I'd like some photography advice please – i know there are quite a few that dabble on here !

I like to think I'm half decent at taking snaps, I really enjoy it and on on a recent holiday to France I took around 800 photos.

I use a Panasonic FZ-28 which is a bridge camera with an 18x zoom. I've been very happy with the camera but would like to start taking better photos.

I don't really want an SLF (they are just to big, heavy and complicated) as i am not really interested in the science behind it all !

So do I book myself on a night class for photography or do I buy a new camera like a Canon G11 to get better pictures ?

thanks

Just like cycling, you can only be any good with the BEST equipment.

🙄

Seriously, what are you trying to improve? Most if it has **** all to do with equipment (as with cycling).

But you need to know some of the science in order to use manual control and certain techniques. But it's not difficult.

Night class all the way. Buying a new camera won't help you take better pictures, but sharing ideas and techniques with others will help you expand your own ideas further and learn new ways of seeing.

Henri Cartier Bresson used a simple 35mm camera with just one lens for most of his career. No fancy zoom lenses or expensive flashguns, tripods, etc. And he was perhaps the Greatest photographer ever.

Click piccy for more.

HCB took pictures that are "art" which is purely subjective. He certainly couldn't take pictures of F1 cars zooming round a circuit and who says they aren't good?
Photography is about getting things right subjectively and technically and so remember that and enjoy the hobby.

HCB took pictures that are "art" which is purely subjective.

Of course.

He certainly couldn't take pictures of F1 cars zooming round a circuit and who says they aren't good?

No-one. He chose to photograph subjects that appealed to him. My point was that he created countless amazing pictures, with very simple kit, proving it's all about having the eye, not the gear.

Equipment can be bought; skill is something that requires mental effort.

Buying a new camera won't help you take better pictures

Hmm – why do people bother buying expensive cameras then?

I appreciate the equipment is not the be all and end all but it can certainly help. I know my pics got a lot better when I bought a decent camera.

It's about getting the right tools for the job, Grum. For some jobs, expensive tools are needed. Like sports photography for example, where fast motordrives/sequence shooting capability and huge telephotos are needed. Reportage, where tough durable equipment is a must. Or scientific photography, requiring stupidly expensive macro lenses/special equipment etc.

But the range of photography that can be done with fairly simple kit is vast. Of course, good quality kit helps to produce sharper images with more accurate colours/less aberration etc, but to the vast majority of 'photographers', this is not important. It's the pictures that are. Getting obsessed with kit detracts from just getting on taking pictures.

Photography doesn't have to cost a fortune to be enjoyable.

People buy expensive cameras as the top DSLR's are like tanks and will take virtually any abuse thrown at them or by them! My D1s Mk3 weighs a ton but is sealed against the elements and will take being dropped, soaked with rain, works in freezing conditions etc and it allows you to control it on so many ways.
I totally agree with you Elfin as my daughter has a very good "eye" as they say and when she uses my compact the results are very very good as she definitely has an artistic eye so it proves she certainly doesn't need money thrown at her get a very good picture.

*sighs*

I am not against spending money on expensive things – its what i go to work for.

Personally, I like to buy the best thing i can afford – but I really don't mind if other people prefer so buy cheaper stuff – different strokes and all that…

I take quite good photos – friends thing I have 'an eye' for it and I'd like to push myself a bit further without going down the line of an SLR (not SLF – sorry Punk days coming thru there!)

SO I wondered whether something like a G11 would help me produce better results than my FZ-28….

but I really don't mind if other people prefer so buy cheaper stuff

Magnanimous to the last!

I use a Panasonic FZ-28 which is a bridge camera with an 18x zoom. I've been very happy with the camera but would like to start taking better photos.

What exactly is wrong with the pictures you take?

Personally, I would be upgrading to a DSLR, even though you say you don't want one. I can't really see a G11 offering you any significant advantage. Maybe something like a Panasonic GF1 which takes additional lenses, if you want something less bulky. The advantage DSLRs have is that you can of course use other lenses which tend to be better quality than found on most 'compacts', albeit bulkier.

Any camera you buy might give you shaper results, better colours etc, but it won't improve your photography. Training your mind to take better pictures will improve your photography. A night class will be far more valuable in this respect than a new shiny fancy camera. For the reasons I gave above.

One thing you can't buy Justa is an eye for a good picture – you will learn that in a class and for some it is something they naturally have. The G11 is a very very good camera and will certainly take excellent pictures and is easy to take with you when you go riding. If you get bitten by the bug then progress to the next level and get a DSLR.

