[Closed] Canon G10 (or similar camera) to replce DSLR and point and shoot?

There was a similar thread earlier in the week. Consensus seemed to be G9 10 or 11 depending on budget.

Nikon do a simiar Pro compact.
Best thing will be to go through the pros and cons that suite
you and take it for a test run.

A new option is the Canon S90
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/s90.shtml

Depends what your budget is and what you mean by "bridge" camera.

I used a G5 rather than SLR/Compact for a few years but wound up finding the limits of what that could do pretty quick. It was good for a smallish camera, nice fast lens and all. It was just the shutter lag and lack of dynamic range that really pissed me off.

I am not sure any of the current crop sort that out particularly... perhaps something like the Panasonic GF1 (if that's right - the Lumix version of the Olympus PEN-1) is the answer??? Rumour has it that Samsung have something in the pipeline too... and Ricoh... which marry a large sensor with a compact camera. Not sure if they are offering interchangeable lenses or a fixed unit though? Something like the Ricoh GR Digital with a DSLR size sensor would make me have a sex wee though 😉

Ricoh GR Digital 1 (secondhand) or 3 (brand new)

I have a GRD 1, and have used it non stop for the last 4 years. Its only now starting to show battle scars. When it breaks I will be getting a GRD 3. Check the reviews with ken rockwell or LL.

No zoom but really nice 28mm fixed with adaptors for wider or longer and full intuitive manual controls.....

I am very happy with my G10 if that helps your choice?!

Best bargain I have seen is the Ricoh GX100 with viewfinder attachment for a little over £200. The Ricoh CX1 is also cheap having been replaced by the CX2 after just 6 months. In both cases the upgrades over the originals are subtle.
The Fuji EXRs also review well.
However, my main concern with cameras and riding is how durable they will be with dirt, dust and water, such is the nature of mountain biking. Personally, I couln't afford to take and break a Canon G10. If I was going to take a camera regularly with me mountain biking - think I'd go secondhand. There are some cracking deals on the 'bay.

No zoom

really ?? Is it clockwork too ?

Depending on the type of riding I do, I take the g10 (dry day, long xc route, family trip) or if it's likely to be wet/muddy/rough I take my little bulletproof olympus mju. Doesn't take as good photos, but unlikely to break.

However, my main concern with cameras and riding is how durable they will be with dirt, dust and water, such is the nature of mountain biking

I've been doing this for years with my Nikon D70/D200/D300 - all of which are still working fine, despite being dropped and regularly crashed - I wish I had survived the experiences so well 🙂 After a particularly hard fall where I landed on my chest pack at over 20mph, the VR on my lens did pack in several weeks later, and I've broken a couple of lens hoods.

sfb, I think the whole world knows you have a pan-handle for DSLRs, but there are other possible ways to take pictures 🙂

sfb, I think the whole world knows you have a pan-handle for DSLRs, but there are other possible ways to take pictures

I had the misfortune to be asked to take someone's picture with a compact on Saturday. I held the thing at arms' length to see the screen and pressed the button to be rewarded with a sequence of clicks and beeps and the screen went blank for a bit leaving me none the wiser whether any photography had taken place. Eventually under the influence of my frantic pressing it may have worked again - I was never sure 🙁

The Canon G series (9, 10, 11) all look good.

In the [url= http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1635/overview.html ]Nikon camp there is the P6000[/url]:
[img] [/img]

and [url= http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1745/overview.html ]the "bridge" P90[/url]:
[img] [/img]

(I reckon even simon could work those)

The Panasonic GF1 seems to be getting great things said about it

(I reckon even simon could work those)

I had a Fuji bridge camera - the electronic viewfinder was dire - you just had to make an act of faith that the actual photo taken would be better - not to mention it took 3 seconds from turn on to usability and ate batteries so fast it couldn't be left on 🙁

Over the last few years I've put together a reasonable (by my standards) set of kit based on my KM 5D SLR. I've also got a fuji F30 which I bought for when I didn't want to drag my DSLR around.
Recently however I've found myself wondering if I should simplify things and get a good quality "bridge" camera.

Not sure how small you want, but have a look at the Sony a230 while you're looking at bridge cameras. It'll take all your KM lenses but smaller and lighter than your 5D.

For what it's worth I had the G10 but found it struggled in low light - my old 3MP Ixus outperformed it when trying to catch pics of the kids running about...

