Time for a new camera

[Jim]

[There are a few old threads about this topic, but it seemed most appropriate to start a new one. Feel free to merge elsewhere if that's better.]

My FujiFilm Finepix S9000 is about spent.  It's literally starting to fall apart - the back LCD is being held in place by a rubber band.  It's been a great camera for 8 years, but it's beyond time for something new.

I've barely started researching, but figured I'd post here now to get some input.  My primary requirements are a good optical zoom (10x or better) ideally manual rather than motorized, and a good capability of taking pictures of objects in motion (I take a lot of signs and scenes from moving vehicles, and like to take pictures at sporting events).  I really like a camera that takes standard rechargeable AA's but battery life has improved enough that I might consider a proprietary battery.  It would also be nice to be able to get decent low-light pictures, something my last few cameras have not been good at.  I use my cameras a lot and keep them for a long time, so I'm willing to spend $500 or even maybe $750 for something I will really like.

Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome.  I'll post some of my own findings here when I start researching more seriously later this month.

[hbelkins]

I'm selling my Minolta Dimage 7i. It has a manual zoom, auto and manual focus, adjustable ISO, uses AA batteries and is in great shape. $200 plus shipping. Comes with a UV filter that has always been on the camera and a 2 GB CF card. Pics on my Facebook page.

[formulanone]

$500 gets you in the door with basic DSLRs; the image quality beats any point-and-shoot, and $700 can get you into the lower-end of mirrorless SLRs, which are more compact and offer a few more advantages (shots per second, less moving parts).

I'd go with a DSLR, use another $200 or so for an additional lens, bag, polarizer (a near-must if shooting through a window), and a spare battery. I have a Canon Rebel T3, and while it's on the entry-level side of the SLR scale, the overall image quality and flexibility will be far more impressive.

I think they all use a proprietary battery pack, which might be 30-50 dollars for a spare (but essential for travel). You can get 500-800 shots without flash usage, maybe 200 photos if using flash extensively.

[Alex]

Agree with formulanone, DSLR is the way to go. I have a Nikon D3000 and a Nikon D5100 and two lens, a 18-55 mm lens and 55-200 mm lens. The zoom lens is basically for non road photos and more often with a tripod.

[1995hoo]

I agree on a DSLR. I have a Canon 20D, which when I bought it was at a higher price point than you describe, and it's been excellent. My brother has a Canon T3i and raves about it. He goes through DSLR bodies every few years because he takes insane amounts of pictures (he gets photo passes from Bob Weir's band Ratdog and some other acts) and he gets excellent results with the T3i.

I think one of the big benefits of a DSLR is that it gives you flexibility to expand as your needs evolve. I typically carry three lenses: a 17—85 mm I got with the camera, a 70—300 mm "DO" lens I got a few years later ("DO" denotes the type of lens....much more compact than a standard lens of that range would be, which is essential for when I take it to sporting events and other places where they limit the size of lens you can bring in), and a 40 mm fixed focal length "pancake" lens Ms1995hoo gave me this past Christmas. The pancake lens is great for making the camera lighter and more compact when I don't need a zoom and for taking close-ups. It was great this spring for photographing the cherry trees in our backyard (I was shooting ISO-100 aperture priority at f/2.8, which means the lens was open as wide as it would go and the camera set the exposure time....the first picture was at 1/2000 of a second and the second one at 1/2500 of a second):

 


The potential downside, of course, is that if you like to take pictures while you are driving a DSLR is not always ideal due to size and the need for two hands. If you prefer a more compact point-and-shoot, I think Sony's CyberShot line can be worth a look. My wife has one I gave her for Christmas in 2008 and it's still going strong. Great little camera, and it has the benefit of having a real viewfinder instead of requiring you to use the screen on the back (essential when the sun washes out the display).

A further thought on pricing....check out the second-hand section at B&H Photo/Video in New York (go to their website and click on "Used Dept"). The stuff is usually in very good shape and you can often find some pretty good deals. It can be a good way to move up to a DSLR or other more expensive camera without paying as much money. If you view that section of their website, note the "Item Condition" line–clicking on the notation (e.g., "8+") will pop up a list of how they define it.

I've bought from B&H a few times and my brother is always buying stuff from them. We've both been very satisfied and have never had a problem. I highly recommend them, though I would also cross-shop other places just to see what you can find. I bought Ms1995hoo's Sony camera from B&H because they had the best deal and threw in several accessories that made the price better than I would have gotten from Crutchfield or Beach Camera.

[formulanone]

The potential downside, of course, is that if you like to take pictures while you are driving a DSLR is not always ideal due to size and the need for two hands.

