OT - cameras??

I'm thinking of buying a new camera (sort of £500+) and would be grateful for comments on cameras that participants here have recently purchased.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

Reply to
kimsiddorn
Loading thread data ...

Digital or film?

Best thing I can suggest is to go into a real shop and try a few out; everyone's different.

A few things that matter to me with digital cameras:

I want a proper optical viewfinder - not a digital one, and not no viewfinder at all! I do use the primary LCD on my Canon a lot, but there are times where a viewfinder works better.

I like the fact that my Canon's LCD flips out and can be rotated; I can position it to avoid glare in certain lighting conditions, it's protected when I'm not using it, and it can always be turned through 180 degrees and folded back into the camera body to be used in the same way as most digitals seem to offer (i.e. as though fixed to the back of the body)

Size and weight is everything for me. I don't get on with ultra-light, ultra-compact cameras. They just feel completely wrong in use.

If you're going to use a tripod, make sure that it actually has a tripod mount :-)

Having a hot shoe attachment point can be useful at times - not all digitals have them.

Check to see if it'll run from the charger. Not all digitals do, and I've found times where it's useful just to run from the mains rather than worrying about changing batteries.

I think my Canon was about £500 when I got it, but that was quite a few years ago now. Due to the age it's "only" 5MP, but I find that's plenty for just about everything that *I* need. I don't think I'll upgrade it until it breaks (and I can't fix it). The lens cap's getting a bit loose (it's a friction-fit rather than a clip-on) after so much use.

About the only missing feature is the ability to sync with a GPS (if I'm "on the road" and find a nice shot, it'd be useful to be able to record location) - but I don't know if *any* cameras in that sort of price bracket offer that.

cheers

Jules

Reply to
Jules

Reply to
campingstoveman

Sync be damned. I want a camera with built in GPS, that records lat/long as easily as it records time stanmps.

It's juu...ust becoming available.

BugBear

Reply to
bugbear

Hi Kim

At last something I feel almost qualified to help with!

First off - whats wrong with your old camera or are you just hankering after a new toy?

What make/model is your old camera?

What do you use a camera for and when? ie do you want something you can use in pouring rain? Something you can put in your pocket? Something that will go into a pouch on you r belt? Something that lives on a strap around your neck or in a camera bag over your shoulder? Something with a little red Leica badge on? Something that will take an external flash not just the one that is built into the camera?

At £500 you are into digital SLR territory, albeit at an amateur level. That said the image quality from an entry level dslr using the 18-55mm cheapo lens, that is often packaged in as part of a bundle deal, is pretty good and doesn't bare comaprrison with the results from entry level film cameras 20 years ago.

With more information I can point you towards the type of camera which would suit your needs best.

If you should fancy a trip up to Brum, to the NEC, there is THE UK professional photography trade show - Focus which is on Sunday 7th March to Weds 10th March. You can just turn up at the door and pay some extortionate entry fee (£15 rings a bell) or you can google Focus and find the web page for this years show and apply for free tickets on line (probably until the end of this week) after all you are a professional photographer specialising in Viking renactment and documenting the development of a Viking village - aren't you ;o)

At Focus you can see and usually handle everything from a sub £100 point and shoot through to a £25k+ pro studio system. If anyone else fancies a day out there is some incredible stuff to be seen - take a pack of sandwiches and a bottle of drink from home or remember to hit the hole in the wall on your way in as the queues are long and a paper cup of coffee flavoured and tepid cack can be hideously expensive :o(

regards

Dudley

Dudley Simons Senior Photographer Department of Earth Sciences University of Cambridge

Reply to
Dudley Simons

Well in that case... 8-)

Assume a cupboard full of late-model Canon EOS lenses and 35mm film SLR bodies. Also nothing digital beyond a pocket snapshot job (Fuji Finepix though - pretty impressive for a tiddler) and some ready cash.

What do I buy for a digital SLR? Is the EOS kit any use at all? Would it be any use if I buy a Canon digital (The T5 and Ixus were expensive, unimpressive and broke), and is "a bag of paid-for lenses" sufficient reason to risk buying another Canon?

Thanks

Reply to
Andy Dingley

I just like tools with individual well-defined jobs - and *open* standards for interconnecting them.

e.g. I don't want a mobile phone with a camera in it, thanks very much - I have a good camera that's far better for taking pictures than any phone will ever be. Spend that part of the budget on making the phone stronger or longer-lasting or the interface easier to use instead; compete on being the best at one job, not mediocre at doing as many jobs as possible...

