[Closed] Photography types. Please recommend me a camera for...

I'm not very clued up on the latest micro 4/3rds etc, but I tend to find the only way to get nice indoor pictures of my family without horrid inbuilt flash is a fast prime (no zoom) lens on a DSLR with good high iso performance.

Something like a 550D with a 50 1.8 isn't too bad to lug around and if you teach your wife to just use P mode (mostly auto) and set the ISO to auto, she'll have no problem using it.

My son…

[img] [/img]

I've got a 5D for work use but I can't always bring that home, now that's nice but deffo not what you're looking for 🙂

A higher quality compact (eg. Canon S95/S100) will get you decent results. Not every time, but when you get it right pics can be mistaken for DSLR pics.
Such a simple camera to use too - but with decent manual settings if you know how to use them.

I'd look at the Nikon 1 system (J1 or V1) it's designed for your needs. It was ludicrously expensive when released so they didn't sell any, but they've just knocked 60% off the price and now it's a bargain.

The Nikon is the only compact system that offers fast autofocus that will track moving targets - children.

Fuji X1, has a fantastic point and shoot mode as well as being totally manual if required. World class build quaility and proper camera looks. Love mine.

Nice photo Gary!

I'd suggest having a look at some reviews at DPreview.com

If you want something to pick-up and snap with, then as you say, not a DSLR ... I'd also go as far to say "not a 4/3" either. The main different being that DSLR has a mirror movement, where a 4/3 does not. I'd plump for a Bridge Camera.

You also need to remember that a DLSR or 4/3 are designed to be used ideally in a "Manual" mode. When I first got my DSLR, and even shooting on Auto, I was disappointed with the shots. They are designed to be post-processed on a computer. Crop, straighten, adjust levels etc.

The modern bridge cameras do all of this for you. Granted it's based on how the camera thinks you want the image to look. But if you choose a preset, for portrait, landscape, night, sport etc ... it makes the necessary adjustments.

Watch out for using 4/3 when you mean m4/3. They're different systems. 4/3 is a small slr complete with mirror. m4/3 is the mirrorless system.

4/3 is obsolete though, so could be worth a look second-hand.

None of the mirrorless systems, including bridge cameras will autofocus well on a moving target (except the Nikon 1).

LenHankie - Member

..taking decent pictures of the kids. I'm fed up with all our photos being a series of blurred images captured several seconds after the ideal shot I had in mind.

Anmy decent compact should be doing better than this, no need for DSLR or £250 budget at all IMO.

I'd definitely investigate the Nikon J1 and V1 - available for £269 with 2 lenses now I think (after Nikon cashback).

But otherwise I would look for a very wide aperture (f2 or wider), wide angle lens (24mm equivalent or wider) compact like those found on the Lumix LX5 or LX7 Canon S95 or S100. There are a few others too.

It's possible that the Sony DSC-RX100 has fallen into your price range, but maybe not - worth looking.

Basically, you want to avoid built-in flash if possible, so getting a camera which can take photos in the lowest light possible, is the main difference these cameras can make.

Unfortunately, I've yet to find a compact that takes photos 'instantly'. So worth investigating shutter lag in all these models.

[url= http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/eng/pages/second-hand-stock.cfm ]2nd hand Calumet [/url]

Get an older model dslr and a 28mm or 50mm lens and start snapping

Same old, same old recommending my own camera, but my Sony SLT A55 with a 50mm f1.7 is no bigger than a bridge and takes great portraits.

Compact due to a translucent (rather than flip up) mirror, but a full DSLR in every other sense. And it takes old Minolta glass, hence the wonderful and cheap Minolta 50 f1.7 it wears most of the time. The A55 is discontinued so I'd bet you can pick up a good second hand one for not much money, then ebay for the lens.

Gear of the Year in DP

[b]Best budget DSLR [/b]
Nikon D3200
or Canon 650D
[b]Best Full frame[/b]
Nikon D600
[b]Mid-range[/b]
Sony SLT A65
or
Canon EOS 7D
[b]Loads o Money[/b]
Canon EOS 5D Mkiii
or
Nikon D800
[b]Best CSC[/b]
Olypus PEN-PL5
[b]Best Compact[/b]
Fuji X10

Which ones (or one) costs less than the OP's max budget of £300? 😉

Anmy decent compact should be doing better than this

But you missed…

especially indoors or in limited light (which is pretty much 24/7 at the moment.)