One thing you can't buy Justa is an eye for a good picture – you will learn that in a class…

Don't bank on it.

I've been very happy with the camera but would like to start taking better photos.

How do you think the camera you have is limiting you, which of your pictures are you looking at and thinking that another camera would have yielded a better result? If you are hitting a particular barrier because of a limitation in the equipment you use then that helps define how upgrading would move you forward. If you're not sure where the limitation is then buying something else might not address that other than sometimes allowing you to make better pictures by accident.

Basically you need to define for yourself what 'better' is before you can move towards it.

Evening classes. Speak to others, get constructive critisism, see what equipment other people are using, play with it (if they let you), see what others are doing and what equipment they are using to do it.

What is it they say?
30% skill
30% equipment
30% luck

😉

I don't really want an SLF (they are just to big, heavy and complicated) as i am not really interested in the science behind it all !

The thing about a DSLR is that they're just so wonderful to use. Other cameras I've tried seem quite reluctant to actually take a photo – sometimes I've thought I've taken one but in fact nothing has happened beyond incontinent beeping. My Nikon D300 is just gagging to shoot and shoot and shoot at 6 frames a second (it can be quite hard to get a single shot if you don't concentrate on blipping the button). You don't have to hold it at arm's length to see the screen, and the viewfinder shows the actual light coming through the lens, not some battery draining pixellated version – I never turn my camera off, and usually have to change the battery about once a week. Yes it's a heavy lump, but these days I miss the weight if I don't have it with me (rare)

I bought a G11 a few months back for similar reasons. Agree with lots of the points above, that photography is more about having a good 'eye' for shots then having the most expensive kit, but the extra control something like a G11 gives you, combined with a willingness to experiment and take a lot of shots, can result in some pretty cool photos. The G11 isn't perfect, but it's smaller than a DSLR which means I have it with me far more than many of my friends who opted for bigger cameras.

I have the previous version – the G10 and really like it, chose it over a SLR as I didn't want to drag all that kit around with me (and probably break it). Sometimes wish it had a bit more zoom, otherwise fanatistic bit of kit.

If you are near swinley / south coast could meet up for a ride sometime and you could have a proper play with my G10 outdoors (rather than in the camera shop where it just isn't the same!)

The canon G11 is a good camera, I have a S90 which is similar but more pocketable.

It 100% takes better pics than my Ricoh GX100 and it's silly clip on viewfinder, this is down to a couple of reasons firstly the user interface is easier on the canon so find one you like or get on with. It also feels more solid meaning I'm happy to chuck it in a bag.

This all ads up to me taking more pics, which will hopefully make me a better snapper.

Yeah I'd say you are right to steer away from a DSLR if you think it will be a hassle to lug around – because they definitely are!

The G11 gets good reviews and is certainly more flexible than most compacts. It's probably the compact I'd buy (if I needed one and I shot Canon).

Be aware though that some things – like nice out-of-focus backgrounds, good low light shooting, fast shutter speed are physically linked to the size of an SLR, so a smaller camera must always compromise a bit on these areas.

Be aware though that some things – like nice out-of-focus backgrounds, good low light shooting, fast shutter speed are physically linked to the size of an SLR…

Do you mean that a DSLR has to be physically larger to perform well in those areas?

Do you mean that a DSLR has to be physically larger to perform well in those areas?

yes on the depth of field, perhaps on the low light, no on the shutter speed

yes on the depth of field, perhaps on the low light, no on the shutter speed

I'd say no to all three. Depth of field is determined by the lense focal length and aperture, not the camera. Would the same depth of field not be present even if the sensor was, say, half the size? I can understand that a larger sensor could potentially be more sensitive, and thus giving better low-light ability, but given actual physical sensor sizes it doesn't automatically follow that a camera body must be made larger to incorporate it.

Would the same depth of field not be present even if the sensor was, say, half the size?

no, it depends on the size of the photosites

but given actual physical sensor sizes it doesn't automatically follow that a camera body must be made larger to incorporate it.

but keeping a constant number of pixels, a bigger sensor will have lower noise

a larger sensor could potentially be more sensitive

Larger sensors really do help. Once of the downsides of all of even the small cameras now being 12Mpixels is that there is just too much noise with them to sensibly work beyond iso 200 and even that can be pushing it. Sensor size can make quite a difference

no, it depends on the size of the photosites

I don't know what you mean by "photosites".

but keeping a constant number of pixels, a bigger sensor will have lower noise

I don't dispute that. What I said is that a larger sensor doesn't automatically mean that a camera body must be enlarged to fit a larger sensor.

