A What Camera Thread.

I put this in the GRM section because it is related to the car scene. 

I think I'm due for a camera upgrade.

My current cameras are my LG V40. This gets used all the time and takes decent pictures as long as you remember to clean the lenses.

I also have a Nikon P500. It's a decent camera with a very good zoom. In this day and age, it seems to be lacking in the software department. The batteries are NLA and what is available aftermarket sucks.

I also have a Nikon AW120. It is a great little point and shoot. Good photo quality and it's water and shockproof. It will be staying. 

I'm looking for something to replace the P500. I would like a fairly simple to use camera. I don't want to learn all about F stops and exposure times. I want to aim the camera at something, mash the button, and have it take a good picture. I would like a decent amount of zoom without having to change lenses. I also don't want to carry a large frame camera. 

On the shortlist is the Nikon P900 and P1000. I've been happy with the P500, but the Nikon P900 and p1000 are only 16mp compared to the Sony at 26mp.

The Sony A6000 with a 16-50 and a 55-210 lense I would probably leave the 55-210 lens on it most of the time.

What else should I be looking at. 

Budget expectations would be helpful. 

In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :

The P900 and the A6000 are both in the $1000 range. Somewhere around there. 

Unless you print out your photos as really large prints or only extract small parts of the overall photo, the additional megapixies aren't going to make a huge (and potentially not even a noticeable) difference.

That said, the Sony is a good camera, plus the fact that it does support interchangeable lenses is something I consider a bonus - fixed lens cameras, especially ones with long zoom ranges like the P900 (didn't look at the P1000) have to compromise when it comes to lens design to accommodate the long zoom range.

The other part to look at is the sensor size - usually bigger is better when it comes to light sensitivity, although the aforementioned megapixies also play an role here. Compact cameras usually have smaller sensors, and if you combine that with the long zoom range, you usually don't get good low light capabilities.

Personally I really like my Fujifilm X-E2s - Fuji has pretty much the best kit lenses around, and the image quality is great. Downside is that the cameras are a bit on the expensive side and I don't know if they'd fit into your budget.

The other question is if you want video capability or not, and if you want 4K video capability.

Based on the budget, any objection to going used?

That might get you a lot more bang for your buck than buying new.

A rather comprehensive review site that I have used:  https://www.dpreview.com/

No objection to used. Video would also be useful. 

Is low light performance important? If so, it's worth looking for a bigger sensor, and avoiding the giant megapixel war (16 is plenty).

In reply to Tom Suddard :

Low light would also be a plus. 

Do you want an optical viewfinder, or do you shoot from the screen? In either case I'd agree with BoxheadTim that Fuji is the right answer here - just depends which body you prefer to screw the lenses to. The X-E and X-T series have more traditional ergonomics, while the X-A is closer to point-and-shoot. Plus, adapting lenses with different mounts is very easy.

Any thoughts on the Pentax K-01? 16mp, APS-C sensor. Available for about $300 used.

Or the Pentax K-70. 24mp, APS-C sensor. Available for about $600 new. This one has the advantage of being water-resistant. 

I happen to have 3 manual focus lenses leftover from my K1000 from 30 years ago and my father has a set of autofocus lenses from a later Pentax that he hasn't used in years. It looks like they should all mount.

I have a couple of mirrorless micro 4/3 cameras, which are based around sensor size instead of 35mm film architecture. I've been very happy with them as a carry-around camera. With the right lens, they have pocketability but image quality of an SLR. Great for stuff like SEMA show and can take top quality outdoor shots. 

Not a specific camera suggestion but if you're not already invested in a specific lens family they're well worth a look. 

I've used a few Pentax DSLRs. They're good cameras, but bulky, and the character of the images didn't work for me (that's not a criticism, since it's quite subjective) - too clinical. I find the Fuji sensors produce much more pleasing photos (again, to my eye). Pentax K-mount lenses easily adapt to Fuji X-mount, BTW.

• Used: If you decide to go used, www.keh.com is a reputable source and often less $$ than places like www.adorama.com or www.bhphotovideo.com, which while primarily retailers of new gear, often sell used stuff, too. (BTW, they are both reputable.)
   
• Refurbished: Refurbished is another option, either from Adorama, B&H Photo, or directly from a manufacturer's website; they come with a warranty (though used gear from KEH does, too).
   
