Camera Question

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 8465
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: Camera Question

Post by Sandtrap » Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:53 am

TN_Boy wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:39 pm
snackdog wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:35 am
Have you considered an iphone11 pro? It surpasses most point and shoot cameras and infringes on DSlR territory.
This statement is false.

[edited to add]

And an iphone11 pro is far out of the OP's price range.
+1
Good points.
j :happy
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know

tm3
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:16 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by tm3 » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:56 am

One other thought ... does she wear glasses? IMO one of the big advantages of a "real" camera over a smartphone is the viewfinder. I find that composing with a smartphone can be problematic in bright light or with glare that makes it hard to see the screen. A viewfinder does not suffer the same shortcoming. However, some viewfinders can be challenging for glasses wearers to use. So if she wears glasses I would recommend a camera with a "glasses friendly" viewfinder.

krb
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by krb » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:16 pm

midareff wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:42 am
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:58 am
spae wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:51 pm
snackdog wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:35 am
Have you considered an iphone11 pro? It surpasses most point and shoot cameras and infringes on DSlR territory.
An iPhone11 isn't in the same league as the Ricoh GR (a point and shoot released in 2013) let alone a modern interchangeable lens camera.

If it's not a faux pas to give a used item as a gift, in the budget OP is discussing, I would get an a5100 used for $240: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5100-bla ... 72002.html. I know enough photographers that I could bum a cheap lens off of someone if I needed to. If OP doesn't, an a5100 would come in somewhat over budget with a lens.

If OP can't get a free or discounted lens and wants to come in under budget, they can get a used a5000 for $140: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5000-bla ... 1-m-p.html. The autofocus on the a5000 is poor by modern standards, but the image quality will be superior to any $250 new point and shoot even with a cheap lens like this $100 lens: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-sel1855-1 ... mount.html.

Both the a5000 and a5100 use the same lens mount as Sony's high-end full-frame camera line, so OP can buy a nicer lens or lenses and then upgrade the body and use the same lenses later if their daughter gets seriously into photography.
Why is it not in the same league?
1. Tiny sensor can not match dynamic range of even compact camera sensors let alone 1", APS-C or Full Frame.
2. Colors produced by the internal software may be pleasant enough but they are not accurate as to what you saw with your own eyes.
3. The size of the lens on a cell phone is extraordinarily limiting as to perspective and focusing requiring significant internal processing for corrections. In this case the more you do the less the end product will be.
4. OTOH, a cell can be a valuable tool on a trip as a second or third camera. ... until you get home and compare results. When you start to count "keepers" against the results of your Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Ricoh, etc., the real story will be told.
5. A good zoom lens vs. a digitized cell zoom will always be superior.

Is that enough?
Actually i would say it depends on what you’re using it for. If she is not going to print them and hang but is going to just keep them on her computer for Instagram for Facebook cell phone will take just as good pictures. Real cameras nowadays are really for people who print pictures. If you’re just sending them to your friends electronically I disagree that you can tell the different in Facebook or IG pictures. In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which.

So I’d say camera phone is actually the best option for 99 percent of photographers - if you’re taking snapshots on vacation or using it to post to IG And FB and even printing out 3 x 5 prints or 4 x 6 prints of your family vacation. I would say nearly no one can tell the difference between slr and phone at that size. If you’re getting into photography for real then of course slr. But it looks like op is looking for a point and shoot camera in which case camera phone would be sufficient in most cases except she doesn’t have a phone and also wants long reach. So point and shoot.

This though is the reason point and shoot cameras will no longer exist in a few years. The majority of photos nowadays are taken on camera phones because they meet the need of the photographer - a document of a memory they can share with friends which is most FB IG. In the past everyone had a real camera because that was the only way to record memories and everyone printed them out to be shared. The camera phone now meets the needs of most people - not me or you - but most people as no one wants to carry an extra device that does not accomplish their goal - sharing good quality picutues with friends - as does their phone.

krb
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by krb » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:28 pm

Sandtrap wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:53 am
TN_Boy wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:39 pm
snackdog wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:35 am
Have you considered an iphone11 pro? It surpasses most point and shoot cameras and infringes on DSlR territory.
This statement is false.

[edited to add]

And an iphone11 pro is far out of the OP's price range.
+1
Good points.
j :happy
Depends on what you need it for.
If you are going to print photos bigger than 8X10 and you are going to use photo manipulation software (eg Lightroom), you are looking at SLR and shooting RAW and a moderate amount of work. If you are looking at regularly printing photos up to 8X10 and are not planning on editing every photo, point and shoot MIGHT POSSIBLY be better but that's by no means certain. Apple and Samsung have done outstanding jobs on software in their cameras and I am confident but not certain if I took a picture with a point and shoot and the same picture with an iPhone you could not reliably tell which is which.

The most important question is it depends what you need it for. If you are not planning on printing your pictures it is kind of a no brainer. iPhone is by far and away your best choice. If your plan for your pictures is texting your friends, instagram and facebook, the quality of the iPhone, P and S, and SLR, are absolutely not discernible. And with P and S and SLR after you take the picture you have to download it onto your computer, get on to FB and IG and then upload it. Texting is even more difficult. so iPhone/Samsung solves your issue better than P and S or SLR.

I've seen professional photographers who shoot with iPhone, and I've seen professional photographers website where they test their readers to tell which was done by their $4000 SLR and $2000 lens and which was iPhone. It is nearly impossible to tell on an average computer screen.

In this day and age I think the decision to buy a P and S or SLR is you have a specific need that iPhone cannot deliver. For the vast vast majority of people, iPhone solves their problem. Unfortunately which is why the camera companies are going out of business. For OP she wants to zoom in pictures. Digital zoom of course is not real zoom ... it's the computer magnifying the pixels ... which you can do the same with iPhone as with P and S. But the P and S would provide more zoom. SLR will take her deeper and farther into photography but sounds like she's not yet ready for that. Sounds like the photographer is set on P and S and there are great P and S cameras to buy. At that price range if you buy any reputable company (eg Nikon Canon) you will get a great camera. Just call B and H and ask them what they recommend.
Last edited by krb on Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

krb
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by krb » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:30 pm

tibbitts wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:36 am
Random Musings wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:06 am
Watty wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:03 am
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:54 am
But cellphone cameras are REALLY good.
The OP has a budget of around $250 and seems to be interested in getting something that has a powerful zoom for things like nature photography.

