awboater

I actually use my external flash quite a bit. Especially in the bright Caribbean sun, I often use fill flash even outdoors in the daylight.

Here is an example.

Taking a photo in the evening as the sun goes down, and the sun is in front of you, the subject will be severely underexposed:

But with a fill flash, the subject is properly illuminated.

The trick here is you setup the camera to properly expose the background. then when you add the flash, you set it up to expose the foreground. The flash obviously does not have enough power to illuminate the background, so you are using the limitation of the flash to your advantage to create two lighting zones - background (via camera exposure) and foreground (flash).

Here is another example:

This photo is properly exposed for the foreground, and the background is overexposed.

But if you expose for the background, then the foreground is too dark.

But again, if you set the camera to expose for the background and the flash for the foreground, you get this result:

So basically, you are using the flash to compensate for the low dynamic range of digital photography.

Once you start using the flash for these kinds of things, you will be using it a lot, and you will wonder how you ever got by without it.

Also, an external speedlight is my preference as it is easier to independently control. I could use my on-board flash I suppose, but I would have to set it up by changing the flash compensation. Doeable, but not as easy as having dedicated controls on a speedlight.

You really don't need IS in a macro lens as you will most certainly be using a tripod - especially with the longer focal lengths (105mm etc).

If you want a great macro lens, check out the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro. It is relatively inexpensive, and a very sharp lens.

Of course if money is no object, then the Nikon Coolpix A gives you an APS-C (entry level sized DSLR) sensor in a compact camera body. But it costs more than your 40D.

I always buy a Class 10 card.

For the size, I always look at the economic considerations as there will always be a tradeoff between cost and size. Somewhere along those two parameters will be the "sweet spot" (in terms of cost/benefit).

For example a 32Gb card might cost $40, whereas a 16Gb card might cost $15, so the cost/benefit favors two 16Gb cards vs. one 32Gb card. And since my DSLR can handle two cards, there is the redundancy factor of having multiple smaller cards.

I also tend to buy SanDisk. But I disregard all of the Superlatives such as "ultimate" this and "extreme" that. I just look for a minimum of Class 10 and 30Mb/s for the speed and go with that.

But I won't pass up a sale on mem cards that are not SanDisk either, as long as they are brand name.

There are no similar compacts that have such a big sensor combined with a very good Zeiss lens and an effective processor that fit in your pocket - thats the point I mentioned. I did not say "if you want THE best", i did say if you want a camera that fits into your pocket - there are lots of compact cameras that simply won't fit.

 

umm... Nikon Coolpix A has a APS-C sized sensor (same as entry level DSLRs), and with a DxOMark score of 80, scores significantly higher than either the RX100 (DxOMark score 66) or RX100-II (DxOMark score 67). Given the Nikon Coolpix A is almost the identical size to the RX100, they could both be considered pocket cameras.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II-versus-Nikon-Coolpix-A-versus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100___896_867_812

The RX100 series cameras have much smaller 1" sensors, like the Nikon 1 series, not an APS-C sized sensor like the Nikon Coolpix A.

And even my el-cheapo Sony Action Cam has a "Ziess" lens, which is meaningless. They are just licensing the Ziess name... it's not a true high-end Zeiss lens, which cost 4-figures.

So you see, as soon as one camera is called "best", another one can be found that is better.

Before upgrading bodies, make sure your lenses are up to task. A premium set of lenses will outperform most body upgrades.

For example, when going from an entry-level DSLR to a full frame DSLR, you are going to get maybe 1 stop improvement in low-light performance. And that 1 stop might cost you $3~5k. But if you are still with an 18-55mm kit lens, at 50mm, the minimum aperture is going to be f/5.6.

But if you do even a modest lens upgrade to say a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (or the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8) from a 18-55mm kit lens, then you are gaining 2 stops at 50mm for less than $600. Far more cost-effective in my view. Of course, there is the DoF consideration when using a faster lens wide open, but you get my point.

Yea, I know - it's not as cool to buy new lenses as bodies, but lenses can do wonders for your image quality.

Even if you have sufficient lenses for your APS-C camera - depending what you got, you may have to buy new ones when upgrading to a full frame camera.

Of course, if you already have the lenses - then go for the better camera.

Here is another article that doesn't quite agree with the imaging-resource article, but at least provokes thought:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-cp-interviews.html

Sounds like you got a good deal.

