Compact Camera Recommendations

[coolman298]

So I tired posting this in the computer sub forum and did not receive any replies so I'm reposting here.

I recently went to a Convention and my friend lent me their Sony A6000 and I had a ton of fun taking photos with it. It was really compact and easy to use.
I was thinking of buying one, but I wanted to see if anyone had an experience with it or other cameras that might be cheaper, better quality or better in some other way.

So far I found:
https://www.amazon.com/ILCE-6000L-Di...rds=Sony+A6000
https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC...rds=lumix+gx85

I would mostly use it for conventions and nature shots while sightseeing.
I also have zero experience with photography.

[Strawberry]

Do you intend on actually learning more about the camera or just want to snap photos on auto mode?
If you want auto mode, stick to a phone with a good camera like Apple/Samsung and probably the best - Google Pixel. Imo phones make better auto pictures than cameras.

[freezion]

I rock a A6000 myself, and it's a great camera.
But an important thing to remember is that a camera is no better than the glass you strap on it.

The kit lens is fine for the point-and-shoot style of photography.

The sony A6XXX series is among the most compact DSLM cameras, and it packs an APSC size sensor where other competitors sports a MFT sensor (Micro 4/3).
The bigger sensor means that the pictures has a bigger field of view/frame, and lets in more light making things sharper and more detailed, as well making post-production easier (if pictures are taken in RAW).

whether you ''need'' the APSC size sensor is questionable unless you plan on getting more lenses to work with.
But the A6000 is a nice camera, both for casual use, and you can keep on using it if you want to improve your photography.

The sony DSLM system are in general considered the best DSLMs on the market.
There is some conveniences like touch screens and 360 rotatable screens that it doesn't have (flip screen instead), but it never really bothered me.

Alternatively take a peak at the A5000 series as they are more compact and still have interchangeable lenses.
Its more consumer friendly, and the screen has touch. but it doesn't have a seeker; it only has the screen.
It has a value kit as well where you get the 16-50mm and 55-210mm lens.

Samples:
Kit lens picture


Picture with a 16mm 1.4 lens, taken at 2 AM


EDIT: Gosh darn hosting websites are compressing picture quality a bit

[Prinky Doodsie]

In case you're still looking, may I say that Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II is something to look into as well.

[vindicatorx]

Is Google broken? Not hard to find out from professionals what the best point and shoot cameras are.

[Strawberry]

I have seen the Huawei P20 Pro make INCREDIBLE pictures just this last weekend. I was sitting there with my Nikon D3400 with a $250 lens and cried a little inside.

You're probably not using your D3400 right, that's a great entry level DSLR

But yeah, for compact photography either a high end phone or that Sony is fine as well for landscape/street photography.

[Strawberry]

It was in the late evening, and I've noticed before that especially the older (and even more so crop format) sensors have a lot more trouble in low light situations than what came out during the last few years. I can do what I want - from ISO 800 onwards it's all grain and no fun (unless downscaling to mitigate is an option). The phone however spat out images that looked like it was daytime and they were smooth as silk.

It is because P20 cameras have 1.8/1.4 aperture, that is pretty damn wide. Such wide aperture take in a lot of light and you can dial down ISO to get less noise.
I don't know what lens you use on your D3400, but it probably is around 3.5 at widest which is fine but a few steps darker than 1.8/1.4.
This is why I say, if you want to shoot auto, use a phone

[unbound]

If you really want to get into digital photography equipment, I would recommend reading up on the subject a bit more before dropping that kind of money.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/95...le-lens-camera

[Strawberry]

1/1.8 in my case. (The Nikkor 35mm, a really great lens for its price imho.) I had a look at the EXIF from the phone's picture and it said ISO was around 1800 or something iirc. My camera would be quite grainy with that setting.

