Calling any photographers....

CyclingBantam

... I am looking to by a camera to take on my tour through France this year. Unfortunately I know nothing about photography despite being interested in trying to take good pictures!

My budget is probably up to about £250 but if it was worth spending an extra £100 to really step up a level I would.

I want something that is capable of taking the best quality photos possible. In future I will potentially be using it to take action shots along with senic landscapes.

What should I be looking for? Does anyone have any reccomendations fr a good starter camera for someone who could be getting a real interest in potography. I know this is not an easy question to answer however it is hard to ask when I don't realy know what needs asking!!

Thanks

Ben

bristolpete

Panasonic TZ8 or 10 is a solid compact travel zoom camera (hence the name) with decent optics, a good processor and some nice added extras to boot. Wide angle lens too.

Also, the Sony stuff with Exmor R processors take a decent picture for a compact camera as the sensor is slightly larger than the standard sensor in a compact camera. Find one with a 'G' lens and you'll have a very good little camera.

Hope this helps.

Pete.

fast as fupp

a compact is no use if you want to take action shots

id recommend a nikon d3000- compact for an slr and versatile as well- you can pick one up with an 18-55 mm lens for under £330

skyd0g

Ideally an SLR such as the Canon 1000D or the Nikon D3000 as suggested above. SLR's allow much more control of the pictures (assuming you know what you're doing with them) and a wide range of lenses - the trade-off is the physical size & weight.

A compact on the other hand can easily be carried in a jersey pocket, but does not allow the same range of control over the picture.

downfader

skyd0g wrote:

A compact on the other hand can easily be carried in a jersey pocket, but does not allow the same range of control over the picture.

Not true if you spend a fortune on a Leica one or a top end Lumix. But you might as well get the SLR as you said earlier if size isnt an issue.

markyboy2005

If the idea of n SLR and all the bulk is not what you need, I would suggest a Canon G11.

I have been shooting with SLR's and DSLR's for many years, but like you wanted something a bit more compact to take with me on tours.

My son has an olympus which is a great little compact with under water and shock resistant features, but I wanted something with a bit more "real camera" usability.

The canon G11 is perfect for this. You get almost all of the functions of a SLR, but without the bulk.

Great shots, great processor, smaller than a DSLR, but bigger than a true compact.

Its a bit pricer, but as a long term investment and entry into photography, you wont be upset.

Otherwise, if its just good digital stills and a bit of ruggedness you need, the aforementioned olympus mju with shock/waterproof features is also very nice.

daviesee

SLR's are a lot better than compacts but as you are touring, size and weight will be an issue.
With that in mind, if it was me, I would go for a Panasonic with a Leica lens.
I don't know the model number but a mate at work just got one of the Panasonic's and it seemed pretty good with a wide variety of auto presets for beginners. I was impressed that it had a 25mm equivalent wide lens. That can be very useful for landscape shots or indoors in tight spaces.

bristolpete

markyboy2005 wrote:

If the idea of n SLR and all the bulk is not what you need, I would suggest a Canon G11.

I have been shooting with SLR's and DSLR's for many years, but like you wanted something a bit more compact to take with me on tours.

My son has an olympus which is a great little compact with under water and shock resistant features, but I wanted something with a bit more "real camera" usability.

The canon G11 is perfect for this. You get almost all of the functions of a SLR, but without the bulk.

Great shots, great processor, smaller than a DSLR, but bigger than a true compact.

Its a bit pricer, but as a long term investment and entry into photography, you wont be upset.

Otherwise, if its just good digital stills and a bit of ruggedness you need, the aforementioned olympus mju with shock/waterproof features is also very nice.

Shocking barrel distortion however....the only real downside to the G cameras in my opinion.

downfader

daviesee wrote:

SLR's are a lot better than compacts but as you are touring, size and weight will be an issue.
With that in mind, if it was me, I would go for a Panasonic with a Leica lens.
I don't know the model number but a mate at work just got one of the Panasonic's and it seemed pretty good with a wide variety of auto presets for beginners. I was impressed that it had a 25mm equivalent wide lens. That can be very useful for landscape shots or indoors in tight spaces.

I have the Lumix LX3 and that has a 25-60mm equivilent lens. Its not a megazoom so it may not suit action far away.