Enjoy.

Yes, buy one rated for 10Meters or more - even if just snorkeling.

Depth ratings are determined in static (non-moving) water. Once you put the camera into an ocean current or go swimming with it - it adds pressure against the seals which has the same effect of going deeper. A camera only rated for 3Meters might fail under these conditions.

My underwater camera (Olympus 8010) is 3~4yr old, and I have never had any issue with it's waterproof integrity. But the reason I bought it is because it had 2 o-rings on the door, where many cameras only have one. It's rated for 10Meters.

Also, make sure to keep your camera clean. Anything from a grain of sand to a hair falling across the o-rings on the door can cause leaks.

And read your manual... my underwater camera has some 10 pages of do's and don'ts for keeping the camera waterproof. Most underwater cameras require you to return the camera once a year to the service department for gasket replacement. I have never done that, but it's another reason to buy a 10Meter or deeper rated camera. Not saying a deeper rated camera will alleviate the need for returning your camera periodically for a check up, but so far, it's worked for me.

You probably don't have time to order one, but you can buy a refurbished Nikon AW100 for well under $200 at Cameta Camera. The AW100 is rated for 10Meters. The Nikon AW110 and AW120 are rated for more than 10Meters, but may be beyond your set budget.

I haven't actually tried it underwater yet, but I'm hoping all the reviews (that I read AFTER purchasing the camera) about water infiltration are inaccurate or wont apply to me.

When I bought my underwater camera (Olympus 8010) there were reviews about water intrusion, but I never had any issues. My conclusion then is:

1. people over exaggerate the truth - whatever that may be.

2. some may have an agenda. Perhaps they are a competitor manufacturer or dealer (or even customer) with reason to criticize the competition.

3. people do not read the manual (there are 10 pages of do/don'ts to maintain waterproofness in my camera's manual).

4. people do not maintain their equipment (inspect seals for hair, sand, etc).

5. people use waterproof cameras in too deep water. Cameras are depth rated in static water - if you are in a raging current, you have to reduce that rating.

I suppose there are some legitimate issues, but it's just as likely in my view to be caused by one of the above reasons. I think the old saying to believe half of what you hear applies here.

If your primary requirement is scenery and indoor, you do not need a camera with a super-zoom.

The P330 also employs photo-stacking for improved low light performance.

Something like a Nikon P330 might suit you better. It has a fast f/1.8 lens, a 1/1.7" sensor - which is 40% larger than most all compact and bridge cameras - including the Panasonic FZ70 and Z200.

Bridge cameras generally use small sensors due to those super-zoom lenses; otherwise the lenses would have to be physically much larger (and expensive). There may be one or two exceptions (I think I recall seeing a 1/1.7" sensor bridge camera once), but the normal rule is small sensors with bridge cameras.

Larger sensors typically mean better low-light performance and improved dynamic range... however, admittedly even with a 40% larger sensor on cameras such as the P330; vs. the typical compact and bridge camera - this advantage, by itself is not huge. But added to the fast lens and image stacking, they combine for good low-light performance.

For comparison, a f/1.8 lens will let in over twice the light as a f/2.8 lens would, and 10 times more light than at f/5.9.

The P330's low light performance can arguably rival even entry level DSLRs of just a few years ago. I have used ISO3200 on my P330 without too much noise issues. Yes, there is some background noise especially in the dark areas, but you just about have to pixel-peep to see it.

Here is a photo I took at night with the P330 showing the low-light capability:

http://www.althephoto.com/cameras/p330.php

It has a 5x zoom lens, but for indoor and landscape, that is all you need.

Best of all - it is priced at $199. A year ago, when first introduced, it was about double that, but this camera has just been discontinued for the P340 - which is why it is so inexpensive. However, it seems to me there is only cosmetic differences between the P330 and P340, so you can save a ton of money by buying the P330.

At $199, I would not look for these cameras to last long. While you may have your heart set on a different camera, you should at least look at this camera before making your decision.

I take a DSLR, mirrorless, and compact camera on my cruises.

My compact camera of choice is the Nikon P330. It has just been replaced by the P340 - with only cosmetic differences, so the P330 is a good camera at a bargain.

Currently you should be able to find them for $199 while they last. That is about half of the original selling price only a year ago. I paid $300 for mine.