If hand-held holiday pictures from the hip are the goal then the phone is definitely the better choice, alone for its amazing software that even does auto tracking for longer exposures and such. I've not yet seen a system camera be able to have you shoot a crisp 4 second(!) exposure in hand. That's even hard with a tripod on a somewhat windy day =)

I'm not saying you're lying, but I need to see to believe that 4 second crisp handheld exposure
I haven't even seen P20 in reality so I can't tell if it's capable of doing that. Technically it would be impossible to capture a 4 second exposure photo that is both handheld and crisp. Maybe all that AI they advertise does have some use.
But it has to have some insane stabilization coupled with being able to freeze objects like trees from being affected by the wind while at the same time allowing other things to move (like water).
Unless you want to freeze everything for say, night sky shots. But then I don't think image stabilization that good will exist in the next 10+ years.

Why do you use high ISO with an f1.8 lens? Are you actually using f1.8 or going smaller aperture which makes everything darker?
I have two f4 lenses and one f2.8 and I think they are good enough.

[Strawberry]

@Strawberry

It was from a German Amazon review. I'll admit that the pictures there are rather small to rate sharpness with any kind of accuracy, but I wouldn't have been able to produce the the image in question with a phone by far, even at that size. Amazon sadly doesn't provide means to hotlink images, so here is the full review. The relevant text quote that refers to this specific image is:



From the rest of the article it sounded like someone with some experience with cameras, and not just phones.

I don't think this will work as well with objects moving within the frame, of course. That would be insane. But simply not having to carry a tripod for sharp, presentable pictures from the night at the beach bar without using a flash is rather neat, imho. Doesn't have to be as extreme as 4s. I've had terribly shaky photos with 1/50 or 1/100 that were beyond what photoshop could have made "acceptable".


As for the case with my camera: I'm a fool. It's the D5200. Here is a (not so great) shot by me with ISO 800. Look at that ceiling. Yikes. And that one here is what horrors ISO 4000 produced. Both were made with the 18-55mm Nikkor kit lens, both at 1/3.5, but the second one was also exposed for a whopping 1/8!
It might just be that the D5400 has a that much better sensor than the D5200, and that's where our confusion comes from. But I haven't used the D5400 yet and can't really comment on that factually.

I'm looking at the night photo (the others are definitely not long exposure photos) and at 4 second exposure the water should be a lot smoother. In fact, if you look at it further away (closer to the building) the water is quite a bit more smoother than closer to the photographer.
I don't think it's a river's current (looks like a small lake or a pond) and probably some heavy software correction by the phone. Also the tree branch to the left is very blurry, while the one to the right is not.
It is a bit of a mess but still pretty amazing by phone standards, especially if handheld.
No one with a P20 Pro can chip in here? XD

Yeah your photos look very noisy. Some of them can be fixed in Lightroom but some are too noisy and you would lose detail. But since you used f3.5 which is rather bright and 1/8th second with high ISO, that place must've been REALLY dark. I mean, it's a camera, not a magic wand , you can only do as much without using flash.
You seem to have knowledge in exposure and know how shutter speed, aperture and iso affect each other, but maybe you know that instead of rising iso, you should give the exposure wheel a try?
I haven't used Nikon a lot. I had a D3200 which I gave away and I know it was not good at high ISO. But back then I used it only to auto shoot jpg. I currently have Sony A7R III and that is a monster of a camera especially at low light. However I mostly shoot macro pictures so a flash is something I never go out without even if it's sunny outside.

[Strawberry]

That's what I came to understand as well: A good chunk of the "camera's" capabilities are achieved through really crazy software trickery. They even somehow manage to use the three fixed length lenses (one of which is even just b/w) in such a way that they come amazingly close to emulating an optical zoom.


It was in a church (Cologne Dom), so a tripod and/or flash was not an option at all. And in a particularly dark corner. (I'm amazed that the 1/8 pic came out this sharp!) What you've seen was already tweaked in LR as much as I was comfortable with. Balancing NR with countering blurriness and maintaining details all at the same time is hard. I probably need a bit more practice there.


I might just do that. I haven't bothered with exposure so much so far, since I just assumed that it's not doing more than LR would when pulling exposure up there on a RAW. Shutter speed seems to me to be the only way to regulate "photon intake" aside from aperture, but I might be mistaken. I'll play around with that!

