I'm more of a happy-snapper than photography enthusiast. For me, it's about capturing memories (hence many of my photos contain my 4wd), and I do like a certain amount of control over what the camera does.

I have an old skool SLR tucked away in a wardrobe - I was never enthusiastic enough to take a lot of photos with it, and my major recollection is that I was always changing lenses. I had (have?) a 28-80 and a 70-300 - I like to do the occasional close-up / macro shots, a lot of general landscape photography, and I love to zoom in on wildlife when the opportunity presents. But it seemed that, whatever I wanted to photograph next, I had the wrong lens on.

I had a Pentax Coolpix S10 (or something that looked a lot like it...) that was stolen a few years ago:


I liked it - it did what I needed, and used AA batteries, so I rarely got caught out with flat batteries (except when my shorty was being tested on Adelaide International Raceway... )

I made an insurance claim, tipped in some extra cash and, after a reasonable amount of research, bought a Panasonic DMC-FZ150.

It's been good. I like the zoom (a little more would be nice sometimes, but you can't have everything), the OIS seems to work well on the large zoom, and I'm generally pretty happy with the results I obtain from it. Using it for work, the fully articulated LCD helps me frame and capture decent photos of places that I couldn't do looking through a convention view finder, or at a fixed LCD.

However, ultimately, it has a small sensor which means I'm sometimes disappointed with the results in low light. So, if I'm going to replace it, I think I'd like something with a larger sensor - that's physically larger, not simply more pixels.

On my initial search, I'm drawn to the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000. I guess I'm still not willing to return to an interchangeable lens system, and the 25-400 (16X) lens should suit me. At max optical zoom the 20MP image will have similar resolution to my existing 24X / 12MP, but as each pixel on the sensor is 4x larger, the quality should be better.

So, I like it. But is there something else I should consider? Am I looking at this wrong?

[11T.Co]

It's a hard one to answer because at the end of the day the ideal camera is the one that doesn't make you say "I wish..."; I don't know of any point and shoot compact cameras that's going to be any good for macro shots but the majority of them will take good enough photos under most circumstances.

Any middle range compact cameras will take good snapshots for memory sake but they also lack the refinements that are only available in DSLR to take better shots.

Photography is a hobby for me and I have a range of camera that include a compact camera, a couple of DSLR, including one with a full frame sensor; the one I use depends as what I want to do at the time so for me there isn't a single camera that I would be happy with.

I can however think of a small camera that a friend bought as a replacement for a DSLR because his arthritis was getting so bad that he could no longer comfortably hold one; he really wanted something that was going to be nearly as versatile and he ended up with a Sony DSC-HX400V. Having seen some of the photos that he took with this new camera I can only say that the results were very impressive and if I had to fall back on a single camera I'd probably take a look at this one.

He took this particular shot with his new Sony camera, and this macro shot is one of mine but you really need a decent macro lens and a DSLR to get similar results.

I hope this helps you a little bit.

[nj swb]

It's a hard one to answer because at the end of the day the ideal camera is the one that doesn't make you say "I wish..."; I don't know of any point and shoot compact cameras that's going to be any good for macro shots but the majority of them will take good enough photos under most circumstances.

Any middle range compact cameras will take good snapshots for memory sake but they also lack the refinements that are only available in DSLR to take better shots.

Photography is a hobby for me and I have a range of camera that include a compact camera, a couple of DSLR, including one with a full frame sensor; the one I use depends as what I want to do at the time so for me there isn't a single camera that I would be happy with.

I can however think of a small camera that a friend bought as a replacement for a DSLR because his arthritis was getting so bad that he could no longer comfortably hold one; he really wanted something that was going to be nearly as versatile and he ended up with a Sony DSC-HX400V. Having seen some of the photos that he took with this new camera I can only say that the results were very impressive and if I had to fall back on a single camera I'd probably take a look at this one.

He took this particular shot with his new Sony camera, and this macro shot is one of mine but you really need a decent macro lens and a DSLR to get similar results.

I hope this helps you a little bit.

That is an awesome macro shot! Yes, far better than anything I'm looking to achieve - I generally top out at photos of flowers.

The Sony specs look pretty good, and it gets some good reviews. I like that it has GPS, but it's still the same size sensor as my existing camera - I'm fairly certain I want a larger format sensor next time around.

