New Camera Ideas?

[wayno]

what woke me up to the ability of smaller cameras was a mate with a Leica DLux that was putting out images as sharp as my D300, it was the first time i'd seen a compact perform so closely to a compact camera, as long as the light was ok it was doing a fantastic job and i didnt need any more out of images than the DLux could do. sure my camera was far superior for action shots and could shoot at 7 frames a second but i seldom used it for that and it wasnt really worth me carrying this big lump of a camera around when i could get something smaller. then the low light performance in the smaller cameras jumped so i could shoot under a thick canopy cover and i was a convert...

[phan_TOM]

The technology's come a long way in such a short time thats for sure, if it's possible to get better IQ out of a smaller camera than my 40d (and I'm sure that it is) I think I'll 'have ' be a convert too, why carry the extra weight and size if it's not necessary. The 40d hasn't skipped a beat thus far so I can't see myself needing to get a new camera for a while yet, touch wood. I'm actually suprised its lasted as long as it has, the cynic in me expects most consumer goods to only last until the day after their warranty runs out...

[wayno]

considering you've basically got an slr sensor or close to an slr sensor in a more compact format like a micro 4/3 or interchangeable / mirrorless
and now the sony RX100 with a one inch sensor in a compact and the RX1 that has a full frame sensor in a compact camera and fuji talking about putting a full frame sensor into an interchangeable lens body.
for bushwalkers who want to keep the bulk and weight down and take slr quality shots these are great options
just be aware of what a camera is like if you don't have an optical viewfinder and if you find it too hard to see whats on the screen outside that's one drawback of the compacts
i remember my first compact digital cameras the first one gave appalling quality photos, but technology has just improved in massive leaps. i still fin it hard to believe that such small boxes can put out such great quality...

[DaveNoble]

If you want to get good photos out in the bush then the most important thing by far - is not what camera you have but to actually get out in the bush and then take some photos. I think for most people it does not matter too much what equipment you use but you do need to have an "eye" for what will make a good photo and how to get that photo given the equipment you have.

Sure - its nice to have a DSLR available and a set of lenses - but thats a lot of weight to lug around. If you can afford it, and in the same way that some people have several packs, sleeping bags and tents depending on the conditions, it good to have several different cameras and use different ones on different trips. Years ago, in the age of film - we used to spend a lot of money on slide film and then more when we got back from a trip on processing. Now - we spend that money every few years upgrading our cameras.

Dave

[Robatman]

If you want to get good photos out in the bush then the most important thing by far - is not what camera you have but to actually get out in the bush and then take some photos. I think for most people it does not matter too much what equipment you use but you do need to have an "eye" for what will make a good photo and how to get that photo given the equipment you have.

Dave

I agree that you need to just take photos. I have a heavy fullframe camera with an even heavier lens and i used to find it's not easy just to get it out of the pack and start shooting. This year i have started wearing it on my chest in a chest mounted bag and i take more shots. see this thread for ideas. http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=8227&hilit=chest+camera


The only other thing that limits my photo taking is the people i'm with- they usually prefer to walk on a bushwalk (funny that!), not sit around while i whip out the camera all the time so i found saying something like "is it ok for this next section if i stop a few times to take pics" or "at the river crossing i was hoping to take 10 mins for pics" etc and not taking pics all the time, but i find most shots are taken in the hour or so before we head off each morning- i wander round while breaky/sleep-in is happening or after camp is set in arvo.

I'm also considering a smaller camera (than 5dII and 24-70) to save kilos in gear!



Robert
Just bought a new MTB so my compact camera is a year off!

[wayno]

the bigger the camera the more likely i am to leave it at home a, the smaller the camera, the more likely i am to take it with me....

[photohiker]

This year i have started wearing it on my chest in a chest mounted bag and i take more shots. see this thread for ideas. http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=8227&hilit=chest+camera

agree with this, and it's one of the reasons I carry a small camera that is easy to grab a shot at a moments notice. I've taken to suspending my Panasonic GF1 on my chest from my backpack harness using a quick connect strap. It makes unloading the pack a bit more cumbersome because the camera has to be detached and stowed first, but the benefit is that I'm less likely to walk past photo opportunities because of time constraints or the hassle of extracting cameras and setting them up. Benefit of the GF1 is that it's market value is now only a couple of hundred dollars but it still takes a good shot as long as you keep the ISO down.

