[Closed] One for the photographers...

Sony a33 is worth a look too.

Thanks Elefant.

Going to head down to Jessops and have a play with a few of them.

Cheers

I've got a G1, ace camera. What do you want to know? It's been replaced by the G2 now though (and various other G-series models). They all take basically as good pics as each other though, it's a form factor, video features and budget choice mostly.

I've got an Oly E600 4/3 camera, and I really like it. There are good and bad points tho. As a camera I love it - bags of features and an excellent price, plus it's very small and lightweight (which I like - they say it's the smallest image stabilised SLR on the market). Also the 'standard' range of 4/3 lenses from Oly are great and stunning value for money. You probably won't get smaller and lighter in a full SLR, and you also probably won't get such quality for the price in lenses. It really is amazing when I see the huge stuff some people are lugging about.

However, whilst the OEM range is excellent there's very little else available. With Canon/Nikon you have loads more choice not only new and second hand lenses but also sundry accessories. Very hard to find a bargain on used stuff. Although my excellent 35mm macro lens was only 180 quid from Amazon, so who needs second hand?

I also like the look of the new Pentax DSLRs.

To counter molgrips somewhat, with mu4/3 cos of the short sensor/mount distance, adapters to fit nearly any manual focus lens are cheap, and it'll auto expose ('A' mode) with anything. So there's a whole world of cheap legacy lenses out there to play with.

Because of the crop factor though, most will be medium to long telephotos, wides aren't practical.

I often recommend buying a brand you are familiar with - I tend to buy Canon as I have had them since there was film and everything so I know and understand the functions.

Cannon 550D

One sweet camera! But I think thats just the body from around £500!

I have the Nikon D3100, couldn't see the point in getting something only a little smaller, neither the 4/3 or most "bridge" cameras are really pocketable.

I've got a nearly new Panasonic G2 with 14-42 mm lens for sale for £350 if your'e interested.

Pentax K-x is worth a look at if you want a small DSLR, just been superceded by the K-R so should be even better value now.

Stay away from the Sony cameras, unless you can afford to get the Carl Zeiss lenses. The stock lenses that come with the Nikon, Canon etc are all superior, based on advice I was given when looking for a new camera.

Thanks for all the replies. Just been to Jessops and had a play. Appreciate the comments that a 4/3rd size still isn't that small but I think I still fancy a smaller sized camera.

I've narrowed it down to the G2 or Sony A33, both seem neat and do all that I need and more. Interested to know more about your point theough Mikey - How come you have to use the Zeiss lenses?

Thanks
Ben

Top-tip: what you put in front of the lens matters more than the lens to get a good photo.

If you like the handling of the sony, and it makes you want to take photos, you'll take better photos (compared to a nikon say).

Stay away from the Sony cameras, unless you can afford to get the Carl Zeiss lenses. The stock lenses that come with the Nikon, Canon etc are all superior, based on advice I was given when looking for a new camera.

How come you have to use the Zeiss lenses?

For Sony alpha lens reviews try [url= http://www.dyxum.com ]Dyxum[/url]

ben, I've just got a gf1 to replace my old Canon G9. So far I'm really impressed. It's a touch bigger than the G9 and doesn't fit in my shorts pocket like the G9 did but I'm really happy with the photos. The video has really surprised me too, v. happy with that. I know you're talking G1/2... same, same but different.

To counter molgrips somewhat, with mu4/3 cos of the short sensor/mount distance, adapters to fit nearly any manual focus lens are cheap, and it'll auto expose ('A' mode) with anything. So there's a whole world of cheap legacy lenses out there to play with

I was talking about 4/3 not m4/3, but yes you are right. However it's not quite that straightforward. The OM adapter for my camera is £150 which is not cheap, and you don't get autofocus. Nevertheless I considered the adapter plus one of the good old Olympus OM macro lenses and that would've set me back £300, so I saved a lot by going for the modern one and got autofocus to boot. There's a webpage somewhere of a guy testing all his old OM lenses with an E620 and he gets results varying from good to awful.

It's true that my camera is not pocketable; however it's light and if you want a zoom lens then the advantages really stack up. The 40-150mm which gives an equivalent of 300mm zoom - a reasonable telephoto - weighs 220g. If I were out riding with a view to taking a few snaps on the way I could take the camera and a spare zoom lens in the camelbak and it'd still be no bother to carry. Whilst I'm at it I might as well toss in the macro lens for those spring flowers, only 165g.