Cell phones have their place but you can easily spend over $1,000 on one and it would be mainly for taking wide angle photos.
Thanks for paying attention. Plus, our daughter is not getting a cell phone for another three years and it won't be a 1k phone anyway (we have google 3a's that we got for $207 and they take nice pictures in general). Also, she is interested in photography and a strong optical zoom is a must. Plus, as stated originally, there is still that budget constraint.

Also, as midareff mentioned, optical zooms provide nicer pictures when compared to digital zooms. Even my old 8x optical Fuji makes pictures that most iPhone picture takers say what type of camera I am using, especially with nature shots. I don't extend into the digital zoom option as the picture starts to degrade.

RM
Just one issue with a tiny sensor is that you have very limited or no ability to explore traditional adjustments (shutter, aperture, and now sensitivity), and that is what she'll want to learn. As I said I would invest very little and get her some kind of fairly fully adjustable camera that she can learn from to determine if photography is for her. The difference between a dSLR and mirrorless is not significant for whatever she would be doing, and yes before investing in non-trivial lenses I would consider the future of the various mounts more. I would not spend more than your budget, but would use that budget to get a somewhat serious camera.
It looks like she's looking at point and shoot though not DSLR, so probably she won't be adjusting shutter aperture or sensitivity much. To do so she'd have to dig so deep in the menus she'd be better off with DSLR but looks like point and shoot is what she wants. Probably better for learning composition, not diving too deep into those adjustments.

tibbitts
Posts: 9368
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by tibbitts » Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:00 pm

Another reason I suggest that dSLR is that anything without a viewfinder is difficult to use in many lighting conditions.

But it really depends on what the objective is - whether it's to learn about photography. I'm surprised at all the "not ready for" comments, given other threads on Bogleheads, where kids seem to have physics and calculus dumped on them almost from birth.

User avatar
midareff
Posts: 6459
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Camera Question

Post by midareff » Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:15 pm

krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:16 pm
midareff wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:42 am
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:58 am
spae wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:51 pm
snackdog wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:35 am
Have you considered an iphone11 pro? It surpasses most point and shoot cameras and infringes on DSlR territory.
An iPhone11 isn't in the same league as the Ricoh GR (a point and shoot released in 2013) let alone a modern interchangeable lens camera.

If it's not a faux pas to give a used item as a gift, in the budget OP is discussing, I would get an a5100 used for $240: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5100-bla ... 72002.html. I know enough photographers that I could bum a cheap lens off of someone if I needed to. If OP doesn't, an a5100 would come in somewhat over budget with a lens.

If OP can't get a free or discounted lens and wants to come in under budget, they can get a used a5000 for $140: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5000-bla ... 1-m-p.html. The autofocus on the a5000 is poor by modern standards, but the image quality will be superior to any $250 new point and shoot even with a cheap lens like this $100 lens: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-sel1855-1 ... mount.html.

Both the a5000 and a5100 use the same lens mount as Sony's high-end full-frame camera line, so OP can buy a nicer lens or lenses and then upgrade the body and use the same lenses later if their daughter gets seriously into photography.
Why is it not in the same league?
1. Tiny sensor can not match dynamic range of even compact camera sensors let alone 1", APS-C or Full Frame.
2. Colors produced by the internal software may be pleasant enough but they are not accurate as to what you saw with your own eyes.
3. The size of the lens on a cell phone is extraordinarily limiting as to perspective and focusing requiring significant internal processing for corrections. In this case the more you do the less the end product will be.
4. OTOH, a cell can be a valuable tool on a trip as a second or third camera. ... until you get home and compare results. When you start to count "keepers" against the results of your Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Ricoh, etc., the real story will be told.
5. A good zoom lens vs. a digitized cell zoom will always be superior.

Is that enough?
Actually i would say it depends on what you’re using it for. If she is not going to print them and hang but is going to just keep them on her computer for Instagram for Facebook cell phone will take just as good pictures. Real cameras nowadays are really for people who print pictures. If you’re just sending them to your friends electronically I disagree that you can tell the different in Facebook or IG pictures. In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which.

So I’d say camera phone is actually the best option for 99 percent of photographers - if you’re taking snapshots on vacation or using it to post to IG And FB and even printing out 3 x 5 prints or 4 x 6 prints of your family vacation. I would say nearly no one can tell the difference between slr and phone at that size. If you’re getting into photography for real then of course slr. But it looks like op is looking for a point and shoot camera in which case camera phone would be sufficient in most cases except she doesn’t have a phone and also wants long reach. So point and shoot.

This though is the reason point and shoot cameras will no longer exist in a few years. The majority of photos nowadays are taken on camera phones because they meet the need of the photographer - a document of a memory they can share with friends which is most FB IG. In the past everyone had a real camera because that was the only way to record memories and everyone printed them out to be shared. The camera phone now meets the needs of most people - not me or you - but most people as no one wants to carry an extra device that does not accomplish their goal - sharing good quality picutues with friends - as does their phone.
Methinks the author specified the usage in the post that said; "She is interested in photography, both outdoor nature shots as well as people. Has used my camera on trips before and takes decent pictures. A good optical zoom, IMHO, will come in handy. My 8x optical is a little long in the tooth and a 20x optical opens up the opportunity for better nature shots. She is young, 10, but really into tech. Has no smartphone yet and won't for a few more years, at least. I do agree that many phones take good pictures, my Pixel 3a works well, but my camera still provides higher quality shots."

I've done cell-tography... I've done lots of travel photography (ie: landscape, people and so forth) ... if I want to spend a ton of time in post processing and you are on a low resolution computer screen I can make a cell shot look reasonably OK with enough work and time. ... of course I'm talking a $1K current cell vs. a couple hundred dollars compact camera.

Been there done and tried that..... if you haven't done that and tried to optimize your work maybe it would be OK to stop talking out of your head.
My work is here at www.martindareff.com so if you want to shade me go ahead.

HereToLearn
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:53 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by HereToLearn » Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:23 pm

I do not agree with those saying that you cannot distinguish an SLR photo from a phone photo. I lug my heavy Nikon to family gatherings in order to take photos of the large group. Someone invariably takes a camera photo of the same group at the same time. All are posted to Facebook, and it is apparent which shot was taken with the DSLR vs. the latest iPhone. Granted, I am using a body that cost $2000 but that was its price seven years ago. It still takes better shots than the phone, even when I hand it off to a stranger to shoot so that I can be in the photo. (Too much trouble to lug the tripod and remote.)

