Cameras forum

General discussion

Help! I need a new digital camera. What are these new hybrid-looking ones?

by Lee Koo (ADMIN) CNET staff/forum admin / July 27, 2012 9:05 AM PDT
Help! I need a new digital camera. What are these new hybrid-looking ones?

I hope you can help me out. My well-served Sony compact digital camera
of over six years just crapped out on me and I found out that it's not
worth fixing (the cost of fixing was more than I paid when I bought it
new!) I figure after all these years of use, it's time to look for a
new one. I recently window-shopped at my local Target department store
and I was surprised to see a lot more variety of cameras these days,
whereas six years ago I remember having two choices -- it was either a
compact camera or one those big fancy ones with big lenses that were

Now it seems they have a new category of cameras -- smaller cameras like
compact ones but with larger lenses and even ones with interchangeable
lenses like the big fancy one. The prices aren't cheap either, costing
upwards of $400 and more. Did I miss something these past six years?
Are these new cameras some sort of hybrid between the two that I'm used
to? I primarily use my digital camera to take pictures of my kids and
family. Sometimes I would like to think I'm being creative with my
camera and take better and artsy subjects, but who am I kidding when I'm
using a compact camera. Maybe one of these hybrid cameras will be
a better choice for me when I'm in the mood to take creative pictures.
However, I have no idea what these are and what I'm buying into. They
do seem to be a bit more complicated to use, but I'm willing to learn.
Can you help me understand what this new breed of camera is? Are
there any advantages or disadvantages to them beside being a bit
bulkier? When would I want a interchangeable lens camera? Or do you
think I should just stick with a compact camera like the one I had
before and stay with what I know? Any help with this is welcome and

-- Submitted by: Samantha O.
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Help! I need a new digital camera. What are these new hybrid-looking ones?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Help! I need a new digital camera. What are these new hybrid-looking ones?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Go for it

I have had multiple SLRs, film and digital. I had an Alpha 700, but got tired of carrying around a movie camera and a still camera. I researched the new Sonys. The regular DSLRs could take HD movies, but the mirror up position prevented them from using auto-focus during filmimg. I bought a Sony Alpha 55 last year for a trip, and found it to be light, agile, and an all around good camera. The functions are laid out a bit differently from the alpha 700, and you have to use Sony's program to get the movies off the SD card. My only gripe was there is no optical viewfinder. If you look into the finder, and you don't depress the shutter slightly, you get the last picture taken through it which caused confusion until I figured out the problem. The flexibility you have with interchangeable lenses seals the deal with DSLRs.

Collapse -
Sony Alpha 55 is not a Hybrid
by stanny1 / July 27, 2012 12:04 PM PDT
In reply to: Go for it

The Sony NEX series is Sony's Hybrid.

Collapse -
Compact Interchangeable Lens Camera

I believe that is what Cnet refers to the group as. Typically, they employ a digital sensor that is larger than the ones in compact "point and shoot" cameras, so they offer better image quality. They also use interchangeable lenses, again to boost image quality.

A common complaint about point and shoot cameras is that they do not work well in low light. Using a bigger sensor and having the ability to use brighter lenses are what drives people to buy CILC's.

Being creative with a camera has little to do with the type of camera you use, although one that has more manual controls gives you more ability to be creative. Some P&S cameras these days have built-in creative modes that allow you to employ special effects without needing to know how to use Photoshop. Some P&S cameras also have manual controls.

Collapse -
by Gregavi / August 3, 2012 2:46 PM PDT

Being creative with a camera has little to do with the type of camera you use? Are you kidding? P&S cameras do not have the ability to capture low light shots that the DSLRs and NEX type cameras have. Their Inability to capture wide-angle shots, shutter and focus speeds, depth of field control, all give you a huge advantage in creativity with a DSLR or NEX camera. There are some advantages that P&S cameras give you, but other than size, simplicity and price, there really are none. If you want to get creative, go for the DSLR or NEX.

Collapse -
While I appreciate the comment , I don't appreciate the tone
by Cirrus72 / August 4, 2012 6:23 PM PDT
In reply to: Really?

I would hope if you were to comment in this format again, you would offer a little more educational instruction instead of cynicism.

Collapse -
A modern 'P&S' Camera is far better than you think..
by feduchin / August 4, 2012 11:00 PM PDT
In reply to: Really?

I wonder if you have used a modern Point And Shoot(P&S) flat camera?

A modern P&S camera is FAR better than you apparently believe.

