Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2013, 11:56 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,869,476 times
Reputation: 7399

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WyoNewk View Post
This doesn't answer your question, but if you're deciding which camera to buy, the main thing I dislike about ultra compact cameras is that they don't (usually?) have a viewfinder, so you must use the back screen. That works okay indoors, but get out into the sunlight and it can make framing a real nightmare. I bought an ultra compact 18 months ago, thinking it would be good enough for much of my photography and something I could carry in a shirt pocket. (I shoot, on average, about 200 photos per day.) I haven't made a hundred exposures with it!
Just out of curiosity, what is it that you shoot 200 pics per day of? Are you a professional photog or do you just like taking pictures?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2013, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,768 posts, read 40,902,683 times
Reputation: 62071
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
I've had a few different cameras the last couple years and I'm noticing that there are more bulky looking cameras coming on to the market. What exactly is the advantage of owning something like this.....

pixpro az501 - Google Search

over something like this...

Sears.com

Just in general terms. Why are there so many more inexpensive bulky cameras in the market these days?
I don't know the real reason but whenever I read consumer camera reviews there is always somebody who complains that the camera "feels cheap" because it isn't heavy enough like his old whatever camera. To those people I say, "PTOOEY!" I sure hope the camera makers aren't making their cameras heavier to please those guys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2013, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
I don't know the real reason but whenever I read consumer camera reviews there is always somebody who complains that the camera "feels cheap" because it isn't heavy enough like his old whatever camera. To those people I say, "PTOOEY!" I sure hope the camera makers aren't making their cameras heavier to please those guys.
I prefer a smaller and lighter set up. When I pucked up Sony a55 nearly three years ago, it was a refreshing change from the norm, a small (still one of the smallest DSLR form body) and light (490g) body while being feature laden. One of its criticisms was that it was too small and light to "balance" with larger lenses... an argument that has never made sense to me. The a55 was a DSLT with the advertised benefit that it could be more compact than a comparable DSLR (a580 was its DSLR version, larger and heavier.

Sony looked at the criticism and the next two DSLT bodies (a65, a77) were DSLR sized. This is also reflected in a99 which is a FF camera. The eventual replacement a57 also gained bulk. I find that unfortunate. I also picked up NEX-3 (and now, NEX-6) where size played a role among other things. The NEX camera eliminated the need to keep a P&S, which went unused and out the door. However, many still complained that NEX's rangefinder form plus large lenses "do not balance". Well, Sony has since added a DSLR body style to the E-mount lineup. While the camera (a3000) is small (comparable to a33/55), and substantially lighter (about 300g), it is giving up one of the advantages of going mirrorless. Apparently, that a camera look like a DSLR even if it could ve done in a much smaller package, is something consumers demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2013, 10:22 AM
 
17,422 posts, read 13,200,337 times
Reputation: 32776
Quote:
Originally Posted by TN Tin Man View Post
And these "E" Lens

For us who have bear cub paws a large ( not bulky ) camera is some what better..


I have always used large SLRs. Then I add the vertical grip and big ass lenses

(Not my image, grabbed from the web)

Attached Thumbnails
Why so many more bulky cameras on the market now?-img3434-small-.jpg  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2013, 09:06 PM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
This will probably have nothing to do with the OP's position or need. I used an Olympus OM-10 for around 20 years. I bought my first digital in the late 90's or thereabout. Olympus 1.2 or something megapixel. Unlike with the old 35mm technology really changes with digital. I bought newer smaller camera's now and then but missed the feel of the OM-10 while taking pictures.

I bought a Nikon D5100 awhile back and won't go back to a small camera.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2014, 01:57 AM
 
106,236 posts, read 108,237,907 times
Reputation: 79776
cameras are tools and there is a correct tool for the correct job.

we went to the bronx zoo the other day.

i took my nikon d800 and nikon 70-200mm f2.8 as well as the little fuji x100s.

i love my fuji but shooting wildlife at a distance which has to be cropped 60-80% is not something the fuji could do well . i deleted almost every fuji shot as it was no where near what the big rig can do.

on the other hand street photography is where the x100 shines. shooting work and family get togethers and animals in close and moving slow are fine for the fuji too.



having one camera big or small is like a woman trying to own one handbag.,

it just will not work out optimized for everything ..

this is the d800 and 70-200mm with moving animals that are so far away that you cannot even see their faces from where you are.

on the other hand the horses were up close ,not moving and were perfect for the fuji.