The reason I like it is it has a larger 1/1.7" sensor (40% larger than most compacts), it has a fast f/1.8 lens - although it goes up to f/5.6 when zoomed in, and has some features (like rear curtain sync) that are normally only found on DSLRs. Add to that panoramic, time lapse/interval, GPS, background HDR (2 photo HDR), selective color, and a few other features - this camera is feature laden for the price. And it also has a true video PAUSE function - something 99% of cameras do not have.

And to complement the larger sensor and fast lens, you can do photo stacking for improved low light performance.

It is great in low-light situations, and I have been able to use ISO 3200 without a lot of noise. Arguably, this thing has as good of a low-light performance than even some DSLRs a few years old.

Here are a few sample low-light images:

http://www.althephoto.com/cameras/p330.php

And while it is not really a ruggedized camera, it does have a magnesium frame, which helps in it's solid feel. And since it is pocket sized, I end up taking it just about everywhere I go on a cruise. The Canon G16 or Nikon P7800 cameras are also pretty good, but they are not really true pocket size cameras like the P330 is. The P330 is more like the Canon S120, but $175 less expensive.

For around $200 you just cannot go wrong with this camera.

Actually the AW120 has just been announced, so look for further price reductions on the AW100.

Currently you can get a refurbished AW100 for $159.

http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-Coolpix-AW100-Shock-Waterproof-GPS-Digital-Camera-Orange-Factory-Refurbished-65588.cfm

I did 30 second intervals, which was the minimum I could do with the camera I had.

Time lapse can be a lot of fun. Be sure to experiment with the intervals and frame rates as that can really change the time lapse effect.

Here is a time lapse I did from my balcony at King's Wharf, Bermuda.

As I stated in my other reply to your question - consider the true cost of ownership of a DSLR, which includes buying additional lenses. Budget up to 4 times the cost of the DSLR for lenses.

That's right, for a $500 DSLR, you may end up spending up to $2,000 on lenses.

You will at some point likely want a super-wide angle lens ($600) and a good telephoto lens ($600). And if you want to do low-light, then a 50mm f/1.8 or something similar ($200). At some point, you may also find the kit lens lacking, so that might end up being replaced too ($600).

And if you want to do macro or want any specialty lenses such as a fisheye, well the cost goes up even more.

And finally, all that stuff won't do much good unless you buy a speedlight and tripod...

It can get expensive to own a DSLR. I have a friend that did not heed my advice and bought a DSLR. He refused to buy any more lenses, so his DSLR sits in the closet these days.

I am not trying to scare you out of a DSLR, but in your other thread, you (or perhaps it was your husband) seemed to balk a bit about the cost of a DSLR... when in fact, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

If you make the plunge for a DSLR, congratulations - it is a lot of fun. Just realize it's not inexpensive.

I am still of the opinion that if you want video - buy a video camera. I assign my wife to using our video camera while I use the DSLR for photos.

It is just so difficult to be constantly switching from photos to video - it is far easier to split up that task.

And video cameras still have one huge advantage - they don't overheat nearly as fast, and they can record more than 30 minutes.

Cameras on the other hand, those with a video function, are limited by the World Trade Organization/Information Technology Agreement to a record time of no more than 29 minutes 59 seconds. This is because video camera have an additional tariff, and you know how governments like their VATs.

So by international agreement, you cannot get more than 30 minutes out of a camera having a secondary function for video.

However, at this point, the limitation is moot as most cameras use the .MOV format, which is limited to 4Gb, or about 20 minutes of video. And as the camera sensors are optimized for photos, many cameras - especially compact cameras - tend to overheat and shut down way before then.

Some cameras will only operate in video mode for a few minutes before they shut down.

On the other hand, you can record as many 20 minute recordings you want, then stitch them together in post processing. But that is a lot of work if all you want to have is the proverbial home movie, and not have to create a Hollywood production.

But if you are looking for the utmost quality in a camera for photos - a DSLR is it. However, to get the most out of it, there is a learning curve you will have to go through... and to get satisfactory photos, you will likely want one or two additional lenses over the kit lens the camera comes with. Most entry level DSLRs come with a 18-55mm lens, and while this is good for a starter lens, the surprising thing for most new DSLR owners is this lens won't have the range of the compact camera the had.

You will get better photos out of a DSLR, but with less zoom range, unless you buy additional lenses. Higher quality, multiple lenses is more or less the idea behind an interchangeable lens camera.

