what digital camera would you recommend?

[rhubarbodendron]

My last digital camera broke and though I might be able to repair it I think I rather buy a new one. The last one didn't quite live up to my needs.

Is there a camera you could recommend? What I'm looking for is a camera with

• ideally a 10fold (or more) optical zoom - the more the better as I specialize in close ups of tiny things
  
• a rather small resolution (as from a certain point on a higher resolution means actually a lower image quality; it's the sensor/pixel reatio that matters). 4-7 Mpix is completely sufficient
  
• must produce no image noise at low light levels (that's a prob for most current cameras)
• If it has a panorama function it'd be nice but it's not a must-be
• price: my pain threshold is around $350/300€

Is there any camera matching these requirements? What do you use and would you recommend your camera?

 

[Gary Mitchell]

Sorry, I don't have any recommendations and my only camera right now is on my phone. I was just hoping that bumping your topic would catch the attention of someone who could help.

 

[Kilana2]

Same here. And I don't intent to buy such a camara any time soon. That's the problem with the modern phones. They include cameras, skype etc. etc. It's almost like a mini computer.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

For point-and-shoot cameras, I've always been very brand-loyal to the Sony Cyber-shot line.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I have a Canon EOS Rebel xti I bought new 10 years ago. Only 10 Mp, but it's a great camera. If I ever get the dosh together, I'll get a newer, more professional model, but still a Canon.

I had a Canon T50 (35mm film) from years ago that held up really well too.

 

[JohnChod]

For point-and-shoot cameras, I've always been very brand-loyal to the Sony Cyber-shot line.

This. If it's a point and shoot, can't go wrong. I purchased a Sony Cybershot G 10x, 16.1 megapixels, quite a few years ago. Still going strong and takes great photos under all conditions.

I know that phone cameras are greatly improved, but this amateur's opinion is that a stand-alone camera is still going to yield a better photograph.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

This. If it's a point and shoot, can't go wrong. I purchased a Sony Cybershot G 10x, 16.1 megapixels, quite a few years ago. Still going strong and takes great photos under all conditions.

I know that phone cameras are greatly improved, but this amateur's opinion is that a stand-alone camera is still going to yield a better photograph.

Yep. My phone has more megapixels than my camera, but it doesn't come close to the quality. It's a sensor of some kind that just can't be as good in a phone, I don't know the technical terms, but probably not enough room in a phone.

 

[rhubarbodendron]

thanks for bumping and for the replies, everyone. It's much appreciated!
Yes, the cybershot is not bad at all. I had one at my office for a few years until it unfortunately got run over by a truck... (entirely my fault *blush*). I heard rumours that the newer generations are less good, though.
The trouble is that almost all of the modern cameras have the same sensor size but a far higher resolution than previous models. This way one spot on the sensor codes for several pixels and that leads to enormous image noise. It sounds perfectly paradox but because of that mismatch the rule is: the larger the resolution the more blurred is the pic. Some manufacturers make up for it by using larger sensors but those are cameras upwards of 800 $ - far beyond my means. The ratio sensor/resolution was far better with the old cameras.

@Ar-Pharazon That Cannon one sounds like a great camera! Thanks for the tip! Maybe I can get one second hand.

@JohnChod I couldn't agree more about the stand alone camera being best. I have a computer for the internet, a phone for phone calls and a camera for making pictures. I don't approve of egg-laying woolmilkpigs since nobody - not even a piece of electronic - can be really good at everything.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I find a phone with a decent camera to be a convenience. I mean, who carries an expensive camera around with them at all times? But we do carry our phones everywhere.

I remember using a large scale printer for an image I took with my camera. It was fairly clear, but not as crisp as it could have been at 2'x3'. It was taken with a zoom lens.