Last edited by mathjak107; 01-01-2014 at 02:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2014, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
cameras are tools and there is a correct tool for the correct job.

we went to the bronx zoo the other day.

i took my nikon d800 and nikon 70-200mm f2.8 as well as the little fuji x100s.

i love my fuji but shooting wildlife at a distance which has to be cropped 60-80% is not something the fuji could do well . i deleted almost every fuji shot as it was no where near what the big rig can do.
That is primarily due to the fact that the Fuji is a fixed prime lens camera with a 35mm equiv lens, very nice and useful for a vast majority of photography but not when you need optical reach for many occasions.

Last night I went to NYE celebration in Dallas. I took my Sony NEX-6 with 35mm f/1.8 OSS, a very small and light combination (about 500g/1 lb). I also had even smaller, 20mm f/2.8 pancake lens in my pocket for interior and fireworks photography (handheld, but I mostly shot video anyway). I am also using a neck strap with "gun shot" attachment so the camera pretty much hangs across the body, secure and comfortable even in crowded places.

OTOH, I can also transform that camera to shoot at a zoo with my 200mm f/2.8 (also quite compact and light, the camera and lens combine to weigh about 3 lb), and get a 300mm equiv reach, or pull out any of many primes I can also carry in the sling with it.

To me, personally, versatility has become a big criteria.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2014, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Central Mass
4,589 posts, read 4,848,390 times
Reputation: 5315
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
I've had a few different cameras the last couple years and I'm noticing that there are more bulky looking cameras coming on to the market.
Exactly the opposite.
Cameras have never, ever been smaller than they are today. Tomorrow, they'll be even smaller.


They can be smaller due to miniaturization of electronics and a lack of film transport. And smaller image capture devices.

Back in the old days, you made tiny cameras by using tiny film

That Minox used film that was just 9mm tall (less than 25% of 35mm film)
The Nikon above has a 1/2.9" sensor - just 3.7mm tall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2014, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Wyoming
9,724 posts, read 21,186,837 times
Reputation: 14823
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Just out of curiosity, what is it that you shoot 200 pics per day of? Are you a professional photog or do you just like taking pictures?
Professional photographer, but for the past couple years I've been doing mostly garbage photos of houses for mortgage companies. They just want small digital images, nothing of quality. That came about when we'd planned to retire, but at the last minute I decided we couldn't afford to. By that time I'd pulled all my advertising, sent clients to others, etc. Then my studio flooded. I still shoot a few weddings and portraits plus a few odds and ends, but mostly it's houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2014, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Duluth, Minnesota, USA
7,641 posts, read 18,085,270 times
Reputation: 6913
Few people have really answered his question.

The "small, cheap, and basic" market of digital cameras has largely been supplanted by cell phone / smartphone cameras. In other words, the people who would have bought them now are content with the cameras on their cell phone / smartphone / tablets.

Cameramakers, therefore, have to diversify and design cheap cameras with features that are not feasible to put on a smart phone.

That means, for the bottom of the market, long zoom lenses. The smaller the image sensor, the smaller the lens when fully zoomed out. "Bigger" in an image sensor is generally "better" and more expensive. The latter camera you linked to would require a gigantic lens like this if it were mounted to a camera with a larger image sensor: http://digiscopingukbirds.homestead..../600mmafs2.jpg .

Ever since the "zoom race" started, camera and video manufacturers have been fighting to integrate more zoom into their wares. Competition usually leads to lower prices.

Thus the manufacturer is able to provide something that absolutely can not be found in a smart phone (a 24x zoom lens) at a fairly low price.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top