# My advice on buying a digital camera



## BobBobber

Several forum members have looked for advice on choosing a digital camera. I recently posted lengthy bits of advice in a thread started by a 2cool member who wanted advice. (It was the last post in a thread asking about some Canon cameras.)
.​ Thinking that other 2cool members could pick and choose from my comments for some advice on choosing a camera, I am posting this new thread. Generally, my comments apply to just about all cameras sold today.​ .​ Itâ€™s a long post . . . and is opinionated. But itâ€™s the advice Iâ€™d give to any friend who is ready to buy a digital camera. Other forum members might want to also post their opinions about choosing a camera in this thread. Please do; youâ€™re welcome.​ .​ BTW, most of the kit lens are worthless, at least the 3:1 zoom versions. They won't offer the convenience you'll need, or the quality. An 18-55 mm zoom lens will not zoom in as much as you would anticipate in real life situations.​ . 
I agree with lens quality opinions posted by other forum members in other threads. Go with the best.​ .​ My lens choice is Carl Zeiss. Leica is also great but not as good incorporated in Panasonic digital cameras. There are more people who love their Nikon and Canon lenses. I am aware of that, so listen to their reasons. Iâ€™m just offering my opinion and anticipate you will accept it as just that.
. 
Aperture choice is also important. The closer you can get to f-2.0 the better. The kit lenses with zoom ranges that have apertures closing down to f-6.8 will limit your ability to take quality photos in available light. Most kit lenses that have been reviewed and tested will not compare to many lenses in quality, primarily sharpness.​ . 
Consider superzoom cameras that have one lens for almost any situation without changing lenses, carrying a camera bag of lenses, etc. With superzoom, you frame the photos and take them without delays for changing lenses, or even having to pause to consider which lens to use. You'll often lose the shot while changing lenses unless you can get the animals or humans to freeze in place until you change lenses (quietly).
. 
Also, to be able to bounce an electronic flash off camera requires a lens with wider f-stop. Powerful flashes can cost more than many cameras, so it's an important consideration. If your lens zooms and leaves you at f-6.8, most flashes will not have enough power to penetrate beyond 10 feet. Flash pictures with bounce flash are the way to go. On-camera flash photos are harsh and have dark backgrounds.​ . 
Sure, you can boost the ISO to compensate for light loss caused by the f-6.8, but the sharpness and quality are inferior than with ISO 100, for example.​ .​ Electronic stabilizer features are also great but can deteriorate quality too.
. 
For nature and wildlife photos, you'll also need a quiet camera. Also, for capturing family photos without alerting them, quiet cameras excel.​ . 
Many photographers advise using tripods. My opinion follows: Tripods are for purists. Plus, tripods are a pain in the keester. If you train yourself to hold steady, exhale before pressing the shutter, etc., lock your elbows into your chest, you can get away with shutter speeds of 1/15 or 1/30 of a second. I'd rather sort through a few low shutter speed photos to find a sharp one than be delayed and inconvenienced by a tripod. (Tripod users probably would hit me over the head with their tripods for that comment. But I can fire off 20+ pictures before the average person can get a tripod and camera ready to go.)​ . 
Looking at a 3" LCD digital camera screen is great but never forget to brace yourself solidly before pressing the shutter. Stay away from any camera where you feel comfortable holding it at arms length like smartphone users do. Your photos will suffer greatly.​ .​ Think about it. How many hunters shoot with their rifles held at arms length trying to look through the scope more than a foot from their faces? They hold their rifle securely, braced as much as possible with their body and squeeze the trigger with minimum movement.​ .​ Compare that technique to many people you see who wave their cameras around at arms length and punch down when the photos are taken.
. 
If you wear eyeglasses and don't want them scratched, get a camera that has a viewfinder cup with some softer rubberized coating. The majority of cameras today have hard plastic eye cups. Some people donâ€™t consider that until afterwards when they notice their eyeglasses have become scratched.
. 
Infrared focusing is another luxury only a few cameras provide. If you want to have enough illumination to frame and focus on your subject, without the subject being aware of ANY light source, infrared will work for you. Then, when you take the photo, it's taken with normal light source. For example with infrared, in total darkness, compose a photo of a wild animal, take the photo and your electronic flash fires off to give you normal color rendition. Often, the animal is startled but for an instant. Sometimes they might not flee.
. 
Sorry that this is not the "this-or-that" answer most people want when deciding between cameras to buy. However, I'm fussier than most and perhaps demand features more than most people would appreciate . . . or even notice.
. 
The one post in a thread about cameras with the dog portrait is what you should consider. Study it. That kind of quality where you can see, and count single hairs, and appreciate a texture that is not muddied up by lens faults . . . that's what you need.​ .​ .​ http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2649882&stc=1&d=1449601012​ .​ . 
Me, I'd probably get a SONY DSC-RX10. Lens speed of f-2.8 at all apertures, decent zoom range, and stellar reports by all the professional photo equipment reviewers. It's pricey. But with the DSC-RX10 II now on market, many suspect the RX10 will be discontinued and a blowout price below $600 is around the corner. Regardless, when you consider that with several cameras, you will wind up buying several expensive lenses, the cost of a superzoom camera is justified. Panasonic also has lower-priced constant zoom f-2.8 camera but the lens quality is not as good as SONY, according to all reviews I have read.
. 
BTW, Iâ€™m retired. Before that, I was a professional photographer for years, commercial industrial photographer for General Motors, manufacturer's rep for photo companies, magazine publisher, and a graduate with advanced university degree in photography and another in journalism. Call me fussy, and yes, probably because I had to be for a majority of my professional life.
. 
All that said, all my fussy comments aside, the overwhelming majority of people absolutely love the pictures they take. They have fun sharing their photos with others, primarily online or on their smartphone screens. So whatever you choose for a camera, have fun. Take loads of pictures, machine gun them out, until you and your camera become "one." Then you won't hesitate when the time is right to take some really great photos.
.
BTW, I'm not familiar with all the new cameras that come out with increasing frequency, so please do not write asking me for specific opinions on which camera to buy. I'm retired now and enjoy fishing and playing cards.​ .​ OK, had enough? Want more? There are magazines that have highly professional reviews by qualified writers along with extensive test reports for digital cameras. Sometimes their reviews can give more detail than most people want or even have the background to understand, myself included. Donâ€™t be intimidated. Always remember that youâ€™re reading reviews by professionals who have used the reviewed cameras for a considerable amount of time.​ .​ Personally, I never buy any photo equipment without reading their reviews. No camera is perfect, and many cameras do not get endorsed without reservation. But their reviews come from experience with the actual things that Iâ€™m considering to buy.​ .​ Hereâ€™s some links to a few magazines that you might enjoy:​ .​ http://www.imaging-resource.com/​ http://www.cnet.com/uk/​ http://www.dpreview.com/​ http://www.steves-digicams.com/​