Even a mid-range DSLR sucks in these conditions without a very expensive fast zoom, or limiting yourself to a prime lens. In my pic above, I was probably shooting at ISO1600 (bearable noise performance on a 550D) and probably at 1.8 (only top end compacts allow for that), and still battling 1/50 shutter speeds. And he wasn't even moving.

something with face detection, it's defiantly going to help unless your kids are pig ugly and the camera has trouble picking their faces up

What Alexsimon suggested.

I reckon you want a compact with a wide aperture like the Panasonic lx5/7 Olympus xz1 etc.

Just be sure to check how the aperture varies throughout the zoom range. A lot of them only hold a wide aperture at the wide angle position. As soon as you zoom, it closes up. My P300 is 1.8 at it's wide angle, but even the slightest zoom sees it close up. At full zoom it ends up at 5.6 or something.

You need a surprising amount of light to get a fast shutter speed. Indoor situations generally aren't well enough lit to enable high shutter speeds.

When looking at a particular camera, also look at it's high ISO performance, as thus will help you get higher shutter speeds, but will increase the noise levels...

[i]Which ones (or one) costs less than the OP's max budget of £300?[/i]

Hmm.. that'd be none of them!

I reckon a 650D with a 40mm pancake prime would be brilliant Family camera but £££ 🙂

Probably get my suggestion for £300

I've got a Fujifilm compact with an EXR sensor. When it is in EXR mode, if you point it at a person it detects a face and goes into portrait mode, if it is close to something it goes into macro mode, so basically you don't have to select the 'scene selection' it does it for you. Like having 'auto' mode but better 😀

Get a light weight cheap slr and a decent (again no need to be heavy) fast prime lens, 50mm f1.8 or so will do. They start around the £200 mark and are quite small and fairly light weight. Don't be put off my the features and manual options, they make it much easier to use IMO.

SLR's have fast on/off and no shutter lag (or very very minimal shutter lag). I've yet to try a compact that does not suffer from shutter lag (time taken between pressing the shutter and capturing the image).

50mm indoors is a bit long for general indoor pics of the kids I'd have thought, unless the OP has large living spaces or only wants head/shoulder shots.

75mm equivalent on a crop sensor...

[i]Get a light weight cheap slr and a decent (again no need to be heavy) fast prime lens[/i]... [i]around the £200 mark [/i]

Suggest a specific camera & lens? I might be interested in that, if such a thing exists!

[url= http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sony-Alpha-A200-10-2-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Black-/300840247359?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item460b79e03f ]Sony a200 £149 + £7.50 postage[/url]
[url= http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Minolta-AF-50mm-f-1-7-Lens-For-Sony-/121046680857?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1c2ef1c519 ]Minolta 50mm f1.7 £70 + £8 postage[/url]

You could get both for less easily enough.

As it's a Sony you get in body stabilisation too.

I've got the Panasonis LX3. Not sure what the latest version is, LX7 I think. It's great indoors without a flash. There's a dial on the top to pop it into auto mode. takes great picture and there's room to have a play with the setting if you want to get creative. Fits in a pocket, too.

5thElefant - Member

Which ones (or one) costs less than the OP's max budget of £300?

You know you always go in a shop, be it bike or gadget, with a budget of £300 and spend £600.

Me i'd buy this [url= http://www.procamerashop.co.uk/canon-eos-650d-digital-slr-18-55mm-is-ii-kit.html?gclid=CPCy9sDE27QCFQ7LtAodJjEAfA ]CANON[/url] £437

[url= http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-8-II-Lens-/221173677921?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item337efa7f61 ]50mm lens ebay ideal for crop sensor poraiture[/url]
[url= http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_nkw=canon+40d&_frs=1 ]Random canon 40d ebay[/url]

The 650D is -way- more camera than you need. But if you do decide to go Canon, there's a cashback offer running on some models atm.

http://www.canon.co.uk/wintercashback/

I am a photographer [url= http://www.flannol.com/photography ](proof)[/url]

Reading a few replies here compelled me to create an account and reply.

I suggest you buy an [b]SLR[/b]. Not a 'high end compact' or 4/3rds camera. Get an SLR. The 'bottom end' canon/nikon SLRs are incredible these days.

