I desperately want a camera in order to start practising how to take decent photographs.

As some of you might have spotted from my posts I put on here, I tend to take most of my photos in the mountains (using my iphone!), so I’ve been struggling to work out whether I want/need a beefy DSLR, or whether there is something more compact which would be suitable. I keep going round in circles, which is why i’m still using the iphone 🙂

Requirements are:

1. Portable (in the true latin origins of the word, I want to be able to carry the thing! Huge bags of kit won’t work)

2. Suitable for a beginner, but won’t leave me wanting to buy something better immediately.

3. Less point-and-shoot, more user adjustability (i’ll always have my iphone for quick “catch it” type photos when on the move)

4. Not too expensive – i’m expecting this to be an enhancement over my iphone, but will still be ancillary to the purpose of my trips (i’d like to enjoy taking photos, and produce some good ones, but it’s secondary to the trips themselves, if that makes sense).

5. Reasonably robust – i’m not expecting to be able to drop it, but at the same time I don’t want something that can’t handle a big of jolting around.

Any tips, ideas or cameras for sale?

Thanks guys

🙂

Olympus TG-1. The only toughened ‘bridge’ camera.

I’m no expert (which may be a plus in this case)…
My view on the market would suggest you would get on well with either (in increasing physical size and probably functions):
-bridge camera (canon g10?)
-micro 4/3 camera (panasonic GF series, olyp pen)
-basic DSLR (by this I mean, not a full frame £2k jobbie)

All will have point and shoot ‘auto’ function, and the latter 2 definitely have full manual control (aperture, shutter, ISO). I think the bridge may do also, but will not have as large a sensor.

I’ve a panasonic GF1 which I love as it’s got interchangeable lenses, but doesn’t have all the features of a full size DSLR (limiter flash synch speed for example). But…. it is pocketable…

I’d go to jessops and have a play about with what feels good in your palm?

DrP

I’ve recently purchased my first DSLR and bought it from HDEW cameras. You’ll have to look hard to beat their prices although I think they’re grey imports but for the price it’s worth the risk.

I’m no expert, but I wouldn’t go for a DSLR. You lose half the advantage by not having a couple of lenses with you, they weigh a ton and you probably won’t bother taking it with you. And if you do, if it’s buried at the bottom of a bag you probably won’t bother getting it out.

I’d look at a high end compact or one of these new compact system jobbies. Something like a Canon S95 or S100, Panasonic Lumix LX5, then there’s fancy stuff like the Olympus Pen and Nikon One.

Someone more knowledgeable than me will doubtless be along soon…

First question to ask yourself is will you carry and SLR or even one of these new 4/3 ones around. If you leave it at home or even burried in a bag there’s no point having it. From your post it sounds like that will happen if it’s ‘ancillary to the purpose of my trips’. I went through this a while ago and ended up with an LX3. Takes great pictues and lots of options to fiddle with when you do want to take a proper photo. Still fits in a normal pocket so I’m happy to take it out wherever I go. Pretty robust, too.

I used to use an LX3 and bloody loved it. It’s not as flexible as a DSLR, but the intelligent auto mode is super cunning and it takes ace photos.

I’ve got a Nikon DLSR and pro f2.8 lenses but also wanted something portable and decent to pocket for the mountains to take riding, skiing etc but still have manual control on settings.

I went for the Canon S95 – seemed to be the best performance in the smallest size (with size being my biggest priority). It’s awesome, in fact I rarely use my Nikon now, although there is still a clear difference in the image quality.

It has lots of ‘scene’ settings but can also be used in full manual mode and you can even program the buttons to do what you want (front ring and rear dial can do iso, aperture, shutter in any combo you find comfy).

I was able to catch this in almost total darkness – the light on the right is the moon!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gravity_slaves/6351051333/

and this from the balcony:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gravity_slaves/6751708949/

The video on it is pretty good too.

There are several other good options but I’d have no hesitation in recommending the S95 or it’s successor, the S100.

If you’re aim is “taking good photos” like you say, I would say a basic DSLR and a single, fixed prime lens. When I first started getting into photography, I used a basic film SLR and a 50mm prime lens. Now i’m over on digital (Nikon D80, mainly), the lens I use the most is still my 50mm f/1.8. For both Canon and Nikom, that’s a cheap but very capable lens, and (at least in my opinion) a prime will teach you more about positioning and composition than a whole raft of tele zooms.

The best thing about tough cameras is that you can strap them to a rucksack strap or something and you don’t even need to get them out of a bag to take pictures. I don’t even need to stop my bike to take pictures. This is REALLY liberating and worth far far more than megapixels or autofocus specs imo.