----------



## fishingcacher

The other day I was reading the reviews on the two SONY cameras you mention as the II have a tilting LCD screen.

$500 at CostCo

http://www.costco.com/.product.100229570.html?


----------



## BobBobber

fishingcacher said:


> The other day I was reading the reviews on the two SONY cameras you mention as the II have a tilting LCD screen.


 The link was for the RX100 (not same as RX10 I mentioned). RX100 has lens with limited zoom range.

The tilting LCD screen that SONY uses along with a few other manufacturers is what I like. The other screens that turn and flip out to the left side stick out in the way and are vulnerable to damage. Some of those screens can simply be hit by the camera neck strap and collapse.

Also, the screen that pivots upward still allows you to lock your elbows into your chest for less motion on your part.

I did not expect to see Costco sell any SONY cameras. Last year, I spoke with the buyer, who told me that SONY has a policy of protecting the MSRP, so Costco would not sell products that could not be discounted.


----------



## fishingcacher

BobBobber said:


> The link was for the RX100 (not same as RX10 I mentioned). RX100 has lens with limited zoom range.
> 
> The tilting LCD screen that SONY uses along with a few other manufacturers is what I like. The other screens that turn and flip out to the left side stick out in the way and are vulnerable to damage. Some of those screens can simply be hit by the camera neck strap and collapse.
> 
> Also, the screen that pivots upward still allows you to lock your elbows into your chest for less motion on your part.
> 
> I did not expect to see Costco sell any SONY cameras. Last year, I spoke with the buyer, who told me that SONY has a policy of protecting the MSRP, so Costco would not sell products that could not be discounted.


