Recommend me a camera

[steven1988]

I'm looking for a camera to use at the little lads CX races and other Family stuff. Does anyone have any recommendations I'm thinking around the 200 quid mark but could go to 300.

Thanks in advance

 

[MontyVeda]

the panasonic lumix range is good if you want a pocket sized point and shoot camera

 

[vickster]

Canon Ixus range used to offer really good small digicams

 

[slowmotion]

I've got a four year old Panasonic Lumix that cost £100. It's good, small, and it won't be the end of the world if I drop it on the tarmac. I'm sure that the same budget will buy you something considerably better today.

 

[I like Skol]

the panasonic lumix range is good if you want a pocket sized point and shoot camera

I am in the same boat right now. Bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX60 about 2010 and was blown away by its capability to take good pictures despite my ineptitude. It is now getting tired after being dropped and abused for the last 7 yrs and I suspect the biggest issue is that the battery is starting to struggle which in turn is affecting focus performance. Rather than wasting money on a battery that might not fix all ills I am considering this - www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras-and-camcorders/digital-cameras/compact-and-bridge-cameras/panasonic-lumix-dmc-tz60eb-s-superzoom-compact-camera-grey-21998088-pdt.html

Looks far better than the one it is replacing on paper so should be another leap forward if it lives up to expectations.

 

[NorthernDave]

Another vote for a Panasonic Lumix which are great value for money.

Just over £300 will get you a Panasonic Lumix FZ82, with a 60x zoom and 4K recording - or £220-ish will get you an FZ72. Both are excellent bridge cameras and you'll struggle to find better at the price point - and a bridge camera will be so much better than a compact for capturing something like CX. That said, the compacts are very good.

Some of my pics with my aging FZ38 here

 

[Dayvo]

Nikon Coolpix gets my vote and recommendation.

https://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/category_pages/digital_cameras/category_COOLPIX.page

 

[Cycleops]

As already noted Panasonic LUMIX range is very good. Sony compacts are also very good. I have a RX100 which is is fantastic but might be a bit out of your price range so look at the cheaper models, they are also good.

 

[Reynard]

Your other option (if you don't mind going down this road) is a used DSLR and some lenses to go with it, especially if you are looking at doing some action photography. Sports & action photography isn't the strong point of P&S cameras.

Places like CEX and Game sell used camera kit, but do your research before buying. Having said that, there is some very nice used kit out there if you can avoid the el-cheapo bottom of the range bits and the knackered clunkers. A £300 budget would certainly get you a mid-range body plus a couple of reasonable lenses. For sports photography, you will need a telephoto lens.

 

[steven1988]

Thanks for the help guys I'll look unto them. I was thinking a bridge camera in the first place but will take a look at the others

 

[Bollo]

If you stick with the big brands you'll not really go wrong - modern cameras are just fantastic pieces of engineering. Even in the £200-300 price bracket, they'll likely be better cameras than you are a photographer.

If you're specifically buying the camera to do sports photography, I'd ignore the headline pixel count and 'special features' list and concentrate on the speed of the lens and the ISO range. Generally, for sports/cycling photography you want to have faster shutter speeds to minimise motion blur. To do this the camera lens should be able to collect more light (the lens 'speed') and the sensor be more sensitive the the light that's collected (the ISO number) for given lighting conditions. There are trade-offs with both (depth-of-field and image noise respectively) but a camera with a decent lens and high ISO capability will give you the most consistent results. The lens speed is specified as an f-number and can be confusing if you're not familiar. Basically, the lower the f-number, the faster the lens. Things do start to get expensive when you start looking at fast zoom lenses.

I haven't lurked for a while, but https://www.dpreview.com probably has the biggest library of camera reviews.

Hope that helps.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Canon Ixus range used to offer really good small digicams

I've had one of those for years: it works well, produces good quality photos and is easy to use.

 

[slowmotion]

Thanks for the help guys I'll look unto them. I was thinking a bridge camera in the first place but will take a look at the others

Before I bought the £100 Panasonic Lumix, I went up and down the budget scale. If I spend a hundred quid more, I could get more gizmology? I was almost up to £500 before I realized that technology creep was getting a bit out of hand. Just get a camera that is easy to carry. £100 in my case.

I decided on point-and shoot. I never had ambitions to challenge Tim Page. If you have an eye for a picture (and I certainly don't), the camera is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Reynard]

Before I bought the £100 Panasonic Lumix, I went up and down the budget scale. If I spend a hundred quid more, I could get more gizmology? I was almost up to £500 before I realized that technology creep was getting a bit out of hand. Just get a camera that is easy to carry. £100 in my case.

I decided on point-and shoot. I never had ambitions to challenge Tim Page. If you have an eye for a picture (and I certainly don't), the camera is pretty irrelevant. View attachment 372002

If all you want to do is family snaps, landscapes and touristy type stuff and have a camera that you can easily slip into a pocket, then a P&S is perfectly fine. Actually, hell, the camera on a smartphone will do that job reasonably well.

But given that the OP wants to do some sports photography, it is pretty well much a given that this will exceed the capabilities of a P&S or smartphone and quickly lead to frustration. I know. I've been there. For sports photography you really do need something with a good reliable AF that locks onto your subject quickly, plus a reasonable frame rate - say, 5 fps as a minimum, and, more importantly, the ability to shoot in shutter priority mode (useful in bad light) or better still, full manual.

It's not so much about "gizmology", it's about getting the right camera for the job in hand - you wouldn't undertake a DIY or car repair project without the right tools and equipment. As you go further up the range of DSLRs, you actually get progressively fewer fancy bells and whistles and pre-programmed modes than on the bottom-of-the-range jobbies - what you do get are bigger sensors, better AF with more focus points, higher frame rates, a bigger buffer, better battery packs, and the flexibility of being able to set up the camera to suit your needs.

A mid-range DSLR will offer the capability the OP wants for sports photography and yet still not be so big as to be unwieldy. If one can live without having the latest model, there are some good deals on the secondhand market.

I saw a very tidy Canon 40D body in CEX previous week for £90...

 

[Aravis]

I remember reading something in a magazine about cameras that have ultra-HQ video capability. The claim was that stills captured from the video can be of high enough quality to make them indistinguishable from conventionally taken shots for many purposes. The demonstration shots were certainly impressive, and for capturing sports action it does seem to open up interesting possibilities, worthy of investigation perhaps.

The particular models mentioned were the Panasonic LX100 (compact) and FZ1000 (bridge), which are normally in the £500 range, but there may be others.