Which is another good option for our OP. You could get a good micro4/3cam like the GF1 second hand for a few hundred and if the photo bug kicks in, there are upgrades available in that format all the way to current models such as the OM-D. For size and weight considerations, the upgrades I'd be looking at in m4/3 would be the GX1 or G5 and the about to be released Oly EPL5 and EPM2 models. Both of those new Oly's have the same sensor and processing engine as the OM-D, and they will be sub $1k cameras.

[wildernesswanderer]

the bigger the camera the more likely i am to leave it at home a, the smaller the camera, the more likely i am to take it with me....

Ha we are so not alike, I hardly ever take pics on my wife's little Fuji X10, if I don't take my camera gear I usually just don't bother taking pics at all.

[wayno]

if i'm going somewhere new then its the bigger camera, if i'm going somewhere i've shot a lot of photos before esp in varied weather, then I take a compact , more in case i see a shot i havent got before. most places i go i've been before so its the compact for those regular weekend trips..

[taswegian]

Not sure if Zane has got utterly bewildered or lost, but I'll throw my 2 bobs worth.
I often hangout for a new DSLR (I've an older pentax) but I've come to love my Canon G12.
Zane its been said many times an expensive camera doesn't make automatically good photos.
But peering through lenses all day for a living I can voutch that good lenses are worth their money.

Personally I prefer viewfinder, but similarly would not be without a fully articulated screen. There are many places they come to the fore. Getting shots close to the ground, held above your head, discrete ones of the kids at play etc.

Think about what you would likely use it for, closeup, timed images, zoom range needed, output - how big prints, if anything printed large.
How big a device do you want to lug about?
Do you want raw images, and manipulate the results?
Fiddling with interchangeable lenses? Is that what you would want to do?
And entry price is not necessarily that much cheaper than a camera of better quality and lenses of choice, more so if you decide it is too basic or not the quality you expected then ditch that and move up.

It's easy to get swayed by our well meaning comments, but I would recommend get hold of what you think is your choice and try it out in shop.
How do knobs, dials work for you.
If you have big hands can you work the thing easily?
Menus. Might not seem like a big deal, but worth flicking through how easy to change white balance, exposure bias, flash settings, are some areas I often fiddle with and it's a pain if things are buried away.

Two bobs worth ended.
All the best in choosing and using.

[Isis]

Unless your "into"photography then any of the good compacts such as Canon G12 or equivalent will take a good image capable of a A3 size print . You really want to get better photo use a tripod.

[cjhfield]

My 2 cents:

The biggest limitation in compact cameras IMHO is not their image quality but the loss of control of depth of field. Small sensor cameras typically have a huge depth of field particularly when matched to a superzoom lens with small aperture. Making the subject stand out from its background is a very useful trick. The larger the sensor the easier this is to do but the camera gets bigger.

My next problem with compact cameras is the lack of a good viewfinder. If all we want is a memento of a place (typically what we do when we travel) just pointing and clicking with a compact is great but the more we want to spend time thinking what we want to leave out or include and how to arrange things the easier it gets with a big bright viewfinder. I may be getting old but squinting at tiny screens in bright light is too hard.

You can take great photos with a camera phone but for me it is easier with a big sensor camera, good optical viewfinder and low f-stop lens. I can do this with a DSLR with APS-C size sensor but to keep the weight down leave at home telephoto lenses. Nikon has very cheap fixed prime lenses at 35 and 50mm. A second hand body with a fixed lens and one in your pocket would take good photos in low light and not be a disaster when you drop it. However my current favorite camera is the Fuji X100. It has a fixed lens of 35mm equivalent which many would find too limiting but it makes me take better photos by making me move around more. If I have a zoom it is so easy to be rooted to the spot and just vary the zoom - its a trap. Its also just a fun camera to use I think because its simpler than my Nikon D7000. I spend more time thinking about the photo than the camera.

But you can take good photos with anything. Some cameras make it a bit easier but the camera is not THAT important.

HTH

Chris

[wayno]

the best camera you can shoot with is the one you can afford.....