 

[Owain Taggart]

For point-and-shoot cameras, I've always been very brand-loyal to the Sony Cyber-shot line.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of the Sony cameras. The one we have is an HXV-90V. It's a point-and-shoot, but has the conveniences of a manual camera with tons of settings. Great little camera. Now, as for resolution, cameras are way beyond 7 megapixels now, but you can always dial it back in the settings to something more comfortable if you don't need the extra resolution.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

tI couldn't agree more about the stand alone camera being best.

I use my iPhone for taking videos, but not pictures. The iPhone camera still isn't good enough yet. The zoom sucks, and it doesn't shoot in widescreen (which is my preferred aspect ratio for pictures - makes them look great on my TV).

 

[Finn]

I have a Nikon, my third one actually. The exact model escapes me at this moment. I love those cameras. They are superior to phone cameras if you know what you are doing when fudging around with the settings.

 

[Gary7]

I've been looking into getting a DSLR... but had stalled on my decision for a few reasons. And then now we see something like this: The Death of DSLRs is Near

Why Should You Buy a DSLR Now?
"With all the facts laid out, I can not comprehend why photographers that are looking for a new camera would invest in a DSLR. The technology is on a rapid decline, and not only the cameras but also the lens systems. Any newly bought camera in this segment might face a huge loss in value in the coming years. DSLR systems won’t hold any resell value in the future, and by then, investing in mirrorless may come at a higher price for you."

So now, it's about finding a good reasonably priced mirrorless digital camera. The higher end ones are still insanely expensive... like the Sony A7R.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I don't know how many photogs are concerned with resale value of a camera.

Of course, I bought my current gear some 10 years ago, before high quality mirrorless options were available.

I like the lens swapability (from my Canon T50 days), but if I could do that and record decent video, I'd consider it.

Digital zoom is still nowhere near the capability of a zoom or telephoto lens, so there's that to think about.

I mean, the mirror moved so the film could be exposed, that isn't even necessary since new DSLR's have a screen showing you the subject (instead of looking through the viewfinder). I used a much newer Canon (than my DSLR) at my last job with the fold-out screen and a plug-in clicker. It was nice and easy.

 

[STR]

The trouble is that almost all of the modern cameras have the same sensor size but a far higher resolution than previous models. This way one spot on the sensor codes for several pixels and that leads to enormous image noise. It sounds perfectly paradox but because of that mismatch the rule is: the larger the resolution the more blurred is the pic. Some manufacturers make up for it by using larger sensors but those are cameras upwards of 800 $ - far beyond my means. The ratio sensor/resolution was far better with the old cameras.

You're approaching this wrong. More pixels is almost always better. Why? Multisampling. An old 5MP camera will have one big pixel in the same space a 20MP camera will have 4 (not entirely true, but for an intro course this will do). Those 4 pixels, because they take up the same amount of space will also (collectively) collect the same amount of light. Sure, one pixel might get hit by more photons than the one next to it (it's called shot noise), but the "group" is a whole is the same.

Which means, for dark images, you just downsize the 20MP image down to 5MP. The overexposed pixel gets averaged out by the underexposed pixel. For bright images, you get the option of using the full resolution.

If you really shoot a lot in the dark, TBH, you're a good candidate for moving up into a fancier big sensor camera. If you don't want to mess with lenses there's
Canon G9X
Panasonic ZS200

Both feature 1" wide sensors.

 

[STR]

I've been looking into getting a DSLR... but had stalled on my decision for a few reasons. And then now we see something like this: The Death of DSLRs is Near

Why Should You Buy a DSLR Now?
"With all the facts laid out, I can not comprehend why photographers that are looking for a new camera would invest in a DSLR. The technology is on a rapid decline, and not only the cameras but also the lens systems. Any newly bought camera in this segment might face a huge loss in value in the coming years. DSLR systems won’t hold any resell value in the future, and by then, investing in mirrorless may come at a higher price for you."

So now, it's about finding a good reasonably priced mirrorless digital camera. The higher end ones are still insanely expensive... like the Sony A7R.

