Point And Shoot Vs A "real" Camera?

[StyloBug33]

I have started reading about cameras and I am seeing a pretty high learning curve. It should be fun though. I am hoping to go a a camera shop tomorrow and be able to see some things in person. The camera will be my birthday present, which is in a few weeks.

 

I really appreciate everyone's comments and please keep them coming. At this point I am definitely leaning toward a DSLR or something with changeable lenses.

[mdbrown]

I'd recommend a DSLR over a micro 4/3 camera. Nothing wrong with the micro but it still has a smaller sensor and still doesn't quite match the versatility of a DSLR. They are a massive improvement over a point and shoot though. I prefer a viewfinder and lens selection is far greater for DSLR cameras of any brand. For the best available selection of lenses, especially aftermarket, I'd recommend one of the big 2 - Nikon or Canon. Both Pentax and Sony make very nice DSLR cameras but fewer aftermarket manufacturers make Lenses and such. Pentax is the same way but they have one huge advantage over everyone... any lens for a Pentax will work on a Pentax DSLR... that means a lens made in 1975 for a 35mm Pentax SLR will work on a Pentax DSLR (you'll just have focus and expose manually.) Read around and don't limit yourself. DSLRs today will go full auto for you if you wish but also give you lot's of manual options as you learn... so the learning curve is pretty much up to you.

[ticoun]

Pentax is the same way but they have one huge advantage over everyone... any lens for a Pentax will work on a Pentax DSLR... that means a lens made in 1975 for a 35mm Pentax SLR will work on a Pentax DSLR (you'll just have focus and expose manually.)

That's exactly why I went with Pentax. My dad had an MX and a few lenses that he gave me, and with my Pentax DSLR I use those old manual lenses all the time. Nothing beats the SMC Pentax-M 50mm ƒ/1.4.

Pentax cameras also tend to be less expensive than Canon and Nikon, especially if you go in the used department.

[radellaf]

The ideal setup for pen photography would include, in addition to the light tent, a tripod for your camera, and two or more flashes or studio lights that can be mounted off camera. As far as I know, multiple off camera flashes will require a mid range or better DSLR; otherwise, any camera that that can focus reasonably close should be fine. Studio lights would be on constantly while working and thus will consume alot of power and generate alot of heat. On the up side that would also make it easier to get accurate exposure (light) readings.

 

I've dabbled with flashes (sync off built-in, only option with S series Canon) and you could come up with good formulas but unless you need so much light (for wide DoF macro), I'd go with lights. There are some nice setups for a hundred or two, and guaranteed you'll get better results with good lights and a canon A series P&S than with room lights and a $4000 camera.

 

Or, if the weather is nice, don't overlook outdoor lighting. The sun is one powerful light source, especially for diffuse lighy thats strong enough to keep the ISO below 400 (best for pocket cameras). Lots of DIY blockers and reflectors can save money.

[lemanfan]

As a photo geek, I should be quick to recommend the most capable DSLR you can afford, but two things hold me back:

 

• The more "professional" camera, the more it requires of the user. Its not uncommon to find people coming from simple cameras, spending more they can afford on a DSLR and then being dissapointed in the results. The reason is that bigger cameras takes a bit longer to master. Also, within the DSLR range, the more professional cameras also give picture files that can take - and often require - more post processing.
  
• The best camera is the one you bring. I have several big expensive cameras, but find that the simpler, smaller cameras takes the most memorable pictures simply becase I bring them more often. This of course applies most to use outside of the home...
  

 

That said, today I'd strongly recommend a Nikon D3200 w the 18-55 kit lens (with VR-technology). A very modern camera with a state of the art sensor, packed in Nikons smallest DSLR package. The 18-55 lens is almost free in the kit and is also much better than the price indicates.

 

As for pen photography - while diffusers and reflectors are needed, don't underestimate the sun as a light source. A cloudy day is wonderful, and as long as you put your camera on a tripod you can use long exposure times.