SFB

You should try a grd. With the viewfinder attached you can use it like a "proper" photographer (full manual with a dial for speed and one for aperture too). It doesnt have a zoom though so you may have to move closer to something you wish to take a photo of. Also. As its not an SLR you wouldnt have to carry around your condescending (spelling) attitude either making the ride a little easier.

As for the merits of the SLR, HCB, M A Bravo and S Salgado cant all be wrong.

had a Fuji bridge camera - the electronic viewfinder was dire

So perhaps the P6000 with its optical viewfinder would be the compact for you simon?

It doesnt have a zoom though so you may have to move closer to something you wish to take a photo of.

#1 phrase used by people who don't understand how focal length affects an image - it is [u]not[/u] the same as just getting a bit closer.

It was flippancy on my part.

SORRY.

However. I do feel that there is an overdependency on zooms (particularly on compacts). Just my 2 penneth, having seen much "zoom abuse" over the years.

My point was that a compact without a zoom is automatically seen as being something like a prop from the flintstones!

#1 phrase used by people who don't understand how focal length affects an image - it is not the same as just getting a bit closer.

The Ricoh GRDs don't have a zoom ie fixed focal lens, and you [i]will[/i] have to get closer in order to fill the frame.

The distance to subject is clearly going to be different but this does not mean the dof cannot be adjusted with the right control.

Using fixed or short zooms have the advantage of engaging with the subject.

HTTP

Thats the point i was trying to make.

At the same time, a zoom can be of use. However when taking pics of bikes on the move, Ive found the easiest way to do it is with a wide lense with a relatively wide aperture (not able to drag a whole bunch of slave flashes around on every ride), highish ISO and get close (ish). From the OP I thought this was the use the camera was to be put. Doing the same with a zoom @ 200mm equivilent and getting sufficient light onto the sensor with the reduced aperture whilst standing on the other side of the woods is going to be a problem

So perhaps the P6000 with its optical viewfinder would be the compact for you simon?

That camera doesn't get great reviews compared with the Canon, or Pana LX3. The electronic viewfinder on the Pana G1 is head and shoulders above earlier generations.

Yes I understand it doesn't have a zoom. My point was that [i]"so you may have to move closer"[/i] implies that this is [u]all[/u] that increasing the focal length achieves, which is not correct.

It alters DoF, as you point out, and also foreshortens distance:

[img] [/img]
[size=1][url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length ](Suitably bikey-themed image from Wikipedia)[/url][/size]

GS

Which compact is that with an 18 - 55 zoom.

Not many of those about.

Can you show us the less obvious forshortening of distance that will occur on a 50 - 135 which a compact is surely more likely to be?

you can use it like a "proper" photographer (full manual with a dial for speed and one for aperture too).

I'd just as soon want that as I'd want to adjust the spark advance and hand pump the engine oil in a car

Also. As its not an SLR you wouldnt have to carry around your condescending (spelling) attitude either making the ride a little easier.

it's not condescension but practicality. SLRs are better cameras, particularly for action shots, and the supposed disadvantage of size is exaggerated. I even gave away my sweet D60 to my daughter to carry the bigger D300 round with me everywhere I go because it's so much better at being a camera. It's not snobbery.

50 - 135 which a compact is surely more likely to be?

Well the Canon G10 & G11 is (35mm-equivalent to) 28-140mm, the Nikon P6000 is 28-112mm (and has an optional wide-angle converter), the Nikon P90 is 26-624mm!

zoom abuse:
[url= http://148.88.53.14/rides/2005/20nov/pecket.jp g" target="_blank">http://148.88.53.14/rides/2005/20nov/pecket.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

[url= http://148.88.53.14/rides/2005/20nov/pecketpan.jp g" target="_blank">http://148.88.53.14/rides/2005/20nov/pecketpan.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

(both taken from the same spot)

I'd just as soon want that as I'd want to adjust the spark advance and hand pump the engine oil in a car

Each to there own i suppose.

So long as you enjoy what your doing.

If you know what you're doing, you can take some siht-hot pictures with a comact, it's just a bit more hit and miss for stuff that's moving. Where an SLR wins for me is that it's simply faster (No shutter lag, faster to change the settings, insant power-up) and a lot more versitile. And I do like to mess around in manual. In my last 2 outings, mine's not been used in an auto mode for more than half a dozen shots out of about 250.... 🙂

In my last 2 outings, mine's not been used in an auto mode for more than half a dozen shots out of about 250....

Blimey - I must be the complete opposite.

