Camera people: Nikon Coolpix L840 - yea or nay?

[Grease]

I'm going to be spending a week in Yosemite National Park next month, and I want a ton of photos to show off when I get home. I own a LG G4 phone which takes phenomenal close up & low light shots, but like all phones it lacks an optical zoom and can't take good long range pictures.

I'm thinking of picking up a Nikon Coolpix L840. I can get a refurbished one for under 200, and with it's 38x optical zoom it appears to fill the gap left by my phone. However, I've never owned a dedicated camera before. I have zero experience to draw on in judging the quality of what I want to buy. Nikon's get good reviews in general, but when it comes to Amazon I'm never sure how many of those are legit.

I've seen some gorgeous pictures around here, so I know at least a few of you are talented photographers. Do any of you have experience with these long zoom point & shoot cameras?

 

[Bob W]

I own a LG G4 phone which takes phenomenal close up & low light shots, but like all phones it lacks an optical zoom and can't take good long range pictures.

I'm surprised by this comment in bold. Cell phones are notorious for poor-quality photos in low light. And because they have a fixed focal length, normally a super wide angle, they are an exceptionally poor choice for close-ups and near portraits. ???

Do you have some examples of phenomenal closeup shots taken with your LG? Just curious...

I'm thinking of picking up a Nikon Coolpix L840. I can get a refurbished one for under 200, and with it's 38x optical zoom it appears to fill the gap left by my phone. However, I've never owned a dedicated camera before. I have zero experience to draw on in judging the quality of what I want to buy. Nikon's get good reviews in general, but when it comes to Amazon I'm never sure how many of those are legit.

I have no experience with that camera but I'm confident it's an OK camera for the price, based on quickly browsing some online reviews and photo examples. Instead of reading reviews at Amazon, read the user reviews at actual camera shops like B&H. DP Review has no reviews, but they do have a side-by-side comparison feature if there are other cameras you are also considering.

Personally I would never consider that camera, not even for a cheap point-and-shoot. Just too basic and with too few user controls, based on the published specs. No aperture preferred mode, no RAW file capability, AA batteries instead of LiIon, etc., etc. I would consider it for someone like my mom, who has limited computer skills and no real interest in photography.

Additionally, just from my own perspective, I would never regress from a DSLR to a point-and-shoot...

 

[Alberta Ed]

Best bet is your local camera store. You can pick up some amazingly good digital cameras for surprisingly little. There are also staggeringly good 35 mm. film cameras still available for pennies on the dollar.

 

[Grease]

I'm surprised by this comment in bold. Cell phones are notorious for poor-quality photos in low light. And because they have a fixed focal length, normally a super wide angle, they are an exceptionally poor choice for close-ups and near portraits. ???

Do you have some examples of phenomenal closeup shots taken with your LG? Just curious...

Yeah! The G4 surprises most people. LG decided to start catering to photographers with their flagship phones - the G4, then the VG10, and the new G5 all sport full manual controls, RAW capability, etc. Similar to a DSLR without the high end lens.


This is one of my favorite shots I've gotten with it.

And one I took yesterday

It doesn't have the depth of field you can get with a real lens, for for a phone... It's pretty sweet.

 

[Bob W]

Those are pretty good for a cell phone, as good as I've seen really. But they also highlight the limitations of a cell phone compared to a macro lens on a 'real' camera. The sensor size, the lack of control over aperture, and the unchangeable wide-angle view are critical issues.
Honest, I have no idea if an average $200 point-and-shoot can do that well or not.

Considering the LG4 has a $450 retail price on an original msrp of $650 and we're sitting here wondering how it compares to a $200 Nikon camera should tell you something.

 

[Bob W]

Perhaps a specific example would be helpful? I don't mean to imply this is what you should do, and it's not a recommendation. It is what I would do:

If I were going to Yosemite and had to have a new camera on short notice and with a tight budget:
I'd scour the dealers for an inexpensive DSLR kit. I'd look at used gear, refurbished gear, and entry-level models. I'd focus on cameras that were a model or two behind the latest releases. I'd consider Nikon, Canon, and Pentax. And I'd limit the price to $500, (about the same as a nice cell phone).

