woodie s

I have always photographed in 35 mm filmwith either a Minolta or Canon camera, both being very old comparatively inexpensive cameras. This year I was given the Sony DSC hx300 bridge camera as a gift. I have not worked in digital format before until this year. I have suspicions there is a defect in the camera in the metering system affecting the camera in different areas.I also know I have a great deal to learn about digital photography and am wondering if someone can advise if this camera will enable me to do what I want. A large part of my photography involves nature photography of birds and smaller animals that I cannot always be very close to. I also do a lot of night photography or existing light photography. Because I do not have the resources to purchase higher cost equipment and am interested in a camera that will enable me to do general photography as well as perform well for nature and night photography I am interested in knowing if this camera can do the job. Thus far I am having a lot of problems controlling the depth of field to enable me to blur things in the background and foreground thus allowing my subject to stand out. When I was using film SLR cameras I could nicely blur the background with lower aperture settings. It seems no matter what I'm doing with the Sony I am having a difficult time rendering the background in a blur even decreasing my aperture setting and using the background defocus setting. The results seem to be chancey at best for getting good diffuse background that I am looking for. When I first got the camera, on one occasion the shutter sounded as though it was freezing in the program mode but fortunately it didn't get stuck there. The camera acts as though it is having some metering problems. I love the long focal length feature of the camera and I've been able to capture some photos I would not have been able to capture without the megazoom. At the same time photos are very pixelated using the high end of the zoom. What should I expect of this camera in terms of performance and it being able to do what I want? Do I need to have a DSLR to obtain higher quality photos? Some people have told me it sounds as though there is a problem in the sensor of the camera. Whether or not that is the case will this camera do what I want it to do which is give me a nice photograph I can print without the use of a computer to touch everything up? Will it enable me to do photography and diffuse the background? So far I am disappointed in the camera and do not know if it is just me not fully knowing how to use digital. I have captured some very pleasing night photographs as well as some in daylight but I must admit I'm feeling like my SLR 35 millimeter cameras gave more satisfying results in ways. What am I doing wrong? For someone who has very limited finances to work with and having been given this camera as a gift should it serve my purposes? My Minolta is no longer operable and I've been getting poor quality prints back from the film possessor after using the Canon and don't have longer lenses for that camera. At wits end and needing help!

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Ever use a paragraph?

The bigger the sensor, the easier it will be to get shallow depth of field.
The Sony camera you have has a tiny sensor compared to the 35mm cameras you were used to using.
Cameras having the "full-frame" designation have sensors the same size as 35mmm film cameras. They are generally going to be more expensive than other DSLRs with an APS-C sized sensor, which has roughly 1/2 the area of a full-frame. Both types can more easily achieve the shallow depth of field look you are after with a fast lens and/or right subject to background distance.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

I have the HX400v which is essentially the same camera with some upgrades. Have you tried aperture mode and setting the f/stop to the minimum for whatever focal length you're shooting at? The f/stop range quickly changes from f/2.8 to f/6.3 as you zoom out through the range.

ottopj Loc: Annapolis, MD USA

Woodie, Please learn to use a paragraph. Your missive with no breaks hit me like a 15 page resume to be ignored! Next!

woodie s

Ahhh uhh yes Goofy, I have heard of a paragraph. Unfortunately I know about as much about forums as I do digital and wasn't thinking about that.

Are you saying if I want nice depth of field be prepared to spend big bucks? Can I do as well will the Sony I have as compared to a lower end DSLR? Exactly WHAT cameras would you recommend?

woodie s

Nick thanks so much for your kind suggestion. I'll check it out!

Otto and Goofy I hear you on the missive and am wondering why you'd think I know enough to know what THAT is, though I do. The nearest photography store to me is probably 70 miles from me. That's why this forum caught my eye. I didn't know how to write something shorter without coming back here a dozen times to give info I thought pertinent. Is Sony any good in THAT type of camera and why do all their reps say it'll do what I want? What are insidious (or otherwise) signs a camera is malfunctioning in the sensor? Am I better off staying in film?

ottopj Loc: Annapolis, MD USA

If you're bright enough to figure out how to use a camera, you would know what a missive is.

Wallbanger Loc: Madison, WI

You camera has a relatively fast lens compared to some other bridge cameras, f6.3 at the long end. Make sure you have digital zoom turned off if that is any option.

Post some sample pictures that your disappointed with, we may be able to offer some more help. Make sure you check the include original box when you upload.

These are all photos shot with your camera: http://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/dsc-hx300/

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

One thing to keep in mind- some people read this forum on tablets and smart phones as well as huge monitors.

Depending on what you are shooting, you may be able to get satisfying shallow depth of field with your Sony.
It will depend on the aperture and distance you are using.
But it will be a whole lot easier to do it with a larger-sensored camera.

Read about half-way down in this site:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

The sensor size is what will make the difference.
A high-end smaller sensor will never be able to get the same shallow depth of field as a low-end larger sensor camera given equivalent lenses. (Medium format will get even better but they are usually out of the price range for most)

Camera recommendations:
Despite what others may say, within similar sized sensors, brand will not make a difference.
What's important is that you're comfortable using the camera. The interface on one brand may make more sense to you than another.

If you still have (good) Minolta lenses, they may fit a Sony camera.
Not sure what kind of limitations you would have using those because I have no experience with them.

Canon & Nikon make full-frame cameras as well.
I shoot most of my stuff with a Nikon D800, but there are other models.
Canon makes some great cameras as well.

Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax and others make the somewhat smaller APS-C sensored cameras. You get about 1/2 stop more depth of field with these over a "full-frame" camera when using equivalent focal length lenses at the same aperture.

Olympus and Panasonic make cameras with an even smaller micro 4/3rds sensor.
Lenses made by them are interchangeable (a big plus).
Much more compact design, great for travel.

Anything smaller than these and you're not going to gain much.

woodie s

Thanks for the info and suggestions!

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I too am an old guy that loved my Nikkor 50 mm 1.4 and the soft background focus. Better was the 105.

My offer of help comes in two parts.

First, a lot of amazing current photography I see is being made with cameras like yours. Many of the photographers never experienced the film world and have learned to exploit the features of their digital bridge cameras. Rather than try to make your camera do what you used to do, try to find what it does really well and take advantage of it.

Second, if you have a reasonable computer, buy Photoshop Elements. It cost way less than any camera. Enjoy learning it. Watching the demos, tutorials, tips and tricks is better than watching TV! ( I've canceled cable TV!) One of the cool tricks in Photoshop Elements is to "create a layer" of the background in a photo and adjust the blur with a "slider" control.

Between the Sony you have and some fun with Photoshop, you'll create whole new world of photography for yourself.

If I were to offer a third suggestion, it would be to consider investing in a scanner. They cost a lot less than any camera. With a scanner, you can get out all your old slides and negatives and enjoy them again. My best ever B&W print from my darkroom days and Nikon film gear was a portrait of my wife. I dug out the negative, scanned it and made a new print. I'm stunned how much better the new print is in a side by side comparison with the old one.

Wallbanger Loc: Madison, WI

He's not going to be changing lenses on his camera...

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Unless he buys a NEW Sony as he suggested he might do.

Wallbanger Loc: Madison, WI

Missed that, sorry. Depending on the Minolta lenses, he may be able to use them without an adapter on a Sony DSLR (if they are newer, AF lenses). If they are MD mount manual lenses, an adapter with a Sony mirrorless (formerly NEX) cameras work great. Any mirrorless body for that matter.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Re: Minolta lenses and Sony bodies- Do they still retain autofocus, if equipped, and metering/aperture function?