I’ve asked a couple of camera questions before, but now I’m torn again.

I’m no expert, so – high end compact, micro four thirds, or DSLR?

Being drawn towards the m4/3’s at the moment – Sony Nex, Lumix GF2 etc, so if this is the right choice, which of the m4/3’s is best?

Canon DSLR, nothing beats those lovely big white lenses, why spend all that cash on a pissy little camera you can put in your pocket

Canon DSLR, nothing beats those lovely big white lenses, why spend all that cash on a pissy little camera you can put in your pocket

Ditto.
If you’re going to buy a camera, you have to get a camera that is going to let everyone know you’re serious, a farty little camera is going to say a lot about you. Get a proper camera with a proper big lens.

A mate of mine who is seriously into this stuff once told me that a camera is simply a box to trap light in. The important thing(s) are how you get the light into that box (i.e. the lens) and in these days of digital photography, how the sensor within the camera converts that light into binary data.

So going by that logic, I’d say DSLR…changeable lenses so you can pick ‘the tool for the job’ and secondly the sensor on a DSLR is going to be better than on a smaller camera.

Final thought is that if you go for anything ‘less’ than a DSLR I reckon that in a year or two, depending on how your photography goes, you’ll find the limit of that camera and you’ll start to want to take photos which require more powerful equipment.

Like I said, just a thought…

I thought about an slr and still do…would need another more portable camera as well tho.

Small DSLR…Sony A33 or A55 ?

Being serious now depends what you want from a camera, but for the most versatile system it has to be a DSLR. All makes are very good, but for the best range of lenses especially secondhand the choice would have to be Canon or Nikon

My daughter just bought a Canon 550D, small’ish, light and its really good even with the basic kit lens, does HD video as well if that’s your cup of tea

Can see the appeal of a smaller camera, I also have an old Canon compact, but do prefer the larger system for anything a bit more serious

The important thing(s) are how you get the light into that box (i.e. the lens) and in these days of digital photography, how the sensor within the camera converts that light into binary data

I disagree. The MOST important thing is whether or not you get the image. This depends on a number of factors, roughly in order of importance imo:

1) do you have your camera with you?
2) will it set the image up correctly ie metering and focusing?
3) is it quick enough to get that action shot?
4) do you have the right lens ie a wide enough angle, a close enough macro, or a big enough zoom?

Splitting hairs about sharpness is definitely way less important than the above. Particularly point 1 – this is crucial!

Personally I like the m43 idea a lot, and had they been available cheaply enough when I was shopping I’d have had a hard time not buying one. Simply because of the portability. Don’t forget they are not only smaller but also lighter.

Final thought is that if you go for anything ‘less’ than a DSLR I reckon that in a year or two, depending on how your photography goes, you’ll find the limit of that camera

Again I disagree. There are only two real issues with m43 (assuming you don’t mind handling the smaller size and can use the screen isntead of a viewfinder).

One is autofocus speed – which might be an issue for action or indoor shots (since like all AF it gets worse with less light). It’s still a lot faster than a compact though.

The other is noise in low light, which will only be an issue if you want to do stuff like moody indoor shots without a flash – like gigs, parties, evening stuff etc. And let’s face it the images are still fine in these conditions, just not quite as good when you zoom right in as a bigger camera. For practical purposes there’s nothing in it really – if you print your pictures, you won’t be able to tell anyway.

It’s also worth noting that full-sized DSLRs also vary in size. Olympus and Pentax make nice small ones for example.

Then there’s also weather-sealing to consider. Pentax make the cheapest weather sealed DSLR I think – K-7?

I had a GF1 for a while – great little camera but depending on the lens fitted they’re not that small compared to a DSLR.

Thing that annoyed me mostly was that it didn’t have a viewfinder. Pretty much for this rteason alone I’ve gone back to DSLR.

Best option would be a DSLR and something like a TZ10 (with GPS) for riding etc.

If you’re convinced about the 4/3 set-up over a DSLR maybe have a look at the TZ10, a friend has one and I’m very impressed with it.

The MOST important thing is whether or not you get the image. This depends on a number of factors, roughly in order of importance imo:

1) do you have your camera with you?

Priority 1 for me.
DSLR – big and heavy, how often would you bother taking it with you when the novelty has worn off?
Canon S95 – excellent photo quality (often mistaken for am SLR), so small can always have it with me.

You can’t take a picture unless you’re carrying the camera with you – so I’ve taken far more pictures with my Canon G12 than with my DSLR kit simply because the Canon is with me for more of the time – and is so much easier to use in situations where waving around £1000+ of DSLR would make you vulnerable to unwanted attention. G12 gets consistently excellent reviews – see here G12 review and here another G12 review

Let’s be fair, I opted for my Oly DSLR because it was half price. But I’ve come to appreciate its small size too. I can stick it in a non-rucksack camelback without any issues, and I also have a small shoulder bag for it which is very convenient. I take it with us when we’re out and about quite regularly. I’m actually looking for a small non-camera-looking shoulder bag so I can bring along another lens too.

If you want small but don’t want m43, there’s the Olympus e-450 which is very small and light; many of the lenses are stupidly small and light and it’s available for an astonishing £323 with the kit 14-42 and the tiny 40-150mm zoom (which are great lenses).