User avatar
Topic Author
Random Musings
Posts: 5551
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Camera Question

Post by Random Musings » Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:29 pm

Methinks the author specified the usage in the post that said; "She is interested in photography, both outdoor nature shots as well as people. Has used my camera on trips before and takes decent pictures. A good optical zoom, IMHO, will come in handy. My 8x optical is a little long in the tooth and a 20x optical opens up the opportunity for better nature shots. She is young, 10, but really into tech. Has no smartphone yet and won't for a few more years, at least. I do agree that many phones take good pictures, my Pixel 3a works well, but my camera still provides higher quality shots."

I've done cell-tography... I've done lots of travel photography (ie: landscape, people and so forth) ... if I want to spend a ton of time in post processing and you are on a low resolution computer screen I can make a cell shot look reasonably OK with enough work and time. ... of course I'm talking a $1K current cell vs. a couple hundred dollars compact camera.

Been there done and tried that..... if you haven't done that and tried to optimize your work maybe it would be OK to stop talking out of your head.
My work is here at www.martindareff.com so if you want to shade me go ahead.

[/quote]

My daughter wants to learn about photography, but I think a simple point and shoot with a decent optical zoom is good. Now, am leaning towards the Canon 40x optical zoom for $199 (remanufactured). can get all in for about $250 (case, 64GB card, USB to computer) with tax (well within $5). At the price range we are looking at, there are always plusses and minuses, but it's a starting point to learn about photography. This purchase won't break the bank, and is enough camera for my daughter at this point (and probably me as well). At that price point, there can be a lot of argument for what P&S is best.

Right now, I think the 11 has a 5x optical zoom, but I don't believe the iPhone (like any smart phones) have that many $ invested in the camera compared to a Canon, Nikon, or whatever. They are great for a lot of general shots, but optical zoom is so key in the outdoors.

RM
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty I just might have something to say. FZ

TN_Boy
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by TN_Boy » Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:33 pm

krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:16 pm
midareff wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:42 am
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:58 am
spae wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:51 pm
snackdog wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:35 am
Have you considered an iphone11 pro? It surpasses most point and shoot cameras and infringes on DSlR territory.
An iPhone11 isn't in the same league as the Ricoh GR (a point and shoot released in 2013) let alone a modern interchangeable lens camera.

If it's not a faux pas to give a used item as a gift, in the budget OP is discussing, I would get an a5100 used for $240: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5100-bla ... 72002.html. I know enough photographers that I could bum a cheap lens off of someone if I needed to. If OP doesn't, an a5100 would come in somewhat over budget with a lens.

If OP can't get a free or discounted lens and wants to come in under budget, they can get a used a5000 for $140: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5000-bla ... 1-m-p.html. The autofocus on the a5000 is poor by modern standards, but the image quality will be superior to any $250 new point and shoot even with a cheap lens like this $100 lens: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-sel1855-1 ... mount.html.

Both the a5000 and a5100 use the same lens mount as Sony's high-end full-frame camera line, so OP can buy a nicer lens or lenses and then upgrade the body and use the same lenses later if their daughter gets seriously into photography.
Why is it not in the same league?
1. Tiny sensor can not match dynamic range of even compact camera sensors let alone 1", APS-C or Full Frame.
2. Colors produced by the internal software may be pleasant enough but they are not accurate as to what you saw with your own eyes.
3. The size of the lens on a cell phone is extraordinarily limiting as to perspective and focusing requiring significant internal processing for corrections. In this case the more you do the less the end product will be.
4. OTOH, a cell can be a valuable tool on a trip as a second or third camera. ... until you get home and compare results. When you start to count "keepers" against the results of your Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Ricoh, etc., the real story will be told.
5. A good zoom lens vs. a digitized cell zoom will always be superior.

Is that enough?
Actually i would say it depends on what you’re using it for. If she is not going to print them and hang but is going to just keep them on her computer for Instagram for Facebook cell phone will take just as good pictures. Real cameras nowadays are really for people who print pictures. If you’re just sending them to your friends electronically I disagree that you can tell the different in Facebook or IG pictures. In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which.

So I’d say camera phone is actually the best option for 99 percent of photographers - if you’re taking snapshots on vacation or using it to post to IG And FB and even printing out 3 x 5 prints or 4 x 6 prints of your family vacation. I would say nearly no one can tell the difference between slr and phone at that size. If you’re getting into photography for real then of course slr. But it looks like op is looking for a point and shoot camera in which case camera phone would be sufficient in most cases except she doesn’t have a phone and also wants long reach. So point and shoot.

This though is the reason point and shoot cameras will no longer exist in a few years. The majority of photos nowadays are taken on camera phones because they meet the need of the photographer - a document of a memory they can share with friends which is most FB IG. In the past everyone had a real camera because that was the only way to record memories and everyone printed them out to be shared. The camera phone now meets the needs of most people - not me or you - but most people as no one wants to carry an extra device that does not accomplish their goal - sharing good quality picutues with friends - as does their phone.
Krb,

There is some truth to your post, but I believe you are wrong in a couple of key ways.

First, yes, many people take snapshots with their cellphones and then share them with people who only look at those pictures on their cellphone. This is not a very demanding usage.

But I rarely print pictures and yet a cell phone is not good enough for me. You are focused on the printing aspect whereas I think about the type of photography. For (most) landscapes and portraits, yes, cell phones are pretty good now.

But I want a tight shot of that blue heron 30 to 50 yards away. Across the water. Your cellphone cannot do that. I want some nice tighter shots of kids playing soccer. You can't do that very well with your cellphone (I guess standing on the sidelines one might get some when they run by you .....) but I'll have a lot more interesting shots with my camera than you standing there with a cellphone. And if the light is a little low, there will be a bunch of blurry pictures with a cellphone but I'll bump the ISO up on my Nikon and get sharp pictures.

Or I'm traveling and I take a nice wide angle landscape shot (cellphone can do that) and then I want a tighter shot on that mountain peak. I could zoom with my feet, only I need to zoom about five miles to get the shot I want with my cellphone. Hmm.

