Photography

[Crankarm]

Cheers Matthew,

Based on that, I think a compact is out. I'm hoping to try photography at a reasonable level, and good quality big prints are a must.

Landscape, studio, reportage, commercial or weddings as a selection?

You will need Photoshp CS 3 or 4, or you might get by with Elements 6 and above, a calibrated screen is essential, using something like a Pantone Huey £60, cheap flat LCD screens aren't that good for balancing colours. As always the acceptable ones are ££££. You could get a 2nd hand Ilyama CRT screen for £25 on Ebay which are pretty good. Then you need a decent A3 printer which aren't cheap. The ink cartridges alone will bankrupt you. You will also need dedicated printer profiles which is further expense. If you want consistent colour rendition and fastness stick with manufacturers' inks. Neither do they invalidate your printer warranty when they block up the printer heads. Then you need a decent paper. Infact it is more cost effective to leave the printing to some one else, then at least you don't have to worry about colour balancing of your prints. Blurb.com are quite good. Have seem some excellent prints that they have done.

I would enrol on an evening course to see if you are really into photography, have the technical ability and deep enough pockets.

I would get a decent point and shoot compact if you intend taking pics while you cycle. An SLR is just too unwieldy and a thief magnet .

 

[johnnyh]

I take my old G9 out on the bike, good results generally, not as good in low light as my SLR's but then I dont expect it.

Just remember, the photographer makes the picture, not the camera.

 

[automatic_jon]

As a bit of a retro camera fan (film, manual everything, leather and chrome bodies) the new micro four thirds, so called "digital rangefinders" (although they're nothing of the sort) look ever-so pretty but I know they'd leave me cold like digital usually does.

 

[Chrisc]

A Nikon D300 body alone is the best part of £1,100. Are you trying to tell us how much you've spent on your camera ?

Wow, where did that come from? Glad I didn't mention that I might stick a D700 or my D3s in the bag for full frame shooting.

No, you told everybody how much a D300 is didn't you. I'm simply offering advice to the op that his needs will be best served by investing in a dslr and that it's perfectly possible to carry what many consider to be a heavy camera whilst riding. The excellent Nikon D3000 with a cracking 18-55mm VR lens would be perfect and it's under his budget. Camera bodies are the cheapest bit of kit a photographer will buy, changed or added to fairly regularly. The real money is spent on glass.

Regarding prints. Not many people invest in their own printers nowadays as the cost of using professional printers has dramatically fallen in the last few years. People such as Peak Imaging or Loxley are very cheap to use now and the quality is fantastic.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I agree with Chrisc: for large prints a DSLR is pretty much essential. I carry a D200 in one of those waterproof bags in my handlebar bag; with something like a 28-70 lens it does most things I want it to. Compact cameras are fine in their way, and some (like the Canon G9) are excellent in their own right, but sooner or later, you'll find their limitations and wish you'd bought an SLR.

 

[Norm]

A Nikon D300 body alone is the best part of £1,100. Are you trying to tell us how much you've spent on your camera ?

There's a few on here with D300s, IIRC.

For a cycling camera, I must admit that I wouldn't take a DSLR. They are fantastic, the ultimate quality (with the right lenses, I agree with Chrisc on that one too) and I'd put the Canon G11 (or the G10 or the G9) in a similar spot, with plenty of manual controls. If you want to spend a day doing photography, then they are the best choice.

However, compact can also give superb results, certainly good for A3. The Panasonic, with its Leica lens, is a good choice but my current favourite would be the Nikon S8000.

The main thing with a camera is that you need to have it with you. The likes of the G11 and DSLRs, even the smallest ones, are large pieces of kit. A decent compact, and I'm talking those around £250+, will give you the quality you want and can be 27-30mm thick. If it is in your pocket, you are far more likely to take a picture than if you have to stop and pull it out of a bag, and obviously better than the camera you've left at home because you didn't want to have the faff of the rucksack or whatever carrying system you choose.

Remember, the best quality in the world is no use if you don't have it with you.

 

[Randochap]

You can carry a Pentax Optio WS80 in your jersey pocket in a rainstorm, pull it out and shoot. It's a 10 megapixel camera.

 

[MajorMantra]

The advice about a DSLR being essential for excellent results no longer holds true. Micro Four Thirds cameras have no mirror box but will produce perfectly good large prints in the right hands - it's a matter of sensor size and technology.

I'd have a look at the Panasonic GF1 for a good M43 camera or an SLR from any of the major manufacturers if you want to get seriously into photography.

Matthew

 

[Tim Bennet.]

The likes of the G11 and DSLRs, even the smallest ones, are large pieces of kit. A decent compact, and I'm talking those around £250+, will give you the quality you want and can be 27-30mm thick. If it is in your pocket, you are far more likely to take a picture than if you have to stop and pull it out of a bag, and obviously better than the camera you've left at home because you didn't want to have the faff of the rucksack or whatever carrying system you choose.

Remember, the best quality in the world is no use if you don't have it with you.

Exactly. +1

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I suppose the most important bit of any camera is the bit behind the viewfinder.

How about a mintycam? Small and light, easy to use and very cheap.

 

[Crackle]

You can carry a Pentax Optio WS80 in your jersey pocket in a rainstorm, pull it out and shoot. It's a 10 megapixel camera.

yep, I'd go for that, that's my next camera.

