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

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.

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.

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

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.

http://www.viewbug.com/photo/1995188

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 cnet.com, cameralabs.com, wired.com, and dpreview.com for their camera reviews. Go to a good quality dealer and play with the cameras.

Hope that these comments address your question.

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.

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!

I'm not sure - but I know I've read about some mounts for such projects; or better yet buy one ready made for it:
http://www.olympusamerica.com/seg_section/seg_presscenter_headline.asp?pressNo=85

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.

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.