and please use their services
Beginner mother in law is after a camera, which one??
- Thread starter Damo88
- Start date
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can recommend you try to explain what "is greta mega pixels" means. It's the first thing you mentioned so presumably it's important, but what does it mean???
- Messages
- 929
- Name
- Maarten
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Presumably she wants a camera with a high megapixel count.
The Sony RX100 MkI would fit the bill with 20 megapixels and excellent image quality.
The only drawback is that it doesn't have an EVF so you need to compose & shoot using the rear screen.
The Sony RX100 MkI would fit the bill with 20 megapixels and excellent image quality.
The only drawback is that it doesn't have an EVF so you need to compose & shoot using the rear screen.
OP
- Messages
- 286
- Name
- Damen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
sorry I meant great, as in high megapixels
- Messages
- 41,868
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Very strange definition of what makes a camera great.
Although as she "doesn't want a DSLR or anything" I'm unsure how to help. If she doesn't want anything, then she must want nothing.
- Messages
- 29
- Name
- Shams
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi, I would suggest a decent compact camera that fits in your budget.
Lots of pros and cons to look at.
I'd probably echo the recommendation of the Sony RX100... but also have a read around the Canon Powershot or Nikon Coolpix ranges, which will be suitable if she just wants basic/general use without a great deal of manual settings.
Have a read of:
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-cheap-cameras-2016-1325474
Lots of pros and cons to look at.
I'd probably echo the recommendation of the Sony RX100... but also have a read around the Canon Powershot or Nikon Coolpix ranges, which will be suitable if she just wants basic/general use without a great deal of manual settings.
Have a read of:
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-cheap-cameras-2016-1325474
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
More Mega-Pixels does not more photo-make.
I have some great photo's taken with a cheap 1.3Mpix lensless compact of millenia vintage, and I STILL have to re-size the images down to less than 1Mpix for 99% of all display purposes.
The 24Mpix of my DSLR was impressive when I got it half a decade ago; but? Same time I got that digi-compact I bought a dedicated 35mm film scanner, that gave me far more than more mega-pixies than almost any digital SLR could for a decade; about 10Mpix; it also delivered 48bit colour depth, and I still don't get all the 'resolution' a 35mm SLR can deliver, with mega-scans up to perhaps 100Mpix..... not that I can make much use of it....
For most web-display, up-load limits image size to under 1000pixies on the wide side, so under 1Mpix. Because few display monitors have enough pixels to display at 1:1 pixie resolution, so can only display a bit of a picture or the display has to re-size to fit the pixies it has anyway. Meanwhile a lot of over-the-counter reproduction, whether photo-prints, or photo mugs or key-rings and 'stuff', are set up to work from web-size images, and it's not until you start trying to make competition or proffessional submissions, that the pixie count starts to become particularly crucial, and you are likely to ever want much more than maybe 8-10Mpix, for a pretty large scale, as in 10x8" wall print.
Which is to burst the bubble of sales-babble, a bit.
The 'best' camera is first the one you have with you.... then the one you actually know how to use, whilst better photographers take better photo's NOT subjectivelt better cameras, where more Mega-pixies isn't necesserily 'better'.
The Digi-camera market has polarised in the last ten years with the advancement of the phone-cam, which now often offers a more than 'acceptable quality level' as far as image quality potential, and which most folk will have with them, as its a 'phone. For the non-enthusiast snap-shot market, these are now very sophisticated bits of kit, and some challenge higher end dedicated cameras both for IQ and 'enthusiast features' like variable ISO, rather than being a cheap bolt on gimmick, they were a few years ago.
This then begs suggestion that a dedicated camera may not be the best choice, but a camera-phone or 'phone upgrade, may better suit.
Popularity of the camera phone has dumbelled the camera market, and with so many 'good' snap-shot cameras now in phones, the bottom end of the market has shrunk away from 'better' cameras into ever cheaper ones, less likely to deliver the 'better photo's your in-law hopes for.... which remain in the eye of the camera holder, not the camera they hold,
More seriouse 'dedicated' enthusiast cameras have then pushed further up the market, with DSLR's starting now at often under £300, leaving little room for 'cheaper' compacts; about the only one of not really is the Cannon snap-shot, at around £200, which is pretty useful but not far off the price of much better entry level Bridge or entry level DSLR's.
Bridge cameras are squashed into a market between around £100 & £300 where they are almost but not quite an entry level DSLR, and as cumbersome to carry and use...
Then there are Compact System Cameras or 'Mirror less' that are often more expensive that a DSLR and as convoluted and involved to learn to use.
My suggestion is to 1/ ditch notions of more mega-pixies meaning better photo's. 2/ Talk through what they really want to use camera for.
Entry Level DSLR's are fantastic bits of kit these days, and reletively very very good VFM. they are also incredibly easy to use; with auto-focus and auto-exposure, on 'green-box' they are as point and shoot freindly as anything, you could hand one to a four year old and they could get good pictures with it. But, read the manual, work on making a better photographer, rather than expecting the camera to do it all for you, learn what the different auto-modes are for, where and when they would be better to use, and how; read up on the manual modes and what they can do for you, and learn how to handle the camera, THEN the sky is pretty much the limit, and that is exactly what these things have been designed for... to get Beginners Going and taking better photographs... but 99% of it IS still in the photographer and reading that manual, and learning how to get the best from the camera... without that... you are wasting your money on pretty much anything, as NO camera will take better photo's if the person holding it doesn't know what they are doing. So if they want to get 'in# to it, go DSLR at the entry level; and start with green-box point and press.
