Are $300 cameras significanlty better than the newest iPhone cameras?
December 2, 2015 8:20 AM Subscribe
We want to take pictures of our new kid. We think a standalone camera would be better than an iPhone. Are cheaper standalone cameras better?
Budget is about $300, give or take a hundred. I looked at the Wirecutter's guide.
I know nothing about cameras. I want nicer pictures. How much nicer is something like this?
Or do i have to go up to a really nice DSLR type thing to get good photos? halp.
Budget is about $300, give or take a hundred. I looked at the Wirecutter's guide.
I know nothing about cameras. I want nicer pictures. How much nicer is something like this?
Or do i have to go up to a really nice DSLR type thing to get good photos? halp.
What kind of pictures are you thinking of taking? What do you define as "good photos?" Equipment can do a lot, but keep in mind that the best camera is the one you've got on you.
posted by evoque at 8:41 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by evoque at 8:41 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Depends on the subject. There are big heavy amazing lenses that'll freeze a hawk a quarter mile away pouncing on a titmouse, if you have the patience to get set up for that. But for a lot of cases the newer iphone cameras seem really sufficient. Also the best camera is the one you have with you.
posted by sammyo at 8:46 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 8:46 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
An optical zoom can make a big difference depending on the situations you're shooting in. Also the flashes on standalone cameras are better than the LED flash on an iPhone. If you don't need either of those things, I don't think a $300 camera is going to improve things substantially for you.
posted by primethyme at 8:47 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by primethyme at 8:47 AM on December 2, 2015
Response by poster: Basically: pictures of my kid. Not professional glamour shots, not nature shots, etc.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:47 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:47 AM on December 2, 2015
The one we have chosen to complement our ever present iPhones for family duty, is a waterproof point-and-shoot like the Olympus mentioned in the Wirecutter article. It is used for all the snowy, rainy, sandy, dusty, muddy fun that our family gets up to. Haven't regretted it's purchase for one snap.
posted by fairmettle at 8:50 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by fairmettle at 8:50 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The old line about fast, cheap, and good (you can only get two of the three) applies, except in this case it's small, cheap, and great. The other truism is that the best camera is the camera you have with you. The best photos I have of my kids are generally with my phone, because I can always take a shot when they happen to look cute.
If you want something that you will be carrying most of the time, you can splurge for a really good pocketable camera.
But if you just want something that you can pull out at home and take with you occasionally, you can get a relatively inexpensive DLSR - spending a couple hundred on a relatively recent used model will get you something that has almost no shutter lag and give you bokeh (that out of focus background).
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:51 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you want something that you will be carrying most of the time, you can splurge for a really good pocketable camera.
But if you just want something that you can pull out at home and take with you occasionally, you can get a relatively inexpensive DLSR - spending a couple hundred on a relatively recent used model will get you something that has almost no shutter lag and give you bokeh (that out of focus background).
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:51 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Generally in a digital cameras the larger the image sensor, the better the image quality.
posted by gregr at 8:52 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
- iPhone 5 : 5.68x4.54mm
- iPhone 6 : 6.00x4.80mm
- Canon G16 : 9.50x7.60mm
- Sony Rx100 : 15.86x13.20mm
- Cheaper DSLR : 26.82x22.30mm
- Expensive DSLR : 43.2x35.9mm
posted by gregr at 8:52 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
A $300 compact camera will be noticeably better in the following situations:
- Things at mid-to-long distances (zoom lens)
- Low(er) light (image stabilization on iPhone 6+/6S+ partly negates this)
- Fast action
My guess is that the only one of these that really applies to a kid is low light, and even that is marginal.
In summary: Don't bother.
posted by doomsey at 8:53 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
- Things at mid-to-long distances (zoom lens)
- Low(er) light (image stabilization on iPhone 6+/6S+ partly negates this)
- Fast action
My guess is that the only one of these that really applies to a kid is low light, and even that is marginal.
In summary: Don't bother.
posted by doomsey at 8:53 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Also: the iPhone flash sucks. Do $300 cameras have better flashes?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:55 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:55 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
My guess is that the only one of these that really applies to a kid is low light, and even that is marginal.
I think "fast action" would also apply. Kids don't like to stand still for photos.
posted by smackfu at 8:58 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think "fast action" would also apply. Kids don't like to stand still for photos.
posted by smackfu at 8:58 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
The LED flash on the iPhone does suck, agreed. A $300 camera will have a bit better flash, but really, even that is going to be pretty terrible. You really need a bounce flash (=SLR, plus an expensive flash on top) for a flash that isn't completely useless. I still wouldn't bother.
smackfu, with regard to "fast action," it's relative. Kids do move, but where you really start seeing advantages to better-quality cameras is on things that are moving quite rapidly (cars, waterfalls, etc). An iPhone will do fine with kid-action as long as the light is good; in poor light a compact camera will do a bit better.
