I need a camera that is not so bulky (even though additional lens is fine with me — not more than one extra lens). Also, I am not looking at those high-end camera such as Nikon or Canon Mark III.
Plus, I need to take photo of animals that might be a at least 1 metre to 300 or 500 metre away from me. It should also be able to take macro photo and able to take HD movie too.
The picture quality need not be very good but definitely should not be less than average. The camera should not make unnecessary or loud noise when taking photo too.
I am looking right now at few Superzoom and DSLR cameras and I have a headache over which to choose since a DSLR would give me quality images and allow me to take good-to-great shots at night. However, a Superzoom would allow me to take photos of far away objects and those are not as bulky since no additional lens is needed. (Sometimes, I wonder why we can't get a camera that contain all the great features of all type of camera — also known as The Perfect Camera. Sigh.)
Answer
Consider a micro 4/3rds (several manufacturers) with near APSC size sensor.
Or a Sony NEX-xxx series with 'full' APSC sensor size.
Checklist based on your requirements:
Not so bulky (even though additional lens is fine with me - not more than 1 extra lens).
Reasonable match.
Plus, I need to take photo of animals that might be a at least 1 metre to 300 or 500 metre away from me. It should also be able to take macro photo and able to take HD movie too.
1 meter no problem. NOTHING works really well at 500 metres for animals BUT you can add as long a lens as meets your spec. A teleconverter would help & still keep quality wll above a point-and-shoot. Most of the ~= APSC sensor compacts now have HD vodeo.
The picture quality need not be very good but definitely should not be less than average. The camera should not make unnecessary or loud noise when taking photo too.
Picture quality may be too good for you ! :-).
If you REALLY don't care then an ultrazoom may be better. Mirrorless cameras are "quiet enough". When it really really really matters you can "muffle" a mirrorless camera and get near perfect quiet. (My A77 Sony can be muffled to concert hall acceptable level if needed. Looks bad though :-).
I am looking right now a few Superzoom and DSLR and I have a headache on which to choose since DSLR give me quality images and allow me to take good to great shot at night. However, Superzoom allow me to take photo of far away objects and are not bulky since no additional lens is needed.
hese cameras are definitely larger than compacts - but smaller than any DSLR. Well worth a look. Quality of the eg NEX7 is better than the A77 DSLR as they share the same sensor but NEX7 does not have part silvered mirror "in the way".
EXAMPLE:
eg Sony NEX-7, 24 mp, APSC, mirrorless, external lenses.
This camera will 'photographically' outperform almost and APSC DSLR on the market.
For less $ and less specs and less size and weight you get the NEX3 and NEX5 which are still "reasonably good".
The NEX-7 has 1080p video and the 3 & 5 have 720p AFAIR. (Maybe 1080i)
It's not an SLR. But it does much the same job. That's an 18-55 lens in the picture.
Or 27 - 82mm 35mm equivalent.
If desired, with an adaptor you cn add any Minolta or Sony AF A mount lens.
As it's a 24 megapixel camera you can crop the middle of the image down to 6mp and call it an 27 - 164mm equivalent.
ie 27 mm/24 mp down to 164mm / 6 mp.
Plus variants in between.
So say 164/27 = 6:1 optical zoom. Lower than most SZs but sill very useful.
Using 1/4 of the sensor it still has more sensor area than any superzoom
Typically MORE than 3 x as much area at 6 MP and 20x as much area at full frame!.
NEX7 120 x 67 x 43mm
BUT this is body only
353 grams with battery and card = 54% heavier than Pansonic SZ below 23.5 x 15.6mm sensor - area = 367 mm^2 24.3 mp
Exception that proves the rule?
I didn't take this. I wish that I had.
Subject is of Bryan, a friend of mine who they thought may die, lying in a small hospital in a small African town some years ago. He lived. I've little doubt that this effect was intended but, even if not, the strictly camera-technical quality of the photo are transcended by the overall result. I think :-).
No comments:
Post a Comment