I would NOT recommend a prime lens for what you are talking about. It restricts the kinds of pictures you can frame. It might be great fun to deal with the restrictions when out on a photography trip, but I tihnk you’ll be cursing insufficient field of view for those landscapes or insufficient zoom for that climber or stag or whatever.

and (at least in my opinion) a prime will teach you more about positioning and composition than a whole raft of tele zooms

IMO it’ll teach you to accept what you can’t do and be sanguine about all the shots you’ll see but miss. Which might appeal to the purist but it won’t help you get shots onto the memory card.

thanks guys, some really helpful info.

i’m having a look at some of the recommendations now…

🙂

I would NOT recommend a prime lens for what you are talking about. It restricts the kinds of pictures you can frame. It might be great fun to deal with the restrictions when out on a photography trip, but I tihnk you’ll be cursing insufficient field of view for those landscapes or insufficient zoom for that climber or stag or whatever. IMO it’ll teach you to accept what you can’t do and be sanguine about all the shots you’ll see but miss. Which might appeal to the purist but it won’t help you get shots onto the memory card.

This is why I love this forum! Like I say, I came over from film shooting, so perhaps i’m more selective with shots than someone who’s always been on digital. I can see what you mean about potentially missing shots, but I’d rather have one, single, perfect, heartbreaking image than a memory card full of the same old dross*

Perhaps I am a purist, but shooting fixed for me taught me how to look at different framings, think more about composition and where i’m shooting from, and helped me get in close to the action rather than just stand back and click away. Some of my favourite shots were taken in places where I could have been 50 yards back with a 70-200, but a very different shot came out of me getting in close with a 17-35.

*nb – not saying your shots are dross, Molgrips! I’ve seen a mate fill a 35gb card at a paddling event and get maybe 20 usable pics out of a full card – the epitome of “spray and pray”. I don’t have the time to edit that many pics!

I’d rather have one, single, perfect, heartbreaking image than a memory card full of the same old dross*

There is absolutely nothing about a zoom lens that prevents you getting great images. There’s something that prime purists never seem to acknowledge though – moving further away from the subject with a fixed focus lens is most definitely NOT the same as zooming out! The DoF changes but most importantly the angle of view is different, so your background is totally different.

I use this when taking pictures – I can frame the subject the same size in the images and choose what is in the background by combining zooming with moving relative to the subject. So really I think I am thinking much more about my composition than if I had a prime.

And another more subtle point: I have a 40-150mm lens (equivalent to 80-300mm in 35mm terms on my camera) that’s too short for wildlife and too long for most general shooting, so it doesn’t get used EXCEPT for at family outdoor gatherings where I can take pictures of people without them noticing me. To fill the frame with a face with a 50mm equivalent lens I’d have to be right in front of them so they’d pose and I’d get a totally different picture. Of course I could be using a 150mm prime but those things are quite specialist kit really, and not relevant to your original post which was about more ‘general purpose’ primes, I think.

There is absolutely nothing about a zoom lens that prevents you getting great images. There’s something that prime purists never seem to acknowledge though – moving further away from the subject with a fixed focus lens is most definitely NOT the same as zooming out!

Perhaps misinterpreted – completely agree with you about nothing stopping you getting great images on any lens. And yes, there’s a big difference between zooming and moving. I just felt that I learned more using a fixed lens. I wouldn’t say i’m a ‘ prime purist’ as such, I just own one that gets used much more than most of my zooms do, personal preference and all! I know what you mean about using the space to help people”act natural” though, my 50-135 does the same thing (the last thing I want shooting an adventure race is every bugger smiling and waving like it’s a walk in the park), but for general, everyday, potter-about shooting, the 50 gets left on all the time.

To the OP – as you can see, two very different opinions on SLRs and lens selection. Try things out and see what works for you!

I have two primes – a 25mm f2.8 pancake and a 30mm f1.4. The pancake I use because it makes my camera very small, and the other because it’s f1.4.

25mm on my camera isn’t really wide enough for general use, so it’s a bit meh unless you’re taking pictures of the people you are with, but the camera is lovely to handle with it on.

There is absolutely nothing about a zoom lens that prevents you getting great images. There’s something that prime purists never seem to acknowledge though – moving further away from the subject with a fixed focus lens is most definitely NOT the same as zooming out! The DoF changes but most importantly the angle of view is different, so your background is totally different.