I also read statements like this a lot "In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which"

Yes they do. And I think I've seen exactly one such shot that surprised me from a quality standpoint (a closeup of a wasp, and I wouldn't have gotten that close to the wasp ...I prefer to take such shots with a 100-400 zoom ....)*. All the others were merely using subjects that cellphone cameras were good at and then comparing to a dslr shot. What you don't see is comparisons in situations where the cellphones obviously can't get the job done.

I mean, I agree that point and shoots are dying, and cellphones are the reason. But I think people who are satisfied with cellphones either don't do some types of photography, or don't care that certain shots (my soccer example above) are lousy. I see a lot of vacation shots taken with a cellphone, and frankly think most of them suck, partly because the persons taking the pictures are not, and do not pretend to be photo experts, and partly because across a wide range of situations if you just take a snap with a cellphone and do no post processing you get a lot of lousy pictures.

* that's not quite true. The nightmode on cellphones can take a *better* "single" image of a dark scene than a single shot from even a high-end camera if there is no motion in the scene. Of course, what is happening is multiple images are stacked in the phone as a means of noise reduction, which you can do with a real camera and software (burst shot of several images and some manual post-processing), but it's obviously a lot more work.

TN_Boy
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by TN_Boy » Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:41 pm

tibbitts wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:00 pm
Another reason I suggest that dSLR is that anything without a viewfinder is difficult to use in many lighting conditions.

But it really depends on what the objective is - whether it's to learn about photography. I'm surprised at all the "not ready for" comments, given other threads on Bogleheads, where kids seem to have physics and calculus dumped on them almost from birth.
Good point about the viewfinder. Unless I'm on a tripod, or holding the camera in some weird position, I find using a viewfinder easier than the lcd screen in any light. Harder to hold the camera steady as well.

And related, all those buttons and dials on a "real" camera are useful. Part of getting good shots is adapting to changing situations, and being able to tweak iso, shutter speed, etc *quickly* can make sometimes make a real difference in hit rate.

I won't get into things like using single-point autofocus in many situations or setting the camera up for back button focus ..... things which I find make getting in-focus shots a lot easier.

krb
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by krb » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:42 pm

midareff wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:15 pm
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:16 pm
midareff wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:42 am
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:58 am
spae wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:51 pm


An iPhone11 isn't in the same league as the Ricoh GR (a point and shoot released in 2013) let alone a modern interchangeable lens camera.

If it's not a faux pas to give a used item as a gift, in the budget OP is discussing, I would get an a5100 used for $240: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5100-bla ... 72002.html. I know enough photographers that I could bum a cheap lens off of someone if I needed to. If OP doesn't, an a5100 would come in somewhat over budget with a lens.

If OP can't get a free or discounted lens and wants to come in under budget, they can get a used a5000 for $140: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5000-bla ... 1-m-p.html. The autofocus on the a5000 is poor by modern standards, but the image quality will be superior to any $250 new point and shoot even with a cheap lens like this $100 lens: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-sel1855-1 ... mount.html.

Both the a5000 and a5100 use the same lens mount as Sony's high-end full-frame camera line, so OP can buy a nicer lens or lenses and then upgrade the body and use the same lenses later if their daughter gets seriously into photography.
Why is it not in the same league?
1. Tiny sensor can not match dynamic range of even compact camera sensors let alone 1", APS-C or Full Frame.
2. Colors produced by the internal software may be pleasant enough but they are not accurate as to what you saw with your own eyes.
3. The size of the lens on a cell phone is extraordinarily limiting as to perspective and focusing requiring significant internal processing for corrections. In this case the more you do the less the end product will be.
4. OTOH, a cell can be a valuable tool on a trip as a second or third camera. ... until you get home and compare results. When you start to count "keepers" against the results of your Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Ricoh, etc., the real story will be told.
5. A good zoom lens vs. a digitized cell zoom will always be superior.

Is that enough?
Actually i would say it depends on what you’re using it for. If she is not going to print them and hang but is going to just keep them on her computer for Instagram for Facebook cell phone will take just as good pictures. Real cameras nowadays are really for people who print pictures. If you’re just sending them to your friends electronically I disagree that you can tell the different in Facebook or IG pictures. In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which.

So I’d say camera phone is actually the best option for 99 percent of photographers - if you’re taking snapshots on vacation or using it to post to IG And FB and even printing out 3 x 5 prints or 4 x 6 prints of your family vacation. I would say nearly no one can tell the difference between slr and phone at that size. If you’re getting into photography for real then of course slr. But it looks like op is looking for a point and shoot camera in which case camera phone would be sufficient in most cases except she doesn’t have a phone and also wants long reach. So point and shoot.

This though is the reason point and shoot cameras will no longer exist in a few years. The majority of photos nowadays are taken on camera phones because they meet the need of the photographer - a document of a memory they can share with friends which is most FB IG. In the past everyone had a real camera because that was the only way to record memories and everyone printed them out to be shared. The camera phone now meets the needs of most people - not me or you - but most people as no one wants to carry an extra device that does not accomplish their goal - sharing good quality picutues with friends - as does their phone.
Methinks the author specified the usage in the post that said; "She is interested in photography, both outdoor nature shots as well as people. Has used my camera on trips before and takes decent pictures. A good optical zoom, IMHO, will come in handy. My 8x optical is a little long in the tooth and a 20x optical opens up the opportunity for better nature shots. She is young, 10, but really into tech. Has no smartphone yet and won't for a few more years, at least. I do agree that many phones take good pictures, my Pixel 3a works well, but my camera still provides higher quality shots."

I've done cell-tography... I've done lots of travel photography (ie: landscape, people and so forth) ... if I want to spend a ton of time in post processing and you are on a low resolution computer screen I can make a cell shot look reasonably OK with enough work and time. ... of course I'm talking a $1K current cell vs. a couple hundred dollars compact camera.

Been there done and tried that..... if you haven't done that and tried to optimize your work maybe it would be OK to stop talking out of your head.
My work is here at www.martindareff.com so if you want to shade me go ahead.
Hi. No - my point being the camera is only a tool and you need to choose the right tool for the right project. If you goal is to print >8X10 you are probably looking at an SLR (though not necessarily). If your goal is to text your friends and post on FB and IG, a P and S or a DSLR doesn't really add anything to a cellphone camera. Most people (not the granddaughter) have a cell phone on them and it would require carrying an extra "thing" to carry a P and S or DSLR. Since most people are only using photography to keep memories and post and not print, for most people cellphone is sufficient. For you and me, presuming you print your images or at least display them, SLR is the way to go.