posted by doomsey at 9:03 AM on December 2, 2015
smackfu, with regard to "fast action," it's relative. Kids do move, but where you really start seeing advantages to better-quality cameras is on things that are moving quite rapidly (cars, waterfalls, etc). An iPhone will do fine with kid-action as long as the light is good; in poor light a compact camera will do a bit better.
posted by doomsey at 9:03 AM on December 2, 2015
The little Canons are great! In 2013 I spent $345 for a small waterproof Canon Powershot D20. I used it in a watery, sandy two week shoot on a desert river, this summer underwater selfies. My friend's daughter bought a less expensive model not waterproof, and was shooting crisp movies of hummingbirds. Very pocketable camera. They all have fittings for tripods on the bottom. Good stuff, inexpensive improving yearly.
posted by Oyéah at 9:03 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 9:03 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I took beautiful photos of my son with my DSLR for the first 6 months, and then he got mobile, and every time the camera came out with its fancy buttons and dials and knobs and such, he instantly stopped doing whatever cute thing he was doing and rushed the camera. I have like a month of out-of-focus pictures of him diving towards the lens, and then I haven't used it since then. Maybe in a few years. It's worth considering.
posted by Cygnet at 9:07 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Cygnet at 9:07 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
We bought a nice DSLR when our first kid was born because those lenses you can interchange made all the difference. A quality lens (which on average will set you back as much as your whole camera budget) can soften the light and give you a beautiful bokeh effect, for example.
If you just use a phone camera you can fake this stuff somewhat with a variety of filters in Instagram and other such apps, and it might well be good enough for your purposes - plus you can quickly edit and post to Facebook which you can't do with a proper DSLR.
But having an expensive DSLR forced me to learn to take better photos. You might find that a kid portrait photography course specifically tailored for the phone camera is the solution, if such a thing is offered in your area, or perhaps online.
As for flash - my friendly suggestion is don't use it at all. Flash photos rarely look good, and it's just mean to do it to a little baby!
posted by Dragonness at 9:08 AM on December 2, 2015
If you just use a phone camera you can fake this stuff somewhat with a variety of filters in Instagram and other such apps, and it might well be good enough for your purposes - plus you can quickly edit and post to Facebook which you can't do with a proper DSLR.
But having an expensive DSLR forced me to learn to take better photos. You might find that a kid portrait photography course specifically tailored for the phone camera is the solution, if such a thing is offered in your area, or perhaps online.
As for flash - my friendly suggestion is don't use it at all. Flash photos rarely look good, and it's just mean to do it to a little baby!
posted by Dragonness at 9:08 AM on December 2, 2015
I have a sony RX-100 (and also a lot of other cameras and camera gear) and I like it a lot.
The version I have (and maybe all the newer ones, I have a first rev one) has bounce flash capability. It has a pop up flash, that you can aim (with a finger) upwards. It is a small thing but it makes a *huge* difference, you don't get that deer in the headlights look that is so typical of flash.
A bigger sensor makes a big difference in image quality.
A camera like an RX100 also gives you some options to explore - aperature, shutter speed, iso, some other stuff. It has full auto mode but you aren't limited to that.
I think the newer ones have a tilting screen which is really nice for taking less obtrusive pictures. Camera shy kids have a 6th sense for noticing you putting a camera up in front of you, a rotating screen lets you shoot from waist height unobtrusively - which is also often a better height for shooting kids anyway (otherwise you're looking "down" on them which is not ideal)
posted by RustyBrooks at 9:10 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
The version I have (and maybe all the newer ones, I have a first rev one) has bounce flash capability. It has a pop up flash, that you can aim (with a finger) upwards. It is a small thing but it makes a *huge* difference, you don't get that deer in the headlights look that is so typical of flash.
A bigger sensor makes a big difference in image quality.
A camera like an RX100 also gives you some options to explore - aperature, shutter speed, iso, some other stuff. It has full auto mode but you aren't limited to that.
I think the newer ones have a tilting screen which is really nice for taking less obtrusive pictures. Camera shy kids have a 6th sense for noticing you putting a camera up in front of you, a rotating screen lets you shoot from waist height unobtrusively - which is also often a better height for shooting kids anyway (otherwise you're looking "down" on them which is not ideal)
posted by RustyBrooks at 9:10 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
If you buy a camera with separate lenses, get a portrait lens. They are not pricy and they turn your standard picture into a gorgeous shot by focusing on the subject and slightly blurring the surrounding details. Looks like a magazine shoot in the end.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 9:10 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 9:10 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm so surprised to see people think a $300 digital camera won't be better than an iPhone. You *WILL* take 90% of your photos with an iPhone (if you already have one) because the workflow is already built into your life - it's with you all the time, you already sync it to your computer, it's easy to share from the phone to Facebook or email or whatever. So most of the best shots of your kid WILL be with your iPhone because it's always with you.
