• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Tablets and e-Readers
Digital camera's
<<
<
2 of 4
>>
>
paulbrock
30-10-2010
Originally Posted by sirpipe:
“That seems to be a disparaging view of quiet, point-and-shoot compacts and rangefinder cameras. Quality cameras produce quality photos. ”

it's more a statement of fact. The idea that there are loads of photojournalists out there choosing a digi compact over an SLR is pretty dubious.
CS Aye
30-10-2010
There certainly are compacts used by photojournalists. High-end Canons and such like. DSLRs take great pics but can be a colossal PITA with their size and weight. I wouldn't want to be carting one of them round the streets of Tehran or wherever. If you're talking about real photojournalists, they always used to use 400 or 800 ISO film, since to them image quality is far less important than getting the important shot.
paulbrock
30-10-2010
Originally Posted by CS Aye:
“There certainly are compacts used by photojournalists. High-end Canons and such like. DSLRs take great pics but can be a colossal PITA with their size and weight.”

a 500g SLR is a PITA to 'cart' round?
camer
30-10-2010
Originally Posted by paulbrock:
“a 500g SLR is a PITA to 'cart' round?”

But compact compared to the old fd cameras that I use. They give excellent results due to their big bright lense and a proper sized sensor and the luxury of a viewfinder. I cannot use a camera without a viewfinder and hate standing holding those horrible compacts a couple of feet in front of you to get a shot.
Pugwash69
30-10-2010
I bought a Samsung ST1000 this year, after a series of Canon compact digitals. I've been very impressed with the features, but obviously it's just for regular snaps. It powers up fast, focuses fast and takes great photos. The extra megapixels are not wasted, as you can correct your framing with lots of margin to crop!

Good photos are being at the right place at the right time usually. If you haven't lugged your SLR with you, a compact is better.
dodgygeeza
30-10-2010
Originally Posted by Pugwash69:
“It powers up fast, focuses fast and takes great photos.”

Not as fast, fast or great as an SLR though. Fact of life.
camer
30-10-2010
Originally Posted by dodgygeeza:
“Not as fast, fast or great as an SLR though. Fact of life.”

The big downside to slr cameras is the dust contamination that occurs during lense changes, they are not suitable for all conditions for fear of contamination, this is were the compacts have the edge over the slr. I stick to my old fd cameras as they have the telephoto capacity of an slr without the need to change the lense and they can be bought very cheaply, I also use the cd Mavica cameras that need no software and the photos can be viewed directly via a dvd player. My favourite camera is my old Sony Mavica fd that only has 0.7 megapixels but is the best close up camera i have ever owned but also has a 10x optical zoom.
CS Aye
31-10-2010
Originally Posted by paulbrock:
“a 500g SLR is a PITA to 'cart' round?”

A half kilo camera that doesn't fit in your pocket? And how much does the lens weigh? And how big is the lens? Yep, I stand by my statement.
gemma-the-husky
03-11-2010
a SLR is high end male jewellery though.
clonmult
03-11-2010
Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky:
“a SLR is high end male jewellery though.”

Where do you get that silly notion from?

A DSLR gives considerably better pictures with one heck of a lot more creative control than every single compact camera on the market.
iangrad
03-11-2010
Panasonic TZ10 ! == its all there full features & you can set it to 16x9 aspect ratio to fit normal screens , something a lot of D slr's can't do . Worth a look .
Ian
CS Aye
03-11-2010
Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky:
“a SLR is high end male jewellery though.”

A lot of truth in that tongue in cheek remark. An SLR certainly is a great piece of kit if you know what you're doing, but it's also a great prop for the guys with all the gear but no idea.

I'm always amazed by clueless types who have a DSLR because it "takes great pictures" and show you a lot of abysmal snaps with great image quality. (They've probably spent about a month manipulating the RAW file too!) If you can't take a picture to save yourself, then who gives a monkeys about how noisy the image is when viewed through a Sherlock Holmes style magnifying glass?
Biffo the Bear
03-11-2010
I'll echo the sentiment about the most important part of the camera being the person behind it.

At the moment I've got a lomo camera, 5D Mk2 and the camera on my Desire! All can produce excellent shots given the right composition and lighting, but then all have their advantages in particular situations e.g. the lomo when I just want to mess around, the 5D was great for a wedding and some travel journalism I did during the summer, and the Desire is great just to 'have' ready and available.

I'm not so sure I agree about dSLRs being too big and heavy to be practicable. I slapped a nifty fifty on my 5D and was able to run off some fantastic candid group and street shots. I've always been of the opinion that if you keep your lens small, people tend to ignore you, even if you've got a large camera. Walk down the street with your 24-70 attached, and people do look more.
clonmult
04-11-2010
Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear:
“I'll echo the sentiment about the most important part of the camera being the person behind it.