I use one in preference to my Pentax SLR; a very good unit which I also like, but almost never carry due to it's bulk and weight. Why the P&S in preference? Because it is WITH ME all day! My P&S is small, flat, and light, and sits in my shoulder bag or on my belt, always immediately available.

It DOES have a very good sensor that DOES take pictures in low light. The little screen does not always show the picture you have just taken to it's best advantage, but if you look at the picture with decent computer software (I use an old copy of Photoshop) you can adjust the brightness and contrast and see great detail, even of seemingly black pictures.

Mine is a Fujifilm F550EXR. But I'm not saying that's the only one or even the best, just very good value.

It's NOT alone, there are at least three dozen other makes and models, such as current Canon, Nikon and Olympus for example that are just as good or better. After all my camera is now a YEAR old! That's AGES in the modern camera field.

It cost me $275 from eBay (from Digital Diamond Logistic, Hong Kong - there, a free plug!) in August 2011, and I reckon for what it SUPERBLY does, that's cheap!

Collapse -
Not better than I think.
by Gregavi / August 6, 2012 2:00 AM PDT

I understand P&S cameras are far better than they were several years ago. I have 3 of them. I also have a full size DSLR and a Sony NEX. There are many shots I cannot get with a P&S camera and I have to turn to the DSLRs to get. If P&S cameras were as good, nobody would buy the DSLRs.

This shot I took off the coast of Turkey last month would have been impossible with a P&S camera.

I am not a great photographer, but with the right camera (DSLR), a little knowledge and some cool software, you can get results like this.

Collapse -
by PistonCupChampion / August 6, 2012 2:35 AM PDT

"This shot I took off the coast of Turkey last month would have been impossible with a P&S camera."

Nonsense. A P&S camera with manual controls could easily make that shot. Three different exposures, ramp up the tone mapping and voila, an overcooked HDR image.

Here's a shot taken straight from a Sony WX150 P&S, straight out of the camera using one of the camera's creative filters:

Collapse -
Yes, really
by PistonCupChampion / August 5, 2012 1:13 PM PDT
In reply to: Really?

A DSLR or mirrorless CILC can offer more control of depth of field, and are better in low light without flash. But you are underestimating the capabilities of modern compacts. Many offer quite wide angle lenses; wider than all but the most niche wide angle lenses available for interchangeable lens cameras. Many are now just as fast if not faster than the most popular DSLR's, both in capture rate and focusing speed. Many can even take perfectly good low-light images, as long as the images are not viewed as huge prints.

There are some really goof compacts these days, headlined by the new Sony RX100, the Fujifilm X100. Other very capable compacts include the Canon G12 and S100, Fujifilm X10, Nikon P7100, Panasonic LX5/7, and the Samsung EX1/EX2F.

As for P&S compacts, they're pretty amazing too. I have Sony's last generation travel zoom, the HX9V, rated excellent by Cnet and every other reviewer as well. Admittedly, it doesn't offer the image quality of more expensive cameras, but the difference is unimportant when I'm only viewing images on my laptop. Plus it captures far better video than most DSLR even.

Collapse -
Depends on YOUR expertise
by LTD912 / August 6, 2012 2:54 AM PDT
In reply to: Really?

As a professional who uses a 4 year old Canon 720IS for almost everything, I can attest to the ability to get wide angle shots, to stitch together an entire panorama, to use manual settings for aperture and shutter speed, etc, etc...okay, it's a sophisticated p&s, but if you know your camera inside and out and you have the expertise, inventiveness and capability, you can do an awful lot with less than a DSLR and not have a shoulder ache from carrying it around! :))