The lens is VERY sharp, I know this from reviews of the same optics years back on compacts that took 35mm film, however the sensor really lets this down and the image processor too, in that you get a soft image out of the camera. Using raw mode instead of jpeg makes it a little better but its no where near as sharp as the old 35mm films using the same type of leica lens.

However. there is a technique for sharpening that I discovered. I was experimenting one evening trying to figure out if I could fake the edge detail in software after. In my Nikon editing software I enlarged to 8000 pixels on the long side, selected the Hipass filter, viewed at 50% and moved the slider until I just saw edge detail. You then select the opacity command and set to "overlay" and the images edge sharpness suddenly returns.

You then need to obviously resize it back down to a usable file (but I would do levels etc at the larger size first). Seems the best solution, not sure how you'd do it in photoshop as I dont use it, however it must be pretty do-able.

tebbit

I got a Nikon DSLR a few years back from Jessops with two lens as part of a bundle, I think the model I bought is now obselete but bundles are still available and there are DSLRs within your price range. I've been very happy with mine so far.

CyclingBantam

Thanks very much for all the advice. It is an education on here!

I am going to pop in to a camera shop tomorrow to take a look at some camera's. How heavy do the DSLR's tend to be? Would they be very noticable to talk on tour?

Thanks

Ben

crumbschief

SLR,G11,nah the G36 is far better.

GiantMike

To the OP.

Get down to Dixons and have a go with the different types of camera and if possible, take a card so you can compare pics when you get home.


I have a Canon 1000D with 3 different lenses, but this costs way over your budget. The 1000D and standard lens is good and should be available for £350.

My opinion:

Compacts are relatively poor quality, limited by the small size of the lens. You can have 20MP, but if it's through a poor lens that image will be crap.

DSLRs are much better quality and more versatile, but heavier and costlier.

I've never tried the 'halfway-house' cameras mentioned here.

shouldbeinbed

you might consider a fixed lens SLR camera like the Fuji Finepix S200 EXR or the Canon G10 (suggested by my pro photographer wife)

They are a 3/4 way between a compact and a full SLR with a single lens thats not interchangeable. The lens & image quality is easily comparable to a budget SLR (which is what you'd be getting at your desired spend) but as the lens is not interchangeable you get the full range in a single one and no additional bulk and expense of 2nd, 3rd, 4th lenses to carry around too.

Also for action shots they're good because they're far faster than a compact and you've got the wideangle to decent distance zoom all on one and you're not missing shots changing lenses over.

for your action shots you need to make sure whatever you get has decent burst/sequence functionality and has a chip that can write its images quickly to the data card.

I have a now obsolete Fuji s6500, the image quality is superb and compares well to my wifes personal and pro Canon's. (400D and D1mk3) given the large price differences between the 3 of them.

skyd0g

BenBlyth wrote:

Thanks very much for all the advice. It is an education on here!

I am going to pop in to a camera shop tomorrow to take a look at some camera's. How heavy do the DSLR's tend to be? Would they be very noticable to talk on tour?

Thanks

Ben

Most current SLR's weigh a little over a pound - depending on the lens/es chosen add a little extra. The other main consideration is the bulk. It would be overall roughly like carrying something such as a bag of sugar in terms of weight & bulk.
...and to get the best out of them, you need to know what all the buttons are for and how/when to use them.

In your situation, I'd probably stick to a good compact for portability.

SteveR_100Milers

I would'nt go to Dixons to buy a camera. If you must go to a high street retaikler, then at leat try Jessops, far greater range of cameras and lenses and much more knowledgeable staff. FWIW I'd always get a DSLR over anything else because of its sheer versatility. If weight is a problem, then look at the cheaper en od the market where the "consumer" models tend to be pretty small. It's the lenses that are large, especially if you get good "fast" glass - this is where you want to spend your money.
Photgraphy however is almost as wallet burning as cycling, so be warned! It's not long before you want a higher spec body, and a couple of primes to go with your zoom lenses, remote flash etc etc.

GiantMike

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I would'nt go to Dixons to buy a camera. .

Neither would I. However, If I wanted to

GiantMike wrote:

have a go with the different types of camera and if possible, take a card so you can compare pics when you get home.

then any high street retailer that hes them on the shelf ticks the boxes.