The budding photographer though it sounds like is not ready for a cell phone, so the next question is P and S or DSLR. The former if you want to take pictures and the latter if you really want to learn all about photography. Sounds like the OP is more comfortable with the former.

In any case ... if you call B and H and speak to their reps they will ask all the right questions as to what is the best solution.

Just my two cents. From a random guy on the internet.

Freefun
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:55 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by Freefun » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:46 pm

Random Musings wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:44 pm
Want to get a relatively inexpensive camera, but still a decent camera for my daughter. I'm looking at the Canon Power Shot SX620 which seems to have a solid optical zoom. Seems like a good entry point camera.

Also, there seem to be lots of reviews for B&H as a camera dealer, does anyone have experience with them. I noticed some interesting pricing with other NY based retailers, but when reviewing there ratings, lots of comments about gray market products. B&H states they are an authorized dealer for Canon and they have lots of favorable reviews.

Would appreciate everyone's thoughts. The pricing point is at the top of her range, as it will be a gift from a relative. So, a $300 camera is a no go.

Thankks.

RM
Camera appears cheaper on amazon $199
Powershots are good. I’ve owned many models.
Remember when you wanted what you currently have?

krb
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by krb » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:04 pm

HereToLearn wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:23 pm
I do not agree with those saying that you cannot distinguish an SLR photo from a phone photo. I lug my heavy Nikon to family gatherings in order to take photos of the large group. Someone invariably takes a camera photo of the same group at the same time. All are posted to Facebook, and it is apparent which shot was taken with the DSLR vs. the latest iPhone. Granted, I am using a body that cost $2000 but that was its price seven years ago. It still takes better shots than the phone, even when I hand it off to a stranger to shoot so that I can be in the photo. (Too much trouble to lug the tripod and remote.)
Hi. As always it's the Indian not the arrow. And it really depends on what your goal is - printing 8X10's or sharing on the internet. Ming Thein is I think an amazing photographer. You should see his iPhone images on the last two links. They are pretty amazing. I wish my DSLR images were as good as his iPhone images! But it's the Indian not the arrow.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/05/24/m ... -masses-i/

The output medium matters.
I think it’s very important to be clear about what you want to use the resulting images for. If it’s solely instagram, then it’s stupid to use a proper camera – there’s just too much fiddling required to transfer. Remember that workflow matters: the smoother/ faster it is, the more likely you are to use it. If you shoot different subject matter in different ways with different output media, there’s no conflict; I’d never shoot a commercial job with an iPhone, for instance. The aim is always the highest possible image quality; the question of what to use thus never arises. But if you’re casually photographing urban abstracts – which could well make interesting Ultraprints – then if you’ve only got your iPhone, you’re going to be disappointed come print time. Similarly, you’re going to be unhappy if you’ve lugged 3kg of camera and lens around for a day and not shot a single image. Fortunately, for most people – the output medium doesn’t actually matter; they just want to show it to as many of their friends as possible, which means whichever online medium is the most popular at the time.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/05/26/m ... s-part-ii/

The iPhone 5S is probably more camera than 99% of the population need or know how to use.
I use the iPhone as an example solely because it’s the one I’m most familiar with, having had several generations and seeing the camera go from a joke, to usable in emergencies, to surprisingly good, to very competent, and finally past the point of sufficiency. From the photographer’s standpoint, it’s an interesting device solely because it passes the point where the camera is the limitation and puts things squarely back into the photographer’s hands. It’s more than fast enough, and the incremental improvements in maximum aperture and pixel pitch, combined with high speed bursts that increase dynamic range, lower noise and provide a form of electronic stabilisation have increased it’s capture envelope considerably. It responds very quickly, and has a greater range of adjustment latitude than before – the spot meter is now more like a spot meter than a focus-point weighted one.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/06/10/t ... -a-camera/

– The image quality is finally good enough. Hell, even Getty Images thinks so – I’ve got photos in the library that were shot with an iPhone 4.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/06/21/p ... more-17191

krb
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by krb » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:05 pm

Random Musings wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:29 pm
Methinks the author specified the usage in the post that said; "She is interested in photography, both outdoor nature shots as well as people. Has used my camera on trips before and takes decent pictures. A good optical zoom, IMHO, will come in handy. My 8x optical is a little long in the tooth and a 20x optical opens up the opportunity for better nature shots. She is young, 10, but really into tech. Has no smartphone yet and won't for a few more years, at least. I do agree that many phones take good pictures, my Pixel 3a works well, but my camera still provides higher quality shots."

I've done cell-tography... I've done lots of travel photography (ie: landscape, people and so forth) ... if I want to spend a ton of time in post processing and you are on a low resolution computer screen I can make a cell shot look reasonably OK with enough work and time. ... of course I'm talking a $1K current cell vs. a couple hundred dollars compact camera.

Been there done and tried that..... if you haven't done that and tried to optimize your work maybe it would be OK to stop talking out of your head.
My work is here at www.martindareff.com so if you want to shade me go ahead.
My daughter wants to learn about photography, but I think a simple point and shoot with a decent optical zoom is good. Now, am leaning towards the Canon 40x optical zoom for $199 (remanufactured). can get all in for about $250 (case, 64GB card, USB to computer) with tax (well within $5). At the price range we are looking at, there are always plusses and minuses, but it's a starting point to learn about photography. This purchase won't break the bank, and is enough camera for my daughter at this point (and probably me as well). At that price point, there can be a lot of argument for what P&S is best.

Right now, I think the 11 has a 5x optical zoom, but I don't believe the iPhone (like any smart phones) have that many $ invested in the camera compared to a Canon, Nikon, or whatever. They are great for a lot of general shots, but optical zoom is so key in the outdoors.

RM
[/quote]

It sounds like a P and S with a big optical zoom fits her needs to stoke her fire in photography. If she loves it, she will get a DSLR. If she doesn't love it she will at least have fun documenting her world as she discovers her interests. Have fun!

krb
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by krb » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:10 pm

TN_Boy wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:33 pm
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:16 pm
midareff wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:42 am
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:58 am
spae wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:51 pm


An iPhone11 isn't in the same league as the Ricoh GR (a point and shoot released in 2013) let alone a modern interchangeable lens camera.

