New Digital Camera

[mj4cy]

I'm in the need of a new digital camera. We don't need anything too fancy where we need to changes lenses, ect, but not afraid to get something nice. Our biggest issue we've noticed is our digital camera takes nice pictures, but with young kids, the shutter speed is too slow and we miss the split second our kid does sit still and smile.


Any suggestions would be great.

TIA

 

[MNclone]

Shutter speed is likely not your issue.
Are you missing shots because it takes a long time between photos?
If so you may just need a faster memory card.

 

[tm3308]

What's your budget like?

The Nikon D40 is a DSLR camera (interchangeable lenses) that you can get new for $500 or less (plus lenses). I started out on that (my mom bought it when I was in high school and once my sister graduated a couple years ago, she didn't really need it anymore) and it's a solid camera, great for family photo type stuff and can do sports alright if you've got decent/good light and a kit lens (shot a little high school football with it for a year).

AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED from Nikon

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR from Nikon

I took all three of these photos using a D40 and the above lenses:

 

[mj4cy]

Budget isn't a huge concern. I figure a couple hundred bucks. Probably try to keep it under 300 at the most.

 

[iowa_wildcat]

Your current camera may be just fine. Try holding the shutter half way down so the camera is pre-focused. Then push the shutter the rest of the way down to take the picture. Try it and see if it works for you. I have been shooting wildlife this way with a digital for the last ten years with a camera that is obsolete by today's standards. I have no intention of replacing that camera any time soon.

 

[Kagavi]

If speed is your concern, it has to be DSLR all the way. Some of the emerging mirror less cameras are really interesting, but no way you can get them for anything like a couple hundred bucks. With your price range, I would probably go for a refurbished used DSLR from a reputable camera shop.

Are you ok with lugging around the size of a DSLR? If so, I can give you some ideas.

Also, in case you aren't aware, megapixels aren't nearly as important as the sensor size. This image shows the stark difference in sensor size in a point and shoot (smallest boxes) versus DSLR (APS-C).



EDIT: Also, saw your note about "nothing fancy with changing lens"--but if you truly want speed, you need a DSLR. Compact cameras are not able to catch fast moving subjects all the time. You may get lucky a few times, but ehhh. Just because you may get a DSLR, doesn't mean you will need to change the lens. Usually the lens it comes with will be good enough for most people, so no changing needed.

 

[mj4cy]

Thanks for the suggestions. I can up the price range....just figure I have to start somewhere. We aren't too tech savvy...just want something that can take pictures quickly with decent quality.

 

[aeroclone]

We got an entry level Canon DSLR with the included kit lens a few years back. It has a full auto mode that is just as easy to use as a point and shoot, and it does pretty much everything you need without changing lenses. I think it was a little over $400 at the time.

It also provides some room to grow. We have added a couple different lenses and learned how to do things in some of the manual modes, but if you don't have the desire to do any of that you still have a great camera.

Pretty much the only downside compared to a point and shoot is that I can't throw it in my pocked. But for times where I need that portability, my smart phone has a decent enough camera on it.

 

[blizzisu]

If you can double your budget to $500, the Sony RX100 is worth a look.

Amazon.com: Sony DSC-RX100/B 20.2 MP Exmor CMOS Sensor Digital Camera with 3.6x Zoom: SONY: Camera & Photo

 

[hawkclone11]

We have one similar to the Sony RX100. Their H-series is closer to a DSLR camera but has some additional features the point and shoots don't have. It has a fixed lens too so no buying/swapping out lenses required!

Cyber-shot H - Cyber-shot Compact Cameras Sony Store - Sony US

 

[NickTheGreat]

I think we're at a point in time where Point and Shoot Cameras are unnecessary. I mean, my S4 does a pretty damn good job, even in low light inside. And any time I want a quality picture, I bust out the DSLR.

If I were the OP, I'd get a cheap/used/older model DSLR :yes:

 

[ISUFan22]

I am amused by those stating it may not be your current camera yet no one has asked what make and model your current camera is.

So, what are you using today?

As far as recommendations, point-and-shoot definitely have their place. However, I have found that my iPhone can take a pretty good portrait and can be comparable to a number of the point and shoot at the lower to mid price range.

Based on what you said, wanting better speed, DSLR is what you should be looking for. You are going to struggle to get the action portraits of your kids with most point-and-shoots.

The best recommendation I read here was getting a used DSLR and lens. Gives you an opportunity to start at a lower investment, learn what you want and then upgrade later.