Collapse -
It all depends on the When, the How + the Result

Early this century it used to be either Point and Shoot (P&S) *OR* Single Lens Reflex (SLR). Cheap and poor OR pricey and great pictures. Technical development and much cheaper production now offers a much greater range or prices and quality.
Now you can buy a camera for $200-$400 that gives very good results, or you can spend $1200 all the way up to $10,000 that will do great, specialized work.
It's your Skill + the Sensor + the Lens!
The sensor accepts your picture when you take a snap, so the bigger the better. 10 years ago a P&S used a sensor about the size and thickness of a lady's pinkie; but an average SLR used one about the size of a squared off quarter, maybe 20 times larger!
Now even the cheapest P&S has a better sensor. For every $200-$300 odd you get a larger sensor, right up to and beyond $2000 where you get a huge one! Does it all matter that much? Yes to some; but not that much if you want to snap the kids, your friends, the scenery, the Taj Mahal or Mount Everest. You will still get very good results with a $300 flat camera.
I always carry a camera so very soon I realized it had to be TRULY portable. Mine is a Fujifilm EXR550 which has a good mid-sized sensor and takes very good, creative pictures in a wide range of available light, and it's quite small and flat. It has 30+ brothers of various makes that are NOT P&S cameras, they are MUCH better and their average prices are $250-$600.
A Compact Interchangeable Lens Camera (CILC) with prices of maybe $400 to $1000, might give you a larger sensor, or might not, but you do have a choice of lens. You get less portability but more options than you do with a flat camera. Both offer more portability than an SLR. (I use my SLR about twice a year.)
It is now LESS a matter of quality. It is MORE a matter of How and When you want to use it, plus your skill level, because even so-called cheap cameras produce very good results.

Collapse -
About the "hybrids"

I guess you are talking about the new category of mini cameras. These cameras look like the simple one but pack the technology of bigger cameras. One of the biggest changes is the use of bigger sensor. Sensor size is critical for quality of the picture. In regular cheap cameras the sensor is small and the quality is much worse, especially in dark conditions
(Sensor is one of the most complicated and expensive parts of the camera).
Examples of those tiny giants
Canon G series: G9, G10, G11
If you notice, those G series also include "hot shoe", a place for external flash on top.

If you want a tiny camera that take pictures like its big sister, this is the answer. The downside: its not SLR so no ability to change the lens.
There are manufacturers who make relatively small SLR, look at Olympus product line.

I hope i helped.

Collapse -
They do have lenses
by johnaudie / August 4, 2012 2:23 PM PDT
In reply to: About the "hybrids"

The mini cameras with the large sensors, like the Sony NEX and Nikon 1 - they do have interchangeable lenses.

Collapse -
yes, a few things happened since then.

(By the way, I saw three categories of cameras before - in addition to the compact ones and the big system SLRs there were - and still are - also the "bridge" cameras, those that are not competing for your shirt pocket but try to give you good overall performance without interchangeable lenses or a prism/mirror viewfinder. There have been many of those in the last few years with zoom factors of well over 20x, and they do have their uses.)

But in terms of your question:

One thing that happened is that a lot of the compact cameras are now sidelined by what comes built into your cell phone. The one thing that cell phone cameras typically don't give you (yet?) is a decent optical zoom. That is because that would make the device quite a bit bulkier. For a while I used the 10 x 10 formula to determine whether a compact camera would do it for me - 10 Megapixels and a 10x optical zoom. That is still a good starting point but it is no longer a challenge.

The other thing, which I find even more significant, is the advent of these mirror-less system cameras with interchangeable lenses. Manufaturers are currently playing with a number of options. Some use a standard lens mount (Micro Four Thirds) and others have their own ideas. Some cameras look like mini SLRs (e.g. some Panasonics) others are rather more compact and flat (some Olympuses) and can be called shirt pocket compatible if you opt for a flat "opancake" lens as your standard lens. At the same time you can also mount a powerful zoom lens and have something like a bridge camera instead. Some models have digital viewfinders, some have an add-on optical viewfinder, but all can use the biggish display in the back to see what you are doing. Some displays are "flappable, others are fixed, some are touchscreens, etc. So do shop around!

All of these use a sensor size that is not much smaller than that of most SLRs, so they are miles ahead of the compact cameras there (Remember, 12 Megapixels can be achieved with a sensor that is more than half the size of a traditional 35 mm negative, but you also find the same resolution in compact or cell phone cameras that are only a few square millimiters. The latter are much more prone to low light optical "noise".) In fact, I would suggest that the mirrorless cameras rival the SLRs for image quality. The main trade-off now is the superior prism/mirror viewfinder vs. the very compact form factor.

Personally, I ended up replacing my old film based SLR with a modern DSLR, and I was quite happy with that, except for one thing: I am a "follower" of the one major brand that did not give you compatibility for your old pre-autofocus lenses. So I sit on a large carry case full of wonderful lenses that don't fit on my DSLR. When the Micro Four Third cameras from Panasonic and Olympus came out and adapters for my lenses were being offered I got weak and got me one. The shop had a very good deal on a two lens package, so I dropped the idea of just getting the body and the adapter. Now I have this tiny camera that I can take around with its own set of lenses or with all the powerful old lenses. And I wonder sometimes if I shouldn't sell the SLR ...

