Photography

[summerdays]

OP said he had a budget of £400. How is he going to purchase a Nikon D300 with that?.... So maybe a more cost effective suggestion?

You didn't look properly ... he said D3000

I still get excellent images with my Sony Cybershot DSC 200 digital 7.2 MPixel point and shoot with Carl Zeis lens.

That's what I keep on me all the time - but mine is very battered and several functions (flash etc) have stopped working. Currently looking for its next replacement. I always carry that size camera in my pocket/bag for recording information, and prefer to only take out my DSLR when I'm specifically intending to take photos.

 

[Chrisc]

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?

I'm not a pro, just a very experienced amateur who has been lucky/good enough to be able to earn money publishing images to feed the habit.
If you'd care to read my post before going off on one again, I said D3000 not D300, currently £370 including the excellent 18-55vr lens and far superior to any compact you can buy for that money.

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.

Not when printing at A3 and if your tutor couldn't tell I'd have to suggest you look for a new one. Compact images would have to be resized to death to make an A3 print and would look like a billboard close up.

-hold the camera properly or use a solid mount whenever possible or tripod.

Tripod on a bike, when we're discussing the merits of pocketable, portable cameras over DSLRS's?

-then said he sometimes only carries a point and shoot..........

I carry a compact P&S as well sometimes, image quality still isn't up there for what the OP wants tho.

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.

IMHO this is utter rubbish, with respect.

The most important bit of equipment is the thing 6 inches behind the camera. Your brain.

So to recap, the OP would still be best served buying a sub £400 DSLR of his choice, such as the D3000 with small kit lens which is neither bulky or heavy, provides superb images printable up to A3 and larger, is reliable, easy to use and offers the opportunity to expand his hobby to his wallet's content should the bug bite. Better get in fast tho, prices aren't exactly dropping at the mo.

 

[Andy in Sig]

I feel all inadequate reading this as I am just about to start developing and printing my own black and white film for the first time. I did buy a digital camera but just cannot develop any affection for it. This might sound daft but the digital seems OK for taking pictures of things which I don't particularly care about but I like a flim camera for photography.

 

[Chrisc]

I feel all inadequate reading this as I am just about to start developing and printing my own black and white film for the first time. I did buy a digital camera but just cannot develop any affection for it. This might sound daft but the digital seems OK for taking pictures of things which I don't particularly care about but I like a flim camera for photography.

Not daft at all, digital isn't for everyone and I still shoot rolls now and again. It's a lovely medium and those of us who grew up using it retain quite an affection for it. Digital is more detached, disposable if you like and does encourage bad habits such as rapid fire shoot and hope over correct composition. Having limited ammunition makes you use it carefully and the different qualities that different film bases bring to images are fundamental to the look and feel of many a famous image.
I still love darkroom work, exciting watching it appear out of the emulsion and timing things just right. Don't feel inadequate, you're going to love it!

 

[on the road]

Looking at getting into photography, and like the idea of having a camera with my whilst out on the bike.

I'm a roadie, so ideally the camera will be fairly lightweight.

Looking at spending around the £400 mark.

Ideally I would go for an SLR, but i've been advised to knock that on the head due to weight. At the same time though, I need something capable of decent quality large (around A3) prints.

Any ideas?

A3 is small. Do you mean A0?

http://www.papersizes.org/a-paper-sizes.htm

 

[Shaun]

You really need to be looking at a dslr then and a case or camera armour to protect it. I stuff a D300 in a lowepro case over my shoulder.

Chris, sorry to correct you, but you did say D300 in your initial post, and not D3000.

However, looking at the prices and specs of them both there's a whole word of difference for one little "0" so I can see where the contradicitons have come from ...

There are some really good replies from everyone though, so keep them coming. Maybe everyone could focus more on what the OP wants than what other people have said?

I spent a couple of years investing in equipment, classes, software, etc. myself before finally concluding that I simply didn't have an eye for taking a good picture. Of the thousands and thousands of shots I took I ended up with around 4 pictures I was actually proud of (this was long before the digital revolution and cost my oodles in processing fees. Nowadays I could save myself thousands with the delete button ... ).

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[Chrisc]

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.

Sorry to correct you back Shaun but I said D3000 in my recommendation, no contradictions, just folks not reading the post correctly. The original D300 mentioned was a reference to my own camera use on the bike to show that it is perfectly possible to carry a larger camera and ride, not a recommendation to the OP.

If you read my posts carefully you will see that I am totally 'focused' on what the OP wants. Cranky appears to be the guy who has a problem with my mentioning the D300.

I stand by what I wrote as being sound advice.

 

[Norm]

And I'll still recommend the Nikon S8000.

 

[Chrisc]

Ricoh CX3 is an excellent camera at £300 which is often overlooked. Many pros have a Ricoh compact tucked away in the bag.

 

[ufkacbln]

I use two cameras on the bikes.

For days out I use a "Bridge" camera, a FijiS9600. This is basically a DSLR, but without interchangeable lenses, lots of features and cheap. (12MP for bout £170)

However it is slightly bulky and for touring I use an Olympus E420. Looks old SLR style as opposed to SLR, but is the smallest DSLR on the market. I can fit flash, second lens and camera in my bar bag easily.

