New camera recommendations

[melmcc]

Hi,

I am looking for some advice or recommendations on choosing a new camera. I am looking for a compact camera that can easily fit in my purse or pocket. Basically, I am looking to replace my cell phone as the primary camera. My main subject is twin 2 year olds. I don’t know that I need a specific sports mode camera, but obviously they do move fast and it is hard to get a picture of the 2 of them together without at least one blurred hand. I am a novice, so I am looking for something pretty easy to just take a picture without messing with a lot of controls. Ideally, it would be great if it was a camera that I could also experiment with as I got a bit better. I do have a DSLR but that is just not practical for me to lug to the park when I am managing the 2 by myself. What I am looking for:

-Good image quality(relative to the size price range). Would like to be able to enlarge shots to 5X7 if desired. 8X10 would be great, but that is pretty infrequent

-Price <$500. Prefer closer to $300

-Video: Want to be able to take decent video as well

-Wifi: Upload to facebook or email pictures to the grandparent.

I have been looking at some of the following from various sources, but I feel like this is just kind of a random mish-mash:

-Canon Powershot SX610

- Samsung EX2F

-Samsung WB350

Any recommendations?

 

[MarshallG]

I think you're making a great decision. There is a menu item at the top of this webpage that has "Buying Guides." These articles are excellent and will help you choose.

My advice:
Avoid "super zoom" lenses, such as a 10x zoom. They reduce image quality. You don't need to zoom in until your boys are playing high school sports. The best quality comes from a fixed, non-zoom lens, although it's hard to find such a camera at your price point. Less zoom is usually better; a 2.5x is usually better that a 5x or 10x zoom.

Canon and Sony make excellent compact cameras. The premium choice for you is the Sony RX100 III, but it's more expensive. I have a big DSLR system, and that Sony is the compact choice I would make, although, of course, it's pricey.

Enjoy!!

 

[Guidenet]

Without reservation, I would advise the Canon S110. It's a fairly top of the line compact camera with a larger than normal, for this size, sensor. When first released, it sold for around $399 but can be purchased for only $129 refurbished direct from Canon. Canon has already released the even newer S120, but changed little and the newer model is back to that $400 price range again.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/c...ital-cameras/powershot-s110-black-refurbished

Until it was stolen, I had the older S95 and was about the only camera with this high specification which could fit in my top shirt pocket. I paid almost $400 for that old S95 back a few years ago, so $129 for the S110 is crazy good and has far more features than you need, but is super easy to use. Here are some shots from my older S95. The newer S110 should do better.

Obligatory cat shot

Daughter at the beach condo shot

Vacation shot to show sharpness

Have fun.

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile - f/22 Club Member
I reserve the right to make mistakes in reasoning and logic as well as to change my mind anytime I wish. I also ask forbearance with respect to my typos. Please take a look at my gallery here at DPR.

 

[Rudi Maes]

Toddler and small children never sit still when they playing. So a camera with a good burst mode is a plus (burst is a way to take up to 10 photos per second until a buffer is full, then you can keep the best one).

Panasonic ZS50 (TZ70) will do or Panasonic LF1, has a shorter zoom, but a larger sensor, so the pictures will be a little better in low light.

Rudi

 

[melmcc]

Thanks for all the recommendations. I will definitely check those out.

 

[Skipper494]

Firstly, I have good 8x12 shots from a four MP camera, 5x7 is nothing. I recommend Samsung, as they don't compress RAW files like most manufacturers. Buy something capable of RAW. The EX2F is very good. If you want more capability, consider the NX20, now on sale at a really low price.




Through the window, from RAW.

 

[Guidenet]

Firstly, I have good 8x12 shots from a four MP camera, 5x7 is nothing. I recommend Samsung, as they don't compress RAW files like most manufacturers. Buy something capable of RAW. The EX2F is very good. If you want more capability, consider the NX20, now on sale at a really low price.


Through the window, from RAW.

I doubt the OP will consider RAW processing like more involved photographers might. I could be wrong, but RAW processing requires more skills than what might be needed for email and Facebook images. That's why, when I mentioned the Canon Powershot S110, I didn't bother to mention it could capture RAW files. Besides at this level as well as most levels, it's more about who is taking the image than what was used.

Through the hotel window, using RAW capture on my tiny Canon S95

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile - f/22 Club Member
I reserve the right to make mistakes in reasoning and logic as well as to change my mind anytime I wish. I also ask forbearance with respect to my typos. Please take a look at my gallery here at DPR.

 

[melmcc]

Guidenet is correct in his assessment that I would not want to mess with raw files. I just want a camera small enough to carry in my pocket or purse all the time that I can set on auto and snap some pretty decent photos that look nice enlarged to 8X10 max.

 

[MarkInSF]

Guidenet is correct in his assessment that I would not want to mess with raw files. I just want a camera small enough to carry in my pocket or purse all the time that I can set on auto and snap some pretty decent photos that look nice enlarged to 8X10 max.

The Canon S110 is a very nice little camera, and a bargain at its reduced price, refurb or new. The Sony RX100 (the original, not the II or III) is near the top of your budget, but has a bigger sensor than any other small camera, which lets it do a better job in low light than its competitors. The RX100 II adds features and has a slightly better sensor, but is above your target price. I think it's worth the extra money, but even the base model is a good camera. The RX100 III is even better, and even more expensive. All of these are a little bigger than the Canon, though still small enough to carry in a purse quite easily.

No pocket-sized camera is going to be able to take really great shots indoors, but these will do better than most. Take plenty of pictures outdoors in daylight and your kids will look great.

