What sort of Camera does my wife need?
Discussion
My wife has been to a few conventions where she's taken photos (on her samsung phone) of the people on stage, and they generally look terrible if you zoom in.
I had a look and found her phone was set to 12mp so showed her how to set it to 64mp. We did a few test shots in the garden but frankly I was totally underwhelmed. Zoom into a person about 50-60 feet away and it's doesn’t seem to be any sharper than similar photos taken 20 years ago with a 2mp digital ixus in the same garden.
She attended another convention and used her phone on the new settings and its was just as bad.
She's thinking of upgrading to an iPhone 15 Pro which someone has convinced her will be much better. I'm not convinced as it's still a phone camera.
I've suggested getting a second hand bridge camera but she doesn’t like the bulk.
What sort of camera would be good enough to get sharp picture of someone on stage if say you were 20-25 rows back?
I had a look and found her phone was set to 12mp so showed her how to set it to 64mp. We did a few test shots in the garden but frankly I was totally underwhelmed. Zoom into a person about 50-60 feet away and it's doesn’t seem to be any sharper than similar photos taken 20 years ago with a 2mp digital ixus in the same garden.
She attended another convention and used her phone on the new settings and its was just as bad.
She's thinking of upgrading to an iPhone 15 Pro which someone has convinced her will be much better. I'm not convinced as it's still a phone camera.
I've suggested getting a second hand bridge camera but she doesn’t like the bulk.
What sort of camera would be good enough to get sharp picture of someone on stage if say you were 20-25 rows back?
I bought a Panasonic Tz years ago. I take it everywhere I go. I know compacts are, they say, falling out of favour, but they are remarkable. I have all Panasonic gear, but I'm not suggesting you only look at their compacts. Go to a camera shop, get your wife to play with them.
The only problem is that if she takes to photography, it'll cost, because everyone wants something better.
I have a GH2 and 2 x G9s, but really like my compact.
The only problem is that if she takes to photography, it'll cost, because everyone wants something better.
I have a GH2 and 2 x G9s, but really like my compact.
98elise said:
She's thinking of upgrading to an iPhone 15 Pro
I have one. The camera on it is indeed remarkably good...... in the right conditions. Just taken the following three photos. You can see the level of light that's available and I'd say not to dissimilar to what you'd get in a conference room:
As you can see, on the widest view, it's not too bad but the quality diminishes as you zoom in.
So long as she doesn't mind the bulk, something like this would fit the bill: https://www.wexphotovideo.com/panasonic-lumix-dmc-...
Derek Smith said:
I bought a Panasonic Tz years ago. I take it everywhere I go. I know compacts are, they say, falling out of favour, but they are remarkable. I have all Panasonic gear, but I'm not suggesting you only look at their compacts. Go to a camera shop, get your wife to play with them.
The only problem is that if she takes to photography, it'll cost, because everyone wants something better.
I have a GH2 and 2 x G9s, but really like my compact.
I would second this - I have a Panasonic TZ100 and it can take some great pictures even with the digital zoom. Standard zoom is 250mm and the 1 inch sensor means the quality is good.The only problem is that if she takes to photography, it'll cost, because everyone wants something better.
I have a GH2 and 2 x G9s, but really like my compact.
Size wise, I can put it in a pocket so, I would imagine it would easily go in a handbag.
98elise said:
She's thinking of upgrading to an iPhone 15 Pro which someone has convinced her will be much better. I'm not convinced as it's still a phone camera.
I've suggested getting a second hand bridge camera but she doesn’t like the bulk.
What sort of camera would be good enough to get sharp picture of someone on stage if say you were 20-25 rows back?
The iPhone 15 pro (and some of the similar spec phones like a pixel 8 pro) does offer optical zoom so you’re not just dependent on digital zoom which should help. Ultimately you still are talking about a camera with a small sensor so it’s not obviously going to deliver the picture quality you might be after though. Some of the pocket cameras (rx100 mk6+) have a 1” sensor and some decent zoom though so might be a better bet.I've suggested getting a second hand bridge camera but she doesn’t like the bulk.
What sort of camera would be good enough to get sharp picture of someone on stage if say you were 20-25 rows back?
98elise said:
I had a look and found her phone was set to 12mp so showed her how to set it to 64mp. We did a few test shots in the garden but frankly I was totally underwhelmed. Zoom into a person about 50-60 feet away and it's doesn’t seem to be any sharper than similar photos taken 20 years ago with a 2mp digital ixus in the same garden.
