Here’s a bonus big guy photo:
Traveling has taken it out of him…well both of us. The day after we got back from the latest trip, he went to bed after breakfast and I decided to just let him sleep. Who needs to make the bed?
I have been putting off buying a new camera for a while, but for reasons you can probably understand, I have decided life is short, so I’m going to take the plunge.
I’m hoping for some suggestions.
Here is my criteria:
- Lightweight for hiking (if that wasn’t an issue, I’d just get different lenses for my current DSLR)
- Point and shoot for those “suddenly wildlife” shots
- Zoom for wildlife, birds and scenery while hiking and traveling
- Great if it was also good for my food blogging, but I can always use my current camera for that
- Excellent photo quality for a hobbyist
- Price point under $700 (I’m pushing it at that)
The zoom/point and shoot are key, so I can grab those wildlife shots without getting stomped on by moose, elk or bighorn sheep.
Here’s what I’ve been looking at, which seems to fit my needs, but I’m open to critiques and other options.
Thanks in advance…
TaMara (HFG)
Notes from JeffreyW says this is a good camera, so I’m pretty sure…but still would like to hear from all of you.
Elizabelle
I have barely used it yet, but I am thrilled with my Sony A5100. Got it and a boatload of accessories (including two extra lenses, filters, tripod, all manner of care equipment) for just under $600.
It is very, very small — the camera body itself is dwarfed by the lens attachment.
Bought it because some wonderful jackal from NYC here displayed some excellent photos she’d taken, and I wanted a small camera for travels and everyday life. In the event Europe ever lets us back in. Le sigh.
Marcelo
Something from the Sony space, like an A6000 is the way to go here. It’s small, has interchangeable lenses, amazing image stablization and quick picture taking? This kit with two lenses is 700: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1381662-REG/sony_alpha_a6000_mirrorless_digital.html
Honestly Sony’s small mirrorless options are absolutely DESTROYING the rest of this space. You’re getting DSLR-quality in a teensy package with bells and whistles very few of the other options have. Canon and Nikon feel like old dinosaurs compared to them. The live follow autofocus (even in video!) and image stabilization alone are miles ahead of everyone else.
guachi
The primary downside of the superzoom cameras is a small sensor.
I have a Panasonic m4/3 camera specifically because it has smaller lenses and I can take it hiking. It’s above your budget but the G7+14-140mm lens (1-10x zoom) is $900 and weighs 1.5 lbs with lens (.8 lbs for the body, 0.7 lbs for the lens)
It’s a phenomenal camera.
I just checked. It’s actually lighter than the Nikon (2.0 lbs) and it has a sensor about 9x larger. It’ll take vastly better pictures.
TaMara (HFG)
@Elizabelle:
@Marcelo:
Unless I’m missing something. Neither of these have the zoom I’m looking for…
Elizabelle
Here’s Best Buy re the Sony A5100 (and Marcelo is right about the A6000).
I confess that I bought my setup through — gag — Walmart. They sell online for a camera shop that put together a wonderful bundle for me, at a very reasonable price, online. I know so little about photography that it was good to have the “starter” accessories. Can always learn up and buy better, but these looked fine. It was like Christmas opening the box and seeing all the goodies.
A 2021 goal is walking some of the Camino de Santiago de Compostela next fall — who knows? — but wanted a small and light camera for the occasion.
Elizabelle
@TaMara (HFG): They absolutely have zoom. (Although, what zoom were you looking for??)
Julia
Husband, who is a pretty serious amateur photographer (mainly uses Canon), is all-in on Sony at the price point you are talking about.
Another Scott
I get the camera bug occasionally but have resisted recently.
Some other things to consider:
1) Battery life. Some cameras really eat batteries, and having to spend $50-100 for extra batteries, and having to swap them out while hiking or being out and about gets old fast.
2) Larger sensors generally give you more “light”, but then you need larger lenses to get the same (equivalent) zoom. Superzooms are amazing, but generally have small sensors. Understand the limitations and advantages of what you’re getting. (There is no perfect camera.)
3) I’ve had my eye on the FujiFilm X-T4 (APS-C), but it’s way, way too spendy for me right now (especially with the lenses I would want). Fuji isn’t a name that people usually think of, but it’s worth considering – especially if you like their in-camera JPEG options.
4) Don’t be afraid of a gently-used camera from B&H or the like. Lots of people have to buy the latest and greatest every year, so you can get a bargain if you look around.
5) If you want to do video with it, understand the limitations there as well. (There is no perfect camera.)
Enjoy your shopping!
Cheers,
Scott.
Elizabelle
@TaMara (HFG): Yeah, well, this zoom will keep you from being attacked by wildlife, bees, whatever.
As long as you behave. //
ETA: Not being an evangelist for Sony, believe me, but what decided me was hearing it was a favorite of vloggers and bloggers, for being able to put up film/photos and share more easily. I am usually happy as can be with my rudimentary iPhone, of many generations past, but this is for when one needs more capability than that …
Dorothy A. Winsor
Is there room for you in that bed?
jame
This is the one for you — so much zoom, but still very capable of macro and food photography.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_sx740hs
ps. Also very intuitive, easy to understand settings
TaMara (HFG)
@Another Scott: Agreed. We have a really nice local camera store that I’m going to see if I can get one used. I trust them to make sure it’s in excellent condition.
MoxieM
Sorry I’m ignorant about cameras … but I know a big dog sweetie when I see one. What a lovely fellow. Skritches and treats.
guachi
The Nikon can manage its huge zoom range by having a tiny, tiny sensor. If you want excellent image quality, the Sony and Panasonic will give it to you.
The Panasonic also has a 2-lens option that costs $650 but is lighter. The sensor is a little smaller so it has smaller lenses.
luc
The Zoom reach of the Nikon, 2000 mm, is a gimmick feature, which will bring a lot of drawbacks with it, like slow auto focus and grainy images.
Betty Cracker
I’ve got a P900, and I recommend it unreservedly.
Elizabelle
@Betty Cracker: That probably settles the decision!
Adam Lang
Lumix DMC-ZS100K. They are inexpensive (having recently been replaced by a newer model). They fit in your pocket butt have a bigger sensor than the Nikon (and thus better low-light performance). They have a 10x zoom which is usually plenty. Just a sweet little camera all around. Plus they have a 3-year warranty extension offer right now.
download my app in the app store mistermix
My criteria were at least 1″ sensor, big zoom, small footprint (smaller than the A900). I went with a Panasonic TZ-200.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-zs200-tz200
My advice: don’t buy it. It just isn’t sharp enough and the lens is too slow (f 6.4 at the long end). Even though I use my cell phone camera for indoor stuff, and wanted this only for outdoor daylight photography, I just haven’t loved this camera.
(Just saw Adam Lang’s comment – he makes a good point. The TZ100 was pretty much the same camera, so if the image quality of the TZ-100 is good enough, get that instead of the TZ-200)
?BillinGlendaleCA
To echo what a lot have already said…don’t go with a small sensor, anything smaller than micro 4/3’s is too small. When the camera gets to those zoom levels it bumps up the sensitivity(ISO) to get enough light and leads to a grainy picture. You can’t go wrong with a Sony(APS-C) with the E-mount. It’s a lot cheaper than the full frame models but uses the same mount(you can upgrade later). The one other thing that I’d add is that you should get a camera that shoots RAW, cameras produce pretty good jpg’s but having RAW can save your bacon. As far as having a lightweight camera, as others have said, go mirrorless, I wouldn’t even consider a DLSR these days.
ETA: I’ve been looking at new cameras, though in my case it’s more for full frame Sonys and more dreaming than buying.
Carol
Tamara,
I have a Canon PowerShot sx50 hs that’s never been used. You can have for $240. I’ve never used it because it’s too complicated for me and although I’m more than willing to learn new things, I have physical limitations that I decided would make me a pitiful photographer. I live in Metro Denver if you want to try it for a while before you decide.
Do you have access to my email…as a BJ blogger? If so, let me know if you’re interested.