[Ent]

As a mad keen bushwalker I brought a Canon EOS400 and then realised that a SLR rather bulky. I like the compacts that can do raw images. You can go as small as the Canon S90 which is now the S100 or bigger to the G10 now 12 or higher. Yeap have the Olympus and Panasonic LX5 as well. The Panasonic tough series do good video as well as reasonable photographs.

I find it good still having a view finder as LCD screen hard to read and also can not be held as tightly to avoid camera shake.

Out of this rather large collection I find I use the G10 for bushwalking and most things as it does not give much away in picture quality to the SLR but chuck the Panasonic tough camera in for its video functioning. Still like the S90 as mighty picture quality from a small camera that I can still use with my big hands.

But I am the odd one out amongst my friends as they a GoPro or similar mad. Good photography takes time and in a group most things get rushed. I admire the work of many that take the time but spending two hours setting up a shot waiting for the right light is not me nowadays.

General observation is hard to get a bad camera from Canon, Panasonic or Olympus. Probably favourite is Canon as some weather conditions that have killed other electronic devices not affect them as they sail through getting damp and dropped.

For me made in Japan is the thing I look for.

[11T.Co]

That is an awesome macro shot! Yes, far better than anything I'm looking to achieve - I generally top out at photos of flowers.

The Sony specs look pretty good, and it gets some good reviews. I like that it has GPS, but it's still the same size sensor as my existing camera - I'm fairly certain I want a larger format sensor next time around.

Thanks.
Modern sensors are improving all the time and I'm starting to think that for the average photographer it doesn't really matter as the quality is pretty good with the major brands as long as you hit the middle price range.

I'm not a fan of any particular brand and will normally buy something on sale, which is usually a superseded model, because there's always something that will suit what I want without having to spend top dollars. My compact camera is a Nikon AW110 and I bought a Canon (I forget the model as it's 4-5 years old); either camera takes decent shots.

With sensors you also need to consider that the same brand can be used by different camera manufacturers and the difference in picture quality is generally due to the processor and software converting the sensor output into a jpeg file.

Another thing to consider is what you'll do with the photos, will you be viewing them on a screen or will you be printing them? The reason is that you don't need megapixels for viewing photos on a screen or printing a standard size photo. This webpage will give you a better idea about printing resolution and number of pixels required.

Aside from the above there is one good thing about a large sensor, you can crop small sections out of the original file and still have enough pixels left to create a decent image; but that will only apply if you're keen enough to get involved with post processing.

Remember that everything is subjective when it comes to camera and picture quality, don't get too hung up about small differences in camera specifications because at the end of the day most of them will do pretty much the same thing for the same price point. The best, most expensive, camera will also not help a poor photographer because a skilled photographer can still take great photos on the cheapest camera.

A good site for general camera review is Dpreview, and if you're mainly interested in lenses there is also a good site called photozone.

There are also

[ticky]

Scott, I have a Nikon 5100 DSLR.

I Know you said you dont want to change lenses, but you can buy just the body, & I think they do a 55 - 300.

It has a large sensor, although I dont think it is quite a full frame. I only have 1 battery, but it will easily last all day & you can get a non genuine battery pack for them.

Its a 16 Mp and it has a very good Drongo Mode setting which I use most of the time.

If your not in a hurry, I will have it down the mouth next month if you want to have a look.

[Morcs]

Camera stuff where do I start....

Small compact cameras are going to be fine in situations which have a lot of light available and very much the operator has small amounts of control over what is going on to take the picture.
I currently have 6d canon which is a full frame camera with a few lenses and associated stuff that would not leave much change out of 6 grand. Granted kicks butt when you now how to use it
Cons heavy expensive and cumbersome saying that I carried it all over USA on our trip earlier in the year.

I also have a Canon eos m which is a mirror less dslr I picked up of jb Hi-Fi run out for $199 (old stock and has same senser as 600d) with adaptor will take my canon lenses. I also picked up a 22mm pancake lens for it of eBay for $100. With this lens it's quite good as a general ever day shoot landscapes etc not so great for portrait stuff (35mm equivalent in 35mm film) as it is too wide angle and starts to distort the faces as you have to be very close. If I was going to do the us again I would just take the little eosm.
They use a little lithium battery that will shoot several hundred photos no problem on a single charge.