I hardly ever shoot Manual, apart from shots that are to be stitched together or Bulb shots obviously.

I almost always use aperture-priority.

Why the crop on the bottom pic?

I do understand the different perspective which zoomed or wide images will bring and the flexability they give.

Use whichever gives you pics you like I suppose.

To the OP. Try a GRD, it may not be what you want, it may be. Give it a go.

Now, lets have a look down the back of the sofa so i can change my M6 for one of thos s****y new M9's........

Why the crop on the bottom pic?

I think it's a stitch, rather than a crop.

(which I guess is an option if you use a fixed length lens).

I think it's a stitch, rather than a crop.

yes, I was cheating by posting a composite of 6 or 7 wideangle shots :o) But if it wasn't cropped there'd be a lot of boring sky and ground...

I hardly ever shoot Manual, apart from shots that are to be stitched together or Bulb shots obviously.

Yeah, I mainly use aperture or shutter priority, but I've just bought a flash and some remote triggers. I'm still practiing really, but I need to tell the camera what it's going to see when I press the button, rather than what it sees before the flash goes off. It's not too hectic, mostly f5 - f5.6 and shutter somewhere between 1/80 and 1/160th. I'm still a bit hit and miss because I generally have less than a minute to set it all up (Get gear out of bag, strap flash to tree, guess settings, OHH! Here's a rider!) but I'm getting there.... 🙂

[img] [/img] [IMG] [/IMG]
🙂

IMO if you can see the flash it's a fail as most people know full well the sun does not shine out of the ground 🙁

..but I've just bought a flash and some remote triggers.

ah, that explains it 😀 I've yet to play with such toys. I get myself in enough trouble with just the camera 😉

Nice pics BTW.

You do all that in under a minute? ... and how long to pack it all away again?

IMO if you can see the flash it's a fail as most people know full well the sun does not shine out of the ground

PP - In which case don't forget to pack your reflectors, flash stands and white umbrella diffusers.

Oh god not again.

Nice shots peterpoddy. Looks like dangerous dave in the 2nd?

IMO if you can see the flash it's a fail as most people know full well the sun does not shine out of the ground

Yeah, on the top one there I couldn't get the flash any further away due to undergrowth. I had one guess at the flash setting before the line of riders came through and that was that. I really like that pic though, and it's only the bracken in fron of the flash that gives the game away really. 🙂
The second one was a lucky shot. I was actually trying to get the riders as they went through the puddle (See below), but handily on lower power the flash can pop off at the same speed as the camera, resulting in my favourite shot of the day, TBH.

Next on the list is a diffuser to soften the light a bit. 🙂

This is what I was shooting. His face is better lit, on the one above he was too close to the flash, so one side of his face is darker. There was very little scope for flash placement here.
[img] [/img]

If you want the light higher, ball bungie it to an upturned bike or nearby tree. They make great light stands.

As per
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ginja_andy/3357430825/

Next on the list is a diffuser to soften the light a bit

or you could use that funny "sun" thing we sometimes get with that big sky diffuser :o)

or you could use that funny "sun" thing we sometimes get with that big sky diffuser :o)

😀
Simon that's a good point and I'm glad you raised it.....
I've been taking some good loooong looks at your pics for quite a while now (I like them, & I'm trying to learn something....) and I've noticed there's a big difference between our 'styles' if you like.

Most of your shots are in wide open countryside, because that's where you ride. The majority of my shots are in dense woodland. You simply have more light to play with.
Most of your shots involve the scenery in some way, and you don't often shoot fast action, or try and get some blur in your pics.

A lot of the time I'm trying to shoot action, from fairly close up, in woodland.
I've put a few threads on here about photography this year and ummed and ahhed about how best to get the shots I was after, and it always came down to the fact I was uing my lens wide open (f2.8) to get the light in there, and as such I was loosing sharpness. In the end I decided to give a remote flash a go and so far I'm very pleased with the results.
I don't like shots that look too 'false' (Think the Gore adverts in the current mags - Euch!) and I don't photoshop them afterwards. Those above are straight off the camera. It really was very dark under those trees.....

Nice shots peterpoddy. Looks like dangerous dave in the 2nd?

Cheers, and yes that's Solamanda. I just love the look on his face 🙂

You do all that in under a minute? ... and how long to pack it all away again?