I didn't want to get technical but it's important you understand the technicalities of why it is happening......
Your pictures are blurry because you are trying to do something wich exceeds the capabilities of your camera. It is trying to compensate for this by opening the shutter for longer, which means that the shake of your hand, or the movement of your child, becomes a factor. Unfortunately SLRs [b]still have[/b] these constraints: While an SLR's low light capabilities are going to be a lot better than your current camrea, it is still going to get to the point where it is restricted in the same way your current camera is: by your lens's maximum aperture (which is the hole, or 'aperture', inside the lens can only open so wide, letting in only so much amount of light). This is where, as people are mentioning, buying a 'fast' 'prime' lens comes in, because the standard (…cheap) lenses you get with SLRs in fact have similar maximum aperture constraints as your current point&shoot camera - they're great for bright daylight use but not great for low light.

Two things to note: A prime lens means that it is only one focal length - you can't zoom in or out... you have to physically move. Most prime lenses are also quite 'zoomed', (not very wide angled), unless you spend incredible amounts of money you can't really get around that one. ‘Fast’ is referring to the size of the aperture, a ‘fast’ lens means that the aperture hole is large – letting in a lot more light.

If you buy a Canon SLR I’d recommend this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B00005K47X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357743177&sr=8-1

If you buy a Nikon SLR I’d recommend you buy this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-35mm-f1-8G-Lens/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1357743184&sr=8-10

They are both prime (the canon is zoomed to 50mm, and the Nikon to 35mm – which gives you a wider, more natural angle)
They are both fast – f1.8 lets in a hell of a lot more light than the standard lens that will come with your SLR & the lens that is on your current camera.

All SLRs in the price range you are looking at perform exactly the same way as your current point and shoot camera does – fully automatically. You just point and click. The only difference being, you’re doing it with a much higher quality camera. You don’t have to be scared just because they are ‘professional’ cameras.

Can I suggest (once you have your SLR, otherwise it’ll not make much sense) you watch this video – it’s just basic rundown on proper focusing technique – something which will also really help you get better pictures of people who don’t like to sit still! 😉

http://digital-photography-school.com/dslr-camera-focusing-tips-for-beginners

EDIT:
Also p.s. buy [b]new[/b]. Don't buy second hand. For all you know it has had 90,000 clicks (shutter mechanisms don't last forever). Also a £300 new SLR will take better pictures than a £1,300 SLR from three years ago. Will also be [b]warrantied[/b]. Just buy new.

FFS just set the camera you have to sports mode as blurry kids seem to be the issue. That will save you learning about shutter speeds etc...

IF you WANT a DSLR get a 550D I've used them for professional jobs without issue. Best camera for the money IMO.
Throw images from 550D and 7D's in Lightroom day in and day out and you cannot tell the difference between them (I shoot both). 😀

One other thing to bear in mind; I hear on the grapevine that Jessops are about to go pop, so keep an eye out for bargains.

Reading a few replies here compelled me to create an account and reply.

Welcome aboard.

I would get the cheapest Nikon DSLR with a 35mm f1.8

or the canon equivalent.

Welcome aboard.

Thanks! Hi

Sold all my cameras and roll with a Panasonic GF1. Go anywhere do anything camera with the 20mm lens and shooting raw will give most DSLRs a run for their money.
Worth a look. Most important thing about a camera is taking it with you.
Interesting take on it
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/11/21/user-report-the-panasonic-gf1-a-landmark-camera-by-kj-vogelius/

I'd love a GF nd 20mm lens.But not for moving subjects.

I think DSLR and 35mm f1.8 lens is the best bet

But you'll need to go used to be in budget

hint the way to make sure tha camera hasn't shot 95,000 shots is to ask

I think a 50mm lens is just to zoomed in for it to be your only lens

I'd love a GF nd 20mm lens.But not for moving subjects.

Curious why you say that re moving subjects?

I am a photographer (proof)

Everyone's a photographer these days, you just need the word 'photographer' after your name 🙄

Everyone's a photographer these days, you just need the word 'photographer' after your name

I don't know. I tried to start my own photography company, but it attracted a lot of unwanted attention 🙁

.