Collapse -
New camera purchase
by SallySpooner / July 27, 2012 8:47 PM PDT

If you have a good local camera shop, try going there. Tell them exactly what you need. You might have to pay a few dollars more initially, but if they are good, it is well worth it to get exactly what you want and need.

Collapse -
Always put your hands on it before buying!
by LTD912 / August 6, 2012 2:58 AM PDT
In reply to: New camera purchase

Whatever you choose and wherever you purchase, there is NO substitute for actually trying a camera out and seeing if you like its hold, grip, viewfinder, etc. Then go find the best price and buy! Happy

Collapse -
A Little Lost?
by feduchin / August 3, 2012 2:13 PM PDT

Your article has interesting, if 'unfocused' information.. If you don't mind my saying you sound rather lost. Maybe you need to decide what pictures you mostly like taking and in what circumstances.

I've been taking pictures since I was about eight I guess; the first I remember was one (long lost) of my mother in a nursing home in southern England having just born 'the twins'. That was in 1950. I used an immediate successor to the Kodak Box Camera, although the one I used was also pretty boxy.

I think the name of my first SLR, bought about 1965 was an Exa 1A. That was a cheapy made by Exacta who were supposed to be quite good; I've forgotten now. Anyhow it had no pentaprism, you had to either look down into it, or UP into it! Being short, that feature could be surprisingly useful in a crowd where I could barely see a speaker or a stage. I could hold the camera at arms length high above my head and look up into the single lens reflector and take unobstructed upsidedown pictures of the stage!

My first 'standard' SLR, in 1979 was a Canon AV1, the one with aperture priority but no manual mode. It always slightly annoyed me and I replaced it around 1982 with my beloved Canon A1, which, as a low end professional camera (so they said) was a really fantastic camera. Although there was also the Canon F1, not to mention the Nikon F1 and those of several other good makes, I would venture to say that the A1 more than made its made its mark.

Of course I've gone through the gamut of buying and selling various SLRs up to fairly recently, a Leica SLR in the '90s' - far too expensive for me to buy additional lens for; a Nikon - too bloody big; great pictures but seldom actually with me; to my current Pentax. Another 'good' SLR, but I seldom carry it.

Then around five years ago I saw a little Agfa in KMart (Sydney), only $130 and as light as the proverbial.. I bought it, popped it on my belt in its convenient little fabric velcro case, and never looked back.

The pictures, though not great, were certainly adequate in most cases. I snapped everything I came across, snap mad I was. Let's face it, an average SD could hold 3000 odd pictures! Now I have a very much better 'flat' camera, the Fujifilm EXR550 that frankly takes fairly superb pictures.

The Pentax? I use it about twice a year. You see, you need to know what circumstances you like taking pictures in: Are you really going to wander about all day with something heavy and unwieldy; which you might if you're a professional; or can you bury your pride and use something fairly simply but good, snatch your lightweight camera from your pocket or bag and -- snap that pic?

I was waiting for the lights to change at the corner of Elizabeth and Park, Sydney and on the wide pavement next to me were a couple of guys talking. SITTING on the pavement, between them, was this young woman, holding onto the leg of one of the guys! Go figure.

But I got the picture.

Collapse -
some one who knows the camera!
by Cirrus72 / August 4, 2012 6:39 PM PDT

I think your answer was the most helpful of all. Even though I have only the basic understanding of each of the standards you speak of, at least you speak of the differences between the different formats, which makes you more informative.

Collapse -
Changes have taken place in digital cameras

When I read your question, I felt that I had to reply because I have been taking pictures for over 35 years and I have seen a lot of changes. Yet, the changes in the last year have been very significant. Up until the last year, we say several types of digital cameras - point and shots (P&S), cameras have interchangeable lens and electronic view finders (EVFs), strict DSLRs, and cameras that could do both video and still pictures. Each camera had its pros and cons:

P&S: pros - light weight, convenient, easy to use.
cons - small sensor (picture quality suffered), had to focus using the back lcd (I prefer a view finder), taking pictures using manual a pain, slow (tracking, autofocusing)

Often best for travel and for still subjects in bright sunshine.

EVFs - pro - light weight, interchangeable lens, offered more control (manual was often better), and many cameras offered modes (e.g., artistic modes on the Olympus); better at taking movies.
Cons - the view finder was often darker than an optical view finder; slower autofocusing, often unusable when light poor or when trying to use higher ISOs. Bigger than the PS&.