But -- for those moments you want clear photos in slightly low light? With a better flash? And optical zoom? A $300 Canon or similar will be great. I wouldn't bother with a dSLR - they're big and heavy and have too steep of a learning curve.
posted by barnone at 9:11 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
But -- for those moments you want clear photos in slightly low light? With a better flash? And optical zoom? A $300 Canon or similar will be great. I wouldn't bother with a dSLR - they're big and heavy and have too steep of a learning curve.
posted by barnone at 9:11 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing about taking photos of your kid is that you won't have time to run to get the camera when something noteworthy is happening.
If you are a person that carries your phone with you, just use that. You don't want to carry around a big camera all day every day.
It might be nice to have a separate camera if you want more control of focus/aperture/etc but kids aren't very good subjects for that kind of photography.
posted by littlewater at 9:12 AM on December 2, 2015
If you are a person that carries your phone with you, just use that. You don't want to carry around a big camera all day every day.
It might be nice to have a separate camera if you want more control of focus/aperture/etc but kids aren't very good subjects for that kind of photography.
posted by littlewater at 9:12 AM on December 2, 2015
Better lenses and larger sensors mean you can take a faster shot in lower light. I don't know the current state of the art in point and shoot cameras, but I found the best setup (a decade ago) to be a dslr with a prime lens to get the most light and cut down on focusing time.
Even marginal improvements in light sensitivity, optics and focusing speed over an iphone will increase your percentage of in-focus indoor shots.
posted by zippy at 9:16 AM on December 2, 2015
Even marginal improvements in light sensitivity, optics and focusing speed over an iphone will increase your percentage of in-focus indoor shots.
posted by zippy at 9:16 AM on December 2, 2015
What do you want to do with the photos? If you aren't a gear nerd, you'll probably find the latest generation of cell phone cameras totally adequate for email/facebook/instagram/whatever. If you're planning on having things printed and framed or otherwise distributed less casually, you might want to look into something beefier (I do like the suggestion of that Sony camera), but you do still have to worry about actually carrying it and being quick with it. The full auto setting on that Sony does a surprisingly nice job most of the time.
Since you don't seem particularly invested in the process, have you considered hiring a pro occasionally? The pro is going to be able to bring in expertise with lighting/editing/etc. that you don't seem super invested in learning (which is perfectly reasonable, it's a lot of work!), not to mention will have much nicer equipment. Then you have to figure out how to pick a good photographer, though...
posted by hollyholly at 9:19 AM on December 2, 2015
Since you don't seem particularly invested in the process, have you considered hiring a pro occasionally? The pro is going to be able to bring in expertise with lighting/editing/etc. that you don't seem super invested in learning (which is perfectly reasonable, it's a lot of work!), not to mention will have much nicer equipment. Then you have to figure out how to pick a good photographer, though...
posted by hollyholly at 9:19 AM on December 2, 2015
This absolutely would be. Though it's true the best camera is the one you not only have with you, but also isn't disrupting the scene you're trying to capture.
posted by blue suede stockings at 9:19 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by blue suede stockings at 9:19 AM on December 2, 2015
Oops. That is, if you want shots for something other than the internet, maybe have a pro do them, even though you did mention not wanting a pro. It may be worth it for printing, etc.
posted by hollyholly at 9:20 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by hollyholly at 9:20 AM on December 2, 2015
iPhone cameras are great. I own DSLRs and compact cameras, and I use my iPhone camera the most, becasuse I always have it on me.
That said, YES, the one you linked to is capable of "better" photos because of the optical zoom, the larger sensor, and the increased control over the settings. The Sony RX100 mentioned upthread is also a great camera.
When I want something more than my iPhone, and don't want to carry a DSLR, I shoot with a Fujifilm x20 or a Pentax MX-1. If they didn't produce better images than my iPhone, or give me better control over my images, I wouldn't use them.
But as others have said, the skill of the photographer is the most important element. You can use a compact camera in point-and-shoot mode and get lots of great images. But time spent learning better technique will pay off.
posted by The Deej at 9:23 AM on December 2, 2015
That said, YES, the one you linked to is capable of "better" photos because of the optical zoom, the larger sensor, and the increased control over the settings. The Sony RX100 mentioned upthread is also a great camera.
When I want something more than my iPhone, and don't want to carry a DSLR, I shoot with a Fujifilm x20 or a Pentax MX-1. If they didn't produce better images than my iPhone, or give me better control over my images, I wouldn't use them.
But as others have said, the skill of the photographer is the most important element. You can use a compact camera in point-and-shoot mode and get lots of great images. But time spent learning better technique will pay off.
posted by The Deej at 9:23 AM on December 2, 2015
I don't have a current iPhone, or a current $300 camera. But I do have an iPhone 5, and a circa-2010 $300 camera (an Olympus XZ-1; that model is still on the market, but there are newer cameras in the XZ series).