• Amazon = Nope IMO: I personally would never buy a camera via Amazon unless it's a reputable, established seller (again, e.g., Adorama or B&H Photo); I've read too many horror stories.
   
• Nikon Gray Market: Beware of buying any new OR used Nikon gear without confirming unequivocally that what you're buying is a U.S. market item. Some places will sell gear from other markets, for less than U.S. MSRP. If you ever need service and send a gray-market camera/lens to Nikon, they'll happily tell you to go berkeley yourself and won't touch it (camera forums are full of stories about this). While you can sometimes find a shop to work on it (e.g., Canada), Nikon has also severely cut availability of parts to U.S. third-party repair shops. I have heard of Adorama and B&H Photo selling used gray market gear, so if you buy from them, make them swear on a bible that the item is U.S. market.

Toyman01 + Sized and said:I happen to have 3 manual focus lenses leftover from my K1000 from 30 years ago and my father has a set of autofocus lenses from a later Pentax that he hasn't used in years. It looks like they should all mount.

Check to be sure that the new camera can control the older lenses. Even if they fit, the camera may not be able to drive the autofocus mechanism or control aperture. Given your desire to avoid manual controls, I think it'd be important that the camera can control the old lenses. Also note that, depending on the age of old autofocus the lenses, even if the camera can control them, the focus speed may be pretty slow -- it depends on the age and type of mechanism used. Finally, for 30-yr-old manual-focus lenses, depending on the camera, it can sometimes be difficult to determine that you've nailed focus, you will likely need to manually set aperture on the lens, and because the camera probably won't be able to record aperture setting in the metadata, to the extent that you care to look into it after the shot's been taken, you won't know what the setting was.

Given what you wrote earlier, I think getting another, similar Nikon would be the Easy Button.

The only thing I have to add is our experience. We purchased the Sony as a kit with the same lenses you are looking at to use for the kids hockey games.

We can shoot through the glass, from the bleachers, or from the bench with good results. The lenses and shutter speed in the Sony let us get great action shots close by or at the other end of the rink. 

While we picked it for the sports, the camera works well for other activities (sight seeing, family photos, etc) or just playing around with composition, aperture, and other setting in manual mode. 
 
There's enough pixels to crop the photos as needed and still be able to print them or make photo books. 
 

I have always had a simple point-and-shoot, and when I wanted to upgrade I started with a Nikon J1 and loved it.

Small, portable, interchangeable lenses, and the photo quality was awesome, especially in low-light and capturing action. When I wanted more zoom for car stuff and kids on the stage, I tried a Nikon superzoom Coolpix. I never liked the image quality, it was just soft all the time. Not even as good as the J1. I went with a Nikon D5000 instead and love it.

You can get a similar setup from Canon and the rest, and they are all solid DSLRs on a budget. With an 18-55mm and a 70-300 I can capture anything I want in amazing quality and I am under $800 for the setup. Could probably do $500 now. It's not the most portable however, but I use my iPhone for most day-to-day stuff. I have a wide, regular and zoom lens on it and it takes such good photos at things like car shows that why lug around anything else?

All that said, if I were buying a camera today, I would want a mirrorless. Sony re-wrote the book with theirs, and while others have caught up, Sony's are still pretty awesome. The a600 at $650 plus a $300 Rokinon 300mm zoom would make me very happy for under $1k.

After doing a bunch of reading about sensor sizes and such, I'm leaning toward a Sony A7ii. It's more camera than I was originally planning but it's mirrorless and has a full-frame sensor. I do like taking low-light photos without a flash and as Tom said, that is where sensor size matters. The larger sensor is also supposed to take better landscape pictures which is better than 50% of the pictures I take. It is also weather-sealed so if it gets rained on it probably won't kill it.

It and a 28-70 lens is right at a grand. That should get me through vacation. I'll also want to pick up a longer lens for wildlife photos. 

I just went through a similar purchase (wanted more than my cell phone for an upcoming trip) and I ended up buying this https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/slrs/fujifilm_xt30  Base body is 799, but then you can get lenses and packages from there. You can get a lens and body combo for 899 that's a decent value,  The older versions are super well regarded too, so also something to look at honestly.  I have just started using it, and the pictures are great. Right now I've just been using the auto mode and that's been just fine. 

