- Joined
- Apr 23, 2010
- Posts
- 4,611
- Reaction score
- 258
- Points
- 83
I been researching cameras and am finding it difficult to get what I want without getting a heavy camera. So, I have a question after telling you what I think I understand so far.
I want high quality images, although not necessarily SLR quality since I don’t do large prints or have other needs for that. While I like the idea of changes lenses, I’m not likely to carry around all that stuff. I do want good close-ups (e.g., insects).
Occasionally, I want good telephoto/zoom capability, but not as often as good macro ability. I don’t care about capturing moving subjects (sports, kids, etc.).
So, based mostly on weight, I’ve ruled out DSLRs, most of the mirrorless SLR-like models, and the ultra-zoom compacts. Some of these fall in the “bridge” category. I still want good image stabilization and RAW capture. Plus, I like to use a viewfinder (some advanced compacts make you use the LCD screen).
I think that leaves me with the compacts with large sensors (usually 1-inch rather than the typical compact's ½ inch or less). They’re only a little bit larger overall, but not much heavier unless there’s a lot of zoom. My understanding is that high MP cameras do not have an advantage unless those pixels are spread out over a larger sensor (rather than made tiny and crammed onto a smaller sensor, which can degrade the image).
So, my questions are:
(1) am I generally correct so far? (about the features and their relationship) and
(2) when I want to zoom in to get a picture of a small object in the distance (e.g., a bird) will having more MP mean I can do my zooming and cropping on the computer and get a high quality image of a small area? I know megapixels are unrelated to zoom and do not make up for it, but I’m talking about the case of wanting only a small part of the picture and having to do more manipulation later. I understand that I might not be able to clearly see the part of the image I really want on the camera and will have to take my chances and view it on the computer later. I don’t need to print larger than 5x7 (or maybe 8x10) in those cases. If this is correct, I’m willing to forgo the higher zoom (with its extra weight) since I’d be able to get the occasional photo of a small object with a little extra effort.
I’m thinking of the new Sony Cyber-Shot RX100 II, which is similar to the existing RX100. It will have 24MP, a 1-inch sensor, 3.6X optical zoom, and weigh only 281 grams.
Thanks for reading all of this.
I want high quality images, although not necessarily SLR quality since I don’t do large prints or have other needs for that. While I like the idea of changes lenses, I’m not likely to carry around all that stuff. I do want good close-ups (e.g., insects).
Occasionally, I want good telephoto/zoom capability, but not as often as good macro ability. I don’t care about capturing moving subjects (sports, kids, etc.).
So, based mostly on weight, I’ve ruled out DSLRs, most of the mirrorless SLR-like models, and the ultra-zoom compacts. Some of these fall in the “bridge” category. I still want good image stabilization and RAW capture. Plus, I like to use a viewfinder (some advanced compacts make you use the LCD screen).
I think that leaves me with the compacts with large sensors (usually 1-inch rather than the typical compact's ½ inch or less). They’re only a little bit larger overall, but not much heavier unless there’s a lot of zoom. My understanding is that high MP cameras do not have an advantage unless those pixels are spread out over a larger sensor (rather than made tiny and crammed onto a smaller sensor, which can degrade the image).
So, my questions are:
(1) am I generally correct so far? (about the features and their relationship) and
(2) when I want to zoom in to get a picture of a small object in the distance (e.g., a bird) will having more MP mean I can do my zooming and cropping on the computer and get a high quality image of a small area? I know megapixels are unrelated to zoom and do not make up for it, but I’m talking about the case of wanting only a small part of the picture and having to do more manipulation later. I understand that I might not be able to clearly see the part of the image I really want on the camera and will have to take my chances and view it on the computer later. I don’t need to print larger than 5x7 (or maybe 8x10) in those cases. If this is correct, I’m willing to forgo the higher zoom (with its extra weight) since I’d be able to get the occasional photo of a small object with a little extra effort.
I’m thinking of the new Sony Cyber-Shot RX100 II, which is similar to the existing RX100. It will have 24MP, a 1-inch sensor, 3.6X optical zoom, and weigh only 281 grams.
Thanks for reading all of this.
