Trail Pack Camera

The Northern Monkey

I'm in the market for a decent camera..

Dont really want to spend too much as it'll be going in the trail pack, but I want something that will give some good quality and sharp photos and also be able to take pictures of other riders.

An SLR is out due to size I think, so are bridge cameras any good or should I be looking at smaller still?

I have no idea about camera specs and havent had a camera for years so not sure what to be looking for.

Cheers

Kowalski675

Bridge cameras are a bit redundant these days. A good compact will take excellent photos, but if you want to take action shots of other riders then your big problem is shutter lag - you need a mechanical shutter (i.e. a DSLR). Current entry level DSLRs are as small as bridge cameras now anyway, but still bigger than I'd want to be carrying round all day on a mountainbike ride, and easily damaged in a crash (I wouldn't want to land on my back with my D50 in my rucksack either - would be painful, as well as expensive). Bear in mind that SLRs aren't meant to be used as point-and-shoots either, even though they have full auto settings - unless you're prepared to spend some time in Photoshop making basic adjustments to levels, contrast, saturation, sharpening etc your pictures will be flat and lifeless compared to those from a compact.

The Northern Monkey

Tbh, anything will be better than my phone...

The Panasonic LX7 sounds good on paper, but I'm not really sure what I'm looking at tbh!

Kowalski675

As far as individual models go, I don't know what's around currently, 'cos it's a long time since I 've looked, I haven't used my old D50 in a long time anyway - used to be quite into it (just as an amateur dabbler), but lost my mojo.

Got a link to it?

jedi_master

From reviews I have read the Sony RX100 is meant to be really good and so is the Canon S110. Both are over £300 though.

The Northern Monkey

So would a budget £300-400 SLR get much better results of action shots than an equivalently priced point and shoot?

Might think about keeping the phone for the trail pack abd investing on a small SLR.

jedi_master

Thing with a compact system camera(i.e. Panasonic G3,GX1, Sony NEX series...) or DSLR is you have to consider the price of new lenses as well. The CSC and DSLRs do have bigger sensors than small cheaper compacts so are better in low light, and when it a forest even in the sun the light tends to be lower.

Never taken any sports shots myself so I can't really give much else. To be honest this sort of thing you might be better off asking on a camera/photography board. There's a digital photography section on avforums that seems to have some knowledgeable people on.

felix.london

Kowalski675 wrote:

Bear in mind that SLRs aren't meant to be used as point-and-shoots either, even though they have full auto settings - unless you're prepared to spend some time in Photoshop making basic adjustments to levels, contrast, saturation, sharpening etc your pictures will be flat and lifeless compared to those from a compact.

+1

Kowalski675

The Northern Monkey wrote:

So would a budget £300-400 SLR get much better results of action shots than an equivalently priced point and shoot?

Absolutely. For action shots you need a mechanical shutter, and that means a DSLR. Shutter lag on compacts is nowhere near as bad as it used to be a few years ago, but still too long for action pictures - by the time the image is captured, your subject's moved on. DSLRs have much higher shutter speeds for freezing action too (and easy to use shutter/aperture priority modes - you don't need to go full manual). They also have higher ISO settings (along with the already mentioned larger sensors), essential for getting shutter speeds fast enough for freezing action subjects in low light. Even entry level DSLRs now are excellent cameras, capable of producing professional images, and more affordable than ever. Smaller than ever too (a bit too small for my liking, I think my bulkier D50 handles better).

Don't get sucked in by megapixel counts - it's all marketing hype. The much bigger sensor area of a DSLR is far more important than high megapixel counts - my obsolete Nikon D50 is only 6MP, but will outperform a 12MP compact, because the sensor's nearly four times bigger. The only time you need big megapixel counts is if you want to print huge (like poster size plus), or crop heavily from your original image. I have 12"x16" framed prints on my wall from my D(inosaur)50 that have resolution that stands up to even the closest scrutiny, never mind at normal viewing distance. On compacts, high megapixel counts are actually a bad thing (but look good in adverts and sell cameras to the uninitiated), as high megapixel counts on small sensors increases image noise (the digital equivalent of film grain).

jairaj

When out in the open on a nice sunny day with ideal conditions modern compacts are very good.

But when you make things tricky ie high contrast or low light etc the advantage of the larger and better sensors on SLR and compact system camera becomes more apparent.

The perfect camera, similar to the perfect bike doesn't exist. Its about finding one that has the best compromise according to you.