If it's not a faux pas to give a used item as a gift, in the budget OP is discussing, I would get an a5100 used for $240: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5100-bla ... 72002.html. I know enough photographers that I could bum a cheap lens off of someone if I needed to. If OP doesn't, an a5100 would come in somewhat over budget with a lens.

If OP can't get a free or discounted lens and wants to come in under budget, they can get a used a5000 for $140: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-a5000-bla ... 1-m-p.html. The autofocus on the a5000 is poor by modern standards, but the image quality will be superior to any $250 new point and shoot even with a cheap lens like this $100 lens: https://www.keh.com/shop/sony-sel1855-1 ... mount.html.

Both the a5000 and a5100 use the same lens mount as Sony's high-end full-frame camera line, so OP can buy a nicer lens or lenses and then upgrade the body and use the same lenses later if their daughter gets seriously into photography.
Why is it not in the same league?
1. Tiny sensor can not match dynamic range of even compact camera sensors let alone 1", APS-C or Full Frame.
2. Colors produced by the internal software may be pleasant enough but they are not accurate as to what you saw with your own eyes.
3. The size of the lens on a cell phone is extraordinarily limiting as to perspective and focusing requiring significant internal processing for corrections. In this case the more you do the less the end product will be.
4. OTOH, a cell can be a valuable tool on a trip as a second or third camera. ... until you get home and compare results. When you start to count "keepers" against the results of your Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Ricoh, etc., the real story will be told.
5. A good zoom lens vs. a digitized cell zoom will always be superior.

Is that enough?
Actually i would say it depends on what you’re using it for. If she is not going to print them and hang but is going to just keep them on her computer for Instagram for Facebook cell phone will take just as good pictures. Real cameras nowadays are really for people who print pictures. If you’re just sending them to your friends electronically I disagree that you can tell the different in Facebook or IG pictures. In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which.

So I’d say camera phone is actually the best option for 99 percent of photographers - if you’re taking snapshots on vacation or using it to post to IG And FB and even printing out 3 x 5 prints or 4 x 6 prints of your family vacation. I would say nearly no one can tell the difference between slr and phone at that size. If you’re getting into photography for real then of course slr. But it looks like op is looking for a point and shoot camera in which case camera phone would be sufficient in most cases except she doesn’t have a phone and also wants long reach. So point and shoot.

This though is the reason point and shoot cameras will no longer exist in a few years. The majority of photos nowadays are taken on camera phones because they meet the need of the photographer - a document of a memory they can share with friends which is most FB IG. In the past everyone had a real camera because that was the only way to record memories and everyone printed them out to be shared. The camera phone now meets the needs of most people - not me or you - but most people as no one wants to carry an extra device that does not accomplish their goal - sharing good quality picutues with friends - as does their phone.
Krb,

There is some truth to your post, but I believe you are wrong in a couple of key ways.

First, yes, many people take snapshots with their cellphones and then share them with people who only look at those pictures on their cellphone. This is not a very demanding usage.

But I rarely print pictures and yet a cell phone is not good enough for me. You are focused on the printing aspect whereas I think about the type of photography. For (most) landscapes and portraits, yes, cell phones are pretty good now.

But I want a tight shot of that blue heron 30 to 50 yards away. Across the water. Your cellphone cannot do that. I want some nice tighter shots of kids playing soccer. You can't do that very well with your cellphone (I guess standing on the sidelines one might get some when they run by you .....) but I'll have a lot more interesting shots with my camera than you standing there with a cellphone. And if the light is a little low, there will be a bunch of blurry pictures with a cellphone but I'll bump the ISO up on my Nikon and get sharp pictures.

Or I'm traveling and I take a nice wide angle landscape shot (cellphone can do that) and then I want a tighter shot on that mountain peak. I could zoom with my feet, only I need to zoom about five miles to get the shot I want with my cellphone. Hmm.

I also read statements like this a lot "In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which"

Yes they do. And I think I've seen exactly one such shot that surprised me from a quality standpoint (a closeup of a wasp, and I wouldn't have gotten that close to the wasp ...I prefer to take such shots with a 100-400 zoom ....)*. All the others were merely using subjects that cellphone cameras were good at and then comparing to a dslr shot. What you don't see is comparisons in situations where the cellphones obviously can't get the job done.

I mean, I agree that point and shoots are dying, and cellphones are the reason. But I think people who are satisfied with cellphones either don't do some types of photography, or don't care that certain shots (my soccer example above) are lousy. I see a lot of vacation shots taken with a cellphone, and frankly think most of them suck, partly because the persons taking the pictures are not, and do not pretend to be photo experts, and partly because across a wide range of situations if you just take a snap with a cellphone and do no post processing you get a lot of lousy pictures.

* that's not quite true. The nightmode on cellphones can take a *better* "single" image of a dark scene than a single shot from even a high-end camera if there is no motion in the scene. Of course, what is happening is multiple images are stacked in the phone as a means of noise reduction, which you can do with a real camera and software (burst shot of several images and some manual post-processing), but it's obviously a lot more work.
Oh for sure but you're talking apples and oranges. If you want to do distance photography and you want a good quality image of the heron 50 yards away you are talking about a DSLR with at least - minimum - 200 mm lens. If you want to shoot sports, you are talking about a DSLR with fast FPS. You are talking about specialized needs though. There is a whole field of wildlife photography and within that section, those needs are barely relatable to someone who focuses on birds in flight who need a huge zoom AND wide aperture. And if you're talking about landscape photography you are again looking at a DSLR but with a normal to wide zoom. That's a lot of weight, a lot of lenses, and a lot of money!

We are talking about a $200 introductory camera for a young girl who is just learning about photography. But the 100-400 lens that you're talking about probably weighs at least 5 pounds and is attached to another pound and a half of SLR. We are talking about a kid who likes taking pictures and is interested in learning more about it. No one would recommend spending $5000 at least on the set up you're describing to cover wildlife, birds in flight, sports, and micro!

TN_Boy
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by TN_Boy » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:13 pm

krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:42 pm
midareff wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:15 pm
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:16 pm
midareff wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:42 am
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:58 am


Why is it not in the same league?
1. Tiny sensor can not match dynamic range of even compact camera sensors let alone 1", APS-C or Full Frame.
2. Colors produced by the internal software may be pleasant enough but they are not accurate as to what you saw with your own eyes.
3. The size of the lens on a cell phone is extraordinarily limiting as to perspective and focusing requiring significant internal processing for corrections. In this case the more you do the less the end product will be.
4. OTOH, a cell can be a valuable tool on a trip as a second or third camera. ... until you get home and compare results. When you start to count "keepers" against the results of your Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Ricoh, etc., the real story will be told.
5. A good zoom lens vs. a digitized cell zoom will always be superior.

Is that enough?
Actually i would say it depends on what you’re using it for. If she is not going to print them and hang but is going to just keep them on her computer for Instagram for Facebook cell phone will take just as good pictures. Real cameras nowadays are really for people who print pictures. If you’re just sending them to your friends electronically I disagree that you can tell the different in Facebook or IG pictures. In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which.

So I’d say camera phone is actually the best option for 99 percent of photographers - if you’re taking snapshots on vacation or using it to post to IG And FB and even printing out 3 x 5 prints or 4 x 6 prints of your family vacation. I would say nearly no one can tell the difference between slr and phone at that size. If you’re getting into photography for real then of course slr. But it looks like op is looking for a point and shoot camera in which case camera phone would be sufficient in most cases except she doesn’t have a phone and also wants long reach. So point and shoot.

This though is the reason point and shoot cameras will no longer exist in a few years. The majority of photos nowadays are taken on camera phones because they meet the need of the photographer - a document of a memory they can share with friends which is most FB IG. In the past everyone had a real camera because that was the only way to record memories and everyone printed them out to be shared. The camera phone now meets the needs of most people - not me or you - but most people as no one wants to carry an extra device that does not accomplish their goal - sharing good quality picutues with friends - as does their phone.
Methinks the author specified the usage in the post that said; "She is interested in photography, both outdoor nature shots as well as people. Has used my camera on trips before and takes decent pictures. A good optical zoom, IMHO, will come in handy. My 8x optical is a little long in the tooth and a 20x optical opens up the opportunity for better nature shots. She is young, 10, but really into tech. Has no smartphone yet and won't for a few more years, at least. I do agree that many phones take good pictures, my Pixel 3a works well, but my camera still provides higher quality shots."

I've done cell-tography... I've done lots of travel photography (ie: landscape, people and so forth) ... if I want to spend a ton of time in post processing and you are on a low resolution computer screen I can make a cell shot look reasonably OK with enough work and time. ... of course I'm talking a $1K current cell vs. a couple hundred dollars compact camera.

Been there done and tried that..... if you haven't done that and tried to optimize your work maybe it would be OK to stop talking out of your head.
My work is here at www.martindareff.com so if you want to shade me go ahead.
Hi. No - my point being the camera is only a tool and you need to choose the right tool for the right project. If you goal is to print >8X10 you are probably looking at an SLR (though not necessarily). If your goal is to text your friends and post on FB and IG, a P and S or a DSLR doesn't really add anything to a cellphone camera. Most people (not the granddaughter) have a cell phone on them and it would require carrying an extra "thing" to carry a P and S or DSLR. Since most people are only using photography to keep memories and post and not print, for most people cellphone is sufficient. For you and me, presuming you print your images or at least display them, SLR is the way to go.

The budding photographer though it sounds like is not ready for a cell phone, so the next question is P and S or DSLR. The former if you want to take pictures and the latter if you really want to learn all about photography. Sounds like the OP is more comfortable with the former.

In any case ... if you call B and H and speak to their reps they will ask all the right questions as to what is the best solution.

Just my two cents. From a random guy on the internet.
You are too stuck on the printing thing. If you want pictures of things that are far away (or closeups of things that will not let you get close, or sports shots, or a few other things) a cellphone doesn't work well, and it doesn't matter whether you print out the photo or not, i.e. it's the wrong tool.

I think there is little joy in sharing a lousy photo quickly (look at this blurred shot of a faraway bird sitting on a fence!). There are certain types of photography where cellphones are poor choices, whether you print the photos or not.

I rarely print -- much prefer to put photos on flickr where I can see them anytime. On a nice computer monitor or a phone. But I use some of the shots as desktop backgrounds. And our digital picture frame display looks a little better with shots from a good camera.

I agree that getting pictures (good or bad ones) to people is easier with a cellphone. But that wasn't the question being asked.

TN_Boy
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Camera Question

Post by TN_Boy » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:51 pm

krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:10 pm
TN_Boy wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:33 pm
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:16 pm
midareff wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:42 am
krb wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:58 am


Why is it not in the same league?
1. Tiny sensor can not match dynamic range of even compact camera sensors let alone 1", APS-C or Full Frame.
2. Colors produced by the internal software may be pleasant enough but they are not accurate as to what you saw with your own eyes.
3. The size of the lens on a cell phone is extraordinarily limiting as to perspective and focusing requiring significant internal processing for corrections. In this case the more you do the less the end product will be.
4. OTOH, a cell can be a valuable tool on a trip as a second or third camera. ... until you get home and compare results. When you start to count "keepers" against the results of your Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Ricoh, etc., the real story will be told.
5. A good zoom lens vs. a digitized cell zoom will always be superior.

Is that enough?
Actually i would say it depends on what you’re using it for. If she is not going to print them and hang but is going to just keep them on her computer for Instagram for Facebook cell phone will take just as good pictures. Real cameras nowadays are really for people who print pictures. If you’re just sending them to your friends electronically I disagree that you can tell the different in Facebook or IG pictures. In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which.

So I’d say camera phone is actually the best option for 99 percent of photographers - if you’re taking snapshots on vacation or using it to post to IG And FB and even printing out 3 x 5 prints or 4 x 6 prints of your family vacation. I would say nearly no one can tell the difference between slr and phone at that size. If you’re getting into photography for real then of course slr. But it looks like op is looking for a point and shoot camera in which case camera phone would be sufficient in most cases except she doesn’t have a phone and also wants long reach. So point and shoot.

This though is the reason point and shoot cameras will no longer exist in a few years. The majority of photos nowadays are taken on camera phones because they meet the need of the photographer - a document of a memory they can share with friends which is most FB IG. In the past everyone had a real camera because that was the only way to record memories and everyone printed them out to be shared. The camera phone now meets the needs of most people - not me or you - but most people as no one wants to carry an extra device that does not accomplish their goal - sharing good quality picutues with friends - as does their phone.
Krb,

There is some truth to your post, but I believe you are wrong in a couple of key ways.

First, yes, many people take snapshots with their cellphones and then share them with people who only look at those pictures on their cellphone. This is not a very demanding usage.

But I rarely print pictures and yet a cell phone is not good enough for me. You are focused on the printing aspect whereas I think about the type of photography. For (most) landscapes and portraits, yes, cell phones are pretty good now.

But I want a tight shot of that blue heron 30 to 50 yards away. Across the water. Your cellphone cannot do that. I want some nice tighter shots of kids playing soccer. You can't do that very well with your cellphone (I guess standing on the sidelines one might get some when they run by you .....) but I'll have a lot more interesting shots with my camera than you standing there with a cellphone. And if the light is a little low, there will be a bunch of blurry pictures with a cellphone but I'll bump the ISO up on my Nikon and get sharp pictures.

Or I'm traveling and I take a nice wide angle landscape shot (cellphone can do that) and then I want a tighter shot on that mountain peak. I could zoom with my feet, only I need to zoom about five miles to get the shot I want with my cellphone. Hmm.

I also read statements like this a lot "In fact I’ve seen professional photographers taking pictures with their slr and iPhones and on their webpages it is not possibly to tell which was which"

Yes they do. And I think I've seen exactly one such shot that surprised me from a quality standpoint (a closeup of a wasp, and I wouldn't have gotten that close to the wasp ...I prefer to take such shots with a 100-400 zoom ....)*. All the others were merely using subjects that cellphone cameras were good at and then comparing to a dslr shot. What you don't see is comparisons in situations where the cellphones obviously can't get the job done.

I mean, I agree that point and shoots are dying, and cellphones are the reason. But I think people who are satisfied with cellphones either don't do some types of photography, or don't care that certain shots (my soccer example above) are lousy. I see a lot of vacation shots taken with a cellphone, and frankly think most of them suck, partly because the persons taking the pictures are not, and do not pretend to be photo experts, and partly because across a wide range of situations if you just take a snap with a cellphone and do no post processing you get a lot of lousy pictures.

* that's not quite true. The nightmode on cellphones can take a *better* "single" image of a dark scene than a single shot from even a high-end camera if there is no motion in the scene. Of course, what is happening is multiple images are stacked in the phone as a means of noise reduction, which you can do with a real camera and software (burst shot of several images and some manual post-processing), but it's obviously a lot more work.
Oh for sure but you're talking apples and oranges. If you want to do distance photography and you want a good quality image of the heron 50 yards away you are talking about a DSLR with at least - minimum - 200 mm lens. If you want to shoot sports, you are talking about a DSLR with fast FPS. You are talking about specialized needs though. There is a whole field of wildlife photography and within that section, those needs are barely relatable to someone who focuses on birds in flight who need a huge zoom AND wide aperture. And if you're talking about landscape photography you are again looking at a DSLR but with a normal to wide zoom. That's a lot of weight, a lot of lenses, and a lot of money!

We are talking about a $200 introductory camera for a young girl who is just learning about photography. But the 100-400 lens that you're talking about probably weighs at least 5 pounds and is attached to another pound and a half of SLR. We are talking about a kid who likes taking pictures and is interested in learning more about it. No one would recommend spending $5000 at least on the set up you're describing to cover wildlife, birds in flight, sports, and micro!
Sigh. No. Obviously I'm not suggesting the kid receive an expensive dSLR setup. Unlike some of the posters in this thread, I read the OP and the requirements.

But this isn't true either: "If you want to do distance photography and you want a good quality image of the heron 50 yards away you are talking about a DSLR with at least - minimum - 200 mm lens"

In good light the superzooms can get excellent pictures of critters far away. You do not need a dSLR for that. Do I like the superzooms with small sensors? No. I like a more versatile camera. But someone wanting to get bird pictures for example, will be far better served by a P&S with a strong zoom than a cellphone. The conditions where the superzoom struggles -- stuff is moving and the light is poor -- kill a cellphone as well; their sensor is even smaller and there is isn't any cellphone software magic to fix that problem.

You are confusing optimal results with "better than a cellphone." The perfect is the enemy of the good here .....

For nature shots of critters, a cell phone sucks very very much. There is no way to pretend the lack of zoom doesn't matter. Thus it is easier to do better. I've used a bridge camera (1" sensor) with a 25-400 zoom a lot, and my current favored setup for nature outings is a 100-400 on a crop-sensor Nikon (i.e. a 600mm equivalent reach though my lens is not fast enough for BIF in low light).

I have pictures a relative of mine took years ago with a 12x zoom P&S. We are talking 14, maybe 15 year old technology. His shots from several African game parks are pretty good.

He has nice closeups of lions*, cheetahs, giraffes, elephants, gorillas, you name it. Plus some decent looking landscapes. Jpegs straight out of the camera. A better camera would have given him better pictures. But a lot of those pics look pretty good (note I'm picky and looking at the shots right now on a large hi-res monitor) and .... this is the point .... lots better than he could have gotten with the best cellphone made so far by man, because the zoom really matters. This is a simple concept. I'm certain his set of pictures (landscapes, wildlife, people shots, etc) are in aggregate much better and more diverse than he could get now using the best cellphone. From an ancient mid-range P&S. The jpegs are like 5 megapixels. Tiny.

If you are talking nature photography, there is a huge gap between what a cellphone can do and what high-end equipment can do. And a P&S, even with its limitations, might be just the ticket there.

*zooming with your feet is a particularly bad idea with lions

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 8465
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: Camera Question

Post by Sandtrap » Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:30 pm

OP: try posting your question on this forum as well. This is one of the premier online photography forums.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/
also here:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/
j :D
Cameras are tools. (and toys)
Image
Photography is a learned art. (not always, but can be)
Image
Image
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know

User avatar
Topic Author
Random Musings
Posts: 5551
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Camera Question

Post by Random Musings » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:18 pm

All, such a spirited debate for a $250 camera. My daughter is very excited about getting a camera, and she decided on the Canon with the 25x optical zoom re manufactured plus all the accessories for 210. Now, she has another 40 bucks she can spend on clothes, most likely. :D

I hope she lets me take a few shots

RM
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty I just might have something to say. FZ

Post Reply