So when considering a DSLR, consider the true cost of ownership - which usually includes additional lenses - which can be more expensive than the camera (for premium lenses). I usually recommend budgeting at least 4 times the cost of the DSLR for lenses.

The Nikon P330 has just been discounted to $199 at B&H. In my view, there is no better or capable camera for this price - or even arguably double the price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/936161-REG/nikon_coolpix_p330_digital_camera.html

This is perhaps by far the best camera you will ever get for that price, especially considering it originally sold for nearly $400 (I paid $300 for mine). The reason for the price cut is that it's successor - the P340 has just been announced. And really, there are only cosmetic differences between the two.

The biggest difference I can see is the P340 has built-in WiFi, while the P330 requires an optional adapter to do WiFi.

But if you can tolerate that difference, the P330 is going to be hard to beat. It has many advanced features - some of which (such as rear curtain sync) that are normally only found on DSLRs.

• 
  
• 40% larger sensor (than most compacts); 12Mp 1/1.7" Back Side Illuminated sensor.
  
• Continuous shutter release - up to 7 frames per second (limited duration).
  
• Magnesium chassis.
  
• Exposure bracketing.
  
• Exposure compensation.
  
• Flash exposure compensation.
  
• Program, Aperture & Shutter Priority and Manual (PSAM) modes, along with automatic and scene modes.
  
• User defined mode.
  
• Manual focus capability.
  
• Vibration Reduction.
  
• Mechanical/electronic shutter.
  
• fast f/1.8 lens (although it is variable to f/5.6 at the telephoto end); 24-120mm equivalent.
  
• 7-blade iris aperture.
  
• Matrix, center weighted, or spot metering and focusing.
  
• Background HDR.
  
• Dedicated command dial.
  
• Flash modes including red-eye, fill, slow-sync, and rear-curtain sync.
  
• WiFi remote capability via iOS or Android device (with the WU1a adapter).
  
• Ability to set Color Temperature (3850~10,000 deg K).
  
• Interval Timer for time lapse photography.
  
• GPS.
  
• Panoramic, selective color, Hi-key, Low-key, Sepia, Macro, 3D modes.
  
• Built-in ND filter.
  
• Separate movie button.
  
• Video PAUSE function.
  
• Stereo mic.
  
• full 1080p HD movie.
  
• low-light "stacking" mode.
  
• Programmable function button.
  

The big thing is the sensor is larger than most compact cameras (1/1.7"). There are only a handful of other compact cameras with the same larger sensor (Canon G16, Canon S120, Nikon P7800, Nikon P330, Nikon P340, and probably a couple others), so these larger sensor cameras should be considered high end compacts, and are the best you can buy in a compact camera. Simply put, a larger sensor collects more light, and results in better low-light capability, as well as usually a bit better contrast.

If I were buying a compact camera, I would not buy anything less than one with a 1/1.7" sensor - especially when you can buy the P330 for $199. This rules out 99% of all compact cameras as they typically have much smaller sensors (1/2.3" or 1/2.5").

The P330's low light capability is useable up to ISO 3200 (some older DSLRs struggle with that). Here is a photo I took in St. Thomas at ISO 3200. If you pixel peep it, you can see some noise - especially in the dark areas, but overall it is pretty darned good for such a high ISO out of a compact camera.

http://www.althephoto.com/cameras/p330fr.htm

For $199, I cannot see how you can go wrong. It is a pocket camera, and is my go-to camera when I cannot take the DSLR along.

While some prefer a 50mm on an APS DSLR due to the crop factor, there is just no getting around the advantages of using an 85mm lens. The 85mm focal length is right at the sweet spot between perspective (wide angle) and compression (telephoto) distortion. And with a longer focal length, you can get improved background blur over the 50mm.

I have both the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4 and Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8 that I use on a D7100 (APS) and even though you may have to backup a bit with the 85mm, I much prefer it for head-shot portraiture over the 50mm.

I use the 50mm for full body shots.

I also have the Nikon AF-S 28mm f/1.8 that I use for group shots.

If you are looking to get into serious portraiture get all three prime lenses (28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8). This would make a nice f/1.8 prime lens trifecta.

Under the right circumstances, most cameras will give you a good photo.

When you get into the extreme environment (low-light, action, long distances, etc.) then the quality of the photo may become degraded.

