I’m seeking a new camera for my step-dad’s 75th birthday.

Budget is $300

He is not a techie so “user friendly” is a plus.

Will most often be used for outdoor scenes. Very amateur.

Would like to transfer pics by chip. Is WiFi transfer an option?

Thanks much for any recommendations.

I'm a Canon guy and just looked into what they offer for you. I've bought Canon Refurbs, a couple of times, no problems. This looks like it might be a good choice, I like the Retro Style:

https://shop.usa.canon.com/sho...silver-refurbished-1

For compact point and shoot look at

Canon PowerShot

I have a 8-10 year old model that is still viable even though the hard specs don't compare to today's offerings. That said, I rarely use it because my iPhone 7 takes reasonable quality images and I always have in near by.

Thank guys, I like the idea of Canon...really need to stay under the $300 budget. I'll look at these more after work.

Consider an iPhone X. I'm amazed at the quality of the photos it turns out. And it doubles as a phone.

quote:

Originally posted by mcrimm:
Consider an iPhone X. I'm amazed at the quality of the photos it turns out. And it doubles as a phone.

Actually has one. just wants a stand alone camera though.

quote:

Originally posted by NavyGuy:
For compact point and shoot look at

Canon PowerShot

I have a 8-10 year old model that is still viable even though the hard specs don't compare to today's offerings. That said, I rarely use it because my iPhone 7 takes reasonable quality images and I always have in near by.

I'm a Nikon guy when it comes to my DSLR's but for point and shoots the Canon Powershots have served me well for years!

If you don’t mind used, this is a steal...


https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/5460002834

For more info...

https://shop.usa.canon.com/sho...-mark-ii-refurbished

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
I’m seeking a new camera for my step-dad’s 75th birthday.

Budget is $300

He is not a techie so “user friendly” is a plus.

Will most often be used for outdoor scenes. Very amateur.

Would like to transfer pics by chip. Is WiFi transfer an option?

Thanks much for any recommendations.

I think I can give you just what you're looking for.

My wife and I have Canon DSLRs and lenses to go with. They're wonderful for shooting wildlife in the yard, or for taking on a day trip to a park or nature preserve. I have a terrific fixed macro lens for mine. But neither of us is particularly interesting in hauling-about 5-6 lbs. of camera and lenses, never mind additional lenses, on a long trip.

So I've been looking for capable digicams.

I think we're going to go with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300, for its having close-to-DSLR performance yet being relatively convenient to pack for trips and carry about all day.

If we hadn't gone with that, we probably would've gone with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

(I went with the former mainly because I wanted a faster lens in tele.)

They both have electronic viewfinders, which, to me, is one thing that can set a real camera apart from the camera in a phone.

The ZS50 can be had from Amazon for $300.

Costco has the newer ZS60 for $280. I was not impressed with the reviews.

FWIW: I spent a good deal of time researching this over the last three days or so. I'm fairly confident in this recommendation. As confident as I can be without actually having used one, myself, anyway.

I have been very pleased with the Cannon sx710 hs
easy to use and easy to load on computer by camera or the chip
The zoom is a killer with 30X power.

"There is no replacement for displacement." Sensor size matters far more for capturing compelling images than just about any factor--even superlative glass on an expensive lens makes less of an impact than the ability to gather light. A bigger sensor not only allows you to gather more light (improving overall sharpness), but typically also improves dynamic range and more creative control over depth of field.

Of the cameras suggested so far, only the refurbished G9X gives any real image quality advantage over shooting with the iPhone X. The iPhone probably has a sensor between 1/2.3" and 1/2.0" while the G9X has a 1" sensor.

With the iPhone's computational photography abilities, optical image stabilization, and 3D sensors, it's really hard to recommend any of the other small sensor cameras--they're all basically running the same sensor size or smaller, but without the computational horsepower that the iPhone has.

I also have a Cannon sx710 hs wonderful little camera and easy to pack around.

Canon Powershot, with the most optical zoom in an acceptable size.

Aeteocles, those are overly-simplistic, and, in certain respects, entirely inaccurate assertions.

Yes: All else being equal, and for most purposes, bigger sensors are better. But that is not a universal truth. It's more complicated than that.

And to say that, as compared to sensor size, glass doesn't matter is entirely incorrect.

Lastly: iPhones are computationally powerful, all right, but all that computational power can't entirely make up for lack of optical reach.

Go ahead and pitch those assertions on a photography forum. But don your Nomex long johns, first

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Aeteocles, those are overly-simplistic, and, in certain respects, entirely inaccurate assertions.

Yes: All else being equal, and for most purposes, bigger sensors are better. But that is not a universal truth. It's more complicated than that.

And to say that, as compared to sensor size, glass doesn't matter is entirely incorrect.

Lastly: iPhones are computationally powerful, all right, but all that computational power can't entirely make up for lack of optical reach.