Pip pip.

SteveR_100Milers

Fair point, but try finding a Dixons that has half the lines in stock...

LivinLaVidaLotus

GiantMike wrote:

To the OP.

Get down to Dixons and have a go with the different types of camera and if possible, take a card so you can compare pics when you get home.


I have a Canon 1000D with 3 different lenses, but this costs way over your budget. The 1000D and standard lens is good and should be available for £350.

My opinion:

Compacts are relatively poor quality, limited by the small size of the lens. You can have 20MP, but if it's through a poor lens that image will be crap.

DSLRs are much better quality and more versatile, but heavier and costlier.

I've never tried the 'halfway-house' cameras mentioned here.

To do with the sensor rather than the lens, on most compacts the sensor is only a few mm squared - when the individual sensor elements are that close and there's that many of them you get a lot of noise.

APIII

I think the SLR route would result in too much weight/bulk, despite the superior quality. The Canon G11 was mentioned. That would be where I would start. I'd look for a camera that can shoot RAW (which the canon does, I think), so you can easily tweak exposure and white balance once you've downloaded all your pics. We're not all pro photographers, so the ability to change these things after the picture's been taken is a real benefit.

Slapshot

A few thoughts -
Compacts are always a compromise, SLR's are always the best route to go
ANYTHING with Canon on the front will do the right job. (been using Canon SLR's and compacts for over 20years never let me down yet)
If you can afford a Canon compact that shoot's RAW go for it but buy some plenty big SD Memory cards, you'll shoot some huge images.
You CAN sacrifice Megapixels for other functions, unless you're pro 10mp will be way more than you'll ever need.
Get something that feels comfortable, some modern compacts are too small
Shop around and get the best value you can for your budget

Foucault

I agree with the other comments that a SLR camera would give the best image quality and creative control. However they are bulky so a good compact camera, such as the Canon G11 (although above budget at around £400), may be more suitable. The big advantage of an SLR is you can use different lenses for different purposes, such as a wide lens for landscapes and a telephoto lens to get right up close to the action in sport shots. On the compact side I would suggest having a look at both the Panasonic Lumix LX3 and the Canon S90. You can find detail reviews of both, along with the G11 at www.dpreview.com.

In terms of action shots it really does depend on what you are thinking of taking photos of. I wouldn't dream of taking my compact camera to photograph motorsport but have used it for cycling, though my SLR kit does take better photos (then again given the amount the kit cost I'd be very worried if it didn't!). Having said that the best cycling photo I've ever taken was with a lowly 4 megapixel compact I had with me on one of the climbs in the Giro d'Italia. This proves the point that there's no point having an a great camera that you hardly ever take anywhere because it is too heavy.

DubaiNeil

Foucault wrote:

Canon S90

+1

I have tried touring with an SLR and lenses - almost a complete waste of time, as you either need a rucksack to carry the gear (sweaty & uncomfortable) or a lot of space in panniers/saddle bag etc where you will be worried about vibration damaging the camera & lens. You then have the inconvenience of accessing/unpacking everything to capture that fleeting moment of the sun perfectly illuminating a fantastic vista - BUGGER - missed it again...

For most practical purposes buying a good compact camera and learning how to use it will provide better results than the worlds best D-SLR and no idea (pretty similar to cycling if you think about it )

The compact camera can easily fit in a jersey pocket (I would suggest inside a zip lock bag though) so avoid most of the vibration issue while providing easy access.

The decision seems to be, is this a photography tour by bicycle, in which case you should be looking at medium format film cameras for the landscape work and 10kg's worth of pro sports gear for the action shots, or (more likely) a decent camera to capture the memories of what I'm sure will be a great tour?

If the second approach is the one, then a good compact will be sufficient and more usable than a D-SLR

An entry level D-SLR and kit lens (as per some prior recommendations - and what fits the budget) isn't going to be that fantastic at action shots (although this does depend what they are...) anyway, and certainly less convenient to carry around and use.