[raging.dragon]

The ideal setup for pen photography would include, in addition to the light tent, a tripod for your camera, and two or more flashes or studio lights that can be mounted off camera. As far as I know, multiple off camera flashes will require a mid range or better DSLR; otherwise, any camera that that can focus reasonably close should be fine. Studio lights would be on constantly while working and thus will consume alot of power and generate alot of heat. On the up side that would also make it easier to get accurate exposure (light) readings.

 

I've dabbled with flashes (sync off built-in, only option with S series Canon) and you could come up with good formulas but unless you need so much light (for wide DoF macro), I'd go with lights. There are some nice setups for a hundred or two, and guaranteed you'll get better results with good lights and a canon A series P&S than with room lights and a $4000 camera.

 

Or, if the weather is nice, don't overlook outdoor lighting. The sun is one powerful light source, especially for diffuse lighy thats strong enough to keep the ISO below 400 (best for pocket cameras). Lots of DIY blockers and reflectors can save money.

 

Yup. To get started you absolutely need a good tripod and decent camera with a decent macro lens, beyond that good lighting will make a bigger difference than a better camera. A remote shutter release is also very nice - pushing the button moves the camera a bit, and with the long exposures required for closeups with a wide depth of field* that can be enough to blur the image. Only once you have a good lighting system will it be possible to take full advantage of the high end cameras and lenses.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that when it comes to image quality, top of the line amateur cameras are just as good as professional cameras costing twice as much. The difference is that the professional cameras are more durable. First they're designed to survive the rigors of travel and photo journalism. Second they're designed to take hundreds or thousands of photos every day for years. For relatively light use predominantly in a home studio, that extra durability won't matter.

 

* The closer you focus the lens the less it's depth of field. I've had to use quite small aperatures, and commensurately long exposures, in order to get enough depth of field for both ends of a pen to be in sharply focused.

Edited August 17, 2012 by raging.dragon

[lemanfan]

A remote shutter release is also very nice - pushing the button moves the camera a bit, and with the long exposures required for closeups with a wide depth of field* that can be enough to blur the image.

 

The poor bastards cheap trick is to use the self timer instead of buying a remote release.

[rmhowie]

At this point I am definitely leaning toward a DSLR or something with changeable lenses.

 

I'm pretty into photography, and I definitely think this is the way to go. Consumer DSLR's and Mirrorless cameras (Micro Four Thirds/Sony NEX/Canon EOS M/Fuji X-Pro1) will have very similar image quality. I have a Canon 60D which I am quite happy with, but, honestly, I think most people will be better off with a mirrorless camera than a consumer DSLR.

 

Consumer DSLR's and the mirrorless cameras mentioned above all have sensors about the same size which means they will have comparable image quality. Micro Four Thirds is a little bit smaller than the rest (which all have APS-C sensors close to 15mm by 22 mm) but the image quality will still be close enough to the others. The image quality (more specifically performance without strong lighting) between all these camera's is close enough that it isn't be the deciding factor.

 

I'll provide you with some pros and cons so you can make a more informed decision. Note: I use Canon examples because I happen to use a Canon camera and I know their product line a bit better.

 

DSLR Pros

• Good performance for the price
  
• Better autofocus on moving targets because they use a fundamentally different method of determining the proper focus
  
• Widest choice of lenses (including speciality lenses)
  
• Great battery life (excluding entry level DSLR's which have a small battery, example: Canon 1100D and 650D -> small batteries, Canon 60D -> big battery)
  
• Good controls (excluding entry level) (They usually have more buttons/dials than mirrorless cameras; this means that each button does fewer things meaning fewer menus and less to remember for each button)
  
• Good grip/ergonomics (more comfortable to use for a longer period of time)
  
• Optical viewfinder allows you to compose your shots even in bright sun and provides a steadier grip than looking at the LCD on mirrorless cameras that don't have an EVF
  

 

DSLR Cons

• Some Good DSLR lenses are expensive and large/heavy. (there are good, light and cheap ones though, these are usually not zoom lenses though)
  
• Eqivalent DSLR lenses will be heavier and more expensive than their mirrorless counterparts. (I'll explain this in a minute)
  
• DSLR's are too large to fit in a jacket pocket.
  