Without opening a single shopping website today, I already know that a D3100 or D3200 with a two-lens kit can be bought for $500, maybe refurbished. Pentax has a nice two-lens kit for $500 brand new. And the tried-and-true D5000 sells for about $200-300 used.

I just purchased the amazing D7100 refurbished for $539 two weeks ago, but that did not include any lenses. For the record, I would not recommend the D7100 to a first-time camera buyer on short notice... it's too complicated and would take too much time to learn. It's also significantly larger and heavier than the entry-level models, so not the best choice for hiking the Yosemite backcountry.

 

[Grease]

Those are pretty good for a cell phone, as good as I've seen really. But they also highlight the limitations of a cell phone compared to a macro lens on a 'real' camera. The sensor size, the lack of control over aperture, and the unchangeable wide-angle view are critical issues.
Honest, I have no idea if an average $200 point-and-shoot can do that well or not.

Yep... I've never minded the limitations too much since all I do is take pictures for my own enjoyment, but you're right.

Honestly though, all I'm really interested in is a way to take better versions of pictures like this:

Out hiking and spotted a mother deer with her baby a good 800-1000 feet away. Obviously you can see them and tell what they are, but shots like this are just not what my phone was designed for...

Considering the LG4 has a $450 retail price on an original msrp of $650 and we're sitting here wondering how it compares to a $200 Nikon camera should tell you something.

Well, it's not like the Nikon can run games, stream netflix, or call people on the other side of the planet

Perhaps a specific example would be helpful? I don't mean to imply this is what you should do, and it's not a recommendation. It is what I would do:

If I were going to Yosemite and had to have a new camera on short notice and with a tight budget:
I'd scour the dealers for an inexpensive DSLR kit. I'd look at used gear, refurbished gear, and entry-level models. I'd focus on cameras that were a model or two behind the latest releases. I'd consider Nikon, Canon, and Pentax. And I'd limit the price to $500, (about the same as a nice cell phone).

Without opening a single shopping website today, I already know that a D3100 or D3200 with a two-lens kit can be bought for $500, maybe refurbished. Pentax has a nice two-lens kit for $500 brand new. And the tried-and-true D5000 sells for about $200-300 used.

I just purchased the amazing D7100 refurbished for $539 two weeks ago, but that did not include any lenses. For the record, I would not recommend the D7100 to a first-time camera buyer on short notice... it's too complicated and would take too much time to learn. It's also significantly larger and heavier than the entry-level models, so not the best choice for hiking the Yosemite backcountry.

I'm not really opposed to owning a real camera like that, but... I don't know, I feel like it would be a waste with how little I would use it and take advantage of it.

Maybe I'm wrong, and having it would spark a desire to use it more.

I guess it can't hurt to look around and see what my options would be.

 

[Bob W]

Something that's a modern trend, many average people wanting to take simple snapshots have moved away from cameras to cell phones. And of the enthusiast- and hobbiest-level photographers, many have moved to bridge cameras, mirror-less cameras, and all-in-one cameras.
A result of this trend, entry-level DSLRs are now less expensive than the more popular and more trendy alternatives.

 

[Bob W]

Honestly though, all I'm really interested in is a way to take better versions of pictures like this:

Out hiking and spotted a mother deer with her baby a good 800-1000 feet away. Obviously you can see them and tell what they are, but shots like this are just not what my phone was designed for...

That's because cell phone's can't actually zoom. They have "digital zoom" only, meaning a portion of the image is being enlarged and the rest is cropped out. The cell phone using digital zoom to enlarge something so far away creates the equivalent of a 1.4 megapixel photo. And it's difficult to see the photo degrade on a tiny camera back or smartphone screen, so you may not realize how poor the picture quality is until you get home and it's too late.

With some practice, knowing the camera's limitations and strong points (every camera has them), and using the proper setting I think that practically any camera with an optical zoom with suit you.

