It is a Nikon CoolPix P900 amazon link
I would definitely be interested in purchasing these photos. I think they are awesome!
also, if you do not mind, What is the canon camera in the center (looks expensive lol)?
I want to get into photography just for fun and was thinking about getting a polaroid and this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKNND2W/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_imm_SW7N4ZTPP4FK6NPK982G?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1. Do you like these options or do recommend something better under the 400 dollar range?
I'd suggest checking out a sony RX-100 (Mk 1, not 2 or 3): amazon link. You can check ebay for lower prices as well. It's a compact all-around camera that has both landscape and macro modes. However, its 'macro' mode is not as close up as more serious 'macro' cameras (macro == close up photography). Video example of what the Mk2 can do, all of which the Mk1 can do
Awesome pic. I love sunspots - too bad there haven't been to many lately. As a ham radio operator, it hurts (limits long-distance radio contacts).
I bought a Canon SX530HS a few months ago on sale, currently $250 at Amazon. Here's a moon pic I took when I got it. ISO 100, F/6.5, 1/80 sec. It was racked out at 215mm or '50x' optical. I actually had to keep tweaking the tripod to keep the moon in frame since it was moving so quickly. I haven't tried with my SLR, but given the size of the sensors in these new cameras and the size of the lenses, I seriously doubt my 200mm lens would get anywhere near this level of magnification.
Now to see if I can find a filter or piece of viewing film that will fit over the lens!
This is what I started with after I found I did not like shooting video with a GoPro Hero 3 Black as much as shooting stills:
Canon S110 Powershot and Canon underwater housing:
Under $300 together right now from Amazon, but the camera is used. You can probably find a new S110 on Ebay or elsewhere for under $250. I bought mine a few years back for about $500 total.
I have had mine for over three years now and I have taken thousands of photographs. I upgrade the housing to the Ikelite housing, strobe and macro wet lens but it is still the same camera.
My girlfriend has the G16 and Canon housing and paid about $600 by catching both on sale.
Both these cameras are older models but have all the features you would look for in a first underwater camera. They are not overly complicated and I found plenty of resources online for help with settings, technique, etc.
Amazon 83x zoom for ~470$
Which I find odd, cause in Europ its 500€ for 83x or 400€ for 60x
Also, im very intersted in the Sony Rx100 IV. If anyone has had experience or knows if this is a solid choice, please reply. It seems that this camera is a very good option for astrophotography because of its low fstop and awesome sensor. Furthermore the 20-70mm lens seems legit for landscape shots, and possibly so close encounter wildlife shots.
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-Digital-Camera/dp/B00ZDWGM34
The benefit you'd get of a compact camera is more zoom and therefore more to practice portraits and composition with. You can also learn about apertures and focal lengths and more.
If you just do snapshots the iPhone 13 is more than enough.
But if you really want to dive in, something like this would be pretty good:
Panasonic LUMIX FZ80
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MS16V42/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_499ZDAJHZY45R81DS419
don't know about any other cameras, that Canon series I had considered for myself. Lens should cover anything you need. Do you have a good used camera place? Getting something a generation behind could cost half as much, for example https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B00RKNND2W
i have a very beat up: https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Premium-Compact-Digital-28-100mm/dp/B00889ST2G
30" shutter with F2.5
every 30 seconds it would compile the light into 1 shot and then do that 5 times
its not as good as a DSLR but its extremely travel-friendly and removes the hassle i'd probably have with all the different lenses
I’m still somewhat confused. Do you think something like this 20.1 MP camera would do the trick?
Sony DSCW800/B 20.1 MP Digital Camera (Black) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I8BIBCW/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_CPHGB0786GX1FDFRY7X8
Photography is not a cheap hobby and wildlife photography is even more expensive. Doing a quick search I found an article that recommends
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MS16V42
https://www.lapseoftheshutter.com/best-cameras-under-300/
Google wildlife photography on a budget for other ideas. Keep in mind when looking at other people's photos that their equipment might have cost $10,000 and more.
Good luck
After consideration, I'm thinking about getting the <strong>Sony DSC-RX100M2</strong> Sony DSC - RX100 M2 or M3. It seems like a good choice ? I may be wrong ?..
If you are at the watchtower outlook and head west on Desert View Drive, I was on the first outlook off of Desert View Drive you come to (should be on your right) called Navajo Point. My wife is terrified of heights so I didn't go anywhere crazy, I think I just held my camera above the other 1000 tourists' heads. It is a panorama shot on a Panasonic FZ1000 (25mm-400mm) at 25mm± equivalent, stitched in ICE. The original is 12283 x 5400.
I found that I was missing shots because of not wanting to swap lenses on my Canon DSLR, so I've been taking my Panasonic on vacations and only this year do I finally have a need to upgrade. It's been a great camera the past 5 years. Thank you for looking and commenting. 🙂
In case you are on a very tight budget and want a long lens setup, I have done birding all year with a "superzoom" or bridge camera and it has been absolutely fantastic. I will upgrade to a Nikon DSLR setup again at some point, but the price on the one I am using was excellent, especially considering the price of the equivalent zoom lens. It's even less money now, I see.