At the moment I've got a lomo camera, 5D Mk2 and the camera on my Desire! All can produce excellent shots given the right composition and lighting, but then all have their advantages in particular situations e.g. the lomo when I just want to mess around, the 5D was great for a wedding and some travel journalism I did during the summer, and the Desire is great just to 'have' ready and available.

I'm not so sure I agree about dSLRs being too big and heavy to be practicable. I slapped a nifty fifty on my 5D and was able to run off some fantastic candid group and street shots. I've always been of the opinion that if you keep your lens small, people tend to ignore you, even if you've got a large camera. Walk down the street with your 24-70 attached, and people do look more.”

Couldn't agree more.

My A200 seems to shrink away when I put on the 50mm on there, and similar to yourself I've been getting some great candid shots (of our kids), Stick on the 28-300 and its a totally different proposition.

Although when I stick the flash on the top, the small size of the 50 is somewhat negated ....

I think the best comment I ever heard was that "the best camera is the one that you have with you".
Johnny Clay
04-11-2010
Originally Posted by CS Aye:
“I'm always amazed by clueless types who have a DSLR because it "takes great pictures" and show you a lot of abysmal snaps with great image quality. (They've probably spent about a month manipulating the RAW file too!) If you can't take a picture to save yourself, then who gives a monkeys about how noisy the image is when viewed through a Sherlock Holmes style magnifying glass?”

This. The key to photography is good composition (and all that it entails), and there's no camera in the world that can help you with that. You can take a good snap with a disposable camera if you've got the eye for it.
kyussmondo
05-11-2010
When the light is right a compact is fine for say an outdoors portrait or landscape shot. When the light starts to go, or you start shooting stuff like sports or wildlife or macros then you need an SLR to get any kind of decent photo. You need different lens, faster shutter speeds, high ISO for these situations. Composition is also important and without knowing that and knowing you camera inside out then you will never get decent pics no matter how expensive you camera and lens.

Personally I rarely shoot RAW. I'm happy with what I get straight from the camera. If I was a pro though I would shoot RAW all of the time.
CS Aye
05-11-2010
Originally Posted by kyussmondo:
“When the light is right a compact is fine for say an outdoors portrait or landscape shot. When the light starts to go, or you start shooting stuff like sports or wildlife or macros then you need an SLR to get any kind of decent photo.”

I wouldn't go quite that far, but it's a fair point. You can get very nice pictures from an ultrazoom camera at low ISO in good light, so you can get some nice wildlife shots with an ultrazoom, and some of them have surprisingly good macro ability. But they're not up to much in poor light because of the poor image quality above ISO 200.

The thing about a DSLR is that cheap telephoto zoom lenses are often very slow, f/4 or even f/5.6 at full zoom. You're talking big money for fast DSLR telephoto lenses. Ultrazooms are often respectably fast lenses at full zoom, letting you use a low ISO with a high shutter speed and take a decent pic in good lighting conditions.
Oldhippy
05-11-2010
I think you have learnt a lesson. Pay little and spend twice.

90% of a camera is the quality of the glass. The lens in a compact will be for the most part pretty poor. though the Canon G11 price bracket is around £800! for a compact.

A DSLR will last you a lot longer.

If you want to do wildlife, the focus will be able to lock onto your subject if for example it is a bird in flight, a compact will not.

Compacts also have varying degrees of shutter lag.. Time it takes to actually capture the image from when the shutter release os pressed.

A DSLR is more mechanical with a mirror like 35mm film cameras had..

You will also find that as your wife's skills improve they would be held back with a compact.

I started with a bridge camera and have shot with a DSLR since 2004. Started with the Nikon D70 and now on a D300..

Even if you buy an entry level DSLR, putting a reasoble lens on the front is a good move.

For a wide angle the Tokina 11-16mm is a stunning little lens..

the lenses you chose should be related to the kind of photography that you are interested in. Specialist lenses like a macro lens is an excellent idea for flowers, insects etc...

Maybe even a part time course can help.. I am self taught, but now teaching it too...

There are some good books to read and one or two decent photography forums, so get yourself out there...
Any questions let me know...
sirpipe
05-11-2010
I have a few questions on the last reply:

Is there a better lens than a Leica lens?

What cameras did the great photographers use before SLRs were invented?

How do beautiful photos get taken on really small cameras if they don't match a DSLR?

Isn't a plate camera the best for architectural photos?
Oldhippy
05-11-2010
Originally Posted by sirpipe:
“I have a few questions on the last reply:

Is there a better lens than a Leica lens?

