A camera for cheats
November 11, 2013 2:32 PM Subscribe
I'd like a camera that can take a photo very quickly after the shutter button is depressed, that can take lots of photos in rapid succession at a decent resolution, that can focus quickly, that has a good sized sensor, and works in low light. Oh and it should be inexpensive.
My primary camera is currently a phone. I tend to take lots of photos and delete most of them. The remaining results are good, but the inability for my phone camera to work in low light, focus quickly, focus properly, etc. is frustrating.
Anything up to the size of a compact system camera would be great. I'm not going to want to change lenses.
My old Lumix DMC-TZ18 is slow to react to the shutter button, and burst mode is low resolution. Looking at Amazon I see the most popular compact system camera is the Fujifilm FinePix S4500, but it seems so crazy cheap it's hard to believe.
My primary camera is currently a phone. I tend to take lots of photos and delete most of them. The remaining results are good, but the inability for my phone camera to work in low light, focus quickly, focus properly, etc. is frustrating.
Anything up to the size of a compact system camera would be great. I'm not going to want to change lenses.
My old Lumix DMC-TZ18 is slow to react to the shutter button, and burst mode is low resolution. Looking at Amazon I see the most popular compact system camera is the Fujifilm FinePix S4500, but it seems so crazy cheap it's hard to believe.
I have a Canon Ixus (known as the Elph in the States) which was pretty cheap. The one I have has been superseded by this model. It takes fantastic photos, and I discovered a brilliant setting called Handheld Night Shot which takes 3 quick shots in low light to make one photo. I took this picture in near-darkness with this tiny point-and-shoot camera.
posted by essexjan at 2:44 PM on November 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by essexjan at 2:44 PM on November 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
The Nikon v1 can take up to 30 shots in a second, is roughly the size of a compact, can be found heavily discounted, has a larger-than-many-instants sensor, and is acceptable (not great, acceptable) in low light.
You need to specify a price range for "cheap", as when it comes to cameras, that word contains multitudes.
posted by smoke at 2:46 PM on November 11, 2013
You need to specify a price range for "cheap", as when it comes to cameras, that word contains multitudes.
posted by smoke at 2:46 PM on November 11, 2013
Yep you really need to define some of your parameters a bit better here; quick focus, quick burst, low light, decent resolution and cheap can all be opined upon across a very broad spectrum.
What do you most enjoy taking photos of? The speed of focus and burst you need for taking good photos of kids and pets is not the same as that which you need for birds in flight or passing race cars; low light capacity for a waterfall in the forest is not the same as for pictures of friends drinking in a moody lounge bar. etc. etc., ad infinitum.
posted by protorp at 2:58 PM on November 11, 2013
What do you most enjoy taking photos of? The speed of focus and burst you need for taking good photos of kids and pets is not the same as that which you need for birds in flight or passing race cars; low light capacity for a waterfall in the forest is not the same as for pictures of friends drinking in a moody lounge bar. etc. etc., ad infinitum.
posted by protorp at 2:58 PM on November 11, 2013
How many shots do you need per second? How cheap is cheap?
The Sony SLTs, such as the a57, can do 10fps with continuous autofocus.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:13 PM on November 11, 2013
The Sony SLTs, such as the a57, can do 10fps with continuous autofocus.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:13 PM on November 11, 2013
So, Nikon D4. At the other end of the spectrum, the iPhone 5S does 10 frames per second indefinitely (till space runs out) with continuous autofocus, has decent low light performance, and is unobtrusive compared to an SLR.
Will it ever be as good as an SLR with a full-frame sensor and decent glass in front of it? No - the laws of physics are not optional. On the other hand, it's a pretty good point-and-shoot replacement and it's always right there in your pocket. (That's why P&S cameras are going for cheap on clearance now - the phones are about to surpass them in quality and phone camera software has been superior for a long time now.)
Basically this question is unanswerable without more info about what you really want ("a camera for cheats"?).
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:46 PM on November 11, 2013
Will it ever be as good as an SLR with a full-frame sensor and decent glass in front of it? No - the laws of physics are not optional. On the other hand, it's a pretty good point-and-shoot replacement and it's always right there in your pocket. (That's why P&S cameras are going for cheap on clearance now - the phones are about to surpass them in quality and phone camera software has been superior for a long time now.)
Basically this question is unanswerable without more info about what you really want ("a camera for cheats"?).
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:46 PM on November 11, 2013
not at all what I'd call cheap---It's pretty high end---but compact, automatic (unless you want), and great (fast, impressive in low light, bigger sensor than most compacts):
Panasonic DMC-LX7.
posted by spbmp at 9:15 PM on November 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Panasonic DMC-LX7.
posted by spbmp at 9:15 PM on November 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: What for? For baby photos inside when the little one is squirming around :)
The iPhone's camera is pretty good unless there is movement, it's slow to focus, and doesn't really work well unless there is a lot of illumination.
posted by devnull at 3:29 AM on November 12, 2013
The iPhone's camera is pretty good unless there is movement, it's slow to focus, and doesn't really work well unless there is a lot of illumination.
posted by devnull at 3:29 AM on November 12, 2013
Congrats on the baby!