Yes I agree the best camera is the one you have with you

Think I must be one of those small minority who doesn’t mind carrying a DSLR with lenses around. Admittedly a lot of my photography is nature based or landscapes so equipped to carry what I want plus tripod.

As I mentioned above, work out what you want from a camera and decide from there, no correct answer to your question other than the one you come up with

I’m actually looking for a small non-camera-looking shoulder bag so I can bring along another lens too

Have a look at the Crumpler range, I use one when I want to be more discreet, the model I have is the Pretty Boy XXXL. Can fit a Canon 40D with 17-55mm attached and room for another small’ish lens too along with bits in the front pocket
The Muffin Top is its modern version and they are well made, tough, unobtrusive and have velcro plus a catch for security.

One caveat according to my daughter they look a bit gay 🙄

To be fair, the comments on having something you carry are good, but for me it was just so infuriating not being able to get the picture, as most of the small cameras, even the m4/3rds ones, are pretty crippled compared to a Decent dslr in some way, usually speed of operation, focus selection and focus speed for me. lenses are just not quite as good IMHO either.

So, my suggestion? Get a good condition second hand proper DSLR (canon 1dmkII, 1dsmkII, 5D, Nikon D3 etc) with a nifty fifty lens and get out-there learning.

Kev

I like the Crumpler ones but they are eye-wateringly expensive… But yeah – a small bag like that is so easy to carry on a tourist trip, and you an easily fit in a DSLR plus lens.. so perhaps it’s moot apart from biking.

Lots of sensible advice above but, key question –
What do you want it to do?
taking pictures – of course but, are you looking to take shots of you and your mates out on bikes, maybe getting all tricksey with off camera flash and all other elements of fun? or, are you simply looking for a quality compact that’ll fit ‘in your pocket’ and go anywhere and everywhere with you?
If it’s out and about with moving subjects then i’d suggest D-SLR.
something ‘more portable’ then, Sir,the camera cool-folk are currently rubbing their thighs in anticipation of Fuji X100 – all high tech in an ‘old tech’ shell 😉 though – you could by a bike (or decent entry level SLR kit!) for the same money!

Edit – forgot – if you’re heading down the SLR route do get into a shop and get your hands on your shortlisted models the bodies of the differnt brands have differing ergonomics – if it’s something you’ll be using a lot i’d be sure I was comfortable with in hand. just my 0.02

Also if you go down the DSLR route, find out what cameras your friends have, as it makes it easy to swap and share equipment.

All my friends have Cannon so I went Cannon.

High end compacts are good if you want to have something that you can fit into your pocket and take anywhere.
DSLR’s are good if you want to take a high reange of shots are are willing to learn and progress with the camera.

I found 4/3’s were a bit too much of a compromise. Still can’t fit them in your pocket like a compact, and not as versitile as a DSLR (also additional lens cost a fortune)

I’ve had a few goes with a Sony A33. I own an a200 so my opinions sway towards the sony brand at the moment. The A33 is a good camera, plenty of features and decent video recording. Battery life is a bit poor tho’.
I read that the A33 is due for a refresh so there may be an opportunity to purchase in the sales in the not so distant future.

Rick.

Without getting into this debate, surely you want the opportunity to take a good shot AND a good lens to take it with.
Do people (apart from SFB) really carry the camera everywhere?
Do people spend time worrying about the shots they’ve missed?
I can take around 1,000- 1,500 shots over a weekend and will be buggered if I’m carrying the camera all week too. I put it down on a Sunday evening and forget about the bloody thing!!! Of course this depends on the type of work you’re doing…
A camera isn’t like a pair of trousers, you won’t look stupid while growing into it, get the best you can afford and if you don’t get on with it, sell it

surely you want the opportunity to take a good shot AND a good lens to take it with

Yeah but the point is all lenses are pretty good. There’s no such thing as a bad lens on an absolute scale. If you’re not a pixel peeper or geek then general cheap kit lenses are perfectly good enough.

Do people (apart from SFB) really carry the camera everywhere?

Mrs Grips carries a Sony compact in her bag at all times. Got loads of lovely moments on film (so to speak) with the kid(s) that way.

Do people spend time worrying about the shots they’ve missed?

I do sometimes see wonderful things and think ‘damn, I wish I had my camera’, yes.

I’ve got a little Canon IXUS 40 which was top of the range when I bought it (so should give you a clue as to how old it is now; six years maybe?). It’s lived in my jacket pocket for years and it’s served me very, very well. I love it to bits and you really can’t beat a camera that you’ve always got with you.

I’ve wanted to “get into” photography for years, and I’ve just borrowed a Canon 450D off a friend who’s looking to sell it following an upgrade. It’s a whole different ball game, isn’t it..! I think I’d be tempted to buy it, apart from the whole ‘care and feeding’ side of things. I’m happy to drop a couple of hundred quid on a body and starter lens; less enamoured with having to spend the same again three times over for a couple more lenses, tripod, etc etc.

Still. Interesting thing to play with.

You don’t have to spend the extra, Cougar. You just can.

The only thing you really can’t do with the kit lens that comes with a DSLR is get as close as you can with a compact.