 

[Randochap]

It really depends on what "look" you are willing to accept as "professional" at A3. It's the same discussion as we had with film.

If you were looking for Ansel Adams, then you needed to lug a view camera around. If, rather, you were an Eddie Adams or Robert Capa, then your images spoke volumes regardless of how gritty and grainy.

Today, we're still interested in resolving power (though we speak in terms of "noise") but again it all comes down to content.

I have some night images from Paris-Brest-Paris '07, shot on the older Pentax Optio (7MP) and they are wonderful.

To extend this comparison, photographers like Eugene Smith could create iconic images from 35mm that were jewels. He was known as an obsessive printmaker who would spend days and boxes of paper to get a fine print.

Similarly, a good eye, a decent camera, professional printer tech and Photoshop skills can make stunning prints from smaller files.

Over the years, I've shot everything from 11X14 to 110. I've carried multiple bodies and lenses on bike trips (one sponsored by Nikon & Kodak) as well as point-and-shoots like the Optio and my larger Olympus Camedia C-5060. The images I pull out to work on are the ones that compel because of content. There are many different ways to interpret.

Though I own a big DSLR and associated accouterments, I'm happy to work with the files from my point & shoot cameras. They are simply another set of "brushes" to apply to the canvas.

 

[Crankarm]

You didn't look properly ... he said D3000
That's what I keep on me all the time - but mine is very battered and several functions (flash etc) have stopped working. Currently looking for its next replacement. I always carry that size camera in my pocket/bag for recording information, and prefer to only take out my DSLR when I'm specifically intending to take photos.

Chrisc suggested a D3000 AFTER I queried him posting the D300.

Anyway I love my Sony DSC P200 as it can be switched to fully manual varying both aperture and shutter speed as takes your fancy. OK not quite SLR, but not far off. I think the slowest shutter is 30 seconds which gives one some hope of capturing decent low light shots. The movie and macro modes are pretty good as well. The Carl Zeis lens quality is pretty good as well for a small point and shoot.

I briefly had an 8Mpixel Sony Cybershot W55S, again Carl Zeis lens, which took pretty good pics but EVERYTHING was automatic NO manual functions at all which was a real PITA. Slowest shutter was about 0.5secs IIRC. Unfortunately or fortunately it disppeared cycling home one especially dark night, mysteriously falling from it's mounting spot on my handlebars, never to be seen again. I was gutted as I lost a lot of pics on the memory card that was in it.

 

[summerdays]

These are quoted in order:

You really need to be looking at a dslr then and a case or camera armour to protect it. I stuff a D300 in a lowepro case over my shoulder.

No recommendation to buy a D300 - just what Chrisc does and a comment that he wants to get a DSLR to do what he says

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.

Chris now recommends the D3000.

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.

You still go on about the D300

Chrisc suggested a D3000 AFTER I queried him posting the D300.

Anyway I love my Sony DSC P200 as it can be switched to fully manual varying both aperture and shutter speed as takes your fancy. OK not quite SLR, but not far off. I think the slowest shutter is 30 seconds which gives one some hope of capturing decent low light shots. The movie and macro modes are pretty good as well. The Carl Zeis lens quality is pretty good as well for a small point and shoot.

I briefly had an 8Mpixel Sony Cybershot W55S, again Carl Zeis lens, which took pretty good pics but EVERYTHING was automatic NO manual functions at all which was a real PITA. Slowest shutter was about 0.5secs IIRC. Unfortunately or fortunately it disppeared cycling home one especially dark night, mysteriously falling from it's mounting spot on my handlebars, never to be seen again. I was gutted as I lost a lot of pics on the memory card that was in it.

I disagree with both you and Admin that at no point did he suggest the D300 as a possible solution - he just mentioned it because others had said about the difficulties of carrying a DSLR.

Now can we get on with the topic and ignore the D300 red herring.

Your post about loosing the camera does show that if you want to carry the camera all the time its maybe worth having one that you don't mind loosing. I certainly wouldn't want to carry either of my other two cameras around all the time - you should see how bashed the exterior of my P200 is.

What has the OP got already... have you already got a P&S and do you tend to carry that already around with you? Does it allow you any controls over the exposure/settings or is it fully automatic?

 

[Shaun]

Apologies on my part for not understanding more clearly, and for equally not phrasing my post very well.

I didn't say Chris had recommended the D300, just that he'd mentioned it first off and that this is where the possible initial confusion has come from; in the fact that Crankarm seems to have misinterpreted this as a recommendation, whereas I assume Chris was merely illustrating that a DSLR can be practically carried on the bike.

My fault, I didn't make that very clear.

On review it's evident that Chris only recommended the on-budget D3000 so I agree that this part of the thread should be left behind.

Please do, however, continue with the good advice. Having left photography behind many years ago I'm finding all this a good read ...

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[Shaun]

Which reminds me to ask - what size memory cards are practical for these 8-12mp cameras?