It's a mixed bag. For regular still photography, the XZ-1 has the iPhone beat hands-down. It captures more color subtlety, is much less likely to blow out highlights, has a much faster lens and wide ISO range, gives a lot more control. Of course, to get those benefits, you need to do a little work frobnicating the settings, while the iPhone is the simplest process imaginable. The iPhone has better face-detection, better panoramas, does HDR internally—basically, anything that involves computation.
Putting an eye-fi card in a digital camera can make up some of the iPhone's workflow advantages.
posted by adamrice at 9:45 AM on December 2, 2015
It's a mixed bag. For regular still photography, the XZ-1 has the iPhone beat hands-down. It captures more color subtlety, is much less likely to blow out highlights, has a much faster lens and wide ISO range, gives a lot more control. Of course, to get those benefits, you need to do a little work frobnicating the settings, while the iPhone is the simplest process imaginable. The iPhone has better face-detection, better panoramas, does HDR internally—basically, anything that involves computation.
Putting an eye-fi card in a digital camera can make up some of the iPhone's workflow advantages.
posted by adamrice at 9:45 AM on December 2, 2015
I have a nex-f3 that I got for around 300 (on sale when the Sony nex line was changing to newer models) . I takes nice photos, has a large sensor, and has a flash that can tilt up to bounce off the ceiling. It is not nearly as big or heavy as a DSLR but it doesn't really stuff into a pocket.
This is a hand held snapshot indoors with a flash: messy face kid
posted by bdc34 at 10:04 AM on December 2, 2015
This is a hand held snapshot indoors with a flash: messy face kid
posted by bdc34 at 10:04 AM on December 2, 2015
At thanksgiving my sister handed me her camera while canoeing around with nephew and niece. So I took a couple of pictures, and they as they paddled away, zoomed in. And zoomed in. And zoomed in. Kept getting clear pictures at increasingly ludicrous ranges.
result
Enormous 50x optical zoom. I think that camera was in the $300-500 range, and I want it. (To see what it looks like if I point it at the moon if nothing else.)
posted by joeyh at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2015
result
Enormous 50x optical zoom. I think that camera was in the $300-500 range, and I want it. (To see what it looks like if I point it at the moon if nothing else.)
posted by joeyh at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2015
Unless you are taking pictures of your child perching high on a tree limb while you track him from the forest floor, or your child has a land speed of over 40 mph, or is primarily nocturnal, you should be able to get excellent photos with your iPhone.
If your child meets the above criteria, you should probably just contact National Geographic and let them take photos for you.
posted by ananci at 10:16 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
If your child meets the above criteria, you should probably just contact National Geographic and let them take photos for you.
posted by ananci at 10:16 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yes, it's definitely worth getting a camera, not so much because the quality's better, not because you'll always have it on you, but because when you do have it with you, you'll be holding it and concentrating on framing a good picture with it. And it does rest more comfortably in the hand and you can press the shutter more quickly and without moving the camera, so you will spend more time consciously taking good shots.
posted by ambrosen at 10:30 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by ambrosen at 10:30 AM on December 2, 2015
I was just realizing a couple of days ago that I used to name my photo offload folders "YYYY-MM.eventname.iphone" back when I was using an iPhone 4, while my Canon SLR would get folders named "YYYY-MM.eventname". Since the iPhone 5S, it's been the SLR that gets non-default names, and since the 6S, there are no SLR offloads yet. Wow.
For $300, you can't get a compact camera that competes with the iPhone 6S camera. The camera sensor may be better - Sony makes pretty nice sensors for the 6S but they are small, and limited by physics in the amount of light they can collect. But everything else about the iPhone camera - autofocus, exposure calculation, editing workflow - is superior to a $300 compact.
And then, if you're mostly taking pictures of kids, the new Live Photos is a bit of a revelation. (If you offload to a computer, you get both a jpeg image and a low framerate movie.) Those few seconds of context are amazing when taking kid photos.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2015
For $300, you can't get a compact camera that competes with the iPhone 6S camera. The camera sensor may be better - Sony makes pretty nice sensors for the 6S but they are small, and limited by physics in the amount of light they can collect. But everything else about the iPhone camera - autofocus, exposure calculation, editing workflow - is superior to a $300 compact.
And then, if you're mostly taking pictures of kids, the new Live Photos is a bit of a revelation. (If you offload to a computer, you get both a jpeg image and a low framerate movie.) Those few seconds of context are amazing when taking kid photos.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2015
For us, it's about the lens, not the camera. The best photos by far we have of our kid are with our 50mm pentax lens. I just don't think the quality of the actual camera matters nearly as much.
posted by heavenknows at 11:06 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by heavenknows at 11:06 AM on December 2, 2015
Depends on the $300 camera, to an extent, and on the application for the photos. If you're primarily interested in taking snapshots of everyday activity for sharing with family or posting to $SocialNetwork the iPhone does a great job—all the more so if you carry it with you most of the time so it's readily available. I've gotten some surprisingly good landscape and human subject pictures with the iPhone, and photo editing apps like Camera+ can hide a multitude of sins also. My iPhone has completely replaced my ~$300 Panasonic pocket point-and-shoot camera in my photography workflow. The "pocket" size was never quite small enough to easily fit in my actual pocket and the image quality wasn't so much better than the iPhone.