As already suggested nikon dslr + 35mm F1.8 would be best if you are on a budget or 28mm f1.8 if you can spend a bit extra. If you can justify spending £1000+ you could get second hand full frame d700 + 35mm f2 ( this is what I use 90% of the time for family snaps)

I'm not a photographer, but I do have kids, and had the same sort of thoughts a few years ago. There are a couple of types of shot I commonly take. The posed portrait and more candid 'action' shots. I found that having an SLR with decent long lens was the best solution. I can get good posed shots with a range of cameras, but I needed decent kit and a longer lens for the rest. It is a pain to carry about but that was the price I paid.

If you can justify spending £1000+ you could get second hand full frame d700 + 35mm f2

Coincidentally, took these earlier today with a D700 and 35mm f2 lens 🙂

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

damo2575

because its contrast detect autofocus

My DSLR will lock onto a moving subject and track it as it has phase detect AF

I'll admit to not having used that exact body and lens, but I have used lots of contrast detect camera and AF tracking is poor to non existant

But please don't the wrong way I would swap my DSLR and kit lens for a GF1 and 20mm in a heart beat. I would rather have a more portable camera

In the longer term I'm hoping that the things like the latest NEX will have better Af tracking and be small

So lenhankie, that's that sorted! Go shopping 🙂

This was taken in a totally dark room, with the exception of the fishtank and laptop. OK, there is some noise on the back wall, but it was taken at ISO1600 and with the 18-55mm kit lens. With a fast prime it would have been much sharper...

[img] [/img]

And this in a very dimly lit room (note to OP - the nose is blurred due to the depth of field created by shooting at an aperture of f1.7 - I focussed on the eyes) - taken with 50mm prime (and cropped from original)

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8225/8346471999_88a0785a34_c.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8225/8346471999_88a0785a34_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8346471999/ ]DSC04146[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

Snapping kids as they run about, from close range, is rather hard, whatever camera you've got.

There are two reasons for blur. One is too slow a shutter, the other is being out of focus. If it's indoors or in low light the shutter speed will be slower so you run the risk of them moving as the shutter is open, creating blur. However, cameras also need light to focus, so focusing will be slower too.

Don't get too hung up about ISO noise either. It's not that big of a deal unless you blow the images up really big to look for it - which is silly.

Your average home printer won't even be able to print the noise anyway.

Plus, as above, the best way to get candid kid shots is with a telephoto lens. My 40-150mm is ace for that.

Thanks to everyone for the responses and recommendations. I realise I'm slightly asking for the moon on a stick here and I understand the basic principles of how a camera works as I spent a while in the 90s shooting 35mm on my dad's old Olympus OM-1 SLR, doing my own processing in the darkroom at art college etc, but since the dawn of digital I've lost track and always had a compact as I've usually been skint! I therefore get that I really should be going for a cheap DSLR as it's most suited to dealing with the low light etc, but the main reason for specifying against one was that most of the time it will be my wife using the camera as she spends most of her time with the kids. If I present her with a DSLR, I know that it will just end up sat on a shelf and never get taken anywhere as she's normally got a ton of baby paraphernalia with her anyway. I'd rather she took any camera than none at all, but I'd rather the photos weren't all phone pics! They are also mostly over my budget at the moment. Like I said, I'd love a DSLR for my own use, but I think this needs to be a separate thing.

Therefore I think the micro 4/3rds format is probably what I'm looking for . The Nikon 1 series as recommended seem promising but the small sensor compared to the competition concerns me. Photos I've seen from it look great though! Having done some more reading around, I'm now thinking something like the Lumix GF2 or Sony NEX-F3. Does anyone have any thoughts on these or their competitors? I see the GF1 seems highly rated by a few here ( I think the GF2 is the replacement?).

Some lovely photos up there by the way!

Thanks

Either m4/3 or Nex are significantly better if you're taking photos of static, or predictably moving subjects. The Nikon will be better on erratic moving subjects - it was designed for "socccer moms". The others are designed for camera nerds.

Be aware that the old m4/3 use an ancient sensor. The newer Olympus m4/3 use Sony sensors so are close to matching the Nex cameras.

GF2 was generally considered less good than the GF1. The GF1 became the GX1.

I would really urge you look at Nikon. Its the only copmact with blazing fast AF. Its sensor is as good as older micro fourthirds like the GF1.

The Nikon J1 will work really well for your wife and be a brilliant biking camera and is cheap at the moment. Under £300 new.