I know you were talking about 4/3, but the OP was considering mu4/3. Maybe I wasn't being that clear.

No autofocus isn't always that bad, and my f-mount (nikon) adapter only cost me £20.

No you are right, MF isn't necessarily bad but it's not exactly an ideal situation, and the image quality you end up with is also not ideal. Are you saying you have an adapter for Nikon lenses for m4/3? And it only lets you use aperture priority?

And it only lets you use aperture priority?

I'm thinking it might be a bit much to expect a camera to stop down an alien lens, so AP is where it's at 🙂

You misunderstood me: You don't HAVE to go with the Carl Zeiss lenses. I was referring to the Sony stock lenses: All the reviews I have read conclude that the Sony lenses are rather mediocre performers when compared to other manufacturer's, such as Sigma, Tokina, Tamron etc. However, if you can afford to get a model with a Carl Zeiss lens, then they are very good quality lenses.

That said, the stock lenses you get with Nikon cameras, with the exception of the 18-135, always get fantastic reviews.

Well, Ap or M, as sfb says it can't control the aperture. But what other mode would you want? It's still doing the hard work (metering) for you.

Image quality depends on lens of course. But I've had some good results even from cheap stuff, like a 80-210 f4 zoom that was all of £15. At that price, if the quality's not great, does it matter?

and the image quality you end up with is also not ideal.

How so? Unless you mis-focus, but then practice makes perfect...

I find the ability to use legacy lenses on my Canon (ironically, the only ones that won't easy fit with an adapter are the old Canon lenses) a great way to get some excellent quality lenses at cheaper prices. Depends what you want then for I guess, but apart from anything that's fast-moving, what's the issue? My Olympus OM-fit Zuikos and old Tamron SPs are amazingly sharp, and have lovely bokeh too 🙂

Taken using an Olympus Zuiko 200mm f/4 that cost £35 on ebay:

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4150/5441018320_f2595cbee7.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4150/5441018320_f2595cbee7.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_farrell/5441018320/ ]Happy[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/mark_farrell/ ]Mark-Farrell[/url], on Flickr

Taken using a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 macro taht cost £60 from my LCS (Local camera shop)

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5173/5392947304_635fd9eaae.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5173/5392947304_635fd9eaae.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_farrell/5392947304/ ]Miniature forests[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/mark_farrell/ ]Mark-Farrell[/url], on Flickr

Basically, the option to use older lenses should be very high on your list if you're on a budget. Old pro-level lenses can often cost peanuts, and actually having to focus and choose apertures, as well as keeping a closer eye on the exposure (the metering can be a bit off without a modern lens for the camera to talk to) teaches you a lot about how to use a camera. Zooming on live view makes manual focussing pretty accurate.

As for which camera, I know pros who now take the Olympus EP1 with them instead of a £2k Nikon D700 and a £2k lens. Whilst it doesn't quite have that quality, it's very good for what it is, and is a damned sight more portable.

teaches you a lot about how to use a camera

or: "is an annoying distraction" - like being forced to ride with stabiliser wheels forever 🙁

like being forced

Ah but you're not, you can use native lenses too, and get your nice full auto 14-140 superzoom if you want (on mu4/3, equivalent to the nikon 18-200).

FWIW I had a 4/3 GF1 - great little camera but they're still not exactly that small esp if you have a zoom lens on and the thing I couldn't get over was not having a viewfinder - so much so I ditched it and went back to a Nikon D90.

On a budget Id buy a second hand Canon 5d, loads about since the 5d mk2 came out, if you get one from a shop you get 12 months warranty. Small enough and genuinly good to use.

The Tamron SP 90mm has to be one of my all time top lens, great shots Zorkes btw

You misunderstood me: You don't HAVE to go with the Carl Zeiss lenses. I was referring to the Sony stock lenses: All the reviews I have read conclude that the Sony lenses are rather mediocre performers when compared to other manufacturer's, such as Sigma, Tokina, Tamron etc. However, if you can afford to get a model with a Carl Zeiss lens, then they are very good quality lenses.

That said, the stock lenses you get with Nikon cameras, with the exception of the 18-135, always get fantastic reviews

If by 'stock lenses' you mean kit lenses then the 18-55 and 55-200 are getting rave reviews, as are the budget 30, 35, 50 and 85 primes. Elsewhere in the range you have the 50 f1.4 and 70-200ssm which are on par with the best lenses that any other manufacturer has to offer, and the 80-400ssm which is the best in class (according to the awards it wins).