The D4 suggestions are unhelpfully unserious. The Nikon D4 is meant for literal professionals. You do not need anything that powerful, let alone that expensive.
The thing is, many cameras, even relatively inexpensive ones, will perform much better than your old Lumix DMC-TZ18, or even the latest iPhone. However, there is a spectrum of capability between your old camera and a new camera.
That said, how cheap is cheap? What price point are you looking at?
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:11 AM on November 12, 2013
The D4 suggestions are unhelpfully unserious. The Nikon D4 is meant for literal professionals. You do not need anything that powerful, let alone that expensive.
The thing is, many cameras, even relatively inexpensive ones, will perform much better than your old Lumix DMC-TZ18, or even the latest iPhone. However, there is a spectrum of capability between your old camera and a new camera.
That said, how cheap is cheap? What price point are you looking at?
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:11 AM on November 12, 2013
Best answer: From what I see from my friends with kids, a budget dslr or mirrorless camera seems to be a good price/performance ratio :) A regular point and shoot will work but if you want a step up from that, definitely check out dslrs.
spbmp's suggestioni of a LX7 is pretty good - I have a lx5 and coupled with an external flash (the LX series has a hotshoe) it provides really nice illumination. I can't say about the capture rate though. My lx5's refire rate between frames isn't fast, when compared to my slr.
Heck, you really don't need the new models, I have prints from my d200 (which is close to a decade old) that are great!
posted by TrinsicWS at 7:21 AM on November 12, 2013
spbmp's suggestioni of a LX7 is pretty good - I have a lx5 and coupled with an external flash (the LX series has a hotshoe) it provides really nice illumination. I can't say about the capture rate though. My lx5's refire rate between frames isn't fast, when compared to my slr.
Heck, you really don't need the new models, I have prints from my d200 (which is close to a decade old) that are great!
posted by TrinsicWS at 7:21 AM on November 12, 2013
Response by poster: Budget has now gone up to about 500 US. I was looking at the Sony NEX-3N, which seems to get a lot of good reviews. I'm almost definitely not going to want to change the lens though.
The Lumix LX7 seems to have a much smaller sensor and not be mirrorless, should I go for something with a bigger sensor?
Some cameras, like the Canon EOS M seems to get a lot of good press, but it's from 2012. Is this important?
posted by devnull at 7:59 AM on November 12, 2013
The Lumix LX7 seems to have a much smaller sensor and not be mirrorless, should I go for something with a bigger sensor?
Some cameras, like the Canon EOS M seems to get a lot of good press, but it's from 2012. Is this important?
posted by devnull at 7:59 AM on November 12, 2013
The Sony RX100. It can be had for around $590 with a bunch of free stuff, or used in excellent condition for around $400. There is a RX100 II now, but I don't think it's worth the extra $200. Mostly show features, image quality is very similar.
It produces astonishingly good images, has better low light capabilities at the wide end (28mm) then my $800 NEX-6, and fits in a shirt pocket. The only issue is the sluggish telephoto end (anything about 35mm really).
If you'd like to save a lot of cash you could look at the Olympus XZ-2, Panasonic LX-7, or the excellent Samsung EX-2. You should look to pay under $300. f/1.4 on the wide-end and not much slower on telephoto. However, the image quality is not in the same league as the RX100.
As far as NEX goes, it's great, but it's massively larger and you'll need to drop another $300 or so on the 50mm or $500 on the 35mm fast primes. So, nowhere in your budget really.
EOS M produces nice images, but it's been basically abandoned and has slow AF.
posted by lattiboy at 2:20 PM on November 12, 2013
It produces astonishingly good images, has better low light capabilities at the wide end (28mm) then my $800 NEX-6, and fits in a shirt pocket. The only issue is the sluggish telephoto end (anything about 35mm really).
If you'd like to save a lot of cash you could look at the Olympus XZ-2, Panasonic LX-7, or the excellent Samsung EX-2. You should look to pay under $300. f/1.4 on the wide-end and not much slower on telephoto. However, the image quality is not in the same league as the RX100.
As far as NEX goes, it's great, but it's massively larger and you'll need to drop another $300 or so on the 50mm or $500 on the 35mm fast primes. So, nowhere in your budget really.
EOS M produces nice images, but it's been basically abandoned and has slow AF.
posted by lattiboy at 2:20 PM on November 12, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
I would like what you want, too.
When you find it, please let me know.
Seriously, do a web search for "Nikon D4". If it fits within your budget, this will fulfill all of your needs, once you add the lens or lenses you'd like.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:43 PM on November 11, 2013 [2 favorites]