However, IMO the iPhone picture quality breaks down fast in low-light conditions, when using the zoom functions, or when shooting fast-moving subjects. Because of that my iPhone has not replaced my ~~$400 (at the time at least) Micro Four Thirds detachable-lense camera that I use when I want to capture something in a more challenging setting. The images are clearer and richer than what I get with the iPhone—but while it's smaller than a DSLR, I have to actively plan to carry it around with me.
posted by 4rtemis at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
However, IMO the iPhone picture quality breaks down fast in low-light conditions, when using the zoom functions, or when shooting fast-moving subjects. Because of that my iPhone has not replaced my ~~$400 (at the time at least) Micro Four Thirds detachable-lense camera that I use when I want to capture something in a more challenging setting. The images are clearer and richer than what I get with the iPhone—but while it's smaller than a DSLR, I have to actively plan to carry it around with me.
posted by 4rtemis at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Only large sensor compact cameras will really be a significant improvement at this price point, if small size is something that matters to you. Other than that, there are certainly plenty of $300ish cameras that will take better photos, but they're going to be reduced-price DSLRs or interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras. In either case, your photos are going to be more improved by you getting better at taking photos than the camera.
This is worth buying (yes, even at $300, you can ALWAYS find deals on decent cameras in that price point, with a lens, especially if you're willing to go used or refurbished).
But, before you do, I'd suggest you instead download a camera app such as Camera+ that enables more manual control, and learn about what you're doing. At $300, the camera you might use will require you to take control of the process in order to return substantially better photos.
If you're looking to set-and-forget and not be involved in the actual process, forget about it, don't bother buying a new camera at all. For example, quick searching uncovered a deal for a Nikon D3200 with 18-55 and 55-200mm lenses, for $300. Will that take far better photos than an iPhone? Almost certainly. Will it do dramatically better on fully-automatic shooting? I actually don't know, because I don't shoot that way. I suspect it will, but I bet the improvement will be more marginal. Plus you'll have to learn how to use it, and carry it around everywhere. While *I* wouldn't consider it large, it certainly doesn't fit in a pocket and it's very noticeable. If you're planning to get a new camera, it makes a lot of sense to invest in the time to get better at this. Cameras and similar technology try a lot of people's patience. Invest in improving the photographer over the camera. That's why I suggest you learn the manual control on your iPhone first. You'd be surprised what you can accomplish by taking the reins yourself. If you do that and soon find the phone's limitations bothering you, then consider upgrading.
If all you want is better photos of your kid without investing more effort, do yourself a favor and start shooting them outside, or at least turn on some more lights.
posted by Strudel at 1:01 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is worth buying (yes, even at $300, you can ALWAYS find deals on decent cameras in that price point, with a lens, especially if you're willing to go used or refurbished).
But, before you do, I'd suggest you instead download a camera app such as Camera+ that enables more manual control, and learn about what you're doing. At $300, the camera you might use will require you to take control of the process in order to return substantially better photos.
If you're looking to set-and-forget and not be involved in the actual process, forget about it, don't bother buying a new camera at all. For example, quick searching uncovered a deal for a Nikon D3200 with 18-55 and 55-200mm lenses, for $300. Will that take far better photos than an iPhone? Almost certainly. Will it do dramatically better on fully-automatic shooting? I actually don't know, because I don't shoot that way. I suspect it will, but I bet the improvement will be more marginal. Plus you'll have to learn how to use it, and carry it around everywhere. While *I* wouldn't consider it large, it certainly doesn't fit in a pocket and it's very noticeable. If you're planning to get a new camera, it makes a lot of sense to invest in the time to get better at this. Cameras and similar technology try a lot of people's patience. Invest in improving the photographer over the camera. That's why I suggest you learn the manual control on your iPhone first. You'd be surprised what you can accomplish by taking the reins yourself. If you do that and soon find the phone's limitations bothering you, then consider upgrading.
If all you want is better photos of your kid without investing more effort, do yourself a favor and start shooting them outside, or at least turn on some more lights.
posted by Strudel at 1:01 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
First: Are you familiar with all the tips and tricks and tools that the iPhone camera has? For example shooting in burst mode, setting your grid, touching to set focus, changing exposure with the slider, taking a photo with your headphones as a shutter, etc.. Here's a good rundown. Burst mode especially should be good for moving kids.
