Moving past the point-and-shoot.

October 8, 2011 4:52 PM

I need someone to tell me what camera or camcorder to buy. Details inside.

I need some equipment to take both photos and video. I am leaning toward getting a camera that takes video rather than a camcorder that takes stills. Advice?

Details:

I currently have a 7 year old Canon Elph, but it is starting to malfunction. In addition, I get terrible red eye, and it is slow to recover and take the next shot. In fact, it is simply slow to take a shot in the first place. It lags when I press the button. If I decline to use the auto flash in low light, my photos are out of focus. For these reasons, I'm thinking of moving up to a camera where I can learn how to use some manual settings, and I would like a hot shoe for an external flash. I don't care that much about the ability to change lenses at this time.

I also have a 4 year old Canon ZR850 camcorder that I hate. Worst video ever. My Elph takes much better video, but of course you cannot zoom while filming.

So - advice. Low light is a big problem for me. I shoot indoors a lot. I read up on sensor size and type and I still don't know what I want. I don't need extreme zoom or extreme megapixels or tons of fun "modes." I need a sharp image. I don't know what type of external flash to get. There's a lot of information out there, and I've been reading it for days, but all I've got is a headache.

Can this be done for $500? (Camera + flash) I see that the Speedlites tend to be $150+. I don't mind spending more money if it's worthwhile, but I don't want to get more camera than I need. I don't make any profit from taking photos; this is just for me, and I love photography, and I want it to be fun and I want to learn & experiment.

What should I buy?

posted by Knowyournuts to Technology (11 answers total)

If you aren't set on a hot-shoe, I would look at the Canon PowerShot S100. It sounds like you're used to the Elph size, just want more manual control and HD video, which is exactly what it has.
posted by jeffkramer at 4:58 PM on October 8, 2011 [1 favorite]

I picked up a Samsung HZ50W on woot.com for $100 a year ago and I love it. it 'feels' like a proper camera, in that it has a display screen AND an viewfinder, a pop-up flash, very nice controls. Full 720p video, lots of optical zoom, but no panorama.

The only issue I've had with it is that getting a spare battery is a pain in the neck from any source except Samsung.
posted by mephron at 5:34 PM on October 8, 2011

The S100 (or S95, or S90) has a massive sensor compared to almost all of the competition, which translates into great low-light photos (In many ways I regret getting the ZS7 because the sensor is so awful, despite having a fantastic lens). S90 is SD video, S95 is HD, not sure about the S100.
posted by Yowser at 10:46 PM on October 8, 2011

Best answer: I (being a Micro 4/3 fan) would probably get an Olympus E-P2. I say that because I already own one, and it works quite well. The only problem is that you'll have difficulty getting the camera *and* the flash for $500. There are also other cheaper (and more expensive) Micro 4/3 bodies you could either save money on, or upgrade to later on.

But what you want is low light performance, which means you want fast lenses with wide apertures and big sensors. You just don't get that with point-n-shoot cameras. Stick this lens on a micro 4/3 camera and it will outperform anything available in a point-n-shoot camera.

This is an example photo I shot with that camera/lens combo. That's a 0.4 second exposure, and keep in mind that sailboats are constantly in motion from the waves. If you sacrifice another stop or two due to a smaller aperture or vein forced to shoot at lower ISO to keep grain down on a smaller sensor, you're probably not going to get the shot.

You can definitely do better in low light than my setup, too, and you might even think about looking at used Canon or Nikon gear. Canon makes a great 50mm F1.4 lens that you could find used somewhere I'm sure.

I know I've gone over your spending limit, but the nice thing about a system camera is you can buy the body with the kit lens now, and buy more lenses when you can afford them. Also, when your body gets outdated and you want a newer one, you're not stuck buying all your expensive lenses over again.

I also never shoot with flash, which makes my use case a bit different from yours.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 11:03 PM on October 8, 2011

What sort of things do you end up shooting? Gigs? Social photos? Do you have any examples of what you'd like your photos to look like?