[bern]

Maybe something like a Sony Rx100

[bern]

Cannot say enough good things about the Sony Rx series http://thedigitalcamera.net/sony-rx1...the-different/

[ausGeoff]

This diagram is a comparison between the various sensor sizes:

I'd suggest any one of the mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras from this page: PC Mag Australia - The Best Mirrorless Cameras, March 6, 2015. Personally, I wouldn't go for anything less than a micro-4/3 sensor size (imaging area = 17.3 mm × 13.0mm).

You also need to avoid being caught up in the MP "race". More is not necessarily better, as you only need 3MP to print a standard A4 colour print. The two prime considerations should be the size of each individual sensor pixel, or photo-receptor, and the optical capabilities of the camera's lens to capture the image accurately. Unless you're using big, expensive lenses, then 26MP (for example) is a waste of time—and money.

An extreme example of this MP race stupidity is Nokia's Lumia 1020 mobile phone, with a 41MP camera! It only uses a tiny 1/1.5-inch sensor, which means in effect that around 35 of those MPs are wasted. A similar scenario can be applied to cameras.

[grhyso]

I've been looking into replacing my old canon eos 400d lately and the one camera that keeps popping up is the Sony A6000. Great mirrorless, apparently and does great video also, HD and 4K i think. Unfortunately the one thing holding me back from getting one is I want a wide angle lense for landscape and a couple of zoom lenses cover up to about 250-300mm. The sony lenses i want seem super expensive. They may have some cheaper more versatile lenses for everyday photography.

[cookie]

I currently have a Canon G16 which I really like and is perfect for me.

I had a couple of small compacts, Canon and a Panasonic waterproof and wanted something more capable but didn't want a DSLR, too big and bulky for me.

The G16 has most of the functionality of a basic DSLR and it fits in your pocket, a big pocket, it's slightly bigger than a standard compact.

The other camera I considered was a Sony RX100 which is probably slightly better but cost a bit more at the time.

[Jeffwatkins]

Geez. Just thought of how many cameras I have. Three Canon film, EOS 650, 620 and EOS 5. Mamiya 6X7 with three lenses and three backs. EOS5D and EOS 1DS mark 11 that are both full frame and a beautiful Noblex close to 180 degree panorama with a revolving lens.

I have Fugi Velva and Provia in my fridge. Much prefer transparency to digital. Bloody expensive though.

[ausGeoff]

The Sony lenses i want seem super expensive. They may have some cheaper more versatile lenses for everyday photography.

You can use plenty of cheaper third-party lenses with an inexpensive adapter. Lots of the Russian-made lenses will suit your requirements—and don't be deterred by their country of origin. Russian glass can be very good, but is often dismissed out of hand by camera snobs.

I currently use some Russian glass for my 35mm photography.

[nj swb]

To dredge up an old thread.

I went ahead and bought the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000. So far, I'm reasonably happy with it, and have used it quite a lot for work - and play.

At the time that I bought it, Panasonic had a promotion going that entitled me to a free battery. On the day, I went home & did all that I needed to do to claim it.

About a month later, I checked on my claim, and the website said my battery had been posted.

About another month later, when I still hadn't received the battery, I sent an email asking if there was any way to trace it. No great surprise that I didn't receive an answer, and I went on my annual pilgrimage to the High Country with only one battery (and a DC charger to suit...) I managed to keep it charged OK, but the battery went flat on one of the few cloudless nights, so I missed an opportunity to have a long-anticipated play with some of the features.

Since January, I've only ever thought about my lost battery at weird times, when I couldn't follow it up. Until yesterday.

After a few phone calls, I found a sceptical sounding lady in Panasonic's Promotions Department, whose first observation was "that was a long time ago". Yes, it was. So, she asked me to hold, then came back a few minutes later and told me they had one battery left in their stocks, and she's sending it to me.

So, given one's natural inclination to only bitch & gripe about things that don't work, I thought I should take this opportunity to commend Panasonic. When I rang, I fully expected to be told "Too late - too bad", so this outcome is quite a pleasant surprise.

A good news story, for a change. Thank you, Panasonic.