At that point, whether a given camera gives you a good photo or not depends on many factors... your skill level, the camera's capability, and luck.

You can usually help the situation by buying a camera with more capability. For instance, a camera that does well in low light tends to have a faster lens, a larger sensor, and a better processor. These cameras can help level the playing field, but that does not mean a camera that is lacking in these attributes cannot take good photos, especially in the hands of someone that can get the full potential out of the camera.

And in contrast, the best camera in the world will not automatically give you the best results.

My best advice is to become familiar with your camera so you know it's capabilities and limitations. Use your camera as much as you can now, so you will know if it will be up to task for your cruise. Only then will you know if it is worth replacing it, or if it will be OK.

I know it's not much of an answer, but one of the huge misconceptions camera buyers have is Model A will automatically result in better photos than Model B, but the truth is that the camera at best only provides 1/3rd of the result (the environment and skill level/luck being the other two).

Until you are comfortable with using your camera and knowing it's limitations and capabilities will you be able to determine if it is up to task or not for your needs.

I would highly recommend taking a 14~24mm (assuming you have a full frame camera) and leaving two of the flash units home. You are likely to find there are a lot of interesting areas on board ship that requires such a lens.

I was on the Oasis last Oct, and I used a Sigma 8-16mm (non-fisheye) exclusively on my D7100 (APS DSLR) for shipboard photos - and used a P330 P&S for everything else.

I generally dislike adapters. The optics are usually mis-matched, the only way you can use the lens is manual exposure and manual focus, and these days, there are no good ground glass focusing grids (except for the Nikon Df). As well, often you lose infinity focus.

It's far better in my view to buy the correct lens for your camera - even if it means waiting and saving for it. Otherwise, you are just wasting your money.

About as close as you are going to get to an authority on shutter lag is http://www.imaging-resource.com

For the NEX-7, it looks to have shutter lag nearly equivalent to entry-level DSLR performance.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX7/NEX7A6.HTM

Not quite the performance of your DSLR, most people would probably find it acceptable for all but the most demanding needs.

To date, the mirrorless cameras having the least shutter lag are the Nikon 1 cameras.

For reference, a 90mph fastball travels 13ft in 0.1sec, so for sports and action photography, plan accordingly.

The Think Tank CityWalker 10 comes to mind. I used it on my last cruise. It can hold a DSLR with attached lens, a second and third lens, or a second lens and flash, and a tablet.

But unless you use a ripped up ratty backpack, I think at some point - any photo bag is going to scream tourist. Even if it is incognito, it might not reveal you have photo gear in it, but it does scream you have something expensive in there.

http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/citywalker-10-black.aspx

I have the black version. At $130, it is not expensive, at least for a Think Tank bag.

The Olympus TG-2 is probably the best "budget" underwater camera (the Nikon AW1 is the best overall underwater camera though).

But do you need waterproof, or just a bit more ruggedized? With a waterproof camera, you are ultimately going to have to compromise a bit at least in it's capability. My underwater camera is an Olympus Tough 8010 - and while it works well enough, it is starting to show it's age.

And I have missed some photos as it refuses to focus in all but the very best lighting conditions, and since there is no manual anything on the camera, I cannot force it.

Consequently, this camera is strictly an underwater camera - and not a general-purpose pocket camera.

One camera I really like (and I own one) is the Nikon Coolpix P330, which is my go-to (non underwater) general purpose pocket camera). They are running about $250 these days, and while technically are not ruggedized, they are at least made with a magnesium chassis. And it has a lot of DSLR-like features; manual exposure, fast f/1.8 lens, and even advanced features such as rear-curtain sync! When have you seen that feature before in a compact camera?

Since it is not truly a ruggedized camera, like general purpose compact cameras - the P330's lens will be a bit fragile if you drop the camera with the lens extended, but I have to think the camera is a bit tougher than the typical compact due to it's magnesium frame. But I did take mine to the beach a few months ago. I kept it in a baggie inside a backpack when I did not use it so as to not get sand on it. I would not do that with my DSLR, but at $250, while not exactly throw-away, it at least would not be as painful should it become broken due to sand intrusion. In other words, I take more risks with this camera than my DSLR.

So, if you need waterproof - consider the Olympus TG-2. If you want a general purpose pocket camera that you can use like a DSLR, but not be worried about the cost of loss - then look at the Nikon P330.

http://www.althephoto.com/cameras/p330.php