• More obtrusive than mirrorless cameras (It is much easier to take candid (un-posed) photographs of people with a smaller and less noticeable camera (not creepy stalker photos, but I prefer photos of my friends having fun at a party, to photos of my friends looking at a camera at a party))
  

 

Mirrorless Pros

• Smaller cameras and lenses (you will be more likely to have your camera when you want to photograph something if it isn't a pain to carry around) (I know you're going to use your phone; this is a good idea during the day with plenty of light, but at night or in darker rooms, the larger sensor will collect much more light and create a much nicer image with less noise)
  
• Some camera + lens combinations will fit into a jacket pocket
  
• Equivalent lenses should be cheaper and lighter (less glass required, I'll cover it in a bit)
  
• Lots of different lenses and manufacturers to choose from
  
• Can accept nearly all SLR lenses and older lenses via adaptors (you will probably have to focus and select the aperture manually though)
  
• The better mirrorless cameras have good controls
  
• Good mirrorless cameras have an Electronic Viewfinder that shows you exactly what your image will look like, can be viewed in sunlight and allows a steady grip on your camera
  

 

Mirrorless Cons

• Not all of them have good controls (watch out for the entry level ones for this reason)
  
• The body (just the camera) might be a bit more expensive than a DSLR with equivalent features
  
• The autofocus is not as good for moving subjects
  
• Battery life is probably worse than a equivalent DSLR (You'll have to check the particular models you're considering)
  
• Many mirrorless cameras don't have an EVF; this means that you'll have to hold your camera away from your face which is not a stable hold. If you can put the camera up to your eye you will get a sharper photo because there is less camera shake. Also LCD's are difficult to see outside.
  
• Lack of specialist lenses
  

 

Their are two primary advantages of mirrorless cameras which, I believe, makes them a better choice than DSLR's for most people. The cameras and lenses are smaller, this makes a big difference when you want to take your camera somewhere. The other impact is that it makes it much easier to always take your camera with you just in case the opportunity for an unexpected great shot appears. The second advantage is that the lenses are cheaper, smaller and lighter than the equivalent DSLR lenses. This is because the lens can be much closer to the sensor. In a DSLR there needs to be room between the back of the lens and the sensor for the mirror to swing; this is not the case in mirrorless cameras. Allowing the lens to come a lot closer to the sensor, simplifies the lens design problem and allows for smaller lenses with less glass. Less glass means a lighter and less expensive lens (everything else being equal). Simpler lens construction also means you can get a cheaper lens, a better lens or both!

 

I think most people will be better served by a mirrorless camera system becuase it's smaller and you can get nice lenses without paying too much unless they fall into the following two categories: people who photograph moving subjects such as sports photographers who need the autofocus system of a DSLR to track their targets, and people who want (or will want in the future) better image quality and low light performance than an APS-C sensor will provide. If you know you will want to move up to a full frame (about 1.5 times larger than APS-C) sensor cameras in the future, you should get a DSLR and lenses that will be compatible with a full frame DSLR in the future. Unless you know you want to get a full frame camera in the future ($3000 and up, just for the camera body) or you shoot lots of fast moving subjects get a mirrorless camera instead of a DSLR.

 

It is important to note that the lens that you choose is at least as important as the camera you select. I recommend two lenses for you:

• a normal lens for taking general photos and
  
• a dedicated macro lens for taking your pen photos.
  

 

A normal lens is a lens that isn't wide angle and isn't long. It allows you to get a reasonable amount of stuff into the frame, but won't make things look weird like a wide angle lens sometimes can. I, personally, think the best choice is a prime (fixed focal length) lens with a large maximum aperture. The large aperture (usually called fast) lets heaps of light in, and more light means better pictures without flash, even indoors. For an APS-C sensor, anything in the range of 24-40mm with a maximum aperture of f/1.4 (heaps of light, really fast) to f/2.8 (pretty good amount of light, reasonably fast) is a great choice. The other option for your normal lens is a zoom, I don't think these are the best choice because the good (fast) zooms are EXPENSIVE ($1000-$2300) but some people want a zoom. If you want a zoom, just get the kit one; they are really good value for money because they usually only cost an extra $70 - $100. Good lenses cost money; it is pretty normal for a good lens to cost about the same price as the camera body when talking about DSLR's. Good mirrorless lenses are a bit cheaper.