OK, Thanks for letter me know. The CostCo discount was a manufacturer's discount but the wrong camera anyway. I will watch for a price drop on the one you recommended.


----------



## BobBobber

Keep me in the loop on price. I'll watch too.


----------



## Texican89

Thanks for all the info! 

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk


----------



## fishingcacher

I looked at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 today and I was impressed. It compares well with the Sony except for the loss up focal length as you zoom in.


----------



## BobBobber

fishingcacher said:


> I looked at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 today and I was impressed. It compares well with the Sony except for the loss up focal length as you zoom in.


RX10 still has that constant f-2.8 throughout the zoom range. Also I prefer the SONY LCD screen that pivots upward, instead of sideways like FZ1000. I would think that the FZ1000 screen would get in the way, especially of camera strap. Plus it's not inline with the camera, so might not be as steady to hold.

I agree with you that he FZ1000 is also a very good camera. But I'd still vote for the RX10 for the two reasons I listed here, even if there were other features of the FZ1000 that were stellar.

Suggest that you hold the cameras with the LCD screens tilted. See which seems better in your hands.

And with the FZ1000 aperture closing down to f-4.0 at full zoom, that could mean underexposed photos. Consider that while your zoom might reach two times closer, the amount of light from your flash on the subject would be maybe 1/4 as much. Most electronic flashes sold for digital cameras would not push enough light to expose the shot correctly that far away.

Maybe I'm overlooking something in my admittedly biased preference about the RX10. I welcome your comments.


----------



## fishingcacher

What I like about the FZ1000 is it is light weight and has a Leica lens and does 4K video. The continuous loss of F stop through the zooming range is the negative for low light indoor photos which would be my primary need.


----------



## BobBobber

I use a Gary Fong Lightsphere, which sucks away nearly 1.5 f-stops with bounce flash.

So, going from f2.8 to f-4.0 probably would mean underexposure for me at a distance.

But the results with the Fonger are worth the inconvenience of carrying that beast around. It lights up the room and background. Textures and colors excel more than any other bounce flash methods I have tried.

However, I need to qualify that I'm a set-it-and-forget-it kind of guy. With the Fonger, I just shoot away without thinking about the technical stuff.


----------



## fishingcacher

Most of the time any flash is not welcome when I am taking pictures.


----------



## BobBobber

fishingcacher said:


> Most of the time any flash is not welcome when I am taking pictures.


Have you used bounce flash? It's less disturbing. Direct flash hurts the eyes, and people see spots in their vision afterward. However, today, everybody seems to use flash. In fact, even though most entertainment venues have "no flash" rules, many people ignore that. I agree with you that available light is less distracting.


----------



## fishingcacher

BobBobber said:


> Have you used bounce flash? It's less disturbing. Direct flash hurts the eyes, and people see spots in their vision afterward. However, today, everybody seems to use flash. In fact, even though most entertainment venues have "no flash" rules, many people ignore that. I agree with you that available light is less distracting.


Mostly a few wedding shots and musicians so flashes are a definite no no.


----------



## griz

I haven't found an lcd on a camera that was useful outdoors unless you can find some shade. Tilt helps some. Others might be able to see them well enough but I can't. I carry a smallhd monitor in my bag with a loupe for looking at shots in the field. It has 1:1 mapping you don't see all of the pic but what you do see is straight out of the camera. Ditto on the on-camera flash. Pretty much worthless. Most of the places I shoot I'd be hunted down and killed for using a flash anyways so I have an external but rarely use it. Ditto on getting the best lenses you can swing and as fast as possible. The fastest one I have is f4 and I've been in plenty of situations where it just wasn't fast enough. I figured since I shoot over 90% in daylight I didn't need fast lenses. Not so I found. When you need a fast shutter speed and your lens is at f5.6 wide open your day ends pretty early. I'm not a big fan of IS. Have one lens with it. Lots of extra elements and weight to carry around all day. I use my telephotos for astrophotography as well so the fewer the elements the better. To sum it all up do a LOT more research than you think you need too. Then go back and research all over again. Otherwise you will end up buying and selling a lot with the disappointment that comes with it. I like Canon L series lenses. But I haven't used any of the ultra high end stuff. With my eyes I doubt I'd see the difference 

Griz


----------



## BobBobber

griz said:


> I haven't found an lcd on a camera that was useful outdoors unless you can find some shade.