DSLRs - pro - good view finders; fast autofocusing; good camera control; durable; fast in taking pictures
Cons - heavy weight; movies not as good as with other platforms (a limitation in my mind of the moving mirror foudn in DSLRs); more expensive (both the camera body and the lens).

There are other types of cameras like the electronic range finders (e.g., Leica M8, M8.2, M9, Fujifil XPro-1). However, this is not a common system - I have the Leica and love it but it is not for everyone. I will also skip over the new cameras coming from Nikon (V1 and J1) and Canon (EOS M) because I have not worked with them and they really confuse me from a specification/performance perspective.

In the last year, several changes have occurred:

1. We have seen some higher end P&S cameras that are simply superb. Specifically, the fujifilm X10 and X100. These cameras offer a view finder with the X100 offering a hybrid (it can be either optical or electronic). Larger sensor, better camera controls, great shots. I have both fujifilms and they are superb (I happen to prefer the x10 to the more expensive X100).

2. Along with the Sony NEX series (interchangeable lens, large sensor, good control and on the NEX-7, a viewfinder - yeah), Olympus has introduced the OM-D E-M5 and Sony has introduced the A55/A57/A77. What these latter cameras give you are light weight, better EVFs (in the case of the Olympus), faster shooting speeds (up to 10 frames per second for the Sony A series), and better movie taking capabilities. These cameras are starting to erase the performance differences found in high end DSLRs (for the most part). I think that this is what you mean by hybrids.

These new cameras are amazing. I recently bought an Olympus OM-D because of its performance and light weight. I was asked to speak in Utrecht, Netherlands, in June. Since I had built in a day for travel recovery, I decided to take a camera. The question - which one. I could take my Leica M9 (great pictures, great street camera, but limited focal lengths, not fast because of manual focusing), my Nikon D3s (heavy but a tank - able to take great pictures and take a beating) or the Olympus OM-D. I took the OM-D with four lenses. The OM-D surprised me. It was light (the entire system with flash and lenses) weighed less than the D3s with one lens. The EVF was bright and very good on the refreshes (how quickly the EVF displayed changes), the performance under low light/high ISO conditions surprisingly good, and movies excellents.

These new generation EVFs and high end P&S are blurring the boundaries. They are giving photographers like you and me the ability to take better quality pictures and movies with lighter bodies. They are also faster. To me, as we see the evolution of cameras like the NEX and the Olympus OM-D continue, we should see cameras that are good enough/fast enough to take sports/action shots. The old adage that you need a fast DSLR to do action is becoming less relevant.

This is a good time to look at these new generation cameras. Some final hints. Know the type of pictures that you want to take (movie versus still, action versus landscape). Get to know sites like,,, and for their camera reviews. Go to a good quality dealer and play with the cameras.

Hope that these comments address your question.

Collapse -
by PistonCupChampion / July 28, 2012 3:09 AM PDT

FWIW, the category is not called EVF, because some of the compact interchangeable lens cameras (or mirrorless) have an Electronic Viewfinder, but some do not.

Collapse -
l think you just made my day!..
by JCitizen / July 28, 2012 3:18 AM PDT

I've undertaken the vexing research for a good camera that took good movies, but had DSLR features. Now I have at least a jump off point. Now, I wonder if I can use such a camera in astrophotography.

I know I'm expecting too much from one camera; but that is how I'm rolling for now.

Collapse -
To do astrophotography
by Steven A. Melnyk / July 28, 2012 8:25 AM PDT

To do astrophotography, consider a digital with the following features:

1. tripod socket (need to mount it on a tripod)
2. b (bulb) or m (manual) setting - you will be tripping the shutter and let it stay open for a few seconds.
3. remote shutter release or shutter delay - you want to avoid any shakes in the camera.

It also does not hurt if the camera has interchangeable lenses - tends to push you towards a good DSLR.

Collapse -
At least it had no mirror...
by JCitizen / July 29, 2012 10:12 AM PDT
In reply to: To do astrophotography

at some folks on forums thought that is an advantage in some areas; but I wonder if it will fit on an eyepiece adapter. I thought I'd by a bundle deal for everything but the camera. They even have cryogenic camera boxes to cool the image chip when taking movies of astro events.

Thanks for the rep, I really appreciate it! Happy

Collapse -
What about microscopy?
by PeterSJC / August 5, 2012 6:58 PM PDT
In reply to: To do astrophotography

I would like to get a camera and lens that I can use with my microscopes, which have 23.2 millimeter eyepieces. Any suggestions?