To be frank any digital image will eventually turn to crap if you zoom in enough.The pixels are so tiny on a small sensor that they can't absorb much light, so the phone uses software to batter them into shape. Zoom in and you see the smudging.
98elise said:
What sort of camera would be good enough to get sharp picture of someone on stage if say you were 20-25 rows back?
I'd use my Nikon D500 with 70-300mm VR lens. But you have to know how to use it, it's not a point and shoot. And it won't fit in a shirt pocket.Either she wants a good camera in such situations or a phone, you can't have both. Laws of physics and all that
Images from my 12mp TZ25:
All taken on auto exposure. The first is a 50% crop. The last is hand-held at 1/13 sec at f.3.8 (fully open). The TZ had stabilisation, albeit fairly basic.
Any decent modern compact will probably knock these into the gutter for quality I suppose, but for 10/12 years ago, they are good. If, in my old age, I was limited to just one camera, I'd opt for a modern compact. I am overwhelmed by my G9s, but for ease of use, portability and readiness, you can't beat a compact.
All taken on auto exposure. The first is a 50% crop. The last is hand-held at 1/13 sec at f.3.8 (fully open). The TZ had stabilisation, albeit fairly basic.
Any decent modern compact will probably knock these into the gutter for quality I suppose, but for 10/12 years ago, they are good. If, in my old age, I was limited to just one camera, I'd opt for a modern compact. I am overwhelmed by my G9s, but for ease of use, portability and readiness, you can't beat a compact.
GetCarter said:
All phones have tiny sensors, so can't do this sort of stuff well.
Get a camera, rather than a phone.
Hundreds to choose from depending on price and size.
Some great compacts out there from Sony and Canon - and they'll fit in a pocket.
What will they look like when you crop to a person in stage from some distance though?Get a camera, rather than a phone.
Hundreds to choose from depending on price and size.
Some great compacts out there from Sony and Canon - and they'll fit in a pocket.
That's the problem she is having with her phone, and we had a similar problem with a 5x optical zoom camera in tests. The images look fuzzy when cropped down to the person on stage only.
What we need to know is what zoom do we need to get a clear picture when cropped.
Derek Smith said:
I bought a Panasonic Tz years ago. I take it everywhere I go. I know compacts are, they say, falling out of favour, but they are remarkable. I have all Panasonic gear, but I'm not suggesting you only look at their compacts. Go to a camera shop, get your wife to play with them.
The only problem is that if she takes to photography, it'll cost, because everyone wants something better.
I have a GH2 and 2 x G9s, but really like my compact.
She's won't get into photography! She simply wants to take a photo in this scenario and it not be fuzzy. She thinks spending g £1000 on an iPhone will fix it, yet she already has a 1 year old Samsung that cost £1000!The only problem is that if she takes to photography, it'll cost, because everyone wants something better.
I have a GH2 and 2 x G9s, but really like my compact.
I think a simple camera with a decent optical zoom is the solution. I just need to prove it to her.
isaldiri said:
98elise said:
She's thinking of upgrading to an iPhone 15 Pro which someone has convinced her will be much better. I'm not convinced as it's still a phone camera.
I've suggested getting a second hand bridge camera but she doesn’t like the bulk.
What sort of camera would be good enough to get sharp picture of someone on stage if say you were 20-25 rows back?
The iPhone 15 pro (and some of the similar spec phones like a pixel 8 pro) does offer optical zoom so you’re not just dependent on digital zoom which should help. Ultimately you still are talking about a camera with a small sensor so it’s not obviously going to deliver the picture quality you might be after though. Some of the pocket cameras (rx100 mk6+) have a 1” sensor and some decent zoom though so might be a better bet.I've suggested getting a second hand bridge camera but she doesn’t like the bulk.
What sort of camera would be good enough to get sharp picture of someone on stage if say you were 20-25 rows back?
This will probably be a one time use (at a convention later in the year) so I'm thinking of picking up a second hand camera on ebay then reselling it afterwards
98elise said:
What we need to know is what zoom do we need to get a clear picture when cropped.
This may be unhelpful but the best answer is to get closer. From where she is, too much zoom/cropping is needed to get the desired framing.Don't be beguiled by 'zoom ratio', what you should look for is the focal length in mm. The longer it is, the tighter the framing you can achieve.