Have you seen the LCD shades made by Delkin? That's the only way I can use the LCD indoors or out. I have Delkins on three of my cameras.

Heavy lenses with mega feature potentials weigh too much for me, especially since I hate dusting off my tripod to use it. I don't think I'd be as free to move about for the best picture if I had to wrestle with a heavy lens.

But I do not do wildlife photography, where it is often essential to zoom in tight. Therefore your advice on this means much more for those 2cool members who want to do wildlife.

In most places where I use my camera, I can walk back and forth, and nobody seems to care. (That's the old fashioned way that many of us used in the 1960's before we had zoom lenses, or could afford zoom lenses.) However, overcoming the personal shyness and fear of walking in toward your subject, is something many people cannot do. The freedom for moving in or moving around to get the best vantage point for a significant image results from experience and being comfortable in your surroundings. If you do it with confidence, most people will ignore you. Unless you own a smartphone or tablet . . . those can be darned right annoying.

A caution, if somebody holds their smartphone or mega-sized tablet overhead when I have paid for pricey concert ticket, I feel the urge to smack that bright screen out of their hands. Never did, but man have I been tempted. I paid for expensive concert tickets to enjoy the event, not to see bunch of bright LCD screens held high in the dimly lit audience area. Oops, this comment might not belong in a camera discussion, but it's somewhat relevant as more and more people have abandoned their cameras and only use smartphones for pictures.


----------



## BobBobber

*I bought the SONY RX10*

On 12-13-15, I started a thread discussing what kind of camera to buy. I recommended the SONY RX10. Finally, finally, I waited long enough for the price to drop on an excellent condition RX10 and HVL-F20M flash on eBay. The owner guessed that he had taken about 250 photos with it (before he bought a different camera).

From what I have seen from the one I now own, it seems to be all that the cameras reviewers bragged about.

However, since then, I've been diagnosed with glaucoma. It's holding steady, but I think my days of fanatic photography could be dwindling.

I have not decided yet if I'm going to sell it back on eBay, but if you have any questions feel free to ask me now that I own the camera. HOWEVER, please, read my original post from 12-13-15 to learn about this camera, so I don't have to type it all over again.


----------



## photofishin

BobBobber said:


> On 12-13-15, I started a thread discussing what kind of camera to buy. I recommended the SONY RX10. Finally, finally, I waited long enough for the price to drop on an excellent condition RX10 and HVL-F20M flash on eBay. The owner guessed that he had taken about 250 photos with it (before he bought a different camera).
> 
> From what I have seen from the one I now own, it seems to be all that the cameras reviewers bragged about.
> 
> However, since then, I've been diagnosed with glaucoma. It's holding steady, but I think my days of fanatic photography could be dwindling.
> 
> I have not decided yet if I'm going to sell it back on eBay, but if you have any questions feel free to ask me now that I own the camera. HOWEVER, please, read my original post from 12-13-15 to learn about this camera, so I don't have to type it all over again.


really hope this health issue doesn't stop your love for photography!

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

First, much like someone asking me what fishing pole they should get or what reel is best...I ask the following questions:

What are you going to use it for most?
What's your budget?
Is this just for a hobby or are you seriously interested in buying the best you can afford?

Lets start with the hobby crowd who simply want to take photos that are better than your Iphone and who have a limited budget:
There are TONS of point and shoot cameras out there. By point and shoot, I mean a camera with a built-in lens. Most of the time they're inexpensive, have many "auto modes" which fit many circumstances and fit most budgets.