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-2-8-Inch/dp/B009B0MZ1M/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2OY84XRH55R07&dchild=1&keywords=canon+powershot+sx50+hs&qid=1596996048&sprefix=canon+powershot+sx50%2Caps%2C185&sr=8-2
boatboy_srq
For brands, it sounds like you’re looking for a Canon (best for action photography, which let’s face it is what birding is), or a Panasonic/Leica (best lenses, and don’t let the Leica name scare you, you can get D-Lux and X2 models within your price range).
I’ve been very happy with my (now-ancient) DMZ-FC50, which with 10 MP shoots quite well for most of my work without being horribly outsize. (Then again I was quite pleased with my DiMAGE A1, which preceded it, so I suppose I’m not especially discerning.)
You might look for a lighter body for your DSLR lenses to reduce the weight and build a hiking subset for your SLR kit: Nikon’s D5600 is pretty impressive for its size. You might also look into whether there is a mirrorless body that uses the lenses you have, to reduce the weight further.
Doug R
How about a 4K Go Pro on a helmet or headband? You could use the still frames to get decent shots, great for sudden wildlife-I mean a mediocre shot is still better than no shot, right?
frosty
@Marcelo: I got an A6000 as an unexpected Christmas present and I love it. I used it for all my On The Road pictures, teamed with a 55-210 zoom lens. The combo is probably over Tamara’s price range, if purchased separately.
ETA you can use it as a point-and-shoot or do everything manually, or something in between.
ETA2 The link you provided is exactly the setup I’ve been using.
BigJimSlade
@guachi: Yeah, I like my micro four-thirds camera – I take it hiking all the time. But I’m in the Olympus camp (not Panasonic – nothing against them, though – I just wasn’t as interested in video). I’m always tempted to switch to a mirrorless full frame, but then I look at the size of the lenses (and price) and just stick with what I’ve got.
?BillinGlendaleCA
One other thing, there’s been a lot of talk in the on-line camera community about whether Nikon will be in the business long term. They do have a dedicated customer base, but they’re losing money pretty badly. As someone who shoots with a camera who’s manufacture no longer is in the business(Samsung), that should weigh into one’s calculus(no firmware updates, remote app doesn’t work anymore…).
lurker dean
if zoom is what you want, you won’t get 2000mm with any 1″ sensor or bridge camera. yeah, the zoom is somewhat gimmicky, but in good light it does what none of the 1″ sensor cameras can do.
https://www.cameraegg.org/best-superzoom-nikon-coolpix-p900-sample-images-the-power-of-83x-optical-zoom-24-2000mm/
the image quality isn’t great at 2000mm, but in good light you can have a somewhat usable image. even if you crop the 400mm or 600mm pics from a bridge camera to an equiv 2000mm, they won’t look as good. (i’ve seen examples on dpreview, but i can’t find them now)
i guess i look at the bridge cameras (long zoom with 1″ sensor, usually max 600mm equiv length) as being in a different class than these superzooms (2000mm eq length) because they do different things. if you think you won’t need the reach, the bridge cameras are great, and you can get an FZ1000 in your price range. if you need the zoom, and expect to shoot in good light, the P900 is very good for that class of camera. just my 2 cents, worth as much as i was paid to give it :o)
WaterGirl
It’s a good think I am not in the market for a camera. All the great suggestions without a consensus of brand or model, I think I would just crawl in bed with Bixby. Assuming there was enough room.
luc
@lurker dean: the photos on this page are provided by Nikon
Chas M
If you’re really into the zoom and features of the P900, and can possibly afford the extra $100, you should upgrade to the P950. It’s five years newer, has better video specs and most importantly will shoot raw format. You can get a kit with filters and cleaning and extra battery for under 800 at Adorama.
Sister Golden Bear
@Adam Lang: I’ve got a slightly older version of the Lumix (the ZS-80), which I’ve been quite happy with.
Yes, it has more limitations due to the smaller sensor, but it’s lightweight (a big consideration because I’ve got cervical problems) and small enough to fit in a jacket pocket if need be. Which has made it great for travel.
I only view photos on the laptop or online, so the difference in quality are far less apparent than if I making large-size prints. FWIW, some of the photos I’ve posted here were taken with one.
