Camera Suggestions

[jshanks24]

Here lately I have been going hiking every Saturday with a friend and have been taking lots of pictures to document the trails. I like to upload the pictures to my website and let my visitors see them. The problem is I am taking them with a Samsung Galaxy S4 which should be doing much better than it is. They are coming out very blurry or as some call it, washed out. I did find out that I could put it on HDR mode and it does much better but I feel that it is a temporary fix. Some of the pictures are simply terrible. I am attaching an image to show what I am talking about.

Do you guys have any suggestions for what to do to get better pictures?

Or should I buy a dedicated camera and if so whats a good quality option that is less than $150?

Thanks for Reading.

[grizzled]

I was in a similar dilemma a couple weeks back-just didn't want to pack the SLR+ 2 lenses on a trip. We bought a Canon Powershot SX170 and it did ok. That said, I was really missing a lot of stuff on the SLR and failed to memorize all the information in the 135 page owner's manual for the SX170.

These were all shot with that:

http://www.trailgroove.com/showthread.php/1108-Montana-Beartooth-Mountains-trip

Paid $149.95 for it.

[jshanks24]

grizzled, Thanks for the reply. The pictures you attached look great. What kind of SLR do you have?

[tmountainnut]

Here lately I have been going hiking every Saturday with a friend and have been taking lots of pictures to document the trails. I like to upload the pictures to my website and let my visitors see them. The problem is I am taking them with a Samsung Galaxy S4 which should be doing much better than it is. They are coming out very blurry or as some call it, washed out. I did find out that I could put it on HDR mode and it does much better but I feel that it is a temporary fix. Some of the pictures are simply terrible. I am attaching an image to show what I am talking about.

Do you guys have any suggestions for what to do to get better pictures?

Or should I buy a dedicated camera and if so whats a good quality option that is less than $150?

Thanks for Reading.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2593[/ATTACH]

In my opinion, the best bang for the buck camera near your price range is the Canon S110. Its a great little camera. There are a couple deals out there if you look around.

I shoot with Ricoh GR, which is outside your price range, and love it. However, i recently got myself a Samsung S5 phone and started carrying that on some of my trips with the Ricoh. The S5 is surprisingly good for a camera phone, and water resistant too. I use the Google camera app instead of the program that came with the phone, and it works well. I've heard the S4 is pretty similar to the S5, so maybe try the google camera app and see if that helps.

[grizzled]

grizzled, Thanks for the reply. The pictures you attached look great. What kind of SLR do you have?

An ancient Canon 40D but it still has way more capacity than I use. It's biggest problem is the use of SD cards.

[jshanks24]

In my opinion, the best bang for the buck camera near your price range is the Canon S110. Its a great little camera. There are a couple deals out there if you look around.

I shoot with Ricoh GR, which is outside your price range, and love it. However, i recently got myself a Samsung S5 phone and started carrying that on some of my trips with the Ricoh. The S5 is surprisingly good for a camera phone, and water resistant too. I use the Google camera app instead of the program that came with the phone, and it works well. I've heard the S4 is pretty similar to the S5, so maybe try the google camera app and see if that helps.

I will give that a try and see what happens. I have nothing to lose. A lot of people have had good luck with the S4. A friend of mine constantly talks about how good it is but his pictures don't come out like the one above. And actually not all of mine do. Just 1 out of 4 on average. But after 4-5 hours of hiking one way I want all of them to be good pictures.

[Bobo Uzala]

It's all about Lens size and Ambient light.

If you're in sunny, wide-open and bright places, you can get away with just about any lens size for decent photos. However, the majority of my outdoor pics are in low light conditions, mostly under forest canopies and dark mountain areas. In low light, lens size is everything (if you're willing to carry a 5 pound camera). With a bigger lens, better focus is maintained and camera shake is minimized. The opposite maybe sounds more realistic, crappy out of focus, blurry pictures.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Bobo Uzala

[tmountainnut]

It's all about Lens size and Ambient light.