The recommendations for the higher end compacts listed are all pretty good (Canon G10/G11, Panasonic LX3, Canon S90), but the important part will be to understand how to best use the camera - and not just fire away on Auto mode and wonder why the shots are carp The models listed all have reasonable sensors, good levels of manual control and the ability to shoot various RAW formats - although the last is less important if you get the shot right first time and don't have the burning desire to spend hours on post processing.

All IMHO of course....

Neil

daviesee

Well covered Neil!

bristolpete

For reference, I reviewed the LX3 and Canon G10 for a couple of websites and mags last year. I added them to my rather dull blog if you want to read up on these cameras -

http://petetileytitanimages.blogspot.co ... n-bed.html

http://petetileytitanimages.blogspot.co ... uy-it.html

CyclingBantam

Sorry to resurect this thread. I have been looking around based on all the tips on her (much appreciated) and have stumbled across the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/76476/show.html

This appears to be a good deal however I am not up on Camera's so I can't be too sure.
Unfortunately my budget has had to come down a touch to the £250 mark. Less if possble.

From what people have said, a compact looks the way to go.

Any other reccomendations on the lower end of the scale would be much appreciated.

I like to think I have an eye for a decent photo so I want a camera I can do a little bit with but I really am a beginner I guess so the better camera's would not be used to their potential at the moment.

ianfranklin

Have a look at www.dpreview.com They do very comprehensive reviews of both high end and celect compacts

dilemna

Get a Sony Cybershot with Carl Zeis lens. They are pretty good with really sharp images and good colour balance. Spend the money you save over a DSLR on your holiday or a course on digital photography using your camera which will bring you far more benefits than the latest camera bling . Have a good tour.

kurako

I have a Nikon D40. It's a great entry level DSLR. I love the fact you can get extra lenses, filters and so on. But that adds to the bulkiness of the whole thing. Sometimes its good just to have something small you can fit in your pocket.

If you go down the SLR route you need to think about a bag that is not super-dorky and advertises the fact you are carrying expensive kit around. Some of the tamrac backpacks are pretty cool. I've got one in camo. Left it at the cricket club one night when I was p!ssed. Someone stuck it in the store cupboard and didn't even know what was inside :oops:

mercsport

I've just got hold of a Sony DSC HX5V compact thingy, and am delighted by it. Brilliant in-camera panoramas; Low light ability; Back light compensation; HD 1080 vid; GPS too - click on your pic on the computer and it'll take you to Maps and nail where you took the picture, and which way you were pointing tthe cam'. Other tricks too, even- because of the stabilization- the 10x zoom is do'able in the hand : http://www.sony.co.uk/product/dsc-h-series/dsc-hx5v

On DSLR's, I might add that since getting a dslr (Canon 20d) and a couple of their L lenses an age ago, I seem to go out of my way not to use it. The 21st century, and we're still toting cam's that seem to weigh as much as a bus, and about as manageable !? :? Still, no denying their image quality. But, I cannot foresee any circumstance where I'll ever want to blow a print up beyond A3. The little Sony - and a couple of Canon Ixus P&S's before - do a splendid job.
Come to that, so does my N95 'phone. Ah, that's what's lacking in the Sony : a 'phone!

P.S. 'dpreview' have yet to do their thing with the HX5V

DubaiNeil

TBH for me, the Canon S90 is possibly one of the best thought out compact cameras I have handled for "pro-sumer" use.

Sure it has some shortcomings, but the customisable control ring surrounding the lens is an absolutely fantastic idea. Not having to dive into menu's or difficult to locate tiny buttons on the back of the body to adjust exposure compensation (or any other setting from a list) is superb.

I do a lot of sports shooting (mostly rugby, football & motor sport) and the S90 would be completely useless for this, which is why I lug 12kg's of gear around for that purpose. However for general use the S90 is great.

I happen to shoot Nikon dSLR's, but don't have any particular brand loyalty as far as compacts go, having owned Fuji, Canon, NIkon, Panasonic & Olympus compacts.

In my mind the USP of the S90 outweighs potential technical advantages of the LX3, G10, G11 - as a well exposed shot is far easier to work with than one which requires "saving" in PP. The smaller/lighter form factor is also a benefit for the type of use I put compact cameras through.

This is (obviously) a personal USP though, if you don't know (or care!) what exposure compensation is, or how to use it, then this will be of little benefit to you!

Neil