The Sony Alpha series is something I am drooling all over since it came out. Especially for their low-light performance! But they are waaaaay out of budget for my on-and-off hobbyist use, even the smaller/older versions. I would treat myself one if I wasn't still hunting for a house to buy =) But they are soooo yummy. Damn.

It's always better to adjust settings in the camera rather than Lightroom.
As a macro photographer, I have tons of issues with camera shaking, especially when it's windy outside. I usually shoot at 1/200 or 1/250 shutter speed. I can't always be arsed with a tripod, it's too clunky. Also, I have to use f16 or narrower aperture and as lowest iso as possible because I need to avoid noise. With all those settings, the camera sees nothing even when it's noon and sunny outside.
When shooting handheld, the safest way to avoid blurryness is to use the shutter speed relative to your focal length. So if you're using 55mm, set your shutter speed to 1/60th. But if you're not shaky, I think that 1/20 is also fine.

[Strawberry]

@Strawberry
Those settings sound like simulating an array of ND filters in-camera, indeed . I haven't done much actual macro myself, but this explains why I have seen it usually done under a plethora of studio lighting. Almost like ultra-high framerate filming.
I bought a monopod some time ago because of tripods being so unwieldy, but that wasn't the solution either. In cases you need a pod it's not enough, and where it would suffice you can almost always shoot in hand just as well. Meh. Sadly, I don't have the most stable limbs and often try to get to 1/100, better 1/250 when shooting in hand and rather accept some more noise. At least for stuff in portrait range, landscapes are much more forgiving in wide field. At 1/20 I would need to make 30 shots and hope one of them was at a lucky moment. If I unpack my 300mm zoom I often can't get much slower than 1/1000 to get crisp enough results. That's also why I'm so turned on by cameras that do well at high ISO.

Honestly, I think I will do less macro photography. My pictures sometimes disgust even myself and very few people enjoy my pictures
Unfortunately, Sweden doesn't have any dramatic landscapes where I live. The nearest waterfall is some 450km from me. Very little to photograph besides street and some architecture.

[coolman298]

Oh wow!! I completely forgot about this thread. Sorry to everyone that posted to help me.
To answer some questions.
I plan on using auto mode at first just to get the hang of the camera, but I do plan and want to learn more about the camera I buy so I can use it to it's full potential.
I already have Galaxy S8 if I just need some quick shots.
I these are the cameras I am currently deciding between.
Also not sure if I will buy more lens, but also don't know if would ever need any others.

Olympus Mark II:
https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Mirro...mark+ii+camera
Sony A6000:
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorle...rds=sony+a6000
Panasonic Lumix GX85:
https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-12-...ix%2Bgx85&th=1

While I don't have a budget per se; I would like to spend less, therefore I am leaning towards the Olympus Mark II.
Hope anyone has some last advice for me.
I mostly likely be buying it by the end of the week.

PS.
The Olympus I linked has the option for a 14-42mm EZ lens and a 14-42mm IIR lens. What's the difference?

[Aitch]

Only pocket cameras worth buying I’d say is the fujifilm x100f or the sony rx100.

[coolman298]

Is there anything about those cameras that make them stand out make them better than the three i was looking at?

[Fluttershy]

Do you intend on actually learning more about the camera or just want to snap photos on auto mode?
If you want auto mode, stick to a phone with a good camera like Apple/Samsung and probably the best - Google Pixel. Imo phones make better auto pictures than cameras.

camera phones are dogshit in every sense of the word. they are purely useless outside of 100% still images in good lighting. A convention does not have any area where you can take a non-shit picture unless you go outside in the sun and take photos of all the people hanging out.

Dont even try taking or recording videos from the main panel and if you're not on the 3rd row, enjoy getting a blurry mess. I've been to 3 comic cons and every single time with a camera phone(flagships) and each time it was pure trash, I just let other people with real cameras take the pics.

if you just want to take selfies or pictures of your dinner/dead grandma then by all means, phones are great.