So, before dropping a few hundred dollars, try those features plus maybe some photo editing apps. I really like Afterlight. Also do learn and read about photography tips. There's tons of mommy-type blogs and posts about photographing kids specifically and tons of stuff about photographing with iPhone, etc. Because even if you get a camera, these are all features and things about photography that you'll need to know to get the best photos. You may still need to tweak them in terms of exposure, contrast, or saturation in post. The standard Photos (Mac/iPhone) app have decent sliders for these features but I really like Afterlight because it has more features, tweaks, filters, frames, etc.
That said, if AFTER you learn these basics and play around with your iPhones features, if you still feel the need for a stand alone camera, then I think there are definitely things you can get for that price range. It may especially be useful if you often do activities like vacations or zoo or parties or whatever where you will be planning to take photos rather just on-the-go random shots.
Full disclosure I'm The Deej's daughter and therefore have been doing photography stuff since.. well, he shoved a camera in my hands. I often use photoshop, etc and a DSLR, but I still take lots of iPhone photos. One of my favorite photos from The Deej of our wedding was from his iPhone.
posted by Crystalinne at 1:25 PM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
So, before dropping a few hundred dollars, try those features plus maybe some photo editing apps. I really like Afterlight. Also do learn and read about photography tips. There's tons of mommy-type blogs and posts about photographing kids specifically and tons of stuff about photographing with iPhone, etc. Because even if you get a camera, these are all features and things about photography that you'll need to know to get the best photos. You may still need to tweak them in terms of exposure, contrast, or saturation in post. The standard Photos (Mac/iPhone) app have decent sliders for these features but I really like Afterlight because it has more features, tweaks, filters, frames, etc.
That said, if AFTER you learn these basics and play around with your iPhones features, if you still feel the need for a stand alone camera, then I think there are definitely things you can get for that price range. It may especially be useful if you often do activities like vacations or zoo or parties or whatever where you will be planning to take photos rather just on-the-go random shots.
Full disclosure I'm The Deej's daughter and therefore have been doing photography stuff since.. well, he shoved a camera in my hands. I often use photoshop, etc and a DSLR, but I still take lots of iPhone photos. One of my favorite photos from The Deej of our wedding was from his iPhone.
posted by Crystalinne at 1:25 PM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've done this experiment. Large sensor compacts like the Canon s100/s110/s120 and huge sensor compacts like the Canon G7X and Sony RX100 Mk whatever will blow away any smartphone out there. The latest ones are around $500-$700. I picked up my used s100 for $100. Used dSLRs/mirrorless and lenses will deliver even more value, especially when your kid starts moving (and assuming you're willing to haul a big camera around). That G16 you linked to has the same sensor as my s100.
If you're talking smartphone only, computational photography is definitely a thing - that's how iPhones deliver results better than you'd think given their lenses/sensors/etc. That said, Android has long delivered models with better lenses/better sensors, but lagged on the computational bit. The Android Camera2 API delivered in lollipop changes all that significantly, and can be found fully implemented in the Nexus 5, Nexus 6, and this year's Nexus 5x and 6p.
If you're going to only carry a smartphone, the photos off the two year old Nexus 5 on Marshmallow (currently ~$150-$200) already outperform the iPhone 6s (tested this myself shooting out from an apple store into a more dimly lit mall space earlier this week). This year's Nexus 5x ($350, $299 on sale)/6p are truly remarkable in low light. The thought has crossed my mind to sell both the s100 and Nexus 5 and just get a 5x, but even with the Nexus phones now providing full manual control and shooting dng raw files, there are still things you just can't do with a smartphone that you can with a proper camera.
posted by NoRelationToLea at 1:30 PM on December 2, 2015
If you're talking smartphone only, computational photography is definitely a thing - that's how iPhones deliver results better than you'd think given their lenses/sensors/etc. That said, Android has long delivered models with better lenses/better sensors, but lagged on the computational bit. The Android Camera2 API delivered in lollipop changes all that significantly, and can be found fully implemented in the Nexus 5, Nexus 6, and this year's Nexus 5x and 6p.
If you're going to only carry a smartphone, the photos off the two year old Nexus 5 on Marshmallow (currently ~$150-$200) already outperform the iPhone 6s (tested this myself shooting out from an apple store into a more dimly lit mall space earlier this week). This year's Nexus 5x ($350, $299 on sale)/6p are truly remarkable in low light. The thought has crossed my mind to sell both the s100 and Nexus 5 and just get a 5x, but even with the Nexus phones now providing full manual control and shooting dng raw files, there are still things you just can't do with a smartphone that you can with a proper camera.
posted by NoRelationToLea at 1:30 PM on December 2, 2015
Another vote for a used rx100 being a huge jump.
You could put together an even more powerful cheap older DSLR + cheap lens combo for $300, but it would be a pain to use and probably lack zoom and you'd likely end up missing a lot of shots because it was either too narrow(more likely) or too wide.