Go ahead and pitch those assertions on a photography forum. But don your Nomex long johns, first

Fair assessment. The world is full of complexities, and my simple assertions are bound to be inapplicable at the margins.

In the world of flagship cameras designed with sensor sizes ranging from Micro-Four Thirds, APS-C, full frame and beyond, the sensor size probably means far less than I suggest. When you get into the realm of the best cameras that each manufacturer can produce, trade-offs between sensor size, body size, shooting speed, focus speed, feel less like compromises and more like specialization.

But, in the realm of basic cameras (sub $300 cameras) I still would argue that buying the largest sensor the budget allows is going to help make the most compelling images.

Given the choice between a 1" sensor and something with a 30x optical zoom on a 1/2.3" sensor, I would go with the larger sensor. Even if that glass was perfectly sharp (in reality, not likely the case), at that distance with such a small sensor the images would look flat, uninspiring, and anything but the brightest daylight conditions would cause it to be unsharp from a slow shutter speed or full of noise from a high ISO.

Really sharp glass can't fix a lack of light. (Sorry, this is what I meant by superlative glass--in retrospect, I should have been more clear that really fast glass can make up for a smaller sensor).

So, I guess, I retract my previous statement in part and simply say: at this budget range, and since Ronin1069's dad already has an iPhone X with a superb camera on it that beats out most point and shoots, I would spring for the largest sensor size that I could afford at this budget. The superzoom compact cameras advertise such long reach because they pair their small lenses with even smaller sensors, and shooting at the far end of such cameras usually results in noisy smears of images.

Are we still talking about cameras? LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
Are we still talking about cameras? LOL

Yeah, but we're entering the camera geek zone

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
When you get into the realm of the best cameras that each manufacturer can produce, trade-offs between sensor size, body size, shooting speed, focus speed, feel less like compromises and more like specialization.

Don't forget lenses.

When you increase reach (focal length), something has to give. Either the lens must get larger or slower. (Note to non-camera geeks: When we speak of a lens' "speed" we're talking about shutter speed, which is a function of maximum aperture.)

Sometime it is both compromise and specialization. Take the camera I'm considering. Panasonic compromised by going with a small sensor with lower pixel count. This allowed them to keep light gathering up, while increasing focal length and keeping the lens fast.

Compare Sony's RX10 to Panasonic's FZ1000. Both 20mpx 1" sensors. The FZ1000 has double the reach, but had to sacrifice speed to get it w/o making the lens gigantic.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
But, in the realm of basic cameras (sub $300 cameras) I still would argue that buying the largest sensor the budget allows is going to help make the most compelling images.

Not saying they don't exist, but I've yet to have seen a higher-end small P&S that has anything other than a 1/2.3 sensor.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
The superzoom compact cameras advertise such long reach because they pair their small lenses with even smaller sensors, and shooting at the far end of such cameras usually results in noisy smears of images.

Not any more. With advanced image stabilization they're now able to do remarkable things at 200mm, and even 400mm focal lengths, hand-held.

Part of that of course does depend on who's holding the camera, and 70-year-old hands, well... I know my hands aren't as steady as they once were.

1" sensors have been trickling down to point and shoot cameras since the success of the Sony RX 100 and the Panasonic Lumix L100.

The Fuji X100 line and Ricoh GR lines have squeezed in APS-C sized sensors in very small coat pocket sized bodies, and the Sony RX-1 has a full frame sensor in a similarly sized body.

You can see the trickle down into more affordable point and shoot cameras such as the Canon G9X now having 1" sensors.

My favorite ultra compact shirt pocket sized camera is the Canon S120, and that has a larger 1/1.7" sensor and F2 on the wide end (if I recall).

Things like dash cams and action cams are using 1/2.3" sensors now.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
1" sensors have been trickling down to point and shoot cameras since the success of the Sony RX 100 and the Panasonic Lumix L100.

Yeah, but $550 to $650. More, for the more recent RX100s.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
The Fuji X100 line and Ricoh GR lines have squeezed in APS-C sized sensors in very small coat pocket sized bodies, and the Sony RX-1 has a full frame sensor in a similarly sized body.

$600 to $1300 cameras.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
You can see the trickle down into more affordable point and shoot cameras such as the Canon G9X now having 1" sensors.

$380 to $450. Here, you and I diverge on sensor size vs. zoom. It's only 3x. I've found that far too limiting in a general-purpose "touring" camera.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
My favorite ultra compact shirt pocket sized camera is the Canon S120, and that has a larger 1/1.7" sensor and F2 on the wide end (if I recall).

Appears to be available only used?

Sensor size notwithstanding: The bottom line is image quality, and very good image quality can be had in cameras with 1/2.3 sensors. Certainly as good as any phone and with optical zoom to boot.