Ruckus
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
All my journalist friends used to be Nikon all the way and all of them have gone to Cannon that I know of. But they are pros and take a ton of pics a year. I used to have Nikon at work, both film and digital so I bought a Nikon D5300 and really like the results. But. Cameras of this ilk are big and relatively heavy. But one can get amazing results. For a bit less effort/cost/size/weight the mirrorless now seem to be a pretty good choice. Are they good enough now for all use?
Lee
As others have suggested don’t be afraid of used. I purchased my last 3 cameras and at least that many from B&H. Very pleased
Brachiator
@TaMara (HFG):
Unfortunately I don’t have any good camera advice, but I just wanted to note that I appreciated how clearly you laid out what you were looking for.
Good luck in your search.
bjacques
I’ve got an old Canon EOS 450 D with a 50/f1.4 I got out of mothballs for a boat trip and had forgotten how good it is for action shots (using single-point focus). It’s ancient, only 8MP, but it’s faster even than newer phone cams.
Not what you’re after, but you may want to consider buying an older camera cheap and putting the money saved to one or two really good lenses.
lurker dean
@luc: are you suggesting the photos are doctored? is there any evidence of this? there seem to be plenty of non-nikon photos that show similar results.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/compacts/nikon_cpp900/sample-photos (building photos)
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-p900/nikon-p900GALLERY.HTM (last few photos)
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/nikon-coolpix-p900-sample-pictures/8/
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Ruckus: A full frame mirrorless will perform the same as a full frame DLSR at a lighter weight. The one reason, other than being invested(due to brand inertia as well has a substantial investment in lens*) to sticking with a DLSR over a mirrorless camera is folk with big hands like the size of a DLSR. The downside to an interchangeable lens mirrorless camera is you have to keep the glass over the sensor clean(otherwise you’d get spots in your photos).
One thing to keep in mind, especially for those of us who posses older eyes, is that a viewfinder can adjust to your deficiencies in your vision. I don’t have a viewfinder on my NX-500, so I have to use my reading glasses if I’m using manual focus, there’s also a glare issue in bright sunlight. With my NX-1 I have a EVF(electronic view finder) and I can adjust it to focus even if I’m wearing my contact lens.
*The investment in glass usually exceeds the price of the camera by quite a lot.
David Evans
I’ll second what Chas M said. The P950 has a better viewfinder and some other features that make it more pleasant to use than the P900. Yes, it’s a small sensor camera, but I have some good A4 prints and some files which are more than adequate for internet use even at 2000mm.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@bjacques: The money in the camera business is in glass(lens). Getting a cheaper body can be a good idea, as long as there’s a way to upgrade the body and still use the glass. That’s one of the things I like about Sony, the E-mount works on both cheaper APS-C sensors and the more expensive(and much more expensive) full frame bodies.
trollhattan
The suggested camera will be fine for most purposes. I’ll recommend expanding your search to models with more modest zoom ranges that have faster, sharper lenses. The benefits of a 166x optical zoom are, frankly, limited in the real world because atmospheric conditions typically degrade ginormous magnifications over great distances. Plus, it’s…interesting to handhold a camera, acquire then follow a distant subject (bird, etc.) with a super-tele lens. A tripod with a good gimbal head makes it somewhat more feasible.
As an example: Lumix LX100ii Bigger sensor, better, faster lens, more compact, very good build quality.
Happy shopping!
Emma from FL
@Betty Cracker: So do I… and I bought it on your recommendation!
frosty
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Good point. The Sony a6000 has a viewfinder, the a5100 doesn’t. One of the reasons I like it.
trollhattan
Added comment: regardless of the camera you buy, you will NEVER learn much use all the features. Digicams have become profoundly complicated because they do so many things in an attempt to appeal to the broadest possible buyer base. So, don’t worry about mastering everything but do plan on a steep learning curve to get best results mastering how you wish to use yours. Recommend downloading the owner’s manual before buying to make sure the controls and setup menu are for you. Different companies have very different philosophies about how they organize their cameras and it can be love/hate, depending.
Ruckus
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
You touched on a number of things that old farts have as issues that some others may not have. Big fat fingers, which make typing harder also make holding/using a small camera difficult. I have an older Panasonic camera (about 20 yrs old) which is about 20% size of the Nikon and isn’t bad but my phone takes better pictures. And yes, the adjustable viewfinder is just great. Not something you really notice after you get it set but it really does make a difference with geezer eyes.
Oh well, my Nikon takes great photos, like a lot of cameras of many brands do, has options that allow a lot of personality to be added to shots if one desires, I have lenses that cover everything I’m going to do and best of all, it is paid for.
Dan
$500 for the Panasonic FZ1000. It can do everything the P900 can do. It has a bigger (better) sensor than the P900, 20MP compared to 16MP, it has a fully articulating screen, and it does 4K video, or 1080P at 120 fps. The Nikon has no 4K and only does 1080P at 60 fps. Better in every measurable way.
See here:https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-Coolpix-P900-vs-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ1000 and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20SEt_9YtnQ.
Buy here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1057135-REG/panasonic_dmc_fz1000k_lumix_dmc_fz1000_digital_camera.html
?BillinGlendaleCA
@trollhattan: That’s one thing that folk complain about the Sony’s, the menu system sucks(they’ve improved it with their newest(A7Siii) model). I always d/l the manual when I’m even thinking about a camera(I did for the NX-1 before I bought it).
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Ruckus: I don’t have a problem with the fat finger thing since I’m a little person, the mirrorless cameras are fine for my hands. The problem I’m having is my night images, I’m spending quite a bit of time working around the limitations of the APS-C sensor size.
Ruckus
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
My thumbs are just over 7/8 of an inch wide. Big fingers.
J R in WV
I started with a Nikon Coolpix point and shoot a V long time ago, and liked it. Then I broke into a DSLR with several lenses, took great photos, SO HEAVY the camera bag was!!!
Then I saw Panasonic’s first bridge camera, a Lumix FZ100 IIRC, and really liked it. Then I nearly bought a newer FZ2500, and as I investigated I saw the B&H FZ1000 was in some ways better than the 2500, and quite a bit less expensive. Sturdy, well built, takes great photos, RAW if needed, has a hand held night photo setting that is amazing in a dark room, produces a well lit properly exposed image by taking multiple exposures all at once and stacking them up to eliminate random noise due to high ISO.
It looks to be a tiny bit smaller than the Nikon you indicated, and a little less expensive [ETA, $100 cheaper!] on sale at B&H, rechargeable batteries, lots of complicated control possible, but if you just put it on auto, it takes pretty sweet pictures. Very good macro close up work too. And the big Leica label on the lens is pretty sweet as well. The lens is amazing!!!
bt
The Nikon d3500 is cheaper and better than almost any other camera at it’s price. Outstanding image quality.
It’s far superior to the point and shoot or 4/3’s cameras.
Sony’s are nice, but they tend to cost more.
swiftfox
I also have a Canon DSLR with 400mm diffracted optics lens. But since I bought a used Sony RX 10, version IV, I have not picked up the Canon. Enough zoom for wildlife (600mm) and much better picture quality than the Nikon P’s and Canon SX series. Cost $1100. Maybe you can find one used on Ebay, Adorama, or B+H within your price range. It’s well worth the cost.
jc
Nikon is a good brand. Do the research, check out Consumer Reports. I’ve owned a few digital cameras, and the biggest problem always seems to be that they don’t age well — one little electronic part – circuit breaks, and the whole thing is basically worthless. Nikon SLRs of old were built like tanks.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@jc:
Heh, and weighed about the same. //
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Ruckus: Actually the complaint I’ve heard about mirrorless being too small isn’t fat fingers, but they fit too small in the hand for people with larger hands. I obviously don’t have that problem since I have Trump sized hands, though mine are proportional to my body size.
lurker dean
@Lee: i agree, i’ve had very good luck buying refurbished and used. KEH is reputable, and offer a 180 day warranty. which i’ve had to use before on an older quirky cam (epson rd1 for the curious).
