Looking for a new camera

Hello all,

Long time reader and first time poster! I am currently in the market for a new camera. Things to note, I am by no means a professional but I do enjoy photography and digital editing. In fact I love it.

I currently own a Nikon s210 coolpix in which I am trying to sell as well as a Canon Rebel XSI that I own and plan on keeping . However the Canon is just way to cumbersome to be able to fit in my pocket and take to casual outings.

I do want something that is compact enough to fit in my coat pocket but I want it to have better quality than the average digital compact. Is this possible? I have seen some nice Nikon cameras advertised in the last 6 months from that "Ashton Kutcher" fellow but I do not know enough about photography to be sure I am getting something that I need. I enjoy taking nature photos such as landscapes and close ups as well as candid shots of people living their life. I just want a camera that is responsive and doesn't give me blur all the time. I want crisp and smooth images and at the same time be able to edit the settings on my camera.

Sorry if I ranted.

Rj

p.s. my price range is around $300.00 USD

The problem with any camera in your price range is the small sensor. While almost any new camera will give you slightly better image quality than a four-year-old compact, you're still going to have an average digital compact camera if your budget is only $300. Keep using what you have and save your money until you can afford to spend $500 to $700, at which point you will see an impressive jump in image quality and responsiveness.

I'm eyeing the new Sony RX100 for my next compact digital camera.

Do some searches on the Canon s100 and the S110. Small enough to fit in your pocket and it has amazing image quality.

Let us know what you decide.

The S100 and S110 are fine up to ISO 800 but get quite noisy beyond that. The f/5.9 maximum aperture at the long end of the zoom range severely limits ISO choices in low light. They are also not very responsive.

If you always shoot in strong light the image quality is quite good, but they are too slow for candid shots. Candids require a camera that responds instantly, not in one-quarter second.

Lightcraftsman said:

The problem with any camera in your price range is the small sensor. While almost any new camera will give you slightly better image quality than a four-year-old compact, you're still going to have an average digital compact camera if your budget is only $300. Keep using what you have and save your money until you can afford to spend $500 to $700, at which point you will see an impressive jump in image quality and responsiveness.

I eyeing the new Sony RX100 for my next compact digital camera.

Click to expand...

Good summary and advice ^^^.


There are a few choices barely above the $300 ceiling that will give better than compact camera IQ and response, but all have to me significant shortcomings. The Nikon V1 can be had right now for under $400 in basic kit, and from time to time I see Oly EPLs for about the same. But I agree it is worth waiting and stepping up another level.

i recently bought myself the panasonic DMC-FZ200, im new to photography myself, only eve had little rubbish digital cameras before and wanted a decent one now to take some good family snaps to keep. I've been very impressed with this upto now and would definately recommend it. Zoom is great and and the full zoom range is at f2.8 which is very good apparantly haha...

My only issue with the Sony RX100 is that I prefer more zoom. Otherwise it seems to be an excellent camera.

chas_m said:

My only issue with the Sony RX100 is that I prefer more zoom. Otherwise it seems to be an excellent camera.

Click to expand...

That's one thing that makes choosing so difficult, and discussing the merits of various cameras so much fun. I wish the Sony had more zoom range, but it will cover 99 percent of anything I do with a compact camera. Then again, there is the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 with its 25-600/2.8 Leica-designed lens. In the middle Nikon offers the Coolpix 7700 with a 28-200/2.8-4 lens.

I like the Sony for the larger sensor and pocketability. If I need more reach I can pull out the DSLR gear. YMMV. I could be happy with any of these cameras.

Lightcraftsman said:

That's one thing that makes choosing so difficult, and discussing the merits of various cameras so much fun. I wish the Sony had more zoom range, but it will cover 99 percent of anything I do with a compact camera. Then again, there is the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 with its 25-600/2.8 Leica-designed lens. In the middle Nikon offers the Coolpix 7700 with a 28-200/2.8-4 lens.

I like the Sony for the larger sensor and pocketability. If I need more reach I can pull out the DSLR gear. YMMV. I could be happy with any of these cameras.

Click to expand...

Just curious, but what is the big advantage of the Sony RX100 over the Nikon 1 cameras since they both use a CX sensor?

The Nikon 1 cameras are not to my taste (though I plan on taking a look at the V2) because of the (IMO) fruity controls, but honestly they aren't that different than most compact cameras. I ask because the Nikon 1 seems to get a lot of derision but the Sony is almost uniformly lauded.

I looked at the Nikon V1 last spring, but the lack of fast lenses (the 30-110 is f/5.8 at the long end), the proprietary flash mount and complete lack of external controls turned me away. I do not want to dig through menus to change exposure compensation or ISO.

The Fuji X10 is a nice little camera too. I especially like the manual zoom ring and top-mounted exposure compensation dial.

Lightcraftsman said:

I looked at the Nikon V1 last spring . . . I do not want to dig through menus to change exposure compensation or ISO.

Click to expand...

I agree completely, that and I didn't care for the ergonomics. On the otherhand, with the addition of control dials and a handgrip to the V2, I am extrememly interested in Thom Hogan's take on it (assuming he reviews it).

My wife and I went to Precision Camera in Austin today and had the chance to play with a lot of small cameras. There was a Nikon rep there, and she let spend about 10 minutes snapping photos with the new J1 V2, and I was quite impressed. The ergonomics are great, and the camera is very near DSLR speeds.

I then spent some time with the Olympus OM-D. Now this is what I'm talking about. A robust little camera with instant autofocus. I almost bought one just because it is so darn cute. I came home with the Sony RX-100. I chose the Sony because I was looking for a pocket camera, and the Nikon and Olympus are too big to fit in a shirt pocket. They'll fit in a jacket pocket, but living in Texas I don't wear jackets very often.

I also looked at the Fuji XE-1, and liked it very much. My wife liked the Sony TX20 and WX-70. They're 16 megapixel cameras, and the shutter response was very good. The problem I saw with them was the shot-to-shot time waiting for the camera to write a file before readying to shoot another. Other than that they might fit the OP's requirement. It seems in the last six or seven months the average digital camera has taken a quantum leap.

I guess my problem is I would like one of each of the new cameras (my wife thinks I already have them - ;P )

For a pocket camera I have the Nikon P7100, which I like a lot, though it can bog down shot-to-shot sometimes.

The three cameras I am seriously looking at are:

1) Pana Lumix FZ200 - I don't need another compact super zoom, but I like my Pana FZ28 so much it's hard not to be tempted
2) Upgrade to my DSLR body. Really love my Nikon D5000, but my plan is to keep the 18-200 on it as a travel camera and upscale on my next body. Here I am constantly changing my mind
A) D800 - probably more camera than I will ever use (and my wife would freak at the price)
B) D600 - better fit and more budget (and wife) friendly
C) Whatever madel (D7100, D8000 etc) that replaces the D7000 - this is realistically I believe my best choice
D) D5200 - mainly because I like the D5000 so much

3) Nikon V2