If you plan on shooting weddings, nature photography, glamour, fashion, sports, macro, or plan to do decent sized prints of real quality...you'll need a Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR)
While Sony has come up in recent years, the majority of the people I know shoot Canon or Nikon. No disrespect to the other brands, it's just that Canon and Nikon own that market.
Lenses are the key component and will last MUCH longer than your camera...so buy the best you can afford. You might try renting to see what suits your style first as lenses can be expensive. www.lensrentals.com carries almost everything Nikon and Canon sell.
I still shoot a Canon 7D which is nearly 7 years old. It works fine for my glamour and nature photography, although the new models have MUCH improved focus, have options like wifi, are MUCH better at low light etc.
Most wedding photographers I know shoot full frame cameras like the Canon 5D. Their 5D Mark IV was just released and the reports are that it's a stellar camera for it's price.
You may be able to tell I'm a Canon shooter...so I can't comment on Nikon, except to say that Canon versus Nikon is a Ford versus Chevy discussion. If all your friends shoot one or the other, you may try that brand as you may be able to borrow a lens to try etc.

If you have WAAAAY too much money...step up into the medium or large format world. A good Hasslblad medium format including a lens or two may run you in the $35-40k range. There's a reason top fashion photographers shoot medium format and you'd have to see the image quality in print to understand.


----------



## BobBobber

Hey Photofishin, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As to the glaucoma issue, it has no "cure", so whether or not it progresses is unknown. My eye pressures remain low as I religiously take the eyedrops every day to hold it at bay. But it's scary.

For most of the 2cool readers, the balance of this post is "techy" camera chatter reply to Photofishin. You're welcome to read along, but be warned.

My personal cameras since 2002 or so are the SONY DSC-F717. No digital cameras since show review reports and tests with better results. Most of my "work" as a retired guy consists of presentation on HD-TVs. I haven't made a serious paper-print for years.

When I did make prints, the 8x10 or 8x12 sizes look as tack sharp as many film-negative prints I have seen or made. I think they would compete equally with other similar format brands like Nikon and Canon. Neither one of us has mentioned Leica, probably because their highly respected lenses now are often made in places other than Germany in the last several years.

My first Master of Arts degree was before 1970, so I admit to being old school. I agree with you that Hasselblad quality is above nearly all the rest. FYI, I was a sales rep for Paillard in the 1970's. We wholesaled Bolex and Hasselblad to retail shops. I had nearly everything Hasselblad made, so I could demo to clients and display at trade shows. The cameras and lenses are top drawer.

BTW, after devouring every camera review and test report, I was also swayed towards the SONY F717, because it has Carl Zeiss optics (same as Hasselblad). I have seen many photos from Canon and Nikon digital cameras. In most cases, the F717 results are sharper. You can actually count the hairs on a subject.

F-717 also has a f-stop range from f2 to f2.4 from wideangle to telephoto. NONE of the other manufacturers can boast such a range. That's important with flash coverage. Powerful electronic flashes for digital camera almost cost as much as the cameras, so I wanted a camera with the fastest lens that I could get. Almost every flash photo I take is bounce, so I lose a f-stop at least by bouncing. Again that's why I required a fast lens.

The camera also is lighter weight than many of the other digital cameras made by most companies. The total weight of camera, flash and Fong Lightphere mean a lot for me.

Lastly, I wanted a camera with a zoom lens that would cover most situations for parties, weddings, etc. Changing lenses on a job was not for me. I wanted speed and easy access to my subjects without any delays or inconveniences like changing lenses in the heat of action.

The F717 does not have HD-video or even 720 video resolution. That's it's drawback when compared to many other cameras. But many video presentations I made consisted of still photos with interesting transitions and sound tracks. I only needed a true video once or twice in the last 10 years.


----------



## BobBobber

*Quick snap with RX10 to look at lens resolution*

Today, I took a few quick snaps, hand-held with the RX10. Have not done any yet with my F717 camera. However, I'm pleased with the results from the RX10. Let me know your impression, especially compared to whatever lenses y'all are using. Counting bee's hairs is a challenge, but it can be done with the RX10 lens. No attachments; just the zoom lens that comes with the camera.


----------



## shoalnuff

BobBobber said:


> Today, I took a few quick snaps, hand-held with the RX10. Have not done any yet with my F717 camera. However, I'm pleased with the results from the RX10. Let me know your impression, especially compared to whatever lenses y'all are using. Counting bee's hairs is a challenge, but it can be done with the RX10 lens. No attachments; just the zoom lens that comes with the camera.