 

[photofreak985]

Under 500$ , you can choose from these three option:

1. Olympus Tough TG-3 ($ 339-$349

2.Nikon D3300 ($496 - $497)

3. Sony Cyber-shot RX100 ($498.00 - $499.99)

The above mentioned are the best models available under your budget.

 

[melmcc]

Thank you for the response. At this point, I am leaning towards the Canon s120 or Sony R100 II. My take-away thus far is that the Sony is a little better camera but not quite as pocketable. I am trying to find the Sony locally so I can decide how material the size and weight difference is. If the Sony is large enough that I find myself not carrying it around it somewhat defeats the purpose. I have also seen recommendations for the Canon G16 or Olympus Xz but have not done enough research yet to know where those compare in terms of performance and size. It's not that I would not be willing to spring more for the Sony rx100 100 iii, but at some price point, I stop carrying the camera to the park, pool, beach etc for fear of damage. I am not expecting miracles on the low light performance, I just want to get something "pretty good" relative to size/ budget constraints.

 

[melmcc]

Thanks for the recommendations. I am definitely considering the Sony and will also check out the Olympus. I think the Nikon is really larger than I am looking for at this point.

 

[baloo_buc]

You need fast shutter speeds in low light.

You need at least 1/250 s. Compact cameras have small sensors that will be useless beyond ISO 100. Unfortunately the low light means you get the shutter speed at f/2.8 and ISO 6400 that is out of the reach of any small sensor camera.

I would look at the largest sensor you can have. Forget about the purse requirement for that as larger sensor needs larger lenses.

You could try the MFT with a very fast lens that is wide anglish (less than 18 mm and more than f/2). Look for Olympus E-PL7 with 17 mm f/1.8. The price is the issue with that recommendation.

Or you can look at Sony RX 100 III that has a somehow larger sensor (1") and fast lens. This may fulfill the purse requirement but not the price requirement.

Good luck!

 

[Guidenet]

Thank you for the response. At this point, I am leaning towards the Canon s120 or Sony R100 II. My take-away thus far is that the Sony is a little better camera but not quite as pocketable. I am trying to find the Sony locally so I can decide how material the size and weight difference is. If the Sony is large enough that I find myself not carrying it around it somewhat defeats the purpose. I have also seen recommendations for the Canon G16 or Olympus Xz but have not done enough research yet to know where those compare in terms of performance and size. It's not that I would not be willing to spring more for the Sony rx100 100 iii, but at some price point, I stop carrying the camera to the park, pool, beach etc for fear of damage. I am not expecting miracles on the low light performance, I just want to get something "pretty good" relative to size/ budget constraints.

The G16 is somewhat like a S120 in a significantly larger package. Great little camera, but it sort of defeats your purpose by adding a top optical tunnel viewfinder and extra buttons. The internals are almost the same camera as well as the older S110. Both are considered high end enthusiast models. The Olympus is somewhat larger, significantly so with the lens extended. They all have the somewhat larger sensors for this size camera.

The RX100 III is about the same size height and width, but larger in thickness as well as an even larger sensor not to mention much more expensive. Great camera though, especially for serious enthusiasts. This might be the most sought after camera in this size, especially for those who are looking for a smaller, but not always less expensive, backup to their larger DSLRs. You're looking at close to $600 for the RX100 II and close to $800 for the RX100 III from a reputable dealer.

 

[melmcc]

Best Buy has got the RXii on sale for 399 right now.

 

[Guidenet]

Best Buy has got the RXii on sale for 399 right now.

Wow, great deal. While I'd probably still opt for that S110 refurbished by Canon for $129, I can certainly see $399 for the RX100 II as a super smart choice. Now, stick that price on the RX100 III, and my butt would be at Best Buy in a flash, and I don't need one in the least. LOL

 

[Rickyk]

Ihave a similar type question.

I will probably be going to Africa on vacation later this year, safari probably in tanzania.

I really don't want to shlep/carry a big DSLR, so also looking for something small... something that will work at low light levels, with a reasonable zoom, and fast loading/saving pictures.

Any thoughts? or there's nothing that fits the size requirement and I really would need a DSLR? Like the original poster, I hate carrying things around, and would prefer something pocketable. But for a once in a lifetime trip to africa, is something like that doable?

Thanks!

RK

 

[Guidenet]

Ihave a similar type question.

I will probably be going to Africa on vacation later this year, safari probably in tanzania.

I really don't want to shlep/carry a big DSLR, so also looking for something small... something that will work at low light levels, with a reasonable zoom, and fast loading/saving pictures.

Any thoughts? or there's nothing that fits the size requirement and I really would need a DSLR? Like the original poster, I hate carrying things around, and would prefer something pocketable. But for a once in a lifetime trip to africa, is something like that doable?

Thanks!

RK

I think a lot has to do with whether you're a serious photographer, not necessarily an enthusiast, but someone who is going there to take wonderful pictures, or are you a vacationer wanting to have fun just simply recording the trip? If you are of the first category, a good DSLR with a couple of appropriate lenses would be the way to go and damn the weight or size. If you are of the second sort, this still might be the trip of a lifetime, so I'd not want a cheap point and shoot or my cell phone, but a smaller and lighter camera might be in order.

If you are of that second group, I'd actually suggest something like the Panasonic fz1000. Sony, Canon and Nikon as well as other make similar cameras, but that particular Panasonic seems to do very nicely. It's called a bridge camera, which means to me, advanced level point and shoot. Note, in my mind "point and shoot" is not meant in a negative way here.

 

[baloo_buc]

If you want some reach then Panasonic FZ1000 may be a good compromise.

It will not yield top notch IQ but it is decent and it goes to 400 mm.