[Nuts]

hm, hey iv'e not had much experience with anything between 'pro' compact and slr, iv'e lear'nt a bit from the topic and other links.
My P7000 has a viewfinder but for a similar size/weight.. even price I see there are now many better options. Zane probably needs to give a bit more info for his own needs but these discussions always seem to continue regardless

Chris, you can (to some extent) use focus lock to define objects (like DoF)?

edit: eg:

[wayno]

all good mentioning a lot of the models that have been mentiond but some of them are beyond a lot of peoples budgets...., once apon a time all i could afford was an instamatic.... that took fuzzy square photos

[Nuts]

once apon a time all i could afford was an instamatic.... that took fuzzy square photos

Good for snapping yowies, yeti, tassie tiger, ufo etc lol

[wayno]

have to take some comments with a grain of salt theres a massive variance in what people consider an aceptable camera. the more experienced hands, wont consider using cameras that most people are happy with...
i fit into that category.... my cameras are close to the thousand dollar mark, but some still think those cameras still arent good enough, at one stage my main camera and lens was $4000 of kit .... and think the way to go is spend even more money. some of them will be making a living from photography so spending big money is more justified to take photos that will get people to buy them.

[Nuts]

Humor, you have that there, i know I don't much care what others consider a 'serious' camera. Given that some of the pics on here (in comps and galleries) are stunning! even at laptop resolution, quality may not be that important (if that is as big as ones photos will get)

[wayno]

sure theres some great cameras
cameras like the fuji x 100 is mentioned $1300,
the D7000 $1200 for the body only
D800e $3000 body only....

micro four thirds can be $1-2000

if you dont have the money its academic how good they are...

[Nuts]

if you dont have the money its academic how good they are...

Fair enough, and there are many things to spend money on (though Zane may be a zillionaire)- to add something constructive; the body mentioned (with 18-55 lens) is $409 here:

http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/nikon-d3100 ... override=1

[wayno]

he he, i can just hear whoever it was who called this "cheap rubbish" whincing....

but it still coems out with a perfectly respectable rating

http://www.dpreview.com/search/?query=d ... ikon_d3100

but hold the phone you can get a canon 1d c for US$6000

[wildernesswanderer]

he he, i can just hear whoever it was who called this "cheap rubbish" whincing....

but it still coems out with a perfectly respectable rating

http://www.dpreview.com/search/?query=d ... ikon_d3100

but hold the phone you can get a canon 1d c for US$6000

HAHA that would be me and I still say it, but hey if a cheap plastic lens and body get the job done go for it. But really the OP I find kinda strange, Has never mentioned budget, what he wants to achieve or what he even wants to shoot, apart from his bush walks so in this whole thread he has been given advice from cameras at $400+ to camera worth a few thousand dollars. Pretty good broad spectrum of what you can pay for someone that has never responded to the whole thread.

The other idea is every time someone mentions a camera in the thousand+ range you seem to want to assume the guy can't afford it pointing to cheaper cameras again.

[wildernesswanderer]

Oh and if you would rather have a Australian Nikon warranty and not some dodgy Kogan warranty you could go here

http://www.discountcameras.com.au/disco ... roduct/791

It's only $80 more with Full Nikon Australian Warranty

[wayno]

this is a shot with a standard nikon D3100 (aka rubbish) kit
you can see just how bad the quality is

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67659376@N03/

[photohiker]

this is a shot with a standard nikon D3100 (aka rubbish) kit
you can see just how bad the quality is

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67659376@N03/

Shocking.

[wayno]

yes shocking, absolute rubbish....

[Nuts]

Are those from the camera or the kit lens? Perhaps something a bit better built, used, a D90x say..? (not up with what other models in the intermediate class?)
ha, a topic full of camera buffs and nobody game to pick apart my pic ( wont bite )

[wayno]

it's the full 3100 kit

[photohiker]

ha, a topic full of camera buffs and nobody game to pick apart my pic ( wont bite )

Maybe you should start your own topic for that

Photo is great for a Nikon, but would be better from a Canon.

[Nuts]

haah, you think it could take a whole topic (meh, it was just to add some life to yet another gear discussion )
Ive tried Nikons 18-200 lens Wayno, a lot of bulk to have to carry but pretty much a one lens kit, very nice alternative .