 

As for Camera brands, for DSLR's I would reccomend Canon or Nikon unless you have a reason to pick one of the other manufacturers. I only recommend this because there is more stuff (lenses and accessories) that work with the big two. There are good reasons to choose the other brands; Pentax has great weather-sealing even on some of their lower end cameras (you can use it in the rain or take it to the beach and then rinse the sand off under the shower (!!!!!)). They also have great little pancake (thin) lenses. Sony has cool EVF's if you want to see exactly what your image will look like before you press the shutter button. Sony and Olympus have good mirror less cameras at the moment, but I haven't looked at Samsung or Panasonic. Fujifilm have a camera (Fujifilm X-Pro1) with insanely good image quality, but it is very expensive, and the autofocus is apparently not very good. Canon's mirrorless line is launching in October but the only model announced so far lacks an EVF.

 

When choosing the specific model, I like having at least two control dials on my camera because it makes the camera significantly easy to use, and if you're getting a mirrorless camera it needs an EVF. The lowest models in each manufacturers line are not good choices because they have worse controls, smaller batteries and less comfortable grips; That's how they can be manufactured at a lower price.

 

I think the following camera's are worth looking at:

Olympus OM-D E-M5: looks great (esp silver version), has an EVF, has two control dials, has built in image stabilisation http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5

Sony NEX 7 or NEX 5n with add on EVF: good cameras, the controls are better on the 7 and it has a higher resolution sensor http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex5n/ http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex7/

Canon EOS M (coming out in October): looks ok, no EVF or second control dial though http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/

 

If you get the Olympus OM-D E-M5, the kit zoom it probably a good option because it's weather-sealed like the camera. If you want a DSLR look at the Canon 60D or the Nikon D7000. They are the models with two control dials, better grips and bigger batteries (these are important factors that make your camera easier to use and less frustrating).

 

So, StyloBug33, do you think you want a DSLR or a mirrorless camera? Any brand preferences?

[bphollin]

The Olympus OM-D E-M5 looks very compelling. Thanks for taking the time, rmhowie. That was quite informative.

Edited August 18, 2012 by bphollin

[StyloBug33]

Mhowie thank you so much for all that information. I guess I haven't made any real decisions yet. I am trying to read everyones suggestions here and any book I can get my hands on. I'm also watching some YouTube videos. The camera will be a birthday present, and my birthday is the beginning of September. Hopefully I'll have something by around Labor Day.

[dickydotcom]

I think point and shoot is a bit of a misnomer these days.

The Canon230 is a compact camera yes, but it's got an 8x zoom and if you want to you can control pretty much any aspect of the picture taking.

I think it will be money well spent and if later you went onto a full blown SLR with a full frame sensor you Cannon would still be worth having as something to carry around in a pocket.

As someone once said, "The best camera is the one you have with you."

Dick D

[hari317]

A good powershot for pen and nib photos is the SX150IS. Closest focusing distance, just 1cm

[pen2paper]

I have started reading about cameras and I am seeing a pretty high learning curve. It should be fun though. I am hoping to go a a camera shop tomorrow and be able to see some things in person. ...

 

 

Time in a camera shop, asking questions, detailing your intentions for use, and level of comprehension is , imho, a wise step. Some equipment is easier to use. I'm not sure about current models but Nikon once had some very user friendly models. It reads as though you wish to be able to set about taking shots with ease, not consulting a thick manual for multiple step details. Note: not necessarily recommending Nikon, just using as an example.

 

 

 

 

[mdbrown]

I think point and shoot is a bit of a misnomer these days.

The Canon230 is a compact camera yes, but it's got an 8x zoom and if you want to you can control pretty much any aspect of the picture taking.