 

[Chrisc]

yep, I'd go for that, that's my next camera.

No good for the op tho, He wants to print A3 and the image quality on the W80 was appalling and despite dropping the sensor back to 10mpx on the WS80 it's still frankly appalling.

You have to remember that IQ is dependent on the physical size and pixel density of the sensor, as well as the quality of the glass the light passes through of course. Compacts typically have a light gathering area the size of your little fingernail and the higher the number of photosites crammed into that tiny area, (higher no of megapixels, higher pixel density and interference), the worse the noise and resulting IQ. Number of megapixels is very misleading in terms of image output, more is often equal to less. Here's the problem in terms of surface area of various sensors.

Typical sensor area comparison:
Compact - 6.13 x 4.60mm or 0.28 cm²
4/3 - 18.0 x 13.50mm or 2.43 cm²
APS-C DSLR - 23.6 x 15.8 mm or 3.72 cm²
FF DSLR - 36.0 x 23.9 mm or 8.60 cm²

So given megapixel counts of say 12, pixel density is a cramped 43/MP cm² on a compact, (terrible for large prints) as opposed to a spacious 1.4MP/cm² for a full frame D3s, absolutely stunning for prints 6 feet across!

If it has to be compact then the G10 and it's ilk are passable in terms of IQ but still bear no comparison to the quality of a APS-C or FF DSLR sensor.

As to the 4/3, micro 4/3 kit, I cant speak from experience yet but will be trying out an Olympus EP1L before too long as a pocket camera myself whose sensor sizes at 2.43 cm² seem to indicate that they will fall between DSLR and compact for IQ but be eminently more pocketable due to the lack of mirror reducing the the rear element to sensor distance by 50%. However, at £7-800 including lenses they fall outside the op's budget.

 

[Chrisc]

There's a few on here with D300s, IIRC.

If it is in your pocket, you are far more likely to take a picture than if you have to stop and pull it out of a bag, and obviously better than the camera you've left at home because you didn't want to have the faff of the rucksack or whatever carrying system you choose.

Remember, the best quality in the world is no use if you don't have it with you.

Iphones produce some remarkably good shots as well and I always have that on me! Wouldn't want to print bigger than a postage stamp tho...

 

[Crackle]

No good for the op tho, He wants to print A3

Ah! OK, true enough. To the OP, just be certain you want to print A3 though.

 

[Crankarm]

Wow, where did that come from? Glad I didn't mention that I might stick a D700 or my D3s in the bag for full frame shooting.

No, you told everybody how much a D300 is didn't you. I'm simply offering advice to the op that his needs will be best served by investing in a dslr and that it's perfectly possible to carry what many consider to be a heavy camera whilst riding. The excellent Nikon D3000 with a cracking 18-55mm VR lens would be perfect and it's under his budget. Camera bodies are the cheapest bit of kit a photographer will buy, changed or added to fairly regularly. The real money is spent on glass.

Regarding prints. Not many people invest in their own printers nowadays as the cost of using professional printers has dramatically fallen in the last few years. People such as Peak Imaging or Loxley are very cheap to use now and the quality is fantastic.

OP said he had a budget of £400. How is he going to purchase a Nikon D300 with that? He wouldn't even be able to afford a decent lens for it with £400. I'm sure you are right in there as a professional photographer, but the OP hasn't got £8-10k to spend on a full DSLR system that maybe you have. So maybe a more cost effective suggestion?

TBH most find it hard to tell the difference between shots they have taken with a good compact digital camera and those taken with an all singing all dancing DSLR. I recently did an advanced Photoshop course and the tutor a professional photographer said so many students say to him they are disappointed with their DSLRs and lenses they have spent £3-5k on, their old lower pixel cameras took very good pics, certainly not £3-5k worse! All the camera manufacturers want people to buy the latest state of the art camera. I think pixel counts may actually decrease slightly in years to come as too many pixels can themselves create images with noise. Just compare the Canon 5D Mk2 with the 50D. They produce very similar amounts of noise in their images at film speeds up to 800 ISO.

I would suggest the OP with his budget of £400 gets a good basic compact camera with a good lens such as Carl Zeis (Sony cameras) or Lumix (Leica), or Canon's Powershot G10 or G11 at just under £400. Then concentrate on getting the right exposure and pin sharp images, so NO camera shake whatsoever - hold the camera properly or use a solid mount whenever possible or tripod.

I still get excellent images with my Sony Cybershot DSC 200 digital 7.2 MPixel point and shoot with Carl Zeis lens. The tutor refused to believe I took one shot with it insisting I'd used a decent DSLR. Only when he went into the file properties did he realise I had used a compact point and shoot as the details of my Sony came up which he read out slowly then asked to see it, then said he sometimes only carries a point and shoot..........The shot I had taken was using macro and with a tripod. The camera can be put to fully manual unlike many point and shoot compacts.

You don't need to spend a fortune to get good images. You still have to be able to take a well composed, correctly exposed and sharp picture, if sharpness is what you want. Of course being on a bike carrying a heavy unwieldy SLR camera and lenses can actually be a hindrance to taking pics, especially if they present themselves spontaneously as you are passing. A good point and shoot is alot more discreet than an SLR. I'm not saying a decent SLR is bad obviously not, but with a budget of £400 you are going to get a better compact camera than an SLR IMHO.