Get into Jessops while its still open. The J1 is dirt cheap now and as you will see when you try it it will focus really fast and folow a moving subjet. Or look at the V1 the same thing with a view finder

GF1 with 14-45kit zoom (the one with the metal lens mount)?
hasn't even filled the card since I have owned it for £220 inc post (and the 8gb card)

The Nikon 1 series as recommended seem promising but the small sensor compared to the competition concerns me

Are you going to download the images and zoom all the way in looking for imperfections? If not, they it'll be just perfect. If you are then stop it!

i'm using a olympus epm1, whilst its a bit quirky, its very small when combined with an excellent panasonic 20mm F1.7 and thats the good thing about the olympus you have a wider choice of lens than other m4/3.
the newer more expensive olympus m4/3 look great, same sensor as higher range models. the olympus also have image stabilisation in the body

thats the good thing about the olympus you have a wider choice of lens than other m4/3.

Bit of a moot point seing as m4/3 lenses from all the manufacturers (Panasonic, Olympus, voightlander, sigma, SLRmagic) fit all the m4/3 bodies no matter who makes them.

of course i know that but worded my post wrong, i meant compared to sony nex and nikon system lens, cba to do a cheeky post edit

Yes. The lens range is extensive, the lenses on the sony's are a bit porky too.

I thought the Panny lenses didn't work quite as well on Oly bodies? I think I remember reading that the Panasonic lenses have quite a bit of barrel distortion that they correct in-body?

Peterfile, that was ace 🙂

I've done a bit more looking, and I'm very tempted buy the GF1 and a 20mm lens, which I've found new for about £266. I know it's the older model, but I do like the physical control wheel for choosing between shooting modes over the GF2 and also that it''s a bit chunkier and heavier than the NIkon and GF2. Seems to be very well liked and images look good. (I know I said it needed to be small but it still is in comparison to a DSLR). It just feels like a quality piece of kit. Lens interchangeability also appeals over the Nikon and Sony NEX's.

Having said that, the NIkon J1 seemed tempting and John Lewis have it at £199 as it's just been superceded. I guess I thought that small sensor would mean it would struggle in low light and therefore be slow. This is where my limited knowledge shows me up...

molgrips - Member
The Nikon 1 series as recommended seem promising but the small sensor compared to the competition concerns me
Are you going to download the images and zoom all the way in looking for imperfections? If not, they it'll be just perfect. If you are then stop it!

No - I'm not doing this!

Also, yes, LOL at Peterfile. 😀

 

This gives some details about a GF1/J1 comparision (the site aggregates data from other website's reviews)
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-J1-vs-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GF1

Shutter lag was the figure that jumped out at me, from your earlier requirements.

I'd bite off MrSmith's hand ^^^ That's a bargain for a hardly used GF1. Quite tempted myself!

Where did you find a Gf1 and 20mm for £266

bargain at that price!!!

I thought the Panny lenses didn't work quite as well on Oly bodies? I think I remember reading that the Panasonic lenses have quite a bit of barrel distortion that they correct in-body?

never really noticed barrel distortion but photoshop can correct that. i have noticed some vignetting in the corners on certain pics, but again can be corrected in photoshop but really aint that bad or needed on many pictures, the benefits of this lens far outweigh the minor negatives.

fwiw i got the panny 20mm 1.7 really cheap on argos outlet, but this was yonks ago so probably not on there now.

[url= http://tedtechs.com/panasonic-dmc-gf1-black-with-lumix-g-20mm-lens-kit?keyword=dmc-gf1&category_id=0 ]Lumix GF-1/ 20mm kit[/url]

[url= http://www.webutation.net/go/review/tedtechs.com# ]clicky clicky fraud alert on Teds Tech.....[/url]

Too good to be true!

Afraid so. Phishing warning, prices that good you put card details into buy, transaction fails but you already have given them your card details. Next day a heap of cash vanishes from your account. Or so the clicky link told me, that an the too good to be true prices.

coolhandluke - Member

clicky clicky fraud alert on Teds Tech.....

Too good to be true!

Afraid so. Phishing warning, prices that good you put card details into buy, transaction fails but you already have given them your card details. Next day a heap of cash vanishes from your account. Or so the clicky link told me, that an the too good to be true prices.

Thanks for this - Phew! It did seem absurdly cheap compared to anywhere else!. Still undecided then...