Best camera for riding shots ??

Alwild

looking to buy a camera for taking pictures of my mates and me , willing to spend upto £300 , any help much appreciated

Anonymous

Would you be prepared to carry an SLR?

I sometimes take my SLR with an all-rounder lens (18-200mm or 18-70 in my case), in my Camelbak Hawg. Big enough bag to take a general consumer SLR (not the massive pro ones), and not too big zoom lens.

Not sure what the current cheap bodies are though. Mine's a Nikon D70 which was £1k at the time many years ago but probably equivalent to a £300 to £400 Nikon these days. I can recommend the 18-200mm lens though, but that's an extra £500

With SLRs... Nikon v Canon... you'll find a million and one arguments over that. Just have to decide for yourself really as everyone will say their brand is better. There are other brands in the SLR market of course, but...

If you want a slim compact, take a look at the Panasonic Lumix TZ range. Excellent cameras and amazing optical zoom for such small cameras. Some have good video facilities too.

Or a "bridge" camera is another option. Half way between an SLR and a compact. Better lenses generally but bulkier. Fuji used to be good here long ago but there are so many options now.

Or... maybe you'd want a video camera mainly, in which case look into those helmet cams and similar. Some excellent ones about now for a couple of hundred £ that do HD video.

Anonymous

SLRs are great, since there is zero shutter-lag (the delay between pressing the shutter button, and the picture being taken). And, as you get more adventurous, you can add off-camera flashes to get some properly decent shots.

I use a Sony SLR (fantastic range of awesome, cheap lenses on ebay). You could probably pick up a second hand Sony Alpha 200 or something for next to nothing nowadays.

Failing that, if you want to stick to a simple point and shoot camera (although, you CAN do this with SLRs too, they are all fully-auto capable) then I'd strongly reccomend Fuji's cameras. They are just blinding little cams.

doug@basqueMTB.com

Alwild, the best camera for taking riding shots is the one that you can be bothered to carry and then get out and take pictures with. IMHO that rules out a SLR unless you are really, really keen to go down that route, I think that it´s just too much to carry and you would have to stop and get it out each time.

The Lumix compacts take great pictures. My mates are using them and they get some fantastic shots. I use a Canon G9 to take all my biking shots. If you want to you can see my pictures on my flickr site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/basqueMTB.com, they are all from my G9 unless stated otherwise.

I think that there are a few problems with the G9 specifically. Firstly, I find if it´snot very bright then I struggle to get a great shot whereas my friends do OK with their Lumix´s. I also find that my lens is scratched and dirty, I guess that´s because the camera lives in my camelbak or pocket and itsn´t in the cleanest of environments. I also find that the video is pretty rubbish! Other than that it´s been fantastic.

Anonymous

Hmm, not sure about "one you can be bothered carrying". It depends if you get into it or not.
I take my SLR virtually everywhere, because it's made me really enjoy taking pictures again, and the results are fantastic (in my mind).

Anonymous

Ditto. I'm just used to it as I take it both on the bike and skiing and just used to having the bag on the back. It's kind of double the weight of having 3 litres of water in a Camelbak.

But depends if you want pro-style arty shots or just fun shots of you and your mates. That said, there are plenty of compromises in the bridge and compact ranges that can produce good results.

doug@basqueMTB.com

Hey guys, I don´t disagree with you... I have a couple of friends who are really into it and carry thir SLR´s everywhere. The photos are amazing. BUT, for a lot of people (myself included) it´s too much hassle and a smaller camera means that I take it everywhere with me and it´s always on hand when I´m out biking. It´s just something else to consider.

LeighM

I've been wanting to take a camera out with me but the thought of trashing my 5D or L series lenses puts me right off.

The Canon G9 (as mentioned by others) is a great camera and not only gives full manual control, it also has a hotshoe, enabling remote triggering of off camera flashes (with radio triggers). For me this would be by far the best option.

Anonymous

Lots of people in my sister's photography club use G9s as point and shoots for some reason, even the diehard Nikkon fans.

Having not tried one I can't comment on them, but I know the Panasonic Lumix are just jaw droppingly awesome, and the Fuji cameras, which are a little cheaper are also fantastic.
(these both have hot-shoes as well)

Chris`I

Got a G11 and its great. Only real downside is because it has a small sensor (has to to fit into a compact body!), you dont get any real control of DoF, so cant do any fancy wide open/small DoF shots you can get with a SLR where the background is all blury and the subject is pin sharp. You can also get LensMate and cheap wide angle lenses for the G9/10/11 which are good for messing about (remember they aint no L series lense so dont expect much quality!)

Raphe

Spend a few hours here. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/

t0pc4t

you can get a Nikon D40 for about £250 off amazon, really nice SLR body

in terms of motion shots I would think you'd want a very fast lens which can go down to a very low F number. This will isolate the subject from the background and emphasise the movement.

You'd probably want a wide angle lens and to be quite close to the action as panning is tricky.

supersonic

A lot is how you use the camera. Learn how it works and how to take pics you will get the best from it. I went out with a mate other day snapping - he had a DSLR, I had a mcuh cheaper bridge, and my pics were far better.

Full manual is a must really, and maybe a small tripod.

teamtomo

I recommend the Nikon L110 it's a bridge camera that takes just as good a photo as my Dads D40 SLR. There is a mode in which you can take multiple photos in seconds called sport continuous. It doesn't cost the earth as well

Alwild

thanks for all of your help guys !! really given me a lot to think about ! i do like the sport mode that teamtomo mentioned , could you tell me a bit more about it ? how many shots does it take in how much time ? thanks .