98elise said:
GetCarter said:
All phones have tiny sensors, so can't do this sort of stuff well.
Get a camera, rather than a phone.
Hundreds to choose from depending on price and size.
Some great compacts out there from Sony and Canon - and they'll fit in a pocket.
What will they look like when you crop to a person in stage from some distance though?Get a camera, rather than a phone.
Hundreds to choose from depending on price and size.
Some great compacts out there from Sony and Canon - and they'll fit in a pocket.
That's the problem she is having with her phone, and we had a similar problem with a 5x optical zoom camera in tests. The images look fuzzy when cropped down to the person on stage only.
What we need to know is what zoom do we need to get a clear picture when cropped.
The bigger the sensor, the faster the lens the better results... in theory.
Then the person using the camera needs to understand ISO (the amount of light by the sensitivity of the sensor) v speed v aperture - and ideally the capability of the body and the lens.
Zoom lenses will always be slower than primes, so will always be a compromise.
There is no 'This is what you need' answer I'm afraid.
If it were me and I didn't want to take a big camera with telephoto lens, I'd take the pocket sized Canon G5X mk2 or the Sony RX100 (mk whatever you can afford) and make sure you shoot in raw so that you can work on the images afterwards.
Or... top tip... get closer to the subject!
98elise said:
This will probably be a one time use (at a convention later in the year) so I'm thinking of picking up a second hand camera on ebay then reselling it afterwards
S/h is good. I recently bought a s/h lens from MPB. It went bad within 6 weeks. I informed MPB on Monday, returned the lens by post Tuesday, and had a replacement lens by Saturday. GetCarter said:
'Clear' is all relative. You can spend a few grand on a fast prime lens, stick it on a full frame body, crop it, make sure you're shooting RAW, send it through Lightroom to denoise, and it will be as clear as you can get with the tech as it stands today.
The bigger the sensor, the faster the lens the better results... in theory.
Then the person using the camera needs to understand ISO (the amount of light by the sensitivity of the sensor) v speed v aperture - and ideally the capability of the body and the lens.
Zoom lenses will always be slower than primes, so will always be a compromise.
There is no 'This is what you need' answer I'm afraid.
If it were me and I didn't want to take a big camera with telephoto lens, I'd take the pocket sized Canon G5X mk2 or the Sony RX100 (mk whatever you can afford) and make sure you shoot in raw so that you can work on the images afterwards.
Or... top tip... get closer to the subject!
^ this pretty much. Only thing I'd add is on the RX100, the mk6 has a 200mm max equivalent vs 70mm on the mk5 so it's much more zoom capability on that. The bigger the sensor, the faster the lens the better results... in theory.
Then the person using the camera needs to understand ISO (the amount of light by the sensitivity of the sensor) v speed v aperture - and ideally the capability of the body and the lens.
Zoom lenses will always be slower than primes, so will always be a compromise.
There is no 'This is what you need' answer I'm afraid.
If it were me and I didn't want to take a big camera with telephoto lens, I'd take the pocket sized Canon G5X mk2 or the Sony RX100 (mk whatever you can afford) and make sure you shoot in raw so that you can work on the images afterwards.
Or... top tip... get closer to the subject!
And as per above, closer always helps.....
A small but decent Panasonic, Canon or Sony pocket camera.
Even these are getting ridiculously complicated - you don't need 4k and a hundred menus when your storage computer is Windows 7, you really just want a point and shoot. I think simple cameras peaked, several years ago with a 20x zoom and auto settings you don't need to worry about. Some of my favourite photos were on a Panasonic TZ30, to be honest.
30x zoom is potentially better but you need to hold the camera very still and they are all pretty useless on focusing on a lit stage when you're in the dark.
Keep it simple. No filters, no art settings. I have a TZ100 and SX740HS and both try to confuse me but the "lesser" SX has a flip screen so generally gets the nod. Can i tell the difference between that and the bigger sensor in the TX - not really.
Even these are getting ridiculously complicated - you don't need 4k and a hundred menus when your storage computer is Windows 7, you really just want a point and shoot. I think simple cameras peaked, several years ago with a 20x zoom and auto settings you don't need to worry about. Some of my favourite photos were on a Panasonic TZ30, to be honest.
30x zoom is potentially better but you need to hold the camera very still and they are all pretty useless on focusing on a lit stage when you're in the dark.