Important note: many people make the mistake of getting the best/most expensive camera they can buy and then putting a crappy kit lens on it. Your lens is far more important than the camera body. The less expensive lenses will only go to certain f-stops whereas the better lenses will let you open up to 2.8 or better. This will allow more light in from an aperture perspective and then allow you to operate at even faster shutter speeds. That is key when you're wanting to get good action shots of your kids and moderate to low light.

 

[IAmNotTheMayor]

A DSLR takes time to learn how to use it properly. You can always put it in automatic mode and never buy any additional lenses, and that is what most people do that buy an entry-level DSLR. But that's not what a DSLR is designed for, thus, it will not perform at it's best unless it's user knows how to use it. Another way to say it: right tool for the right job.

If you want to take good snapshots, buy a camera that was designed to take good snapshots. Here's some things to think about:

• Don't worry about megapixels. In fact, some cameras have way too many megapixels to be practical.
• Fast and accurate auto-focus. Unless it's in manual mode, a camera can't take a picture until it focuses on the subject.
• Low light performance. Most photos look better without flash, especially when the subject is closer than 5 ft. or so. The better low light performance, the less you need flash. Not to mention, the flash range on most point and shoot cameras is 8-12 feet max. Also, this will help with auto-focus performance.
• Image stabilization. Most should have this, but watch out for the cheapo's.
• Wide angle. Most have good zoom, since it's a marketing edge (like megapixels), but make sure it goes wide for close-ups. If you want to take a selfie in front of the Eiffel Tower, wide angle is your friend.

I haven't bought a point and shoot camera for a few years, but every time I do, I always land on Canon. Canon, like all manufacturers sells everything from very good to horrible garbage. But if you know what you're looking for, they have very good value (~$250-$350 price point). Sony is doing some very innovative things, but you will pay a premium. Fuji is breaking new ground in low-light performance. Nikon has a couple good cameras, but not a better value than Canon. Panasonic has some very nice cameras, since they actually make their own sensors (and often sell them to Canon, Nikon, etc.). Olympus has an advantage in weather-sealing and durability, but Panasonic makes some legit waterproof cameras.

If you don't need a pocketable compact, look for a "super zoom." They look like a DSLR, but you can't change the lens. They often have better lenses than a compact, and are cheaper than a compact (with compatible features).

 

[mj4cy]

Anyone had any luck with this camera or know anything about it? Got good reviews.

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : PowerShot SX170 IS

 

[Kagavi]

Anyone had any luck with this camera or know anything about it? Got good reviews.

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : PowerShot SX170 IS

This camera doesn't meet your own criteria of a fast shutter camera, so it would be a pointless purchase with the same inherent problems--an inability to capture fast-moving subjects. Simply put, a point and shoot camera =/= fast shutter. Any point and shoot camera will give you this issue, so you have to move into two different categories.

The first category would be micro 4/3 and mirror less cameras, which is somewhat new technology. Some of the Sony and Fuji cameras mentioned are interesting, but you would have to pay a premium for a good performance in a small package. Anywhere between $500-1500. There are some excellent cameras, but I personally think the prices are still way too high.

The second category is DSLR cameras. Your best bet remains a used Canon/Nikon camera body paired with a fast lens. Keep it on automatic and snap away all day without problems. There's a big difference between a DSLR that allows you to hold down the shutter button for 3 seconds and come away with 25 pictures versus a point and shoot that gives you a small handful of pictures in 3 seconds that may or may not be in focus.

 

[Kagavi]

Canon sells refurbished cameras direct from their own site and while that isn't the cheapest method to get a solid used Canon/Nikon DSLR, here's a decent package: Canon EOS Rebel T3i EF-S 18-55mm IS II Lens Kit Refurbished | Canon Online Store.

In case the camera is sold when you see this, here's a screenshot:



To spend the $300 or $400 you are talking about on a point and shoot is simply flushing your money down the toilet if you want a fast camera. A DSLR will last you a long time. Case in point, we have been using the heck out of our Nikon DSLR that is about 10 years old and all of our Kagavi pictures are taken with that camera. This longevity has allowed us to spend our money on other more important business items.

 

[ISUFan22]

Anyone had any luck with this camera or know anything about it? Got good reviews.

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : PowerShot SX170 IS

Nice camera - not what you are looking for based on your requirements as already stated.

If you're set against going the DSLR route your best option would be one of the Canon G-series cameras. The latest one is the G16, yet some still claim the G9 was Canon's best G-series camera.