All things being equal, I'd recommend getting an entry level Canon or Nikon DSLR, and a lens that's 35mm or wider, and with a minimum aperture of f/2 or wider. Google up those terms if you don't understand them, they're pretty crucial.

Getting a decent external flash will shatter your budget, but if you do, I would strongly recommend a first-party (ie, by your camera manufacturer) and with a properly adjustable head.

If you're strongly attached to the idea of having a compact, the Canon S100 (about to be released) is what you want. It shoots 1080p yadayada, and has a good reputation for a teeny little camera. But physics says that it's not going to be as objectively good in low light as any DSLR.
posted by Magnakai at 5:51 AM on October 9, 2011

Response by poster: Thanks, I'm getting some really good advice here. I do think I want a hot shoe, but maybe the S100 recommendations will talk me out of it. I don't need a compact. Don't care. Love the idea of being able to upgrade parts later as I get proficient. DSLR would be great, but what about the "bridge" types like Canon SX20/30/40? My subjects are people, mostly indoors. So they will be close to me, thus no need for super-zoom at this point, but bouncing my flash would be ideal. I'll go off now and google the new specs I am learning. Thanks!
posted by Knowyournuts at 9:42 AM on October 9, 2011

Response by poster: Oh, and what about shutter lag?
posted by Knowyournuts at 9:43 AM on October 9, 2011

Best answer: Bridge cameras are a nonsense halfway house in my opinion. They're neither compact nor have the significantly higher image quality of a DSLR.

Shutter lag is a low better these days on high-end compacts, but it's still not a patch on a DSLR, which is what it sounds like you really want.

I'm afraid you're going to have to upgrade your budget if you want one with video.

• The Canon T2i + 35mm f/2 lens would be about $950 together.
• The Nikon D3100 (lower spec than the T2i, but still perfectly servicable) with the 35mm f/1.8 would be around $800.
• I'm not as well versed in the Micro 4/3rds world, but the 20mm f/1.7 lens is around $350 and the Panasonic G2 seems to be $300 at B&H, which would give you a neat package for $750.

To be honest, at that cost I'd probably go for the Nikon. Micro 4/3rds will be significantly better than a compact, but an APS-C sized sensor will be somewhat better than that. If you can, go in to a camera shop and fiddle about - see what feels best in your hands etc.
posted by Magnakai at 10:58 AM on October 9, 2011

I'd like to add that I don't think that Magnakai's suggestion of an entry-level Canon or Nikon DSLR is a bad idea. I happen to like Micro 4/3, but there's no reason not to look at those options. They are more expensive and more bulky, but they also leave more room for growth towards more professional gear.

On an unlimited budget I'd grab a Canon 7D and about 4 lenses. Each of those items runs about $1500 though, and that adds up to a lot.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 8:32 PM on October 9, 2011

there are LOTS of similar questions on the green -- have you read through them?

I myself asked this very question a few months ago. Inexpensive camcorder, indoor, low-light. I talked to several different guys at several different big electronics stores (often different guys at the same store) and they all had very firm recommendations, unfortunately all for different cameras.

I settled on the Canon Vixia HFR-21 and have been happy with it so far. Decent in low-light, built-in 32 GB storage (if you want to film in HD you'll still have to buy another card). it was a good deal at $508 tax included. (from Futureshop, in Canada). it's wonderfully easy to use, good zoom, some fun effects.

as far as i can tell, flash might be a problem. for me, an external mic plug-in was the important thing, and luckily i got it in the Vixia. as far as an inexpensive camcorder goes, though, i'm happy with it.
posted by custard heart at 10:04 PM on October 9, 2011

Response by poster: Micro four thirds it is! With video and hot shoe! Less than $400. The external flash looks like it will be $150+, but I haven't ordered it yet. Thanks to you all!
posted by Knowyournuts at 3:44 PM on October 13, 2011