I used this guide to help with my picking- https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-1000

In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :

I think that is a very solid choice and should serve you well for a long time. Didn't realise they had come down this far in price.

I actually did cross shop Sony A7 and Fuji, but in the end decided that I prefer the smaller rangefinder-sized Fuji body.

I can't remember right now if the Sony can take full-frame Minolta lenses (Sony bought Minolta's camera business a while back), at least the AF ones. If it can, have good look at that because Minolta had some pretty spectacular pre-digital glass.

Keith Tanner said:

I have a couple of mirrorless micro 4/3 cameras, which are based around sensor size instead of 35mm film architecture. I've been very happy with them as a carry-around camera. With the right lens, they have pocketability but image quality of an SLR. Great for stuff like SEMA show and can take top quality outdoor shots. 

I agree - some of these are excellent cameras. I use an Olympus OMD (E-M5 Mk 2) with weather sealing and image stabilization that I like quite a lot. Smaller than an average SLR, though not as small as the mini cameras.

Decision made. I picked up a Sony A7ii this afternoon. So far I'm happy with it. 

Thanks for the input everyone. 

I'm late to this thread, because I was holding off posting 'till I picked up the Leaf and hit 5000posts.  But, I thought I'd add some thoughts from my own experiences at OneLap and as both an a6000 and A7 II owner...

I think the a7 II is a great purchase instead of the a6000.  I've had some trouble with my a6000 and focusing.  That could be my lack of panning skill, it could be the the older AF system, or it could be that the a6000's lens mount sometimes has some play with newer/heavier lenses, like the 70-300mm.  That might be less of a problem with the 55-200.  It could also be that I have an issue with the Sony lens' zoom).

If you want to go longer than the 28-70mm lens... you've got a couple of Sony lenses (70-200 f/4, 70-200 f/2.$$$$, a 100-4$$$mm, or the 70-300), or there's a Sigma 100-400 for the price of the Sony 70-300.

If you're used to the focus direction of the Nikon, you might stick with the Sony lenses.  The Sigma focuses the opposite 'Canon' way... which is what I'm more comfortable with, somehow.  But, the focus pull on the 70-300 has a relatively high amount of 'stiction' out of the box... which combined with the backwards direction is pretty frustrating to me.  YMMV.

For people that happen across this in the future, and want to consider a 'small all in one' camera, you might check out the later iterations of Sony RX-100 cameras.  They're decently bright at 24? 28?mm, and zoom out to 200mm.  Yes, the sensor is smaller, but I've seen excellent results from David Ogburn Sr. taken at OneLap.  I'll see if I can find some of his shots for y'all to check out.

I have been pleased as punch with my Nikon D3200 DSLR.  1080p video, not 4k, but I'm cool with that.  Low light is excellent, but I imagine they've come out with better in the 3 years since I bought the D3200.

I got a package that was "used."  I put it in quotes because the guy got it as a gift and more or less unboxed it but never used it.  Came with two lenses that are very good, but the 70-300mm doesn't pull in much light being a 3.5-5.6f.  I haven't found it to be an issue with what I usually shoot which is daytime wildlife and action shots.

For my eye, I much prefer the DSLR.  Point and shoots can take some great shots, but light can be in issue, as can clarity.  So many of them these days have so much software noise that it bugs me.  They are one part photo sensor and one part software that boosts color, adjusts contrast, and makes it into something that it isn't.  My Nikon takes pictures.  Period.  It picks up photos hitting the sensor and records them.  If I want to alter it later, I can.  I prefer having the option as opposed to being forced to accept the picture it thinks I want to see.

If you don't want DSLR, then I'm not your guy.  The last point-and-shoot that I had was a Sony Mavica that took a floppy disk.

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

Some of the reading I did suggested the A6000 series mounts were a little weak. It was one of the deciding factors in choosing the A7ii. I also have a friend that killed one after a year or so. The magnesium body and mounts are a good bit sturdier. Add to that the water and dust sealed body and I think it will last me a long time. 

There is a little more of a learning curve to get the full potential out of the camera than I had planned, but it seems to work pretty well as a point and shoot as well. I picked up a 50mm 1.8f to go with it and played around with it some today while the grands were swimming. On auto, it shoots very well and is substantially faster than my Nikon was. 

A lens in the 100-300 range is on the list to buy. I just need to decide if I'll use it enough to justify spending the big money on the better quality.