Hey Bob,

I am just wondering if now that you've had the RX10 a while if you are still in love with it. My wife is new to Photography and i am wanting to get her a nice camera for Christmas. We live full time now at the beach and she loves to try to take pictures of the dolphins from our porch but is not having much luck with the older camera she has now which is just you're basic point and shoot. Also neither of us are very camera savvy so i am also wondering about the RX10 ease of use. Any help would be great and thanks in advance!


----------



## BobBobber

*RX10 confirmed*

Shoalnuff, I am still enjoying the camera and the results obtained. However, it has an extensive learning curve.

*But you might be pleased with using just the AUTO settings if you want to take photos without the technical savvy. *It also works great. You still get the same sharp lens.

There is a thick book you can buy on eBay and a video from Gary Fong to pace you through the MANY, MANY things the RX10 is capable of doing. I fell asleep many times trying to keep up with the video. Fong is a boring speaker, but he does know what he's speaking about.

Also, since SONY has come out with several upgraded models, the prices of mint condition used original RX10 has dropped considerably. One on eBay now less than $400 with one day to go.

RX10 also has an unpublicized feature. SONY has a feature which doubles the ZOOM range without going into digital zoom. Forgot what they call it. It is great too.

I continue to take photos with my RX10 that absolutely please people who see them. While tempted to upgrade to the RX10ii, I cannot justify the expense. Doubt if anybody would see any improvement in the end result. It's the photographs that count.

I'd attach some of the recent photos, but they are "high fashion" pictures of a model in a prestigious setting. Not really apropos for a 2cool forum post. In all my years with photography, I never did any fashion photography. Now, I can cross it off my "bucket list."


----------



## shoalnuff

BobBobber said:


> Shoalnuff, I am still enjoying the camera and the results obtained. However, it has an extensive learning curve.
> 
> *But you might be pleased with using just the AUTO settings if you want to take photos without the technical savvy. *It also works great. You still get the same sharp lens.
> 
> There is a thick book you can buy on eBay and a video from Gary Fong to pace you through the MANY, MANY things the RX10 is capable of doing. I fell asleep many times trying to keep up with the video. Fong is a boring speaker, but he does know what he's speaking about.
> 
> Also, since SONY has come out with several upgraded models, the prices of mint condition used original RX10 has dropped considerably. One on eBay now less than $400 with one day to go
> 
> RX10 also has an unpublicized feature. SONY has a feature which doubles the ZOOM range without going into digital zoom. Forgot what they call it. It is great too.
> 
> I continue to take photos with my RX10 that absolutely please people who see them. While tempted to upgrade to the RX10ii, I cannot justify the expense. Doubt if anybody would see any improvement in the end result. It's the photographs that count.
> 
> I'd attach some of the recent photos, but they are "high fashion" pictures of a model in a prestigious setting. Not really apropos for a 2cool forum post. In all my years with photography, I never did any fashion photography. Now, I can cross it off my "bucket list."


I looked on Ebay and their are several. My question is the DSC Rx10 II the same as the RX10? If you look at the cameras and pics of the cameras they look like the RX10's but if you look in the description most of them say RX10 II ?


----------



## BobBobber

shoalnuff said:


> I looked on Ebay and their are several. My question is the DSC Rx10 II the same as the RX10? If you look at the cameras and pics of the cameras they look like the RX10's but if you look in the description most of them say RX10 II ?


Far as I know features are identical. BUT the sensor in RX10ii has wires behind it. The Rx10 has wires on the face of the sensor.

RX10ii supposed to be sharper and capable of getting sharp results at higher ISO settings, like ISO 800, for example.

That's a techie answer. My advice is that if that doesn't mean anything to you. Don't worry about it. Get the RX10.

My results with the RX10 are sharper than any Nikon or Canon images I have ever seen with a zoom lens. I cannot justify expense of upgrading. The RX10 versions that have come out since the RX10ii NO LONGER have the constant f2.8 at all zoom settings. I really appreciate the constant f2.8, so the most recent RX10 versions don't interest me at all.


----------