Some tips for using inexpensive point-and-shoot cameras with optical zooms:
* Make sure the digital zoom is turned "Off."
* Check that the photo quality is set to the camera's max, and shoot RAW if the camera offers it.
* When you turn on the camera the lenses are normally set to the widest angle by default. Work the lens to an appropriate focal length before taking the picture, especially when taking photos of people.
* Use a tripod for photos in dim conditions to avoid high ISO numbers; inexpensive cameras and cameras with small sensors generally perform poorly at high ISO.
* Use the zoom sparingly in low-light conditions. Any camera movement is exaggerated by a long zoom, so when using the zoom on distant objects it's best to have a fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur, so long zoom shots work best during daylight.
* I always make sure the flash is turned off in the menu so it cannot fire unexpectedly.
* For closeups, stand farther back and zoom in on the object.

Some nice features to have, even with point-and-shoot cameras:
* RAW capability
* Image stabilization
* Standard shooting mode options: Auto, Aperture Preferred, Shutter Speed Preferred, and Manual.
* Rechargeable lithium ion batteries (and carry a spare).

Of course even with this basic set of requirements, suddenly a "cheap" point and shoot becomes almost as expensive as a DSLR...

 

[Bob W]

Would it be helpful if I rattled off some SLR prices for examples?
A major photography store has:
* a used Nikon D3200 with two lenses (18-55 and 55-200, both with vibration reduction) for $450.
* a used D5200 with one lens for $390.
* a Pentax K-S1 kit with two lenses (18-55 and 55-200) for $470, brand new.
Tempting? Or totally not interested?

 

[Bob W]

duplicate post

 

[Grease]

Tempting?

Very much so. Now if only I had a little more to spend.

But man, I think at this point I would regret going the cheap route...

 

[Piso Mojado]

L840 has big flexibility in zoom range but it has only two manual exposure controls: "Expose Compensation" and two "auto ISO fixed range" settings. Here is a short article on how to use them:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2016/03/10/get-better-shots-with-the-nikon-l840

If that doesn't sound too limiting, go for it: easy to learn and better than what you have now. Take a million photographs!

Get a black one.

A black camera held at waist height is good for street photography. I know you're going to Yosemite, don't forget the wild life where you live.

 

[bdmicarta]

I'm thinking of picking up a Nikon Coolpix L840. I can get a refurbished one for under 200, and with it's 38x optical zoom it appears to fill the gap left by my phone. However, I've never owned a dedicated camera before. I have zero experience to draw on in judging the quality of what I want to buy. Nikon's get good reviews in general

Generally for visiting something like Yosemite you would want wide angle capability for scenic photos, and cellphones usually aren't very wide but with various forms of panorama you can make do. If you want to do wildlife photos that is a different story. 855mm equivalent lens is a serious lens, and you must have image stabilization to make use of it.

I would suggest instead a Panasonic FZ camera. They are similar in that they have good zoom range and image stabilization, and they also have good image quality and good controls.

Nikon does get good reviews, and I've been a Nikon user for 35 years, but the reputation and good reviews are for their SLR and now DSLR division. The other nikons are make by a different part of the company and as far as I know don't have the same quality. I doubt if they are bad quality though, this just explains how a brand like Panasonic can have a better quality phone in some segments of the market. The Nikon that the OP mentioned would be called a EVF (Electronic View Finder) or superzoom camera. And Canon is the other brand that should be considered in this segment of the market.

 

[Bob W]

I would suggest instead a Panasonic FZ camera. They are similar in that they have good zoom range and image stabilization, and they also have good image quality and good controls.

There are a number of vocal supporters of those Panasonic FZ cameras on some photography sites I visit. But the models they most often list are very expensive, even more expensive than a DSLR.
Do you know much about the less-expensive FZ options like the FZ200? For $300 it appears to have many more features than the Nikon originally listed. Standard shooting modes, RAW shooting, flip screen, viewfinder (EVF), bracketing, and a flash shoe. Obvious negatives (compared to a low-end DSLR): 'only' 12 megapixels, no upgrade/expandability options, and a tiny sensor.

 

[Bob W]

The Nikon that the OP mentioned would be called a EVF (Electronic View Finder)

I don't believe the Nikon L840 has a viewfinder at all, only an LCD screen.