I've gotten used to the bulk, and they have a pretty study right-side grip. Compared to my old metal AE-1, the basic Canon DSLRs are much lighter...although the film EOS Rebel XS is still a comparative featherweight.

I would not recommend shooting with a telephoto/long lens in a moving vehicle, although I've made a few rare exceptions. Besides the additional overall heft and potential for inaccuracy, it also magnifies the distortion coming from the windshield.

A prime lens is also nice to have in low light - something that stops down to f/1.8, for example - it's slightly more crisp, but you'll want it for indoor conditions, or situations where you prefer a bit of background blur or very fine detail. For use in a moving vehicle, it functions best within consistent lighting conditions (overcast skies or clear skies). With rapid changes in light quantities (examples: into-and-out-of shade, or winding roads during setting/rising sun conditions), it will tend to blur and/or overexpose when placed in either a priority mode, unless you correct shutter speeds and exposures constantly. Of course, they're superb when the subject is still in any lighting.

[Alex]

I've bought from B&H a few times and my brother is always buying stuff from them. We've both been very satisfied and have never had a problem. I highly recommend them, though I would also cross-shop other places just to see what you can find. I bought Ms1995hoo's Sony camera from B&H because they had the best deal and threw in several accessories that made the price better than I would have gotten from Crutchfield or Beach Camera.

Bought a Sony Cybershot from B&H in 2008 and was greatly dissatisfied with the camera. I ended up giving it to Justin, who also said it sucked. As I recall, he gave it to his sister in law and it broke soon there after. B&H still sends me a catalog, which I basically pitch.

Even in good lighting it regularly produced motion blur:



And standing outside with that camera, it could not make crisp shots:

[1995hoo]

Might depend in part on which model it is. I don't recall off the top of my head which one Ms1995hoo has, though it doesn't really matter at this point because it's surely been discontinued!

Returning to the original question, I hope the moderators won't consider this advertising given that I'm unaffiliated with either company. Anyone looking for a camera might be interested in this ad I received today from Groupon Goods for a Canon T3i. I've had mixed experiences with Groupon Goods–a battery-equipped messenger bag that can charge devices came with no problem, whereas we had a ton of problems when we ordered some flannel sheets in December 2012 such that I have not ordered anything from them again–but the price includes the camera body and two lenses and is a darn good price:

http://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-canon-eos-rebel-t3-digital-slr-camera-with-optional-75300mm-lens-1

[oscar]

A prime lens is also nice to have in low light - something that stops down to f/1.8, for example - it's slightly more crisp, but you'll want it for indoor conditions, or situations where you prefer a bit of background blur or very fine detail.

I agree.  50mm prime lenses are relatively inexpensive, and I have a 50mm f/1.4 for low light conditions.  My current DSLR will let you adjust the ISO as high as 6400 with minimal quality loss (and can be pushed to 25600 with noticeable loss of quality), as another way to do low-light shots.

One of my "workhorse" lenses is another prime, a 24mm f/2.8.  Its wide field of view is good for close-range people shots (it's what I've used for many of the road meet group photos posted on this site), and its small size makes it easier to carry around.  Also in my camera bag is a 17mm wideangle f/3.5 prime, good to take bridge photos without having to stitch two or more images together (especially when used with a "full-frame" DSLR with a large image sensor about the size of a 35mm film frame).  But the lens I use most often is a 28-200mm zoom, not as good in low light as the primes but it's the most versatile lens for when I can only bring one.

[1995hoo]

What I want right now–and I know it's not really "roadgeek-suitable"–is a macro lens. But price-wise, it has to wait. We're having the house repainted (outside) and the RX-7 needs the top repaired. I love taking wildlife pictures, and more and more I take pictures of the squirrels who visit our deck every day. Super-closeup lenses (macro) are ideal for that.

[rickmastfan67]

If you want to go the Point & Shoot way, I would recommend the Panasonic LUMIX series.

I personally own two of them.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7

Both of them are good little cameras.  I've owned the TZ3 since 2008 and it's still going strong, even as my backup camera (like if I was at a NASCAR race and my main camera batteries ran out).

In fact, sometimes it seems that my TZ3 takes better photos of road signs while in motion.
Here's a picture I took back in 2012 with my TZ3 (while stopped @ a traffic light).  Pretty good for a Point & Shoot.