I’ve seen this argument put forward many times, a 50mm prime will teach you more about photography, if you need to zoom in, just get closer, yada, yada…
It is true, to an extent, many of the great photographs were taken on basic cameras with one prime lens, but, equally, there are many occasions when getting closer or further away to get a photo just isn’t possible, for physical reasons, and a good zoom allows you to frame your photo just the way you want it from the only possible vantage point. I have a DSLR, but my favourite cameras are my iPhone, because it’s with me, all the time, and my new Lumix TZ30; a 20x optical zoom gives plenty of framing possibilities, and enables you to get pics that wouldn’t be possible otherwise.
Edit] Here’s a couple of recent pics taken from the Herepath, going from Avebury to the Ridgeway:

Almost the same viewpoint, just a few yards along the path to align the beech hanger with the thorn bush, but to get the crop by walking would have meant walking for ten-fifteen minutes, and trying to get access across fields of crops.
Not entirely practical… 😀

For the OP – Micro Four Thirds would be a good choice IMO but go and have a play with some.

And molgrips – real photographers use primes. 😉

Peterfile. Having enjoyed your write ups and photos, and given your lifestyle and disposable income (you’ll forgive a few assumptions) I suggest a Canon G1 X.

Almost all of the advantages of a DSLR with the portability of a compact. Cheaper options are available. I say this as someone who makes a (sort of a) living from photography and a Nikon fanboy. If I could afford it, I’d buy one of these, or possibly settle for a G12.

Reckon that covers everything other than point 4 – it ain’t cheap! G12 it is then 🙂

Grum, real photographers use whatever the hell they have with them; the end result is all that’s important, not what was used to take it. This picture could not have been taken with a DSLR, no matter what it was fitted with, the camera would have been confiscated at the door:

Consider the zoomed bush pic

Suggest to aim for what you like: subject, situation or style – themes on places like flikr for kit can be moderately helpful. Consider the average output as well.

Prime is often best for critical applications, but can you live with it – or live with out pics like the bush?

25mm f2.8 was that zuiko 43? I longed for it to be just a bit wider 🙂

By the way – who are the music ladies? Is Iphone somewhat prime with it’s flat field – either way I like what you got.

I’m definately a snapper rather than a photographer but like to carry a camera about if I am out somewhere.

For a good few years I have been using a canon 400d with zoom lenses on but its a bit of a drag if you are walking around city centres as it marks you as an obvious tourist and its a bit heavy to carry in a rucksac/camelback when riding… its ok but not something I would take out every ride.

Have just picked up a panasonic micro 4/3rds and am very impressed, it feels better built, is lighter and fits in a coat pocket. It also focuses at least as fast & the quality of the photos is at least as good.

From now on I will be carrying the panasonic for general use & take the canon and longer zoom lens for sports events etc where the extra reach and viewfinder will help.

From what the OP has said I would go with the panasonic (or similar)

Nikon for gizmos.
Canon for robustness.
Everything else is down to what you want to do and your budget.

My OH had pretty much identical requirements to the OP, played with loads in shops and ended up with the Panasonic GF2. Good bit of kit, worth a look.

Consider the zoomed bush pic

😯

I’ve just been through something similar to this myself, though I already own a Canon SLR and 3 lenses, but hardly ever take it out due to its weight and size.

I’m now the happy owner of a Nikon P7100, well recommend taking a look at it.

Olympus EPL1

mavellous little camera

get the 20mm prime if you need to go 50mm and with it very pocketable

Puum

Great stuff guys, all much appreciated

Peterfile. Having enjoyed your write ups and photos, and given your lifestyle and disposable income (you’ll forgive a few assumptions) I suggest a Canon G1 X.

Ha ha, thanks I think (so long as you’re not suggesting “all the gear and no idea! I do try to make good use out of whatever I spend money on) 🙂

Provided he can get it to me on time, I’m borrowing a Canon 400D with a couple of lenses from a (good!) friend in time for another summit camp this weekend.

This should hopefully put the DLSR v something more compact issue to bed, since it’s a fair old climb and I’m carrying a lot of kit already. Will be interesting to see whether I feel the extra bulk/hassle is worth the shots I get (I suspect I’m going to want to throw the thing off the mountain by the time i reach the summit though!)

Will hopefully have another trip report with a test of a DSLR for mountain adventures by the start of next week. I’m really liking the look of some of the smaller suggestions though….

Just got my 20mm lens (see another thread from a week or so ago)

Even though this has been converted from RAW, then shrunk still shows what sharp pics you can get with the GF2 – and it fits in my pocket 🙂

Ok, bike does need a clean