Unfortunately I'm in a minority there :-) (which is probably why I don't buy many new things, and buy older things that I can fix and keep going)

cheers

Jules

Reply to
Jules

Thanks Dudley, most helpful.

Good shot Andy! My last film camera was/is a Canon AE1 (spare A1 body) and a plethora of genuine lenses. Bought new in 1976 & last used in 2000 & much lamented - wish I could get such a thing as a digital back cover for it!

I very much doubt if the lenses would be usable with a modern digital Canon (if I was Canon, they would not be!), but it would certainly pull me Canonwards if they were.

I want a digital SLR & expect to be spending half as much again on lenses, cards, spare batteries etc. My previous digital was a Minolta Dimage 5 & is passing its best. The flash is becoming unreliable as is the autofocus. It now only really works properly in full daylight. Time I found it a pension scheme ....

I am not fixated on any manufacturer & welcome crit.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

Reply to
kimsiddorn

depends on what the lenses are. If they are cheapo 3rd party lenses that gave average results on film then they ain't worth much, pretty much like a T5 body.

However if they are all useable genuine Canon lenses that delivered pretty good results. Once you get over the fact that modern amateur dslr bodies are made of assorted plastics and not nice robust die castings encased in leatherette etc they are actually quite good cameras and capable of producing quality images - especially if they are set up and used correctly. What lenses do you have?

Canons current offerings of 450D, 500D and 550D are all very capable cameras and I would happily recommend any of them according to the depth of your pocket.

What is wrong with your ixus? I have an ixus 500 and it has been pretty bomb proof.

Hope this is of some help

Dudley

Reply to
Dudley Simons

Hi Kim

Canon FD lenses are not much use for anything other than paper weights unless you pick up a cheap Canon F1 and go back to film.

Meanwhile back on planet Earth.........

My advice would be

Steer clear of Sony. Their top end cameras are actually quite good and robustlymade but their entry level stuff does not have a good reputation.

I would be happy to push you towards both Canon and Nikon, I think the Nikon 5000 may have the edge over other Nikon offerings in terms of bangs per buck and also over the Canon equivalents - take a look at both ranges. I would also advise that you buy the 18 - 55mm lens that both manufacturers bundle up with the bodies and just see how you get on, you may find that 18 - 55 which = about 28 - 80 in 35mm terms, will do everything you want it to. To go wider you will have to spend serious money which personally I would put towards a really good Nikon or Canon flash gun. The other thing is that if you have just the one lens you wont be swopping lenses whilst out and about - never a good idea if you can avoid it. I know a lot of dslrs are supposed to have self cleaning systems built in which may or may not work effectively but if the camera is clean inside you don't get a dust problem. Just in case anyone reading is unaware, dslrs have a problem with dust when you remove the lens. The sensor is a charged device and as soon as you expose it to the atmosphere, every spec of dust in the cosmos will be attracted to it. Even if you change lenses on a nice still day in the nice clean air you get after a downpour - your clothes are shedding fibres constantly.

In terms of batteries and cards - 3rd party batteries whilst not always as good as the real thing are good enough and at upto 66% cheaper. I have bought Delkin batteries in the past and have no complaints about them. Incidentally Delkin and Spa Photo share a stand at the NEC and do batteries for a very wide range of dslr and popular point and shoot cameras. Cards if you buy Sandisk and Lexar you won't go too far wrong

- watch the read/write speeds and don't buy the really slow ones if you can help it. One thing to remember with cards is that - IMHO at least, its better to buy two smaller cards than one big one, and very often cheaper as well. If you have a couple of 2 or 4 gig cards that should be more than enough to get you going. My reasoning for having two smaller cards - well they are cheaper, a 2 gig card hold a hell of a lot of jpegs, even when you save them at high res and highest quality, if you misplace a card its not the end of the world, you can have one card in the camera and keep on shooting while downloading the other. If you did opt for the Nikon D5000 and wanted to make use of its high def video mode then a bigger card may well be in order.

regards

Dudley

Reply to
Dudley Simons

My first digital was a Fuji, around ten years ago. Nice enough for the day (very basic by modern standards) but good enough build quality (it got used for a lot of urban exploration type stuff, so it had a hard life). My main gripe with that one was its use of AA batteries - they'd never last very long, and the camera would declare them dead long before they'd ceased to be capable of hours of useful work in other devices.

