Do I need a new camera?

esc4p3

I've currently got a Canon SX710HS compact camera, I love it (20mp, 30x optical zoom, some manual controls). I bought it because I wanted a camera I could easily carry or pop into my pocket and I didn't really want a larger bridge or DSLR to lug around. For what I originally bought it for, it is great - which is a mix of holiday snaps or days out, pictures of the garden, a few close ups of flowers etc. I mainly photograph 'things' such as buildings, animals, flowers rather than landscapes. Most of my photography is during daytime.

I can get some really good results from both photo and video, I generally take video at 720p, mainly because of file size and uploading to Google Photos.

....Really good results that is, until now.

We bought a puppy last year, so I have been taking an awful lot of photos of him. He inevitably doesn't stand still for long but we have also started showing him. So I find myself often indoors in 'fairly' well lit places, not natural daylight, using a high amount of zoom. As a result, suddenly my photos are not so good. The photos are often not in focus (or at least that's how they appear, not sharply defined), the auto focus struggles to get a focus, the shutter speed is often too slow. I generally don't use the digital zoom, although I have been known to!

I often don't have a choice of getting closer to my subject because dogs are shown in a ring and you have to remain outside that area, hence the zoom. Sometimes the shows are outdoors, and that is not so problematic.

Therefore.....do I need a different camera? Of course I can put up with what I've got, it does pretty well all things considered - I generally take a high volume of photos and ditch the one's that are not good, some of them turn out just fine. I've looked at compact cameras with larger sensors, which seem to fit the bill for letting in more light, but few have long zooms. The best I've seen is the Panasonic TZ200 with a 15x zoom.

I'm not bothered about the brand of the camera, and let's not worry too much about price at the moment. If you all tell me I need a £2,000 camera than that would rule it out, but at least I'll have that choice. Equally you may say "tough, you're going to need to lug a DSLR around", in which case I have another choice to make.....

Below are a couple of examples to show you what I mean, one photo taken back in the snow, outdoors in very good light - the 2nd photo on long zoom indoors.

A good example (our pup)
Screenshot_20180302-143949

A not-so-good example (not our pup)
IMG_6648

Thoughts welcome, thanks in advance.

Carl.

AMc

The issue you're going to face is a small, long zoom is much easier to build with a small sensor - it's just the physics of the lens and sensor.
If you want good low light performance you need a larger sensor - so you compromise on zoom and portability.

The trick is going to be to balance what you can trade off.

A DSLR or a Compact System Camera (CSC or mirrorless) with a larger sensor will do better in low light but at the expense of the long zoom you're enjoying.
CSC can be not much larger than a compact camera and even if you add a fairly long zoom they don't become cumbersome.

My first suggestion would be to trawl Flickr for dog show shots that you like - ideally at events you've attended - and look at the EXIF data it will show you what camera, lens and settings were used which might help you narrow the search.

esc4p3

What a great idea, thanks! That's my evenings sorted for a few days.....

esc4p3

Looking at exif data....How do I know what (say) 175mm is equivalent to in terms of actual zoom? Or is there not a way?

rancidpunk

It all depends on the camera and it's crop factor when compared to full frame. Most lenses are quoted in full frame equivalent sizes, so yours is a 25-750 equivalent.
If a 175mm focal length is used on a full frame camera then it is 175mm, so your camera would be around 4x that reach.
On a crop sensor  (aps-c) camera it would be the equivalent of around 260mm
On a micro 4/3 it would be 350mm.

snerkler

As others have said this is a case of bigger is better, and when I say this I’m talking about sensor size. In low light the bigger the sensor the better your images (all other things considered equal).

The other thing is your lens, stick an f2.8 lens on your camera and you’re going to get 4 times as much light reaching the sensor as an f5.6 lens, this makes a big difference in low light situations. With regards to low light, our eyes can adapt pretty well so if your eyes are telling you the light indoors isn’t great you can bet your camera’s screaming (so to speak).

Lastly if you can use flash, particularly bounced flash, this will also help enhance your images.

You don’t have to spend thousands to get a large sensor DSLR/mirrorless and suitable lens, but you will have to put up with something more bulky than what you have now.

topgazza

And dealing with the question posed by the title the answer is always....... yes

esc4p3

Hmmm, so far, looked at quite a few images on Flickr. Most are taken by a DSLR. I somehow suspect that a lot of the posters of dog show pictures are the pro photographers you see at shows and these are probably examples of their work - so possibly a bit of a bias in terms of the type of camera. However, there's no escaping every image I've gone "now that's really good".....it's been a DSLR.

I didn't mention bridge cameras in my original post, looking online quite a few of these don't seem to tick the 'larger image sensor' box, although they often do tick the monumental zoom box. Some of them don't look much less bulkier than a DSLR though.

More Googling reveals I quite like the Panasonic TZ200 and the Canon PowerShot G3 X, both having good zoom and a large sensor, but the latter being more bulky.

snerkler

The TZ200 and G3x don't have "large" sensors per se but they have noticeably larger than the average compact camera. See these charts below, mobile phones tend to have 1/3.2", average compact cameras have 1/2.3", 1" compacts/bridge cameras such as the TZ200 and G3x have the 1" sensor, then there are the two types of DSLR, crop sensor (APS-C) and the larger full frame. As you can see there's quite a difference in size between the 1" type sensor and APS-C DSLRs, and an even bigger difference to full frame DSLRs. When you see the size difference it helps you understand how much more overall light the larger sensors can capture, how much larger the pixels will be (if you're comparing the same MP on each format), and importantly how much more you have to enlarge the smaller sensors to view them on your monitor or wherever.

                                                                                                                                                                  






The other thing to consider is the aperture of the lens. Both these 1" compacts that you listed have relatively small apertures at the long end of the zoom. The G3x for example is f5.6 at the long end (600mm eq) compared to the Sony RX10 mark iii bridge camera which is f4 at the long end (600mm eq). This means that the Sony RX10 will let twice as much light in at 600mm eq, this can make quite a difference in poor light.

In poor light in order to get the best image quality you want a large sensor format camera with a wide aperture lens, for example a picture shot on a full frame camera at f2.8 will look massively better than one shot on a 1" type camera shot at f5.6. Of course, it will always come down too compromises due to budget and amount of bulk you're willing to carry around.

AMc

As @snerkler has said a 1" sensor is bigger than the 1/2.3-inch CMOS sensor in your Canon SX710 but not anything like a m4/3rds or APS-C sensor.
A m4/3rds sensor will take in about 4x as much light as your current camera.
An APS-C a bit more again.
If you've been looking at pictures taken with full frame/35mm sensors on professional level DSLR bodies you're in a different league altogether.

According to this review of your Canon SX710 it has a lens 4.5-135mm lens with a 35mm equivalent focal reach of 25-750mm.  That's a very long zoom!
You have a maximum aperture range of f/3.2-6.9
Canon SX710 HS | TechRadar

If my maths is correct the crop factor is 5.555 (750/135)... so multiplying your focal length by that number will give you the equivalent 35mm in Full Frame/35mm focal length.
By converting your focal length (in Flickr under EXIF) to that you can cross compare zoom on all the different sensor sizes to what you have.

Your disappointing example is taken at 101.3mm which is about 563mm on a full frame sensor.
To get that level of zoom on a micro 4/3rds sensor (crop factor of 2) you'd need a 280mm lens.  Speaking of micro 4/3rds because that's what I use, there are a few of lenses with that range Olympus do a 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 for about £350, or a 300mm f4 for about £1900
Panasonic do a 100-400 f4-6.3 for about £1300
So you're looking at a quite a big expense to replicate the zoom length you're used to with better light gathering on a much larger sensor.
I won't comment on DSLR lenses and bodies because I'm really not that up on them but expect to pay for a very long zoom.
They will also be pretty substantial lenses.

The G3 X has an F2.8-5.6, 24-600mm equivalent lens
Canon PowerShot G3 X: Digital Photography Review
So the G3 X is a larger sensor with a slightly shorter max zoom length and better light gathering.
It should get you better results but it may not be the revelation you are hoping for.

I guess what I'm really saying is a new camera with a larger sensor will almost certainly deliver better results but you may not be that much more impressed.

If you do decide to buy a new camera and especially an interchangeable lens camera it's worth looking at used - either in the classifieds here, elsewhere or from a reputable camera outfit who offer a warranty (MBP, Camera Jungle, WEX...) - you get a lot more for your money and in general cameras and lenses are quite durable.  Last year's camera won't be massively worse than this years like a two year old used car.

If you can borrow a DSLR or Mirrorless camera you might find you get on with it and think it's worth the extra expense and bulk.

Finally the best way to get a better result than your disappointing example without more equipment is to support the camera as firmly as possible to minimise camera shake - tripod or firm stance or support your arms on something fixed.  That won't help if the dog moves but at least the rest of the shot should be sharp.
...and the very low tech "zoom with your legs" is always an option, not always possible but always a good idea