I think it will be money well spent and if later you went onto a full blown SLR with a full frame sensor you Cannon would still be worth having as something to carry around in a pocket.

As someone once said, "The best camera is the one you have with you."

Dick D

 

Actually I think learning curve is more of a misnomer nowadays. With the DSLR cameras on the market today they will do everything for you if you want them to, even among the "prosumer" and mid-range pro cameras. The difference though, is that as your knowledge and experience grows the DSLR can accommodate your new knowledge and skill. As you reach a certain point in proficiency pocket cameras, no matter how good, will be your limitation. Not so with a DSLR.

 

In my experience a point and shoot camera is analogous to a laptop. It does a lot of things well but it masters nothing and what you get when you buy it is all there is so if you outgrow it your only option is to replace it. A DSLR is your desktop, it is generally far more powerful and typically as about as expandable as your wallet so that it can grow with you. Even the best of the point and shoot cameras still have that tiny sensor and produce grainy low light shots and far too much noise reduction and in camera processing. Other than size and initial cost I see no benefit in point and shoot cameras except for the casual picture taker.

[cavey]

That's exactly why I went with Pentax. My dad had an MX and a few lenses that he gave me, and with my Pentax DSLR I use those old manual lenses all the time. Nothing beats the SMC Pentax-M 50mm ƒ/1.4.

Pentax cameras also tend to be less expensive than Canon and Nikon, especially if you go in the used department.

 

Hmmmmmmm, takumar 50mm f/1.4 <3 <3

Use it almost exclusively on my canon 450d body. Somehow the old glass looks way better than the new glass. Not as sharp, but more character. Warmer colours, and more fun to too (also using my dad's old 135mm 3.5 takumar and a raynox 28mm 2.8 lens, flares easily, but has become a favourite after mastering its idiosyncracies )

 

Sorry for slightly off-topicness, reusing old lenses is fun

[radellaf]

@mdbrown

The 1/1.8" sensors in the prosumer cameras aren't grainy any more. Even ISO400 is pretty clean, and at 100 you have to pixel-peep to see a difference. In good light, small sensors do a great job now. Process RAW in ACR and no excessive processing either.

 

But, sure, for $$$ you can get a full frame with nice ISO1600 images and a macro lens that can capture small areas without having to be only 1cm away.

Really different beasts in so many ways.

 

BTW I love using laptops. Upgrade every 4 years and I never want for performance or features. If you are into 3D gaming OTOH...

Edited August 20, 2012 by radellaf

[ticoun]

That's exactly why I went with Pentax. My dad had an MX and a few lenses that he gave me, and with my Pentax DSLR I use those old manual lenses all the time. Nothing beats the SMC Pentax-M 50mm ƒ/1.4.

Pentax cameras also tend to be less expensive than Canon and Nikon, especially if you go in the used department.

 

Hmmmmmmm, takumar 50mm f/1.4 <3 <3

Use it almost exclusively on my canon 450d body. Somehow the old glass looks way better than the new glass. Not as sharp, but more character. Warmer colours, and more fun to too

It's because of the slight yellowing of the Thorium glass elements. If you ever want to make it sharper leave it exposed to bright sunlight for a couple of days and the yellowing will disappear.

[cavey]

Nah, I like to keep that warm hue Also "built in soft focus" due to a fungus attack many years ago. Besides, pp on the whitebalance usually filters out the yellow tones.

[radellaf]

WB is such an "easy" (usually) correction in photoshop (or alt) that I often wonder why it's such a priority for one button access. Shooting RAW is getting popular since memory cards are fast enough to make it non-obnoxious (vs say my Sony DSC-F828 that took I think 8 sec per, to a 1GB micro drive), and is available even on a lot of non-interchangeable lens cameras.

Multiple colors of light is the pain (sun on one side, incandescent on the other)... I know the iPhone 4S is supposed to try to correct that but it often fails. Not sure photoshop has any auto feature to help.

For pen photos I usually ignore it. If there's a blueish and orange ish specular reflection on a clip or nib, it can actually add interest.