Try comparing some MTF charts on dpreview or some sensor/lens combinations on DXOmark. Sony has some excellent lenses in their catalogue. [url= http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=1,60&fullscreen=true&av=3.667,3.667&fl=18,18&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4 ]How about canon kit lens vs sony?[/url]. The Sony is sharper with less aberations.

You might be interested to know that Sony owns a large share in Tamron and many of their cheaper lenses are actually rebadged and made by Tamron.

You'll find tokina, sigma, canon and nikon have some some equally excellent lenses and some crappy ones too. Just like every manufacturer of everything...

Also got a Nikon D3100 as upgrading from point and shoot. Great choice and the guide mode is handy for helpful hints when you're not sure. Also takes 1080p movies so you don't miss a trick =D

gf1 with the 20mm 1.7 lens is pretty F***ing good, and there are some good deals on them at the mo, you wont get a better fast prime for the money either. I would have a look at the samsung ex1 too its a very good camera for a compact and can be had for £250
good luck

or: "is an annoying distraction" - like being forced to ride with stabiliser wheels forever

I thought I'd missed you. It appears not.

When you have [i]anything[/i] actually of use to add to a photography thread (other than how to take mediocre photos of ladies posteriors in lycra), please feel free to come back again.

My main point about using the older lenses is that you can get amazing quality lenses for bargain prices. For general use, sure, the consumer lenses are all pretty good, but modern high quality lenses cost ££££. Until you're sure you want to spend ££££ on 'x' focal length, I'd say £40 for a pretty good lens is a reasonable way of seeing if you'd use that focal length. In the time it then takes you to save ££££, you may well find that you don't need autofocus and automatic aperture after all.

Good god it all gets a bit techincal and defensive when it comes to recommendations for cameras.

All i can add is that the new Canon 1100d is coming out soon i think. Should fall into your price and is supposed to be a big enough jump from the 1000d to make it a contender at the price. There is a little bit about it on the photoradar site.

Personally i only considered the canon or nikon. Not because there is anything wrong with the sony, but 'if' i wanted extra lenses etc it stands to reason that the most popular brands would be slightly easier to get.

When you have anything actually of use to add to a photography thread (other than how to take mediocre photos of ladies posteriors in lycra), please feel free to come back again.

luckily it's not up to you to decide this 🙂

As I pointed out the other day, this stuff like "thinking about aperture" etc is useless to we right brain snappers...

I can highly recommend the samsung Ex-1 if you want a smaller camera with lots of manual control and a nice fast wide angle lens. Just got the kit to allow me to add filters to mine and a wireless flash setup all for under £350. Kickass.

Personally i only considered the canon or nikon. Not because there is anything wrong with the sony, but 'if' i wanted extra lenses etc it stands to reason that the most popular brands would be slightly easier to get.

No-one uses Olympus.. waaah 🙁

(Actually, from what I can gather it seems popular with some pro journalists who have to carry a lot of kit about. Also could be more popular in general in the US because some shops I've been in actually carry 4/3 kit, unlike here)

Oh and can I point out in case anyone's confused that there's a difference between micro 4/3 and 4/3.

No-one uses Olympus.. waaah

High 5!

I knew there was someone on here, can't remember if it was you or not.

It is a great shame that normal 4/3 is not more widely used since it's a great system.

Need to hoover up all the accessories I want in case they stop making them.

Sony knocked Nikon off the number 2 spot in the UK in December

which only matters to herd-buyers ... (and Nikon 🙂

[i]Sony knocked Nikon off the number 2 spot in the UK in December. [/i]

Thanks for that. Nothing against Sony at all.

which only matters to herd-buyers ... (and Nikon

No-one uses Olympus.. waaah

I do, just not their cameras - their old lenses are amazing quality for the price they pass for, even my eye-wateringly expensive 18mm prime is just as sharp as my L-series lenses when not mide open.

The one thing you can be sure of with olympus is that they will always try to get the smalles possible box around the system. This has been the case ever since their OM range started back in the 70s. Just look at the size of any Olympus lens from any era against a Nikon/Canon equivalent - yet somehow they keep the quality amazingly high. Just a pity they've not got a full frame model or I'd have had that instead of my 5DII.

As for sony, the reviews I've read in the past have indicated they're not the best at handling noise. I have no personal experience to base this on, but the reviews of the D700, 5DII and a900 always picked up on this fact in the Sony - possibly a product of their generally higher pixel density. (More MPx not always a good thing)

As for sony, the reviews I've read in the past have indicated they're not the best at handling noise.