Rx100
Alternative ~zany~ bonus option: Used original fuji x100, which is even stronger than an rx100 but lacks zoom. It has a full sized APS-C sensor like anything but the highest end DSLRs.
I've seen more than one used one for $300. I've seen some UNDER $300. You want the first revision.
Rx100: Zoom, fast autofocus, fast everything else. TINY.
X100: Superior overall image quality, especially if you zoom in on the finished photo. Less noise in lower light. Lacks zoom, has slow autofocus.
I would buy the x100, but the rx100 is a more all around do-everything camera. The x100 has a fixed focal length and finnicky autofocus and can be slow/laggy to use but makes beautiful photos. People with newer models have actually been going back and rebuying the early one and selling their newer one.
There is no pocket zoom camera as good as the rx100, however. It basically plays that game alone. Other brands will likely catch up in another revision or two, but it's sort of in the position the iphone was for the first 2-3 years of it's existence right now.
posted by emptythought at 2:09 PM on December 2, 2015
You could put together an even more powerful cheap older DSLR + cheap lens combo for $300, but it would be a pain to use and probably lack zoom and you'd likely end up missing a lot of shots because it was either too narrow(more likely) or too wide.
Rx100
Alternative ~zany~ bonus option: Used original fuji x100, which is even stronger than an rx100 but lacks zoom. It has a full sized APS-C sensor like anything but the highest end DSLRs.
I've seen more than one used one for $300. I've seen some UNDER $300. You want the first revision.
Rx100: Zoom, fast autofocus, fast everything else. TINY.
X100: Superior overall image quality, especially if you zoom in on the finished photo. Less noise in lower light. Lacks zoom, has slow autofocus.
I would buy the x100, but the rx100 is a more all around do-everything camera. The x100 has a fixed focal length and finnicky autofocus and can be slow/laggy to use but makes beautiful photos. People with newer models have actually been going back and rebuying the early one and selling their newer one.
There is no pocket zoom camera as good as the rx100, however. It basically plays that game alone. Other brands will likely catch up in another revision or two, but it's sort of in the position the iphone was for the first 2-3 years of it's existence right now.
posted by emptythought at 2:09 PM on December 2, 2015
I think you've gotten good answers already, but another point you might want to consider that I didn't see mentioned is battery life. You'll probably go places with your family and I find it's nice to have a camera without having to worry about my phone battery running out. So I'm in the get a good compact camera for ~ $500 camp. I have a Canon PowerShot S110, which cost less than $200 used (in Japan) but still works fine, and frankly I don't use my DSLR much anymore. I will also shamelessly link to an old question of mine that might shed some light on the differences between some of the cameras mentioned in this thread.
Get a camera! Fun to choose, fun to play with!
posted by misozaki at 4:17 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Get a camera! Fun to choose, fun to play with!
posted by misozaki at 4:17 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Expensive DSLR : 43.2x35.9mm
More realistically Expensive DSLR : 36mm x 24mm (i.e. "full-frame" DSLRs from Canon and Nikon)
Flash isn't really a factor : if you are using on-device flash your picture will look like crap anyway. Always turn flash off, turn ISO up as needed. Learn to keep still.
The major differentiators for me are sensor size and widest aperture. I like how things look at f/2.0 on a decent sized sensor. That requires a DSLR and a nice prime lens. If I can't have that with me I'll use an iPhone 6, and it takes great pictures too. These compacts in the middle are neither fish nor fowl and I can't be doing with them any more.
posted by w0mbat at 5:13 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
More realistically Expensive DSLR : 36mm x 24mm (i.e. "full-frame" DSLRs from Canon and Nikon)
Flash isn't really a factor : if you are using on-device flash your picture will look like crap anyway. Always turn flash off, turn ISO up as needed. Learn to keep still.
The major differentiators for me are sensor size and widest aperture. I like how things look at f/2.0 on a decent sized sensor. That requires a DSLR and a nice prime lens. If I can't have that with me I'll use an iPhone 6, and it takes great pictures too. These compacts in the middle are neither fish nor fowl and I can't be doing with them any more.
posted by w0mbat at 5:13 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Aside from picture quality, a $300 camera is a thing where you flip a switch to turn on and then press a button to take a picture.
An iPhone is a thing where you turn it on, then spend half a minute looking at the apps on your home screen looking for the camera app. Then you launch the camera app and fumble with the shutter button on the touch screen. Even a very cheap camera provides a better experience of taking photos.
posted by chrchr at 9:27 PM on December 2, 2015
An iPhone is a thing where you turn it on, then spend half a minute looking at the apps on your home screen looking for the camera app. Then you launch the camera app and fumble with the shutter button on the touch screen. Even a very cheap camera provides a better experience of taking photos.
posted by chrchr at 9:27 PM on December 2, 2015
> An iPhone is a thing where you turn it on, then spend half a minute looking at the apps on your home screen looking for the camera app.