If you're in sunny, wide-open and bright places, you can get away with just about any lens size for decent photos. However, the majority of my outdoor pics are in low light conditions, mostly under forest canopies and dark mountain areas. In low light, lens size is everything (if you're willing to carry a 5 pound camera). With a bigger lens, better focus is maintained and camera shake is minimized. The opposite maybe sounds more realistic, crappy out of focus, blurry pictures.

I would like to clarify that the bigger sensor and brighter lens, the better the shots are. Bigger lenses and brightness aren't always the same. Most camera phones have a fixed lens with a fixed aperture that's fairly bright, but because the sensor is so small, the lens doesn't have to be big.

The S110 has a f2.0 at its wide end, which is pretty good. Will an f2.0 lens on an aps-c camera be better, yes, but with a tripod the shutter can be kept open long enough that the S110 can handle a lot of shooting situations.

If I had the cash, I would shoot a A7 with a 24-70 F4, a 70-200 f4, and the sigma 24mm f1.4 art with an adapter that they're about to announce, but that's $5k worth of gear and it's not happening anytime soon ;-)

[Bobo Uzala]

Whatever you say, tmountainnut!

Perhaps I should clarify... My comment is regarding lens diameter, not focal length. Simply, the bigger the lens (diameter) and the more light gets inside the camera - which has made a huge difference for me in low light conditions. My current go-to lens is a Tamron 18-270mm with a 72mm diameter and even at that lens size, it's really challenging to get good shots once it starts getting dark.

jshanks - apologies if my post is misleading

Peace!

[tmountainnut]

Whatever you say, tmountainnut!

Perhaps I should clarify... My comment is regarding lens diameter, not focal length. Simply, the bigger the lens (diameter) and the more light gets inside the camera - which has made a huge difference for me in low light conditions. My current go-to lens is a Tamron 18-270mm with a 72mm diameter and even at that lens size, it's really challenging to get good shots once it starts getting dark.

jshanks - apologies if my post is misleading

Peace!

Lens diameter is important, but again, it depends on sensor size, aperture size, and focal length.

For your lens, an all-in-one telephoto (approx. 400mm equivalent at the long end), you would have some significant vignetting (darkening in the corners) if the lens wasn't large in diameter. Looks like yours is a f/3.5-6.3, so at 270mm focal length, you have a maximum aperture of 6.3, which is normal for a zoom lens of that type. At 16mm, you have a maximum aperture of 3.5, which allows 1-2/3 "stops" more light into your camera lens than when zoomed in fully. Really fancy (and very expensive and very big/heavy) telephotos may have a maximum aperture of 2.8 or better, which will give them a more than 2 stops of extra light, resulting in better low light use. This is one of the reasons why the new sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM A is considered such a good lens because its very bright. However the zoom capabilities are very limited (27-53mm equiv. range).

Its physically impossible to have a significantly bright lens and a large zoom capability with a larger sensor in lens that is easily carried around, so something has to give, and normally its the aperture (and thus the brightness) of the lens. One of the upsides of a micro 4/3 camera is the lenses are smaller for the same capability. As you go smaller in sensor size (1", 1/1.7", etc.), the lens doesn't have to be as big to let in an equivalent amount of light because the sensor is physically smaller. Thats the idea behind the RX10 and the FZ1000 with their 1" sensors and their very bright lenses in a size thats near the same size as a standard DSLR. The FZ1000 is a killer camera/lens combo if you don't mind carrying something that size (my requirements is that it needs to fit in my pocket, so its a no go for me).

However, for something like my Ricoh GR, where its a fixed lens, and fixed 28mm wide angle lens too, physically they are able to pack a very bright lens (F2.8) and a APS-C sensor (same as your DSLR) into something that'll fit in my pocket.

The S110, with its 1/1.7" sensor, is able to have a fairly bright lens (F2.0) without having a huge barrel, but as you zoom in (just as it happens on your Tameron lens), the maximum aperture is reduced to eventually to a F5.9, which isn't very bright. But that's what you have to give up to keep it compact.

So, to wrap up way too many numbers and ideas, look for the camera/lens that meets your needs for zoom (focal length), physical size, and then see what has the brightest lens in your price range. For example the S120 has a bit better of a lens than the S110, but for the price increase, the first generation Sony RX100 is almost the same price and much better in all aspects than the Canon.