Want a new camera

[smalltownmomwa]

We have a cruise coming up in 2 weeks and I thought about buying the kids a camera to use. Thought better of that - give the kids mine & get a new one for me!

 

I know I am not ready for a DSLR, no way I can learn that fast, also way out of the budget and don't want to lug it around.

 

I currently have my 2nd or 3rd Canon PowerShot Elph. I like the Canon's and wouldn't mind staying in that family of cameras. Beyond that though, I'm lost!

 

I can't really tell which would be best - another Elph, if so which one!, or moving up to the SX line.

 

I will leave my camera in Auto 90% of the time but still want it to take a great photo of my kids (aka "moving targets"), so a fast shutter speed is a must. If they ever slow down and hold still, I would love to take portraits with the blurred background (something my camera now can't do at all).

 

Any recommendations? $300 & under.

[havoc315]

Blurred backgrounds and fast shutters are both mostly the province of dSLRs and similar cameras. Blurring a background requires an adequate sizes sensor, to get a long true focal length and an open aperture. Even the best compact cameras can barely achieve it.

 

Fast shutter speeds -- You're actually probably referring to low shutter lag, and to a fast focusing mechanism. Some point and shoots are "ok" at this in good light, but they will all struggle in more questionable light.

 

The Canon SX260 (or there may be a newer model now) is a fairly good super zoom camera. The shutter lag and focus are both ok. Images are nice and bright, and you do get a nice long zoom. By standing WAY WAY back and zooming all the way in, you'll even get a tiny bit of background blur.

 

More of an enthusiast camera -- like the Canon S100/110 -- won't give you the massive zoom, but will give you a faster shutter, less lag time. Give you higher quality images.

[dileep]

Panasonic has a great sale at their site. FZ60 for $270!

[havoc315]

Panasonic has a great sale at their site. FZ60 for $270!

 

Unfortunately, the FZ60 is known to be fairly poor at fast focus and fast shooting speeds. The plus side is a decent lens and long zoom reach.

[smalltownmomwa]

Havoc315 - Thank you. Very helpful so far.

 

On the Canon online forum, someone suggested the G series, such as the G15. It's a bit pricier, but as I am not knowledgeable in this area, I can't really tell why. I do know it has a lower optical zoom, but as I am coming from 3X zoom, the 5X on the G15 would be an improvment! I'd love to hear your thoughts if you know that line at all.

 

Thanks!

[bukieco]

according to your "needs" a dslr is the way to go. Just buy canon's entry level, leave it in "auto" appreciate the larger sensor and better pictures, and read the manual on the plane or at night. Before you know it, you'll be out of auto, know how to use a camera, and get satisfying pictures.

[havoc315]

Havoc315 - Thank you. Very helpful so far.

 

On the Canon online forum, someone suggested the G series, such as the G15. It's a bit pricier, but as I am not knowledgeable in this area, I can't really tell why. I do know it has a lower optical zoom, but as I am coming from 3X zoom, the 5X on the G15 would be an improvment! I'd love to hear your thoughts if you know that line at all.

 

Thanks!

 

Good choice.

Haven't used it but based on what I have read:

Pros: Excellent autofocus speed. Very fast lens. So it's good in low light. And you can some background blur when zoomed in. The fast lens will let you shoot at faster shutter speeds to capture action.

It also has lots of manual control possible, and can shoot raw. While you don't need those features now, they will let you grow as a photographer if you choose.

 

Cons: The sensor is still small so you won't match the image quality of the G1 or Sony Rx100. (But the image quality is still very good). It's also on the larger size. More a camera to slip into a bag, not a pants pocket.

[compulady]

I wouldn't worry much about staying with Canon. All cameras are fairly similar in auto mode. You night want to look at micro 4/3 cameras from Panasonic or Olympus they range for about $500-$1500 with a lens or Sony NEX series also the same price point. They are smaller than DSLRs but are closer to a DSLR experience than a point & shoot.

[havoc315]

Havoc315 - Thank you. Very helpful so far.

 

On the Canon online forum, someone suggested the G series, such as the G15. It's a bit pricier, but as I am not knowledgeable in this area, I can't really tell why. I do know it has a lower optical zoom, but as I am coming from 3X zoom, the 5X on the G15 would be an improvment! I'd love to hear your thoughts if you know that line at all.

 

Thanks!

 

To answer why it's pricier....

 

Many people make the mistake of putting way too much stock into optical zoom. While lots of optical zoom is a good thing, many cameras achieve it in a very cheap fashion, worsening other aspects of the camera.

 

You've seen the massive zoom lenses are dSLRs? They really only achieve a zoom equivalent of about 7x, compared to a P&S. Yet many P&S cameras, with pretty compact lenses, can get 30x or more!

What's going on? Well, a big sensor requires a big lens to get optical zoom. A small sensor only needs a small lens.

 

Sensors are expensive! Often the most expensive part of the camera. So a "cheap" camera can save money by downsizing the sensor. And it's easy to get a big optical zoom with that cheap poor quality sensor.

 

Another big aspect of a camera price is the lens -- And not really the optical zoom. The aperture of the lens is more important and more expensive. It's expensive to build a camera with a large aperture lens (small number=large aperture), and even more expensive to keep that aperture large at all focal lengths.

The G15 has an excellent very "fast" lens.

 

And a fast lens lets you achieve some very important things:

-Shoot at higher shutter speeds, to capture action.

-Shoot in lower light.

-Narrow depth of field to create background blur.

 

A long focal length on the other hand, is not nearly as useful as often. Sure, there are times it is great. But not as often.

 

And of course, the G15 is simply well built, with good materials, and lots of features.

[smalltownmomwa]

To answer why it's pricier....

 

Many people make the mistake of putting way too much stock into optical zoom. While lots of optical zoom is a good thing, many cameras achieve it in a very cheap fashion, worsening other aspects of the camera.

 

You've seen the massive zoom lenses are dSLRs? They really only achieve a zoom equivalent of about 7x, compared to a P&S. Yet many P&S cameras, with pretty compact lenses, can get 30x or more!

What's going on? Well, a big sensor requires a big lens to get optical zoom. A small sensor only needs a small lens.

 

Sensors are expensive! Often the most expensive part of the camera. So a "cheap" camera can save money by downsizing the sensor. And it's easy to get a big optical zoom with that cheap poor quality sensor.

 

Another big aspect of a camera price is the lens -- And not really the optical zoom. The aperture of the lens is more important and more expensive. It's expensive to build a camera with a large aperture lens (small number=large aperture), and even more expensive to keep that aperture large at all focal lengths.

The G15 has an excellent very "fast" lens.

 

And a fast lens lets you achieve some very important things:

-Shoot at higher shutter speeds, to capture action.

-Shoot in lower light.

-Narrow depth of field to create background blur.

 

A long focal length on the other hand, is not nearly as useful as often. Sure, there are times it is great. But not as often.

 

And of course, the G15 is simply well built, with good materials, and lots of features.

 

Thanks. You have been very, very helpful. I have decided I want the G15. Now, just to convince myself to spend that much money! :)

[awboater]

Getting background blur is 50% gear and 50% technique.

 

There are three things to remember to get the most background blur:

 

1. the longer the focal length, the more background blur.

2. the closer the focus point, the more background blur.

3. the larger the aperture, the more background blur.

 

While this is best achieved, it can be done with most any camera, even some $100 compacts. You just need to have the correct technique.

 

Here are two photos:

 

 

 

Both exhibit a moderate amount of background blur. Can you guess what kind of camera was used for each photo?

 

The first photo was taken with a DSLR and a 50mm @ f/1.8. This is considered by some to be a good setup for background blur.

 

The second photo was taken with an inexpensive Canon SX130 compact camera. You have to admit that it comes close to having the same amount of background blur as the first photo.

 

So how is it done?

 

1. Zoom the lens in as far as it will go (bringing distant objects close).

2. Use the largest aperture you can.

3. Get as close as you can - which results in a close focus point.

 

I used the maximum 60mm focal length of the SX130, and f/5.6, which is not fast, but the best this camera can do. As it has manual controls, I can make sure the aperture is open as wide as it will go.

 

Therefore, a long focal length is the most important factor in shallow DoF, and while it is easier to do with a larger sensor, at least some blur can be achieved with some compact cameras.

 

Here is another example:

 

 

This photo was also taken with a DSLR, but with a 200mm lens and an aperture of f/5.6. So from this example, you don't even need a fast lens, as a long focal length trumps all other factors.

 

In fact, of the three (focal length, focus distance, and aperture) factors, the focal length has the most influence, and the aperture has the least amount of influence.

 

And the last example:

 

 

This was taken with a DSLR with both a long focal length (200mm) and a fast lens (f/2.8). I think you will agree that the blur and bokeh are superior to the others, as the background is completely blown away.

 

Here is a link to a webpage detailing these concepts a bit further:

 

http://www.althephoto.com/concepts/selectivefocus.php

 

So whether you are looking to buy a DSLR or even a compact camera, look for a lens that has at least 200mm for a DSLR, or a 60mm zoom for a compact camera. The DSLR will have manual controls, but look for a compact having manual controls as well.

 

Even a $98 Canon SX150 will work in this instance:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Wide-Angle-Stabilized-3-0-Inch/dp/B005I6DVC0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368502214&sr=8-1&keywords=sx150

 

(the SX150 replaced my SX130).

 

For comparison, shown below is the SX130 zoomed all the way out - on the wide angle (short focal length) side. At 5mm, you can see it has no background blur effect at all. Focal length is everything, whether you are using a compact camera or a DSLR:

 

 

And finally, as shown below, even at the DSLR level, this 16mm lens, even at f/2.8, also does not sufficiently provide background blur.

 

 

Remember - use a long Focal Length!!!!

 

And after choosing your camera... practice. Try a few portraits. Set the lens as far to the telephoto end you can (do not use digital zoom, as it will not help), set the aperture to the maximum opening, and get as close as you can.

 

It is also helpful, especially when using a compact camera, if the background is some distance away. This is not an issue with the DSLR and 200mm lens @ f/2.8, but it can help with compact cameras and DSLRs with shorter lenses.

 

You may have to tradeoff the zoom point and focus distance a bit to get your subject in the frame, so that is why you will have to practice a bit to see what works best.

 

One caution I'd like to make. Avoid compact cameras with "superzoom" lenses, as they often have optical deficiencies. Manufacturers just cannot make a 30x lens - especially in a $300 bridge camera - that has good quality.

 

A camera, with it's 12x lens such as the SX150 is a good compromise. It has the same lens as the one on my SX130. I prefer the SX150 to it's replacement, the SX160 though as it's 16x lens just goes a bit too far. If you were to consider such a camera, I would go no further in lens power.

 

And the Canon is not the only choice for a compact camera. I just provide that example to show you can get some background blur with a $100 camera.

[smalltownmomwa]

Thanks AWBoater - that info is very helpful. My current camera has no ability to change the aperature (even in manual), so I never get any blur. It is good to know that with a few tricks, I can do it on a non-$350+ camera. I think we figured out my camera is probably close to 8 years old, so anything should have more features. But, that also means I won't be buying one for another 8 years, so I better choose wisely! :)

[havoc315]

Very good and accurate lesson on creating background blur. But it overstates the ease of creating shallow depth of field (background blur) with a point and shoot.

 

To take portraits on a dslr, for example, 60mm is a good focal length to take a picture from 6 feet away. But on a point and shoot, 60mm is very different.

On a full frame dSLR, 60mm=60mm

On a crop body dSLR (most consumer dSLRs), 60mm=90mm in appearance.

On a point and shoot, that 60mm is more like 300+mm.

 

So to get the same composition as the dSLR from 6 feet away, you'd have to be 20+ feet away from the subject. (In the example photos, the photos were not taken the same distance from the subject )

Additionally, only distant backgrounds will be blurred. Standing right in front of some flowers for example, would get very little blur.

 

A dSLR let's you create a very narrow depth of field -- a matter of inches. Where under the best case scenario, most p&s cameras can't create a depth of field under 1-2 feet.

[bigeagle12]

Love my Sony DSC-HX200V. There are several models H200 and H300 models available. The entry level HX200 is available now for $200 .. the V is $330.

They all have an automatic setting for defocus effect (blur) .. takes all the guess work out of it.

I had an old Minolta (all manual) for 25 years and finally got tired of all the lenses and the weight and switched to this camera .. love it :)

[bigeagle12]

Forgot to add it also has great image stabilization even when maxing out the digital zoom.

[awboater]

I guess I should re-state that all compact cameras may not be able to produce background blur, rather this is limited to those that have a decent telephoto lens.

 

The Canon G15 for instance, while it is a fine camera and has great optics, with a 6~30mm lens, is probably not going to give you good background blur as the lens is too short.

 

On the other hand, the lens is going to optically be better than say the SX150, so you have to compromise quality vs functionality.

[havoc315]

I guess I should re-state that all compact cameras may not be able to produce background blur, rather this is limited to those that have a decent telephoto lens.

 

The Canon G15 for instance, while it is a fine camera and has great optics, with a 6~30mm lens, is probably not going to give you good background blur as the lens is too short.

 

On the other hand, the lens is going to optically be better than say the SX150, so you have to compromise quality vs functionality.

 

Depends on your distance to the subject. To me, to get decent background blur from something like the SX150, you need to back up so far that it isn't realistic.

The Canon G15, with its wide aperture, will allow better background blur from realistic distances.

 

From 6 feet away, for example, setting the Canon to 10mm and an aperture of 2.0... You'd get a photo with about 3 feet depth of field. The field will range from 5-8 feet, with blurring beyond 8 feet.

 

Using similar settings on the SX150 -- 6 feet away, 10mm focal length, the maximum aperture would be about 4.0... Giving you 5 foot depth of field, with a range from 5 to 10 feet. Blurring beyond 10 feet.

 

To truly take advantage of blur with the 60mm lens on the SX150, you have to take an "extreme close up" of your subject, or be very very far away.

The faster lens on the G15, allows a better opportunity to background blur with a more normal perspective.

 

60mm at 5.6 -- From 20 feet away, gives you DOF of 23 inches.

 

Same perspective on the G15 -- 10 feet away, 30mm, at 2.8 -- DOF of about 16 inches.

 

So thanks to the faster aperture, you can actually get more background blur out of the G15, when talking about similar perspective.

[smalltownmomwa]

Hmmm.. Found a refurbished G12 for $279 vs. a new G15 for $449.

 

Refurb makes me somewhat nervous, but if the manufacturer refurbs it, it should be ok, right?

[havoc315]

Hmmm.. Found a refurbished G12 for $279 vs. a new G15 for $449.

 

Refurb makes me somewhat nervous, but if the manufacturer refurbs it, it should be ok, right?

 

The G12 is a far inferior camera. It's not like an annual upgrade of a television set, where the only difference is the placement of the volume button on the remove control.

 

The G12 lacks the great fast lens of the G15. All those nice things I said about the G15, are basically out the window in the G12.

[smalltownmomwa]

The G12 is a far inferior camera. It's not like an annual upgrade of a television set, where the only difference is the placement of the volume button on the remove control.

 

The G12 lacks the great fast lens of the G15. All those nice things I said about the G15, are basically out the window in the G12.

 

Got permission from my hubby for the G15. Now to just finish convincing myself! It's at least twice what I've ever spent on a camera, but looks like it should be the best for me.

[havoc315]

Got permission from my hubby for the G15. Now to just finish convincing myself! It's at least twice what I've ever spent on a camera, but looks like it should be the best for me.

 

Excellent camera, though certainly not the only excellent camera.

 

Though this article is now about 6 months old, it reviews the 5 "best" compacts.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6698413448/dpreview-recommends-top-5-compact-cameras

 

You'll be happy to see the G15 as 1 of the top 5. But I suggest reading the whole article, looking at the pros and cons of each, including price. Just reading the article will give you a better idea of what you're getting, and what you're not getting.

[zackiedawg]

I wonder too - if you're set on getting a Canon, and you like that G-series form factor...whether it might be worth looking for a G1X. This is a model introduced recently, that didn't sell too well - it was initially ridiculously expensive for what it was, and they probably won't make a follow up. BUT, it has been getting priced lower lately, AND it has a comparatively massive sensor - roughly a micro-4:3 size that's nearly 6x bigger than the 1/1.7" sensor in the G15. This would give you much better low light/high ISO capability. It's less than a year old, and now on sale it's probably priced at what it should have been back when it first debuted. I don't know if your budget goes up a little more but it would be significantly better overall camera. It's a 4x zoom, so a little less than the G15, but has such a better and bigger sensor, it would seem to be a good tradeoff. And it's a 'G' series camera, so nearly the same type of body and design, and size.

 

Another odd choice to consider too - this would require going to an interchangeable-lens camera, but if you just stuck to one or two simple lenses, could cover the same bases, is the Pentax K01. it's another mirrorless model that was pretty much a failure - overpriced, and oddly designed, it just wasn't popular and will likely be the last of its kind. But what was once priced at $1,000 is now priced around $300-400...only a year old...and more importantly, it has an APS-C sensor right out of the DSLR lines, and a very good one at that - the IQ difference, especially in low light, would be tremendous compared to a compact like the G15. These are both cameras I wouldn't have considered when they came out, as they were overpriced and oddly designed for what they offered, but now in their on-sale closeout prices, the Pentax especially is a crazy bargain - to get that 16MP APS-C sensor in an interchangeable lens body with in-body stabilization for under $400. Just odd things to consider.

[havoc315]

Another odd choice to consider too - this would require going to an interchangeable-lens camera, but if you just stuck to one or two simple lenses, could cover the same bases, is the Pentax K01. it's another mirrorless model that was pretty much a failure - overpriced, and oddly designed, it just wasn't popular and will likely be the last of its kind. But what was once priced at $1,000 is now priced around $300-400...only a year old...and more importantly, it has an APS-C sensor right out of the DSLR lines, and a very good one at that - the IQ difference, especially in low light, would be tremendous compared to a compact like the G15. These are both cameras I wouldn't have considered when they came out, as they were overpriced and oddly designed for what they offered, but now in their on-sale closeout prices, the Pentax especially is a crazy bargain - to get that 16MP APS-C sensor in an interchangeable lens body with in-body stabilization for under $400. Just odd things to consider.

 

Ironically, while people think of dSLRs and interchangeable lens cameras as the "expensive" options, it's not necessarily the case.

dSLRs can especially be bargains, as the technology doesn't change that much from year to year... and the manufacturers dont have to invest too much into miniaturizing the technology, you can get great value in clearance/ or slightly used dSLRs.

 

I've been recommending people look at the Sony A57 while it's on clearance, having been replaced by an *inferior* model. For under $500, to get a dSLR body with in-body-image stabilization, a high resolution articulated LCD, high quality APS-C sensor, a camera that can shoot at 10 frames per second. I saw a reputable ebay dealer selling new A57 bodies for $400. Invest another $200 in lenses, and you walk with with quite a system.

 

Fact is, a truly good compact is not necessarily any cheaper than a superior dSLR/ILC. You're paying a premium for the compactness.

[smalltownmomwa]

I have already ordered the G15. I looked at the GX1, but as the G15 was already twice my original budget, the GX1 was really too expensive to even look at. As are pretty much all the others mentioned. And, they are also all getting in the "too big" category. I don't need super-small, but every DSLR I've seen is huge. My sister has a DSLR, and I've tried them in store, and they are just way more than I want to deal with. I'm hoping my new toy will give me some control without feeling like I need to research/buy/use/lug around additional lenses and things.