If not? Think hard, WHY not.
A bridge may be cheaper; but is almost as cumbersome and no more likely to take better pictures, especially if its left at home or in the car because its awkward to carry. A CSC may be great, and more easily slipped in a pocket, but unless even more time is spent learning to get the best out of it, likely miss even more shots prodding buttons trying to make it work. A compact? Can be in the pocket, and can be easy enough to use, but STILL, its knowing how to use it that counts, and the cheaper ones probably wont deliver to expectation and or will still demand the learning to get it.
Which brings us back to the camera-phone..... if they can be bothered to learn, they can do fantastic things with one.... if not, wont matter how much money you spend on a camera... at least with a camera phone they'll probably still be able to call some-one who can tell them!
I have some great photo's taken with a cheap 1.3Mpix lensless compact of millenia vintage, and I STILL have to re-size the images down to less than 1Mpix for 99% of all display purposes.
The 24Mpix of my DSLR was impressive when I got it half a decade ago; but? Same time I got that digi-compact I bought a dedicated 35mm film scanner, that gave me far more than more mega-pixies than almost any digital SLR could for a decade; about 10Mpix; it also delivered 48bit colour depth, and I still don't get all the 'resolution' a 35mm SLR can deliver, with mega-scans up to perhaps 100Mpix..... not that I can make much use of it....
For most web-display, up-load limits image size to under 1000pixies on the wide side, so under 1Mpix. Because few display monitors have enough pixels to display at 1:1 pixie resolution, so can only display a bit of a picture or the display has to re-size to fit the pixies it has anyway. Meanwhile a lot of over-the-counter reproduction, whether photo-prints, or photo mugs or key-rings and 'stuff', are set up to work from web-size images, and it's not until you start trying to make competition or proffessional submissions, that the pixie count starts to become particularly crucial, and you are likely to ever want much more than maybe 8-10Mpix, for a pretty large scale, as in 10x8" wall print.
Which is to burst the bubble of sales-babble, a bit.
The 'best' camera is first the one you have with you.... then the one you actually know how to use, whilst better photographers take better photo's NOT subjectivelt better cameras, where more Mega-pixies isn't necesserily 'better'.
The Digi-camera market has polarised in the last ten years with the advancement of the phone-cam, which now often offers a more than 'acceptable quality level' as far as image quality potential, and which most folk will have with them, as its a 'phone. For the non-enthusiast snap-shot market, these are now very sophisticated bits of kit, and some challenge higher end dedicated cameras both for IQ and 'enthusiast features' like variable ISO, rather than being a cheap bolt on gimmick, they were a few years ago.
This then begs suggestion that a dedicated camera may not be the best choice, but a camera-phone or 'phone upgrade, may better suit.
Popularity of the camera phone has dumbelled the camera market, and with so many 'good' snap-shot cameras now in phones, the bottom end of the market has shrunk away from 'better' cameras into ever cheaper ones, less likely to deliver the 'better photo's your in-law hopes for.... which remain in the eye of the camera holder, not the camera they hold,
More seriouse 'dedicated' enthusiast cameras have then pushed further up the market, with DSLR's starting now at often under £300, leaving little room for 'cheaper' compacts; about the only one of not really is the Cannon snap-shot, at around £200, which is pretty useful but not far off the price of much better entry level Bridge or entry level DSLR's.
Bridge cameras are squashed into a market between around £100 & £300 where they are almost but not quite an entry level DSLR, and as cumbersome to carry and use...
Then there are Compact System Cameras or 'Mirror less' that are often more expensive that a DSLR and as convoluted and involved to learn to use.
My suggestion is to 1/ ditch notions of more mega-pixies meaning better photo's. 2/ Talk through what they really want to use camera for.
Entry Level DSLR's are fantastic bits of kit these days, and reletively very very good VFM. they are also incredibly easy to use; with auto-focus and auto-exposure, on 'green-box' they are as point and shoot freindly as anything, you could hand one to a four year old and they could get good pictures with it. But, read the manual, work on making a better photographer, rather than expecting the camera to do it all for you, learn what the different auto-modes are for, where and when they would be better to use, and how; read up on the manual modes and what they can do for you, and learn how to handle the camera, THEN the sky is pretty much the limit, and that is exactly what these things have been designed for... to get Beginners Going and taking better photographs... but 99% of it IS still in the photographer and reading that manual, and learning how to get the best from the camera... without that... you are wasting your money on pretty much anything, as NO camera will take better photo's if the person holding it doesn't know what they are doing. So if they want to get 'in# to it, go DSLR at the entry level; and start with green-box point and press.
If not? Think hard, WHY not.
A bridge may be cheaper; but is almost as cumbersome and no more likely to take better pictures, especially if its left at home or in the car because its awkward to carry. A CSC may be great, and more easily slipped in a pocket, but unless even more time is spent learning to get the best out of it, likely miss even more shots prodding buttons trying to make it work. A compact? Can be in the pocket, and can be easy enough to use, but STILL, its knowing how to use it that counts, and the cheaper ones probably wont deliver to expectation and or will still demand the learning to get it.
Which brings us back to the camera-phone..... if they can be bothered to learn, they can do fantastic things with one.... if not, wont matter how much money you spend on a camera... at least with a camera phone they'll probably still be able to call some-one who can tell them!