[AsphaltPlanet]

I would consider something from the Sony NEX series of cameras, given your price range.  They are fairly small and compact, and there lenses seem to be of decent quality.  I have a alpha translucent lens camera that I use for a lot of road related stuff, with a 50mm prime lens that works great for signs.  I don't have any experience with the NEX line itself, but because the mirror doesn't move, the camera is faster than a lot of other entry-level SLR's.

[NJRoadfan]

Mirrorless SLRs might be a good choice for taking photos while driving. Besides being smaller, they have the benefit of LCD preview, which DSLRs lack. Panasonic and Olympus, which both use the Micro 4/3rds lens system, have a few top models to choose from.

[roadman]

$500 gets you in the door with basic DSLRs; the image quality beats any point-and-shoot, and $700 can get you into the lower-end of mirrorless SLRs, which are more compact and offer a few more advantages (shots per second, less moving parts).

I'd go with a DSLR, use another $200 or so for an additional lens, bag, polarizer (a near-must if shooting through a window), and a spare battery. I have a Canon Rebel T3, and while it's on the entry-level side of the SLR scale, the overall image quality and flexibility will be far more impressive.

I think they all use a proprietary battery pack, which might be 30-50 dollars for a spare (but essential for travel). You can get 500-800 shots without flash usage, maybe 200 photos if using flash extensively.

Agree with the DLSR.  IIRC, most Pentax DLSRs use AA batteries instead of proprietary battery packs.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Older Pentax DSLRs use AAs.  the *ist series, as well as the K100D and K200D.

All flagships from the K10D on have had proprietary batteries.  HOWEVER, all Pentax battery grips offer the option to use the proprietary battery OR a set of AAs.

I have had an *ist DL, a K20D and am now on a K-5.  I got the K-5 body for $450.  K-5 bodies are going for $400-450 at this time.  K-5 II bodies are going for $100 more, and you can get a brand-new K-5 IIs (which lacks an anti-aliasing filter, produces sharper images with greater resolution, but may increase moire paterns in certain situations - however that can be rectified easily enough in post processing) for under $700 at the moment, until supply runs out.  I would recommend a used Pentax K-5/K-5 II over a new entry-level Canon or Nikon.  You get more features, in-camera image stabilization, and far, far more lens backward-compatibility.  I can use my 35 year old SMC Pentax-M lenses on the K-5 no problem.  And with a DA 18-55 II and a DA 55-300, you'll have way more than 10x optical zoom total.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Also, in regards to photographing while driving, I have mastered the art over the years of picking up the camera, aiming it and shooting it, completely blind.  I can now get decent shots that way most of the time, and it's less distracting than taking a drink of water while going down the road.  Using the LCD preview would probably cause me to do worse, on top of being more distracted.

[formulanone]

I usually have to post-process my shots by about 0.5 to 3.0 degrees. I never use the LCD screen, unless I'm shooting a movie, which I tend to avoid while driving (no mount).

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

This was taken with my K-5 at ISO 12800:



Hand-held, 125mm, 1/20 sec.  The incredible noise performance and the image stabilization are beautifully demonstrated here.  A usable image at max native (i.e. not "expanded") sensitivity. This is better than my K20D was at ISO 1600, and I wouldn't have been able to hand-hold anything, much less at 125mm, at that sensitivity, even with the image stabilization.

This noise performance transfers over to photographing things in motion as well, since higher ISO allows faster shutter speeds.

[Dr Frankenstein]

I would consider something from the Sony NEX series of cameras, given your price range.  They are fairly small and compact, and there lenses seem to be of decent quality.  I have a alpha translucent lens camera that I use for a lot of road related stuff, with a 50mm prime lens that works great for signs.  I don't have any experience with the NEX line itself, but because the mirror doesn't move, the camera is faster than a lot of other entry-level SLR's.

This. Aside from the autofocus being a little sloppy, it feels and handles just like a DSLR, except it's smaller and more convenient for driving. I replaced my old DSLR with a NEX-F3 and I love it. C$600 very well spent.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Another hand-held ISO 12800 shot from the K-5:



That's my truck on the left, BTW.

[formulanone]

I was expecting a Volvo truck...

I usually have to perform "noise reduction" work at ISO 3200+, although less if there isn't major cropping. On the other hand, I prefer that still night images just use a longer exposure at a lower ISO; although usually not at 100, since increased contrast is usually desirable.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

I do as well; I was just shooting at that high of an ISO to demonstrate how good the noise performance is with this camera.  That you can get a halfway decent image at max native sensitivity, itself being high enough that you can hand-hold night shots, is nothing short of impressive.  Just a very few years ago, this was impossible.

My company doesn't have Volvos, sadly.  Wish they did, they are just about the nicest trucks in the industry.