$249.00 is a huge bargain for something that does great birding photography.
But this Nikon superzoom is like a former camera I had which I hauled through the mountains for many seasons. Highly recommend. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/compact-digital-cameras/coolpix-p1000.html
If you want better low light in a compact camera, and frankly if you want a compact that's better than your phone, the go to would be the Sony RX100. They have several versions. New, the RX100 III for $650 seems the cheapest.
But you can get an RX100 I used for $200 on Amazon. That's what I'd recommend if you're budget conscious.
It'll be better in low light than any compact you can get for cheap new.
Both of those are pretty similar cameras. I've had a lot of luck with the CX405 and I've used it to film a number of different things. I don't know a lot about the latter, but they both seem to be capable of doing the same things. I think you should stick with the CX405, especially with a bundle. I personally think the CX405 is a good entry level Youtube camera, however, if you want to get the best audio possible, I'd aim for DSLRs with 3.5 mm ports, which both the cameras you listed lack. If you're willing to pay a little extra, I'd recommend the Panasonic Lumix FZ80. You sacrifice vlogging potential with the lack of a hot shoe and 3.5 mm port, plus an eye sensor and fixed LCD monitor, but you'll get to shoot 4K at 30 fps and get the same zoom quality as the cameras listed above. Here's the price on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-Camera-Megapixels-20-1200mm-F2-8-5-9/dp/B01MS16V42
Hope this helps! Good luck with your purchase!
So cameras like these are just really bad? Canon PowerShot SX530 Digital Camera w/ 50X Optical Zoom - Wi-Fi & NFC Enabled (Black) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKNND2W/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_aCXEFbYDEPA0F even if I edit away some grain and do slight colour corrections?
I'll make it easy for you: You want a (used) Sony RX100 III.
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Premium-Compact-F1-8-2-8-DSCRX100M3/dp/B00K7O2DJU
The RX100 was the beginning of Sony's takeover of the entire camera market, from enthusiast level all the way up to full-frame pro cameras. They somehow now have a bigger market share than Nikon OR Canon. I don't know what possessed them to decide they wanted to be The Best Camera Company, but right now they're it, and the RX100 is one of the reasons.
In your shoes I'd go for the RX100 III, they switched from a 28mm-equivalent to a 24mm-equivalent on the wide end which is a non-trivial difference for taking landscape shots. It's $650 new but you can find a ton of used ones for $400ish.
Obviously the RX100 IV, V, and VI have upgraded features but I don't think any of them would be worth it for you on that tight of a budget.
$90 Sony W800 point and shoot.
National Geographic uses these. Buy one or both for yourself and use them. And then bill the tabloid for a work-related purchase. This reliance on cell phones for everything is only justifiable if it's 1) protecting a source or material and 2) using Apple's tech to instantly transfer gigabytes of info between Apple computers. Otherwise your workplace is being cheap.
Maybe look up a RX100. I've heard great things about them and they are small, light cameras. Just not cheap.
Edit: actually, it's not too bad. The older models arent too expensive. https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Premium-Compact-Digital-28-100mm/dp/B00889ST2G
I apologize for the "what should I buy" question that gets asked all the time, but here we go.
I'm looking at the RX100 M3 and the A6000 with 6-50mm and 55-210mm lenses
I'm a 100% total beginner and I want a camera to capture basically everything (travel, family, outdoors).
From what I can see the RX100 is only better for portability, and I'm 100% okay with a bigger camera for better pictures, but are the two lenses included enough? I'm okay with potential buying one more, but I would like to keep it to the two.
I'm also open to other suggestions!
Really interesting! Would this, for example, be a good camera?
This looks like it might be slightly overkill for my needs (960fps max). But at $698 new, we are getting closer to an affordable amount.
Is there another model, perhaps, that would be more affordable with a lower max fps?
Thank you for the suggestion, by the way. This is my top choice at the moment.
So something like this isn't better than a next year's iphone?
The Sony RX100 Mark IV that you're talking about is ~$900 which is over double your $400 expectation and 50% higher than your pushed budget. Are you finding it for super cheap someplace else?
How do you think this compares? https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DC-FZ80K-Lumix-Camera-F2-8-5-9/dp/B01MS16V42/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1491591751&sr=1-4&keywords=lumix
It doesn't explicitly say it can do 1080 60fps, but I would assume it could if it could do 4k 30?
I'm looking at this camera:
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00I8BIBCW
Are you saying a device meant only to take pictures would give me worse quality results than my Duraforce phone which was not only designed for dual front & back cameras (cheap ones) but also a 1080p touchscreen, wifi, Bluetooth and GSM / HSPA / LTE communications, headphone jacks and a CPU capable of running 3d games?
This is the one I mean, but in the "Compare To Similar Items" section, it looks like the are multiple, more expensive, iterations with the same DSC-RX100 model number. Is this one a good buy?