It does go down to f1.8, yet it's still not going to give you all the speed that a DLSR will provide with the right lens.

I can tell you some professional photographers have used the G-series cameras to produce award-winning portraits and sell wall prints of 30x40 or larger with them. But I don't believe they were relying on that camera for action portraits.

 

[IAmNotTheMayor]

This camera doesn't meet your own criteria of a fast shutter camera, so it would be a pointless purchase with the same inherent problems--an inability to capture fast-moving subjects. Simply put, a point and shoot camera =/= fast shutter. Any point and shoot camera will give you this issue, so you have to move into two different categories.

Taking a quick snapshot is limited by

1. Time to turn camera on and be ready to take a photo
2. Ability to frame the subject
3. How quickly the camera can auto-focus
4. What is the combination shutter speed, aperture, and ISO speed
5. If flash is being used, how quickly it can recycle

DSLR's are excellent for #3 & #5. #1 is generally slow, and #2 can be limited by the ability of the photographer to use the viewfinder (lack of experience, difficult angles, etc.). #4 is completely dependent on the capabilities of the system and which settings are selected.

IMO, most people don't have their camera in the correct setting over half the time. In auto mode, most quality point and shoot cameras will be on par with a DSLR in great lighting, and beat a DSLR in poor lighting situations. This is based on my own personal experience learning to use a DSLR, as well as observing friends and family who think a big DSLR will automatically give them great pictures.

The reason is because it takes sophisticated algorithms to determine which settings (shutter, aperture, ISO) are optimal in different situations. Entry level DSLR's don't have the same level of sophistication as a quality a point and shoot for same price, because there's other components (lens, mirror, viewfinder) that eat into the profit margins.

For years, DSLR's (and film SLR's) have had a huge advantage in auto-focus speed. This is because of two things

1. Auto-focus motor in the lens. Some DSLR lenses are focus super fast, others not so much. Same with point and shoots; it all depends, and generally more $$ = faster focus.
2. DSLRs use a AF method called phase detection (light is split to a different sensor that determines the focus distance). They can do this because there is a prism or mirror inside the body of the camera.

Contrast detection AF is almost always slower, and this is what has been used in every point and shoot up until some recent innovations by Fuji and Sony. Also "fast' and "slow" are very relative and subjective to each person's expectations and needs.

Personally, if I was in the market for a new point and shoot today, I would look at this one first.

 

[ISUFan22]

I can tell which of the folks in this thread are spending a lot of time in the portrait world and teaching others via workshops and one-to-one. And which of those are just - well - not.

Hopefully mj4cy can also decipher between the two.

 

[NickTheGreat]

Taking a quick snapshot is limited by

1. Time to turn camera on and be ready to take a photo
2. Ability to frame the subject
3. How quickly the camera can auto-focus
4. What is the combination shutter speed, aperture, and ISO speed
5. If flash is being used, how quickly it can recycle

DSLR's are excellent for #3 & #5. #1 is generally slow, and #2 can be limited by the ability of the photographer to use the viewfinder (lack of experience, difficult angles, etc.). #4 is completely dependent on the capabilities of the system and which settings are selected.

IMO, most people don't have their camera in the correct setting over half the time. In auto mode, most quality point and shoot cameras will be on par with a DSLR in great lighting, and beat a DSLR in poor lighting situations. This is based on my own personal experience learning to use a DSLR, as well as observing friends and family who think a big DSLR will automatically give them great pictures.

The reason is because it takes sophisticated algorithms to determine which settings (shutter, aperture, ISO) are optimal in different situations. Entry level DSLR's don't have the same level of sophistication as a quality a point and shoot for same price, because there's other components (lens, mirror, viewfinder) that eat into the profit margins.

For years, DSLR's (and film SLR's) have had a huge advantage in auto-focus speed. This is because of two things

1. Auto-focus motor in the lens. Some DSLR lenses are focus super fast, others not so much. Same with point and shoots; it all depends, and generally more $$ = faster focus.
2. DSLRs use a AF method called phase detection (light is split to a different sensor that determines the focus distance). They can do this because there is a prism or mirror inside the body of the camera.

Contrast detection AF is almost always slower, and this is what has been used in every point and shoot up until some recent innovations by Fuji and Sony. Also "fast' and "slow" are very relative and subjective to each person's expectations and needs.

Personally, if I was in the market for a new point and shoot today, I would look at this one first.

You need to learn how to use your DSLR