Collapse -
Sorry PeterSJC....
by JCitizen / August 8, 2012 3:07 PM PDT
In reply to: What about microscopy?
Collapse -
Those New Cameras

Those new interchangeable-lens cameras, like the Sony NEX and the Nikon One (although nearly all the manufacturers are making them now in one form or another), are generally called "mirrorless" cameras. Their sensor is generally smaller than in DSLRs but larger than compacts, giving better low-light performance than compacts and greater depth of field (in some cases) than DSLRs. They generally lack an optical viewfinder and rely entirely on the OLED or LCD display for composing.

But the problems with them are manifold. One of the chief problems is their price. They are less capable than DSLRs and yet cost as much or more. The second problem is that they do not use DSLR lenses even from the same manufacturer, instead relying on a new series of lenses that are incompatible with the old mounts. This is a SERIOUS problem for anyone who has owned SLR cameras for a while, because your investment in lenses will need to be duplicated, and the choices of lenses for these cameras is seriously limited when compared to the offerings for DSLRs. And those new lenses are EX-PEN-SIVE!

Why not just go with a proper DSLR (that new Nikon D3200 hits a pretty nice price/performance point) and augment it with a cheap but nice (you can go REALLY cheap and still outperform your old Sony significantly) compact when portability and simplicity are important.

Collapse -
RE: Those New Cameras
by dj_erik / August 3, 2012 10:02 AM PDT
In reply to: Those New Cameras

I wouldn't say they are less capable they SLRs. Every camera has a purpose and being a photographer, I would say these new cameras can fill in a nice gap in every professional's gear bag. First off, I use my Micro 4/3rds to complement my SLRs. I would love to bring out a rangefinder to every shooting, but sometimes I just can take the chance of destroying a 5K+ USD camera. These cameras are close to a replacement. Probably the most expensive but honestly the best feature to date would be the Panasonic GH2, and it's only roughly 2K USD. The size is excellent, the mirrorless design gives you a nice depth of field, you can still use your old Lecia lens, and you can even mess around with some videos that are really quite nice. It's like comparing a D90 Nikon SLR to a Hasselblad or Mamiya medium format digital camera, they are in a totally different spectrum with totally different uses.

Collapse -
New camera

Like you, I have an older camera, 10X, with an evf. I recently bought a new Canon camera, not a DSLR, with no evf. I don't like or use it due to lack of evf. I hate holding the new camera at arm's length to take pictures and am therefore left with two choices - continue using my old camera or buy a DSLR with view finder. Since I want portability and convenience, I don't want to buy and haul around multiple lenses. I will continue to use my old camera until it dies. So ask yourself - can I live without a view finder, or will I be happy with a DSLR.

good luck with your choice Samantha


Collapse -
Super zoom Bridge Cameras
by NYBABU / August 3, 2012 11:41 AM PDT
In reply to: New camera

You should look into the super zoom bridge cameras, I just bought the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 and it's awesome, it has an EVF and LED display. Takes great pictures and is very easy to use.

Collapse -
Things to consider

Once you lunge into "interchangeable" lens, you need to keep in mind that from that moment on, you will be lugging gear around. There would be no point in having the body with just one lens attached at all times, would there? So just imagine how that might turn out in real life. The expenditure in both money and effort may become substantial.

If you want to travel that road, you might want to read some reviews to get some insight. Some sites have been mentioned already, but I quite like imaging-resource; their newsletter is delightful, and not just brimming with technology but invariably rendered with a human touch. Elsewhere, Ken Rockwell could make your choice of a new camera much easier by authoritatively recommending various models of Canon and/or Nikon, and nothing but. He also shows some photographs taken on mobile phones, to good effect.

More important still will be laying your hands on the stuff you might think about buying - proof of the pudding is in the holding, in this instance, and handling. Regardless of what others say on paper, you need to experience for yourself whether you could be happy with their suggestions.

If I have not made it clear yet: There is nothing wrong with a compact as long as it serves your purpose. Your picture-taking will be somewhat limited, but challenges lead to creativity. Come to think of it, every camera presents an essential limitation by its very nature, and aspiring to art is neither here nor there. It all is within.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Having Wi-Fi troubles?

From the garage to the basement, we blanketed every square inch of the CNET Smart Home with fast, reliable Wi-Fi.