Cameras 21st century - a step backwards

2»

Comments

  • pinkteapot
    pinkteapot Posts: 367
    Recommended for DSLR beginners: http://amazon.co.uk/dp/0007279922

    Also the "For Dummies" book for your specific camera if they do one.
  • jgsi
    jgsi Posts: 5,062
    I have just resigned myself to being 'blurry' the shots I have ended up on this season do seem to have been taken on compacts...so it is not just my missus having problems.
    I just wish I was a quick as it seems in the photos. but I am not.
    Anyway this Sunday is a local 'classic' and last year there was a few people with half decent SLRs, those were ultra pin sharp.
  • declan1
    declan1 Posts: 2,470
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    declan1 wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    declan1 wrote:
    Modern D-SLRs are amazing pieces of kit. You can basically make them do whatever you want.

    Modern compact cameras are rubbish - they're basically the BSO of the camera world. Great for taking pictures of family on a holiday, but pretty much useless for 'proper' photos.

    And the award for sweeping generalisation of the day goes to*....... :wink::lol:

    * (there are more options than 'cheapo compact and D-SLR. It's rather misguided to suggest that you need a DSLR to take excellent photos digitally)

    Yeah, I know.... :lol:

    There are some pretty good compacts out there, but the fact remains that they're simply not as good as D-SLRs. For starters the sensors are considerably smaller, as well as the fact that you can't change lenses (and standard ones aren't always very good).

    HOWEVER if you're not into photography and you don't know anything about it, you can get just as good (sometimes better) photos from a compact than a D-SLR. Compacts don't require any 'fiddling' or adjustment to take photos, whereas D-SLRs do to make use of their abilities.

    Another sweeping generalisation about compacts. For my cycling camera, I use a Canon G1X whose 14mp sensor is only marginally smaller than that used by most crop-DSLR cameras, shoots in RAW and has excellent low light capacity - good enough that I would not hesitate to use it at ISO1600 and know I can get very good results. True, the images it takes are not as sharp as my Canon 5D3 - a heavyweight professional DSLR - with the Zeiss primes I use on it, nor would anyone expect them to be. But compared with most of the consumer DSLRs, that compact G1X does very, very well indeed.

    Yes, it is a generalisation about compacts. I never said ALL compacts were rubbish - merely the majority that people buy.

    Even the G1X has a permanent lens with only 4x optical zoom - that's only good for a small selection of photographs. If you want to do wildlife photography then look elsewhere.

    I'm sure it's a very good camera - I've considered getting an advanced compact for taking with me on the bike but obviously my entire budget goes on bike parts so the camera can wait :lol:

    Road - Dolan Preffisio
    MTB - On-One Inbred

    I have no idea what's going on here.
  • Hoopdriver
    Hoopdriver Posts: 2,023
    declan1 wrote:
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    declan1 wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    declan1 wrote:
    Modern D-SLRs are amazing pieces of kit. You can basically make them do whatever you want.

    Modern compact cameras are rubbish - they're basically the BSO of the camera world. Great for taking pictures of family on a holiday, but pretty much useless for 'proper' photos.

    And the award for sweeping generalisation of the day goes to*....... :wink::lol:

    * (there are more options than 'cheapo compact and D-SLR. It's rather misguided to suggest that you need a DSLR to take excellent photos digitally)

    Yeah, I know.... :lol:

    There are some pretty good compacts out there, but the fact remains that they're simply not as good as D-SLRs. For starters the sensors are considerably smaller, as well as the fact that you can't change lenses (and standard ones aren't always very good).

    HOWEVER if you're not into photography and you don't know anything about it, you can get just as good (sometimes better) photos from a compact than a D-SLR. Compacts don't require any 'fiddling' or adjustment to take photos, whereas D-SLRs do to make use of their abilities.

    Another sweeping generalisation about compacts. For my cycling camera, I use a Canon G1X whose 14mp sensor is only marginally smaller than that used by most crop-DSLR cameras, shoots in RAW and has excellent low light capacity - good enough that I would not hesitate to use it at ISO1600 and know I can get very good results. True, the images it takes are not as sharp as my Canon 5D3 - a heavyweight professional DSLR - with the Zeiss primes I use on it, nor would anyone expect them to be. But compared with most of the consumer DSLRs, that compact G1X does very, very well indeed.

    Yes, it is a generalisation about compacts. I never said ALL compacts were rubbish - merely the majority that people buy.

    Even the G1X has a permanent lens with only 4x optical zoom - that's only good for a small selection of photographs. If you want to do wildlife photography then look elsewhere.

    I'm sure it's a very good camera - I've considered getting an advanced compact for taking with me on the bike but obviously my entire budget goes on bike parts so the camera can wait :lol:
    Well, the G1X's range runs from 28mm to 112mm (DSLR equivalent) which is pretty handy for most situations. TRue, if you are going to shoot a magazine cover of cheetahs on the Serengeti you would want something a bit grander but when I was in fact working on a magazine story about cheetahs on the Serengeti I did indeed take some shots with my G1X and G11 and they worked out surprisingly well...
  • diplodicus
    diplodicus Posts: 722
    VTech wrote:
    As above really.

    I have a Canon 6D that I bought on a whim and its just to complex for me so ive not really used it and it will remain in a box until its worthless and we throw it away.

    VTech how much do you want for it? Shame to throw it away, and my missus is looking for a dslr :)