Camera and flash set up and in a Camelbak HAWG. Take off pack, pull them out, turn on flash which is already set up on trigger and screwed to a mini tripod that can also be lashed to a tree. Camera is always turned on and roughly at the correct setting in manual. The flash is a Vivitar 285HV and fully manual with only one knob to turn. (I'll have to try it's basic auto modes at some point.)
What I need is a stunt monkey who will ride the same section over and over again whilst I faff to the max and move the flash all over the place to see what results I can get, but I don't have that luxury! 🙂

and I don't photoshop them afterwards.

your loss, it's cramping your style to forgo the manipulation that was commonplace in the film era. Any exposure is a compromise and if you want fidelity, let it be to the original scene and not to some engineering decision.

and you don't often shoot fast action

nothing to see here 🙂
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2009/17oct/DSC_0365_.gi f" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2009/17oct/DSC_0365_.gi f"/> [/img][/url]

Shame you didn't have a flash so we could see his face 😀

Peterpoddy, if you haven't already you should sign up for the next Seb Rogers course. I got a lot out of it when I went earlier in April.

Shame you didn't have a flash so we could see his face

[b]her[/b] face! How many flashes will do 5 frames a second ?

What I need is a stunt monkey who will ride the same section over and over again whilst I faff to the max and move the flash all over the place to see what results I can get, but I don't have that luxury!

I find Swinley is good for this as you can set up a shot and flashes and have loads of riders keep coming through all day. Obviously easy to keep changing the settings etc. My mates do get a bit annoyed with the "just one more time" trick though 🙂

Without flash there wouldn't be many magazine covers.

5 frames a second. Try going for one really good one!

her face! How many flashes will do 5 frames a second ?

If you want to shoot like that then would you not be better with a D5000, D90, D300s or D3S - then you can just shoot proper video?

pp - and I don't photoshop them afterwards.

sfb - your loss, it's cramping your style to forgo the manipulation that was commonplace in the film era. Any exposure is a compromise and if you want fidelity, let it be to the original scene and not to some engineering decision.

I so much agree with sfb here it hurts. 🙂
In the blink of an eye we can see so much more colour and range than a camera can capture in a single frame. Ignoring post-processing of the digital image is like a film photographer never entering a darkroom.

Can't agree with sfb on principle, so I'll agree with HTTP404 agreeing with simon 😀

then you can just shoot proper video?

I've never cottoned onto video, even when I had a bridge camera that would do it - and for that matter the current video capabilities added to DSLRs are severly compromised - contrast detection focussing (if any), black viewfinder (mirror locked up), so effectively it's not an SLR any longer. Also, in that sequence I'm zooming as the subject gets closer which would have knocked the focus out.

Can't agree with sfb on principle, so I'll agree with HTTP404 agreeing with simon

recently I've been getting similar comments almost every day, I must be losing my knack...

Nah, you've still got it.

your loss, it's cramping your style to forgo the manipulation that was commonplace in the film era.

How many flashes will do 5 frames a second ?

Peterpoddy, if you haven't already you should sign up for the next Seb Rogers course. I got a lot out of it when I went earlier in April.

Might see if I can get Elements sometime, but that's as much as I can afford.

Try CaptureNX if you are a Nikon user. Way better than Elements for RAW development IMHO.

PP - You need a [url=www.gimp.org]Gimp[/url]. Once you get a routine workflow going it will be fine.

nothing to see here

SFB - I didn't say NEVER. I said not often. 🙂
And I've had a good trawl through your pics many times and I'm struggling to remember one where you've panned the camera to get a blurred background and a sharp rider.... Not criticising, just pointing it out. [ego massaging mode] Your pics are one of the main reasons I got into this, inspiration if you like. 🙂

But you shoot different stuff to me, in a different environment. It was when I realised that that I also realised I needed different kit. Again, I don't think you use a flash, do you? Call it me branching out a bit, finding my style.... 🙂

HTTP - Link no worky!

Graham, no, I've got a Canon 400D

I want to learn how to get the best out of the camera, and how to use it first, rather then learn how to use some software.

If you shoot JPG and you want to get the best results then you must "learn how to use some software" that is built-into your camera - by setting white balance, curves, saturation, contrast, colour mode etc before taking the shot.

If you shoot RAW then you can make those decisions after the fact, with a much bigger screen, a mouse and a cup of coffee. 🙂

If you shoot RAW then you can make those decisions after the fact, with a much bigger screen, a mouse and a cup of coffee

Yeah, I think that's gotta be the next step for me realistically. Will Photoshop Elements be any use to me for that? I've had a quick look for advice on the web, but you mainly get people who (think they?) know it all using too many big long winded explanations for a simpleton like me. 🙂

Sorry, can't offer much advice for Canon RAW I'm afraid, but Gimp, Elements and Picasa can all handle RAW conversion I think.