Yes, the DSLR is dead ending. Good riddance. The mirror was loud, bulky and limiting. You want a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera instead. Olympus and Panasonic make great into-to-prosumer level bodies and both manufacturers use a common lens mount called Micro Four Thirds (MFT or M43). So you can slap a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body and it'll work.

Some intro models:
Olympus E-M10 Mark II
Panasonic G85
Panasonic GX85

All are in the $500-600 range. The GX85 is an example of what one can do once one ditches the mirror.

Sony A7 is great (don't buy Sony's ax000 series, they're old and kinda abandoned since the A7), but full frame cameras like that are for people willing to sink 5 figures into their hobby. You don't buy that unless you already know you need it. If you're not sure if you need it, it's a bad choice for you.

There are a plethora of options between M43 and Sony too.

 

[rhubarbodendron]

Yes, that's basically the problem. Cameras that meet my specifications appear to all be in a price cathegory I can't afford. That's why I think I'll rather go for a good but old camera (second hand).

 

[Finn]

On a side note,

anybody who's ever in Austin...check out Precision Camera, on Burnet and Anderson in north Austin. It's awesome. I'm sure most of the major cities and other large cities have shops like it though.


Though I don't recall Boston and DC having a shop like it. I did look for a store back in Boston and only found small mom and pop type shops, and I don't think I truly tried looking around back in DC.

 

[Gary7]

Yes, the DSLR is dead ending. Good riddance. The mirror was loud, bulky and limiting. You want a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera instead. Olympus and Panasonic make great into-to-prosumer level bodies and both manufacturers use a common lens mount called Micro Four Thirds (MFT or M43). So you can slap a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body and it'll work.

Some intro models:
Olympus E-M10 Mark II
Panasonic G85
Panasonic GX85

All are in the $500-600 range. The GX85 is an example of what one can do once one ditches the mirror.

Sony A7 is great (don't buy Sony's ax000 series, they're old and kinda abandoned since the A7), but full frame cameras like that are for people willing to sink 5 figures into their hobby. You don't buy that unless you already know you need it. If you're not sure if you need it, it's a bad choice for you.

There are a plethora of options between M43 and Sony too.

Thanks for the tips, @STR. The biggest flaw of the fixed lens camera has been the limitations of the lens. It's very hard to have one that will do zoom and macro extremely well without aberrations on one end or the other. So that's always been the impetus to go with DSLR. I wasn't aware of MFT versus traditional SLR mounts.

The GX85 lacks an external microphone jack... that's a bummer. I prefer a camera that has the flexibility for taking great videos with external microphone support as well. However, comparing this to the GX9 successor, the discount is pretty significant. And at this point, I've been putting off a camera upgrade for too long.

 

[STR]

Yes, that's basically the problem. Cameras that meet my specifications appear to all be in a price cathegory I can't afford. That's why I think I'll rather go for a good but old camera (second hand).

Sure...there's also older models. Panasonic ZS100, for example.

You could probably even step up to a basic ILC and kit lens for pretty cheap. A Panasonic G5 (or GF5 if you like smaller) and a 14-42mm kit lens can probably be had for $200 all-in. Those are great cameras from 5ish years ago and far better than any compact cam today.

If it seems like I'm pushing Panasonic, it's because their stuff is just cheaper on eBay. You'd pay $150 more for Olympus kit that's maybe a bit better (sensor stabilization), but honestly not worth it.

Thanks for the tips, @STR. The biggest flaw of the fixed lens camera has been the limitations of the lens. It's very hard to have one that will do zoom and macro extremely well without aberrations on one end or the other. So that's always been the impetus to go with DSLR. I wasn't aware of MFT versus traditional SLR mounts.

The GX85 lacks an external microphone jack... that's a bummer and would kill it for me. I want a camera that has the flexibility for taking great videos as well.

Get the G7. It has a mic port and Panasonic's bread and butter is video. It's probably the best deal under $800. Get up to four figures, and options balloon. Photography is becoming an expensive niche hobby.