Sensor sizes do affect depth of field – hence why I use a full-frame Canon 1Ds . Certainly your lens does too but the sensor issue is something that is now apparent with DSLR's. What the aperture does on your lens is allows you to control it.

I don't dispute that. What I said is that a larger sensor doesn't automatically mean that a camera body must be enlarged to fit a larger sensor.

*cough* GF1 *cough*

🙂

Larger sensors really do help. Once of the downsides of all of even the small cameras now being 12Mpixels is that there is just too much noise with them to sensibly work beyond iso 200 and even that can be pushing it. Sensor size can make quite a difference

I that case, while I agree, I would also say that sensor quality is an issue regarding noise. My EOS10d was unusable over iso400, while my EOS20d doesn't start having problems until iso1600. Same sensor size.
A bit more here looking at pixels and other links to sensors.

What you are forgetting is that the effective focal length of the lens is determined by the size of the sensor but it's actual focal length isn't.

Take a 300mm lens on a 35mm sensor camera, the actual and effective focal length is 300mm.

Put the same lens on a DX sized sensor camera, the effective focal length is 450mm while, of course, the actual focal length is still 300mm.

This is because the smaller DX sized sensor only sees a small part of the total image area projected by the lens, effectively making it look like a longer focal length.

However the actual focal length and therefore DOF (for a set aperture) is the same in both cases.

Thus on the smaller sensor camera (the DX one in this case) with a longer focal length lens (effective) you have more DOF than you would on a larger sensor camera with the same effective focal length lens (a real 35mm sensor comparable 450mm lens with have a much narrower DOF than a 300mm lens).

So . . . small compact cameras with tiny wee sensors and very short focal length lenses have very large DOF's (as the shorted focal length the lens has, for a given aperture, the larger the DOF).

Thus, the larger the sensor the smaller the DOF you will have for the same effective focal length, with a giver aperture.

An example – the Canon S90 has a 28-105mm effective lens range, but an actual 6-22.5mm lens range, so you cannot really get shallow DOF . . . even with it's f2 lens . . .

Larger sensors are better in all respects apart from cost.

but keeping a constant number of pixels, a bigger sensor will have lower noise

not always true. that depends on sensor technology. the 22mpixel sensors used in phase/H/blad/leaf backs were near unusable at 400asa but canons 5d sensor at half the size was near noise free.
sony and olympus didn't exactly raise the bar with their noise performance compared to canon. Nikon were well behind until their current offerings became available.

I don't know what you mean by "photosites".

the individual light detectors on the sensor

However the actual focal length and therefore DOF (for a set aperture) is the same in both cases.

the DOF also depends on the "circle of confusion" which is related to the size of the sensor elements…

Would the same depth of field not be present even if the sensor was, say, half the size?

I have been away and edumacated myself (this was helpful). Different size sensors can, and do, have an effect on depth of field; so that's me learned. However!! as per my response to the low-light ability, a larger sensor does not necessarily have to have a larger body.

Large sensor needs a physically larger lens to provide a large enough circle of light to cover the sensor area.

Large sensor = large lens = large body to carry it.

You could design a compact that had a large sensor and large lenses – this is what the Micro Four-Thirds stuff is all about. The result is smaller than an SLR (as there is no mirror assembly) but still a lot larger than what most people consider to be a compact.

See also the Sony NEX cameras for a more extreme version of this. Bigger lenses than mu43 but smaller bodies.

Well, not really . . . any 'old school' 35mm film compact has a large enough body and lens to work . . . so large sensor cameras could be reasonably small . . . however I don't see the market . . . state of the art sensor with crappy lens, low speed and quality AF and no viewfinder . . . why ?

Actually, you do get a compact FX sensor camera…not cheap mind.

Leica M9.

On a less techy note…

I've found that having a dslr has made me feel like I should pay more attention to the various settings etc whilst I'm still very point and shooty on my compact.

It's almost a mental trigger to do it properly. (i now take shit photos very professionally!)

See also the Sony NEX cameras for a more extreme version of this. Bigger lenses than mu43 but smaller bodies.

Sony NEX has the same size sensor as most crop DSLRs, but the lack of any external controls makes it just a fancy point and shoot really.