@PeterPoddy Lightroom 3 beta is available to the public for free, and the demo version will work until the commercial release date in April, so get yourself tooled up now, for free.
IMHO Lightroom is THE digital photo utility. Photoshop is good, but LR actually lets you work like a photographer, dodging and burning and adjusting tone, contrast and colour information in a very intuitive way.
I struggled to like digital photography (even though it's my job) until I invested in LR, and now I can complete several hundred+ shot assignments in a week, and not feel like I've had my brains hoiked out.

IMHO, if you're struggling to arrest motion with your vivitar strobe at a normal working distance and a shutter speed to balance the exposure under tree cover, you probably don't need to lose a stop by putting a diffusion brolly in the way. They're well lit already, mate!
Just my 2 cents.

Oh, and cameras?

I'd have a G10/11 for practicality AND a Ricoh GRD because it's a design classic and I like prime lenses. I know, that's not helpful...

Elements is good for most stuff but I find it cumbersome for raw conversion. I prefer [url= http://www.rawtherapee.com ]RawTherapee[/url] for conversion (it's free).

if you're struggling to arrest motion with your vivitar strobe

No, I'm pretty damned happy with the pics as they are, TBH. I don't want to stop the motion as such (I like some blur) I was just struggling to pick out faces before, and with sharpness. The flash is spot on I reckon. Thanks for the tips though, I'll have a look at Lightroom. 🙂

I really miss my Minox GL35.

I'd love a simple light viewfinder digital camera with manual focus and aperture so long as it had an immediate shutter and low light sensitivity. I wouldn't need an LCD screen or other faff. It would have to produce RAW so I could attend to anything after download.

I'm using an Olympus Mu at the moment. For some reason my Fuji GX680 doesn't come on many rides with me.

GIMP - www.gimp.org/downloads/

2nd Lightroom. Amazing bit of software.

Sell, steal, do anything you can to get on that course. I learnt so much that weekend.

Looks like you're mates with Dom and Jamie judging by your Flickr stream. Done a few photo shoots with those guys last year. Would be happy to do another one soon and maybe help out with some tips I learnt from the course.

Not criticising, just pointing it out. [ego massaging mode] Your pics are one of the main reasons I got into this, inspiration if you like

why thank you Peter! But I'm so conceited it doesn't do well to admit this kind of thing. However, I'm all in favour of encouraging people to experiment with photography - each individual brings a new way of looking!

slight panning 2 weeks ago:
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2009/17oct/DSC_0072_.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2009/17oct/DSC_0072_.jp g"/> [/img][/url] - but you're right, I don't do it much unless the light conditions demand.

Again, I don't think you use a flash, do you?

I hate it, because I'm trying to show what I see, and I never see lights shining from a) the camera b) the bushes. I agree it's useful for filling in shadows, but I never have the presence of mind to think of it.

I hate it, because I'm trying to show what I see..

Sadly the dynamic range of our eyes is waaaaay better than the sensors in our cameras, so your camera may not be able to record what you see without using a flash.

Could do with some fill in flash in that shot.

I would have thought the use of flash for MTB photography can remove a lot of mood and atmosphere from the photo. Granted, you'll get that covershot photo look if that's what you're after. However, sometimes the detail is in what you don't see. And that's art.

I hate it, because I'm trying to show what I see

Yep, me too. Hence the flash... I can see people's faces when I watch them and IMO that's the essence of the pic. Get the face well lit and you set the mood. Shots like this -
[img] [/img]

I really like it, but the front of the rider is dark, lacking detail. That's what I was struggling with....I rckon if I'd have had a bit of flash to fill the face and front of the rider in, from camera left, that would have beeen the perfect shot. 🙂 Next time.....

For Canon RAW conversion, the software supplied with the camera (Canon DPP) is far better than any 3rd party effort. With DPP you also get rudimentary editing facilities such as curves, contrast, saturation, noise reduction, sharpening, cloning etc. It can often be enough to sort a picture out. If not, Elements should be more than enough - I have yet to find a reason to ditch Elements in favour of the full blown Photoshop, on the basis that if Elements isn't enough, the picture is probably shit in the first place.

I rckon if I'd have had a bit of flash to fill the face and front of the rider in, from camera left, that would have beeen the perfect shot.