Keep it simple. No filters, no art settings. I have a TZ100 and SX740HS and both try to confuse me but the "lesser" SX has a flip screen so generally gets the nod. Can i tell the difference between that and the bigger sensor in the TX - not really.
You need to unberstand exposure to answer your question.
You are asking the camera to take a picture in low light. There are three things the camera can do to try to achieve this.
It can:
* open up the aperture on the lens (size of the hole that's letting the light in),
* or it can amplify the electrical signal from the sensor.
* or it can take a longer exposure (more time).
Dealing with the last one first, a long exposure isn't useful here for two reasons. 1/ The person on stage is probably moving, so will be blurred. 2/ You're trying to use zoom, and any camera shake is exaggerated as you zoom. A short fast exposure will freeze the motion of both subject and camera. That's waht you want, but that lets even less light into the camera.
Camera phones are brilliant, but they have physical limitations.
Firstly their aperture may not open up as much as a good camera lens and secondly the sensor is tiny.
The problem with a tiny sensor is that they are noisy electrically. And as you amplify the signal from the sensor (because you're working in low light) you amplify the sensor noise too, giving a grainy image.
In phone software does it's best to hide the effects, but they are fighting physics. There's only so much they can do.
When buying a proper camera it's a compromise. Full size (35mm) sensors in mirrorless cameras will give the best low light performance as they have the biggest sensors. But a bigger sensor means a bigger lens for the same focal length (think zoom). Everything scales up in weight and cost as the sensor gets bigger.
I picked micro 4/3 as my compromise. The sensor is half the size 1/4 the area of a full frame sensor. Still a big camera compared to a phone though.
Bridge cameras have even smaller sensors and built in lenses. Be aware that as you zoom the max aperture (light gathering ability of the lense) decreases.
So there is no definitive answer to your question. You and your wife need to accept that any camera is a compromise. Smaller and lighter will means worse images (especially in low light). To get better images you need to spend more and carry heavier gear. You need to find your own sweetspot.
You are asking the camera to take a picture in low light. There are three things the camera can do to try to achieve this.
It can:
* open up the aperture on the lens (size of the hole that's letting the light in),
* or it can amplify the electrical signal from the sensor.
* or it can take a longer exposure (more time).
Dealing with the last one first, a long exposure isn't useful here for two reasons. 1/ The person on stage is probably moving, so will be blurred. 2/ You're trying to use zoom, and any camera shake is exaggerated as you zoom. A short fast exposure will freeze the motion of both subject and camera. That's waht you want, but that lets even less light into the camera.
Camera phones are brilliant, but they have physical limitations.
Firstly their aperture may not open up as much as a good camera lens and secondly the sensor is tiny.
The problem with a tiny sensor is that they are noisy electrically. And as you amplify the signal from the sensor (because you're working in low light) you amplify the sensor noise too, giving a grainy image.
In phone software does it's best to hide the effects, but they are fighting physics. There's only so much they can do.
When buying a proper camera it's a compromise. Full size (35mm) sensors in mirrorless cameras will give the best low light performance as they have the biggest sensors. But a bigger sensor means a bigger lens for the same focal length (think zoom). Everything scales up in weight and cost as the sensor gets bigger.
I picked micro 4/3 as my compromise. The sensor is half the size 1/4 the area of a full frame sensor. Still a big camera compared to a phone though.
Bridge cameras have even smaller sensors and built in lenses. Be aware that as you zoom the max aperture (light gathering ability of the lense) decreases.
So there is no definitive answer to your question. You and your wife need to accept that any camera is a compromise. Smaller and lighter will means worse images (especially in low light). To get better images you need to spend more and carry heavier gear. You need to find your own sweetspot.
Low light internal work is extremely demanding particularly with a moving subject. A phone won't work if you need anything remotely acceptable. Spending £1,000 on an iPhone would be a waste. Don't look at the outdoor shots to convince yourself otherwise, it's irrelevant.
I would buy a second hand DSLR, even with a 1.6 crop sensor and a decent stabilised lens, ideally 2.8 (even a Sigma should do) if I was after decent standards.
But she would need to be taught the basics of exposure/ISO/focal length etc ...
Which might be a useful life skill anyway.
I would buy a second hand DSLR, even with a 1.6 crop sensor and a decent stabilised lens, ideally 2.8 (even a Sigma should do) if I was after decent standards.
But she would need to be taught the basics of exposure/ISO/focal length etc ...
Which might be a useful life skill anyway.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff