Camera question

I have a Panasonic Lumix DMC- 258 that I've had for 4 years now and am quite happy with.

The only thing I would change is to get one with a more powerful zoom.

One thing to note, when I was looking for a new camera (4 years ago), I tried quite a few but did not like the coloring of their photos. A number of them seemed to have "too much of a blue tint".

Here are a couple of my recent photos:




It is not bad for a point and shoot. Next camera will likely be FZ300. I like the Lumix.

nycsteve wrote:
My 2 main camaras , an Olympus TG2, a Nikon 5300. The Olympus is waterproof to 50 feet. 20 megapixals IIRC. Very nice pics and excellent video in a compact package. it replaced an Olympus SW1030 a similar featured camara that aged out. Still use it though. The Nikon is an excellent 24 megapixel SLR. Got it in a kit from Costco for 999.00 . I think the a couple of hundred less now. 2 lenses came with , a 300mm tele and a 50 mm . More bulky than the Olympus but definitely worth the hassle in certain situations.
I like the Olympus for its size, picture quality and its weather proof housing. The pics atre very good.
As far as cell phone camaras, Im still packing a waterproof flip phone. If I want a camara I'll use one. If I want a phone, I'll use one. BTW the flip has way more battery life and connects to network where smartphones cant. And its smaller. I can live without Miley Cirus's latest tweets and twerks.

Plus the cellphone camaras use dime size plastic lenses don't they?

My 2 main camaras , an Olympus TG2, a Nikon 5300. The Olympus is waterproof to 50 feet. 20 megapixals IIRC. Very nice pics and excellent video in a compact package. it replaced an Olympus SW1030 a similar featured camara that aged out. Still use it though. The Nikon is an excellent 24 megapixel SLR. Got it in a kit from Costco for 999.00 . I think the a couple of hundred less now. 2 lenses came with , a 300mm tele and a 50 mm . More bulky than the Olympus but definitely worth the hassle in certain situations.
I like the Olympus for its size, picture quality and its weather proof housing. The pics atre very good.
As far as cell phone camaras, Im still packing a waterproof flip phone. If I want a camara I'll use one. If I want a phone, I'll use one. BTW the flip has way more battery life and connects to network where smartphones cant. And its smaller. I can live without Miley Cirus's latest tweets and twerks.

I use my cellphone- Samsung Note 4 because it takes better pictures than my digital cameras, and I almost always have it.

My favorite in bad weather camera is a waterproof Pentax.

trailgranny50 wrote:
After seeing all the beautiful travel pics on this forum I'm curious as to what type of cameras are being used. I used to do a lot of photography years ago and had a Canon AE1 and a bunch of lenses. That went to a grandson and now my cell phone had become my camera. Does fine but for wildlife and longer range scenery not so much. Thinking of a Panasonic Lumix DMC- FZ300 as it's more rugged, water, dust and shock resistant à week as having a pretty long lense standard issue. So?

I have owned the FZ300's predecessor, the FZ200, for several years. As I understand it the FZ300 is pretty much the same as the FZ200 except for newer software and the weathersealing. For the record, I love the FZ200...light weight, extended zoom range, and takes great photos. I pack it when hiking, dirt biking, on the quad or in the Jeep and it has never had any kind of a problem. I also have DSLRs but pretty much gave them up - why pack all that extra weight, carry extra lenses, etc. when I can't tell the difference between a shot taken with the FZ200 or the DSLR? Sure, if I were to be making wall-size enlargements the DSLR shots would be of better quality but for viewing on a computer or enlargements up to 11"x14" the FZ200 does just fine. Wide-angle to supertelephoto in one lens, plus macro for those closeups...some samples:
Miner's cabin, Silver City, Idaho:


Santa Rosa Mountains, Nevada:


Honeysuckle closeup...check out the detail on the blossom with the FZ200 zoomed in:

It all depends on how much you want to get into it. As I'm sure you know, the sky is the limit.

Think about your goals. If you want to become a serious hobbyist photographer, you can get into it easily for $500-$600 with a Nikon D3100 starter kit. The Nikon V series is much more compact and is very nice, too.

I've started out with a Nikon D3100, have collected lenses and accessories for a few year, and am planning to upgrade to the D7200 possibly next year.

There is a great forum called Nikonians.org, which is free and you can go on there and do some reading in the beginners section. If you sign up for $25/yr, the benefits are limitless. For that forum alone, I would choose Nikon over Canon or any other brand.

Note: I have no financial interest in Nikon or the Nikonians forum.

I carry 3 different cameras. Gopro video from which I can grab great stills captured by accident while doing activites, Fuji XP waterproof for stormy conditions or on the water, or rugged terrain. and my Panasonic DMC FZ50 for clear scenic shots or clear hand held stabilized video

Flashes on cell phone cameras suck.

I use a Canon 550D with a few different lenses and it works great, but honestly the cell phones are so good nowadays, and they are so handy and compact, I rarely break out the big camera.