What cameras did the great photographers use before SLRs were invented?

How do beautiful photos get taken on really small cameras if they don't match a DSLR?

Isn't a plate camera the best for architectural photos?”

Hi Sirpipe.. i will try to answer your questions..

I have not used Leica myself, but they have a reputation for being superb, though not a name that is often thought about by non enthusiasts.

hasselblad have stunning lenses and a digital medium format would do me very nicely.
Nikon and Canon pro glass is also very very good..

Henry Cartier-Bresson used a Leica I think.. It is for the most part down to the eye of the photographer and the understanding of light and composition, however...

You can get excellent results if you know when to be out and this will all depend on the quality of the small camera you are working with.

You can sharpen an image in software of course.. Though you can do all sorts...

It depends on what your style of photography is as certain features make a DSLR the way to go.

The filter thread for example is nearly always too small on a compact and a lot of people will not see the difference in the image, just like the ear of a musician the eye of the photographer improves with experience. But often fine detail is lost with the glass in compact cameras.

For architecture, a tilt-shift or Perspective control lens would be the best bet. As the tilting of the camera on the tripod can be compensated for with the lens.

I hope that helps answer your questions...
sirpipe
05-11-2010
Leica make very few SLRs. They do make compacts and rangefinders. Is their glass in a compact or rangefinder in any way doubtful?

The reason I ask is that some fantastic photos are produced using their cameras. They are silent and very lightweight in comparison to a DSLR.

I can see why paparazzi like the speed of a DSLR but the unobtusiveness of a compact can enable photographers to get shots almost anywhere.
kyussmondo
06-11-2010
You can get very good shots with point and shoots. They also force you to stop relying on zooms, and moving yourself to get great compositions. I take a lot of pictures with my iPhone which produces great results although it's limitations quickly become apparent. It is not image quality as such. Most point and shoots these days have more than enough mega pixels and are usually very good at picking the right settings in AUTO. If you just left a DSLR in AUTO then you wouldn't get any better results. With DSLRs you can start shooting at higher ISOs without affecting quality, changing metering, playing with apertures, manual focus because sometimes the light isn't ideal or you want to create effects that aren't possible in auto.

Also a high end point and shoot is more expensive than a consumer level DSLR. So I would get a DSLR and get some nice lens instead. Good lens will last you forever and be compatible with future bodies you get. You can also hire lens if you only need one for a specific event.

Having said all that, it is nice to have a nice point and shoot. DSLRs are big and not always convenient to lug around. Also if I was going for a night out I would feel a bit of an idiot or more of a target to thieves carrying around a DSLR whereas a point and shoot can just slip in your pocket.
Oldhippy
06-11-2010
Originally Posted by sirpipe:
“Leica make very few SLRs. They do make compacts and rangefinders. Is their glass in a compact or rangefinder in any way doubtful?

The reason I ask is that some fantastic photos are produced using their cameras. They are silent and very lightweight in comparison to a DSLR.

I can see why paparazzi like the speed of a DSLR but the unobtusiveness of a compact can enable photographers to get shots almost anywhere.”

As wth all lenses and cameras the quality comes down to how much you spend. This should not be confused with brand snobbery of which there is a lot of in photography...

Here is a rather nice Leica and one I would go for if I had the cash. http://uk.leica-camera.com/photograp...ions/m9_titan/

Nothing wrong as far as I know with the leica lenses, they have an excellent reputation...
sirpipe
06-11-2010
@Oldhippy: That camera looks incredible. It must cost a small fortune but being limited edition it will probably hold its value better than a building society account. It might be worth a punt as an investment.

Would you prefer that to a DSLR, or are we talking apples and pears?
Oldhippy
06-11-2010
Hi Sirpipe,

I agree, I developed a taste for titanium as a mountain biker... One of the best metals there is...

Found out a bit more and this may interest you..

http://www.photoradar.com/news/story...ium-20k-camera

Oh and it is £20,000!

As a workhorse I would choose a DSLR, it is a flexible oiece of kit for most situations...


I really fancy one of these... http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/products...em/h4d-60.aspx

the macro lens is around £3,500 compared to one for Nikon which is £650-ish..

As I am in the throws of going pro, I am hoping to upgrade properly late next year to full frame pro DSLR.. and lenses of course..

Have a look at Strobist.com after 8 years of shooting, I have finally got into off camera flash, but instead of using flashguns, I have a portable high power rig...

I specialise in location work, so work places ( machinery and staff) and also classic cars for owners.

Just shot some fireworks too...

www.flickr.com/photos/sounds-and-images
<<
<
2 of 4
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map