What things are important to you and want is not? ie you want a large zoom or good low light performance or small size etc ...

Kowalski675

Jedi Master wrote:

Thing with a compact system camera(i.e. Panasonic G3,GX1, Sony NEX series...) or DSLR is you have to consider the price of new lenses as well.

Only if you want specialist lenses, or want to invest in higher quality faster glass. The kit lenses provided with even entry level DSLRs now are very good. Most entry levels will come with an 18-55, which will do everything you need for most circumstances, and most come with the option of adding a 55-200 inexpensively, for when you need more range (don't forget that the digital crop factor multiplies the effective focal length by 1.6). I invested £550 in an 18-200VR, which is a lovely piece of kit, but optically you'd struggle to tell the difference between images taken with the kit lenses compared to the more expensive glass without printing them huge. The extra money pays for superior build quality (it's built like a tank compared to the kit lenses), the VR system and the sheer convenience of having such a long focal length range in one lens (saves fannying about changing lenses, missing shots and potentially getting dust on your sensor - never ever change a lens with your camera switched on). Fast zoom lenses are expensive, but superb quality oprimes can be picked up very cheaply - Nikon's fast 50mm f1.8 prime is optically superb - one of the sharpest lenses you can buy - yet costs less than a hundred quid.

Cameras are a tool. A good camera doesn't make a good photographer, and a good photographer can take good images with any camera. Like any tools, a better camera simply makes the job easier. As has been said, when choosing you need to choose the camera that's right for what you want to do with it, within your budget. To put a very broad brush stroke on the subject, compacts are for taking pictures, SLRs are for photography - they offer a degree of control that you can never have from even the best compacts.

ddraver

Honest answer, I'd go into a big shop and buy whichever one has the best (least) shutter lag. That makes the biggest difference for getting good action photos or not.

jairaj

yes, I agree with the above. I used to use an old Nikon bridge camera the image quality was good enough for me apart from when it got dark. But I sometimes I missed the shot or had to ask my friends to repeat sections many times due to the long shutter lag. With my new DSLR with almost instant shutter release I seem to get the pictures almost first time.

For me getting a picture, even if this slightly less quality is better than not getting it at all.

Kowalski675

ddraver wrote:

Honest answer, I'd go into a big shop and buy whichever one has the best (least) shutter lag. That makes the biggest difference for getting good action photos or not.

For action shots you need a mechanical shutter, full stop. Compacts are great for what they're designed for (and a lot less hassle than carrying a bulky SLR), but they're no good for action (and even an entry level DSLR will outperform the best compacts on image quality).

ddraver

To be honest I agree Kow. But I know for a fact that the only time I ve ever got any decent shots with my SLR is when I ve "pre-agreed" with my riding mates that we re gonna have a ride where stop and take a few pics. Other wise by the time I ve stopped, taken it out, set up and such, they ve already been and gone. I ve a few superb shots of people I ve never met that just happened to be riding behind us that day! Same with Skiing really....

I ve had more luck with a compact that I can whip out quickly (f'nar) and then take a few snaps, usually on burst mode. It's a bit "spray and pray" but I get lucky more often than not. I don't think it's Proper Photography and they pics are nt much good for anything other than facebook, but they re good reminders of some good days!

Kowalski675

ddraver wrote:

To be honest I agree Kow. But I know for a fact that the only time I ve ever got any decent shots with my SLR is when I ve "pre-agreed" with my riding mates that we re gonna have a ride where stop and take a few pics. Other wise by the time I ve stopped, taken it out, set up and such, they ve already been and gone. I ve a few superb shots of people I ve never met that just happened to be riding behind us that day! Same with Skiing really....

I ve had more luck with a compact that I can whip out quickly (f'nar) and then take a few snaps, usually on burst mode. It's a bit "spray and pray" but I get lucky more often than not. I don't think it's Proper Photography and they pics are nt much good for anything other than facebook, but they re good reminders of some good days!

That's what compacts are great for - snapshots to remind you of good times, for emailing to mates, posting on forums, farcebook or wherever, rather than images you'll frame and hang on your wall. The best camera is the one you have with you. I've only ever used my DSLR when I've been going out specifically to take pictures - I might take it to a trail centre with company if the intention was specifically to try get some decent action shots, but I couldn't be bothered lugging it round on a normal ride (and certainly not with over £500 of lens on it).