Anonymous

Alwild wrote:

thanks for all of your help guys !! really given me a lot to think about ! i do like the sport mode that teamtomo mentioned , could you tell me a bit more about it ? how many shots does it take in how much time ? thanks .

It's not usually referred to as sports mode, it's usually called something like "high speed" mode, or similar.
Almost every camera has this function, but most compacts tend to take roughly two pictures every second or so.
SLRs, on the other hand, can manage 3 at the very very low (and a few years old) end, and 5 pictures per second for newer cameras. Of course, more money again means even faster.

Alwild

okay thanks , i like the look of the nikon L110 , what sort of high speed mode does this have ?? how many pictures in how long ??

supersonic

The website might say.

For comparison my Fuji S1500 bridge camera will shoot at full resolution at 1.3 frames per second, 3.3 frames at 5MP and 7.5 frames at 2MP. though in use, I felt at full 10MP res it was faster.

One useful feature is tracking auto focus mode, it will track a moving object andkeep it in focus as long as it remains in the frame.

Anonymous

All autofocus does that, these days, doesn't it, Sonic?

supersonic

Not sure, was pointed out as a feature not seen on point and shoot cameras lol. The camera frames an object on the screen, then follows is about as it moves.

Anonymous

Hmm. I know my Fuji did it. I'm almost certain that my old dear's Canon powershot does too.
I do know the autofocus works on an entirely different principle in SLRs, is that not what you mean?

supersonic

Dunno, I guess you'd have to look at the manual!

butcher of bakersfield

yeehaamcgee wrote:

All autofocus does that, these days, doesn't it, Sonic?

Wouldn't have thought so. In fact it would get incredibly annoying if it did that as default, with no other options. Trouble is, it's often not fast enough anyway depending on how you're using it.

The modern compacts you get a great. A few years ago you would have been paying hundreds for the equivalent that you can pick up for about £80 now. Picture quality can be awesome, and with plenty of manual settings you're only really let down by not having any choice in lenses - and 90% of people who buy an slr stick with the crappy stock lense anyway.

Definately worth learning how to use it though. A great camera doesn't make a great photographer.

Alwild

right okay thanks guys , great help !! so if i was to go for the nikon L110 i wouldnt be going far wrong ? and ide have the option of the high speed sport mode ` ??

Anonymous

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

All autofocus does that, these days, doesn't it, Sonic?

Wouldn't have thought so. In fact it would get incredibly annoying if it did that as default, with no other options.

Oh christ almighty, it's like banging your head against a wall here sometimes.
Did I even suggest that it was the only option?
What I meant was that they're all capable of that these days, surely. :roll:

supersonic

Depends on the focussing options I guess. This mode follows an object yoiu highlight around the screen.

I know it isn't on any compact I have seen, but no idea with DSLRs

butcher of bakersfield

yeehaamcgee wrote:

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

All autofocus does that, these days, doesn't it, Sonic?

Wouldn't have thought so. In fact it would get incredibly annoying if it did that as default, with no other options.

Oh christ almighty, it's like banging your head against a wall here sometimes.
Did I even suggest that it was the only option?
What I meant was that they're all capable of that these days, surely. :roll:

Depends how much money you have, and the camera in question. I honestly have no idea what's on the market in compact world these days, but more features equate to more money. So even if it's entirely possible for the budget, I would have thought they'd leave it out on the cheaper models, to make for a bigger selling point on the more expensive ones. T'is all I'm saying

I don't know though, you could be right. I just don't think it's a high priority for the average consumer.

Anonymous

Tracking autofocus is more on higher end cameras. Most SLRs have it, but even then as you pay more you get more focus points and better intelligence in the camera on the tracking.

Compacts are a bit slow for tracking auto focus. You really need a camera that's able to take shots fast and maybe at rapid speed to do that kind of stuff.

Though you don't necessarily need tracking auto focus, but then you need to be able to set focus in anticipation of where the subject will be and use the correct aperture to ensure the subject will be in focus as you track. Not to mention learn panning techniques. Compacts are still more tricky due to shutter delay but if you get to learn the camera well you can anticipate when it will take the shots.

It's all about getting the shots at the right time, with the right exposure, aperture and shutter speed. Most cameras have enough controls to deal with this but you need to know your way around the camera (and its limitations if any). The better the camera, the easier it is.


Anyway, in the compact market I'd still recommend a Lumix. I've heard nothing but praise for them.

Anonymous

It's not actually guaranteed that you will get objectively better autofocus accuracy with more money, in all honesty. A certain, VERY large camera manufacturer has had a mare of an issue with the camera back-focusing (focusing at the wrong distance).
Presumably this is because they have an uber-complicated, and thoroughly unnecessary autofocus system.
The original SLR and still very widely used autofocus system actually "views" the scene, so when something is in focus, there is just no two ways about it, it just IS in focus. This newer system has loads of other variables as well (and causes complications!)

Not naming names though. cough cough. Wink wink, and all that.

supersonic

Mine gets caught out with multiple objects sometimes.

LeighM

supersonic wrote:

Mine gets caught out with multiple objects sometimes.

Always problem when using multiple AF points. If the camera alows, best to select a single AF point (centre usually) to aviod mis-focusing, especially when using a wide aperture as a few mm off can throw the whole subject out of focus.