I don't know about this hypothetical "you" - they appear to be doing it wrong. I can go from iPhone off and face down on the table to a burst of photos taken in under 5 seconds. I just tried it now to make sure I wasn't underestimating the time, and I came in between 2 and 4 seconds on each of my three trials.
(Even if you're not using Touch ID, and don't keep your favored camera app in a specific home screen corner, you know you can swipe up and get access to the default camera from the lock screen, right?)
> Even a very cheap camera provides a better experience of taking photos.
Tastes vary, I guess.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:11 PM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't know about this hypothetical "you" - they appear to be doing it wrong. I can go from iPhone off and face down on the table to a burst of photos taken in under 5 seconds. I just tried it now to make sure I wasn't underestimating the time, and I came in between 2 and 4 seconds on each of my three trials.
(Even if you're not using Touch ID, and don't keep your favored camera app in a specific home screen corner, you know you can swipe up and get access to the default camera from the lock screen, right?)
> Even a very cheap camera provides a better experience of taking photos.
Tastes vary, I guess.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:11 PM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I want nicer pictures.
Beyond the equipment, you can look to technique. Here's a relevant askReddit from yesterday: What are some simple things that normal people can do to help their photographs look like they are professional quality?
posted by fairmettle at 2:34 AM on December 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Beyond the equipment, you can look to technique. Here's a relevant askReddit from yesterday: What are some simple things that normal people can do to help their photographs look like they are professional quality?
posted by fairmettle at 2:34 AM on December 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing about taking photos of your kid is that you won't have time to run to get the camera when something noteworthy is happening.
When my kid was small I got the nice pics with a film (!) SLR, but only at times when I'd decided 'right, I'm going to make an effort and take some pics today.' By contrast, now with the iPhone I just have endless streams of crappy images that still fail to capture 'a moment' and get filed away God-knows-where by Apple's awful cloud software (certainly never EVER printed!). Basically there is no camera or phone that substitutes for you putting in the effort to get some nice pics.
posted by colie at 4:42 AM on December 3, 2015
When my kid was small I got the nice pics with a film (!) SLR, but only at times when I'd decided 'right, I'm going to make an effort and take some pics today.' By contrast, now with the iPhone I just have endless streams of crappy images that still fail to capture 'a moment' and get filed away God-knows-where by Apple's awful cloud software (certainly never EVER printed!). Basically there is no camera or phone that substitutes for you putting in the effort to get some nice pics.
posted by colie at 4:42 AM on December 3, 2015
A real camera with a decent sized sensor is WAY, WAY better than any smartphone camera. Smartphones can generally produce good pictures in sunlight. In pretty much every other circumstance, they're only OK at best. In low light, they're flat out bad. Like gregr said, this is primarily a function of sensor size.
You'll get the best portraits with fast lenses (f/2.8 or any f/# smaller than that) and bouncing flash off of the ceiling. Sometimes you can do this with a purpose built mirror literally tied on to the flash.
In addition to the Sony RX series mentioned above, consider the Sony NEX 3N, 5T or 6 used or refurbished. These are earlier models of the Sony a5100 the Wirecutter currently recommends, and their image quality will be similar for half the price. You can buy either camera inside your budget, and the sensors on those fall into the "Cheaper DSLR" size Greg defined above, even though they're jacket pocketable cameras. You can also buy relatively inexpensive prime (non-zoom) lenses for these cameras, which will give your portraits a nice background blur.
posted by cnc at 9:57 AM on December 3, 2015
You'll get the best portraits with fast lenses (f/2.8 or any f/# smaller than that) and bouncing flash off of the ceiling. Sometimes you can do this with a purpose built mirror literally tied on to the flash.
In addition to the Sony RX series mentioned above, consider the Sony NEX 3N, 5T or 6 used or refurbished. These are earlier models of the Sony a5100 the Wirecutter currently recommends, and their image quality will be similar for half the price. You can buy either camera inside your budget, and the sensors on those fall into the "Cheaper DSLR" size Greg defined above, even though they're jacket pocketable cameras. You can also buy relatively inexpensive prime (non-zoom) lenses for these cameras, which will give your portraits a nice background blur.
posted by cnc at 9:57 AM on December 3, 2015
I think it's worth considering the value outside of picture quality, too. A smaller camera is built for taking photos in a way that the iphone is just not. More buttons, more functions, and honestly I think there is a behavioural thing; using a camera will make your kid think more about taking pictures, than using the camera on iphone.
I don't think either would b bad, but you will definitely get more from a point and shoot, and you can get waterproof ones etc at that price range.
posted by smoke at 2:41 PM on December 3, 2015
I don't think either would b bad, but you will definitely get more from a point and shoot, and you can get waterproof ones etc at that price range.
posted by smoke at 2:41 PM on December 3, 2015
« Older Best option for converting irreplaceable cassettes... | Bose Quiet Comfort 25s for very loud environments Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Automocar at 8:30 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]