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-coolpix-p900-black-digital-camera-16-m-p-1.html
ChrisG
I am sure the Nikon would be fine for you; there are so many high performance compact cameras it is hard to make a choice. I would have recommended a Sony HX90V which is a tiny and beautiful camera when it worked; however I had two of them break in only three years so I now avoid Sony.
I have just bought another camera to replace it. I was leaning heavily towards a Canon Powershot G3X. I believe it would meet all of your criteria, especially the big zoom. Then our local camera distributor halved the price of the Powershot G5X and that swayed me over even though it only has a four times zoom.
So many to choose from! Have fun!
Robert Sneddon
Never forget that Sony are surtitled “the Bastards”. I’ve bought quite a bit of Sony audio and video gear over the years, it’s always outperformed the other guy’s kit and it always broke in expensive ways and the extras were always non-standard, proprietary and expensive too. Just my opinion.
Couple of things — as others have explained, you’re not going to get knife-sharp pictures out of a stupidzoom camera because the sensor is small and they don’t focus quickly and hunt a lot so they’re not very point-and-shoot, never mind the stability problems of hand-holding a 900mm-equivalent lens. If portability is your sine qua non then go for a high-end low-to-medium zoom camera with a BIG sensor and you can fake the zoom by cropping the final picture to remove the extraneous surroundings. There are lots of pocket cameras with 1-inch sensors out there that will do 20Mpixels but with a 105mm lens limit for zoom. Crop a shot to 10Mpixels and that’s like shooting with a 400mm lens but without the blur.
Panasonic probably make the best camera glass for pocket and compact cameras (Sony glass is excellent but, well, Sony). My own pocket camera, a Lumix LX-7 has a Leica-badged lens that’s good to F1.2, great for indoor and low-light work but that’s not what you want. You can get a really good camera in this class, not mirrorless or M4/3, which will weigh less than a pound (or half a kilo in real numbers). The Canon Powershot G5 and G7 series are often touted as the sort of cameras the pros use when they’re not lugging ten kilos of DSLR around, worth a look too although the higher-end models like the G1 X may be out of your price range.
trollhattan
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
Early MILCs were purposely compact to contrast with much-larger DSLRs but today they span such a huge array of sizes, shapes, formats and specialties it’s impossible to lump them into just one group, and that’s before considering accessory grips that add dual controls for portrait mode handling. I’ll admit that some have so many buttons as to be difficult to operate by touch alone, but that’s not unheard of with DSLRs either.
When I hear a media scrum today with a hundred DLSR mirrors clattering away I wonder how much longer the form will be allowed in some settings. Mirrorless are SO much quieter, even without switching to e-shutter.
Another Scott
@trollhattan: OMG Yes!!
I remember thinking way back in Obama’s time as candidate and POTUS that all the camera shutter noise was totally distracting and unnecessary. AFAIK, one can turn it off on digital cameras, and anyone who needs to take 15 shots a second for the entire duration of a press conference or Q&A should be shooting video.
When I’m elected benevolent despot, photographers will have to use silent cameras.
Cheers,
Scott.
waynel140
@bt:
bt, I bought a d3400 last week at a pawn shop and love it. It is exactly what I was looking for, and does everything well.
Don’t look down on buying from pawn shops. I got a very good deal, after shopping every pawn shop in town.
sam
I’m a little late to the party, but if you haven’t bitten the bullet yet and you like the concept of an SLR system for the ability to change lenses but want something smaller/lighter, I made the switch few years ago to a mirrorless system. I’m personally using an Olympus OMD-EM5-ii, which is a slightly older model at this stage (but I still love). The main issue with Olympus at this point is that the company is selling off its camera business and there are questions about its future, but Sony, Panasonic and Canon all have excellent mirrorless systems (and Olympus and Panasonic micro 4/3 systems have interchangeable lenses). Nikon unfortunately has been late to this game (my old SLR was a Nikon and I was sad they weren’t up yet in this market at the time).
if you want some examples of photos, you can go to my website and check out some of the more recent travel posts (south africa, peru, alaska) which were all shot with my mirrorless camera.