My Canon in comparison will do a few hours on battery, and performance doesn't seem to be significantly down even after a few years.

(My wife's camera is a Panasonic, I think. Can't be run off mains, so having a spare charged Li-ion battery on-tap is a must there)

That's why I use the tripod a lot ;)

cheers

Jules

Reply to
Jules

Dudley,

Reply to
campingstoveman

That's really good stuff & I'll print it off & read it over tea!

Thank you.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

Reply to
kimsiddorn

Quite, that's why my phone is 6 years old, I use an iPAQ for diary, notes and mobile web/email using the phone as a modem, a digital camera and MP3 player. Lots of boxes but if I lose one it's no great loss I've not lost *everything* like you would with an iPhone or similar "all in one box" solution.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

Probably missing something, but I don't really understand DSLR - why have all that wriggly mirror stuff when you can get a perfectly good through the lens view from a little lcd and eyepiece? No complaints about my Fuji (next year's model but essentially the same as Martin's).

NHH (camera history Kodak Instamatic 126, Zeiss Ikon 120, Zenit EM 35mm (Moscow olympics special edtion), Zenit TTL 35mm (never quite as good as the EM, Pentax MX 35mm (with terrific Olympus XA as backup), Sony compact digital (ok but ate batteries and died after a few years), Fuji something)

Reply to
NHH

Nick,

I th>>

Reply to
campingstoveman

DSLR still have mirrors.

For now...

The larger sensor in a DSLR compared with a compact gives dramatically better light sensitivity, at the cost of needing larger lenses.

BugBear

Reply to
bugbear

In message , campingstoveman writes

I've had a Fuji Finepix 2800 for several years now, bought mainly to take pictures of stationary engines at the shows, apart from general use for holidays etc. It's only 2 Mp, but to me that's quite good enough for the job. It uses 4 AA cells, but I have never used disposable cells in it, only NiMH rechargeables, mostly of around 2.1 to 2.9Ah. A set of

2.1Ah cells normally lasts for a full 128Mb SmartMedia card (around 165 images at the highest resolution), which will accept my typical full day's picture taking at a big show such as Rushden or Stoke Goldington. I carry three spare 128Mb cards and a spare set of four rechargeables, but rarely have to use them.

I now also have a 4 Mp Konica Minolta Dimage Z3, which I bought second-hand from a friend for £40 last spring when I thought (wrongly) that the Fuji was giving up the ghost. It can store 2Gb of images on its SD card, which is nearly 1000 shots at the highest resolution, and will run for a full day on one set of 2.5Ah rechargeable AA cells.

During the winter I normally keep a set of Uniross Hybrio 2.1Ah low-self-discharge NiMH rechargeables in each camera, and these stay usable for a couple of months or more, just supplying the minimal memory-maintenance power needed.

I deliberately avoid, as far as possible, portable devices that use dedicated battery packs, due to the silly price of replacements, and the fact that many of them have to be charged while they're on the device in question. Sadly, this is difficult to impossible with some things, but thankfully, some bits of kit still have an AA- or AAA-cell case option, or run on those standard sizes of rechargeables.

My Fuji is still perfectly adequate for engine and other rally pics; the Dimage is better, and has far more image storage capacity. I usually take both with me when I go to a rally.

Reply to
Andrew Marshall

There are now rechargeable batteries available which have a very low self-discharge rate and once charged hold the charge for 9it is said) 12 months, thus tend not to "run down" so quickly. The ones I have been using for some time in my digital camera are branded "instant" AA type rated

2100mAH bought on ebayuk
formatting link
and I would definitely recommend them, not much difference in price to normal rechargeables. Also fitted some C types in our battery/mains radio (usually used on mains) so that if we have a power cut we can still listen to the radio ( I previously had put Energiser batteries in there, but every time we went to use it on batteries, they had gone flat). However I do find Energisers last longer than Duracell.
Reply to
THE DOUGLAS STATIONARY ENGINE RESOURCE (admin)

In message , "THE DOUGLAS STATIONARY ENGINE RESOURCE (admin)" writes

Seconded; I use the Uniross Hybrio type of these, and they pretty well do what it says on the tin. Beware of devices, though, which have a very slow discharge current (e.g. to sustain a memory or internal clock) even when apparently off; they can give the impression that the cells are losing their charge by self-discharge when in fact it's the device very slowly draining them.

Reply to
Andrew Marshall

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.