I have no personal experience to base this on, but the reviews of the D700, 5DII and a900 always picked up on this fact in the Sony - possibly a product of their generally higher pixel density. (More MPx not always a good thing)

That was quickly sorted. The a900 is still a stop down compared with the opposition at high iso but that's all tied up with the fact they optimised it for low iso colour response where it beats everything else (which is why it scores differently to the Nikon D3x which uses the same Sony sensor).

In real world use you'll be hard pushed to notice a difference good or bad. And... although the a900 may not be the best full-frame high ISO machine it's still better at high iso than any apsc sensor available (so it's actually rather good).

Dare I suggest yet again that the OP has a look at my website to see what you can do with Micro Four Thirds cameras - despite all the naysaying about lack of an optical viewfinder, poor IQ yadayadayada 🙂

www.grahamwynnephoto.com

A few of the more recent portraits are taken with a 5D (got for doing paid work largely where a DSLR is expected) but the vast majority on there are with a GF1 or G1. I know so many people with a DSLR who very rarely take them out because they are too bulky/heavy and they feel a bit of a tool wandering around with a huge camera. No M4/3 is not perfect but for many people they are a very good compromise.

And using old lenses is great fun, good value, and a great way to learn the basics of photography imo. I bought a Konica Hexanon lens for a tenner which is fast and mega sharp.

When you have anything actually of use to add to a photography thread

what I mean is that when I think about photography, it's in terms of being in the right place, spotting dramatic light or interesting juxtapositions, capturing a moment, a shape, a pattern, and so forth, and not about numbers on dials, or intentionally handicapping myself to draw attention to some feature of the machine. No non-mathematician gets a thrill from numbers, they're just an inconvenient means to and end.

Many thanks for all the responses. Had another go with the contenders at Jessops this morning and have opted for the A33. It felt right in my hands if that makes sense, and though it's full size, it's a lot smaller and lighter than comparable DSLRs.

Here's hoping I get on with it!

Cheers
Ben

It felt right in my hands if that makes sense

Yup that makes very good sense. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

It felt right in my hands

As I said above, best reason to choose a particular camera. If it feels right you'll use it more, and take better photos.

herd-buyers

Yeah, a huge number of DSLRs are sold (currently) to gadget wanters. At the zoo yesterday I saw loads of people carting them around just taking snaps or not at all. I think people have the wrong idea about them.. yes, they will take better pictures but the difference is in reality only slight compared to a good compact, and they're really not the best tool for holiday snaps. However people want to think they deserve the very best, without really knowing what that is. Hence they wander into a camera shop and say 'gimme the best camera at £xxx' or 'What's the next one up from a Dxxx?'. Which I've overheard several times.

I think a lot of Canikon's sales are to that market segment. And that's why Oly/Panasonic/Pentax etc etc don't get a look in. The 'other' manufs (including Sony) bring innovation and nice features to the market and it'd be a shame from a (sort of) photographer's point of view to lose them.

yes, they will take better pictures but the difference is in reality only slight compared to a good compact

I wish I could believe that, as I end up always carrying round 1.5kg of Nikon, which has given me a bad back, yet compacts feel like total tat in comparison 🙁

I wish I could believe that, as I end up always carrying round 1.5kg of Nikon, which has given me a bad back, yet compacts feel like total tat in comparison

Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints from an Epson 3800 printer made on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk paper which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing print viewing box. This collection of seven people included experienced photographers, people from the commercial print industry, and other trade professionals. Between them there was at least 200 years of photographic industry shooting and printing experience.

In most cases I did not tell them what they were looking at, simply saying that I had been shooting with two cameras, and that they should divide the prints (about a dozen) into two piles – Camera A and Camera B. They were asked to judge resolution, accutance, colour reproduction, highlight detail, dMax, and any other factors that they wished to consider.

The Results
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.

In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness.

Needless to say there was much shaking of heads and muttering. Could this be? Could a $500 digicam equal a $40,000 medium format digital system in image quality, at least in prints up to 13X19" (Super A3)?

I think a lot of Canikon's sales are to that market segment. And that's why Oly/Panasonic/Pentax etc etc don't get a look in

I had a Pentax SLR and two of their DSLR's as well, only changed to Canon because of the limited Pentax lens range. The longest lens they currently sell is a 300mm and frankly that's too short for wildlife especially birds. Not sure about Sony and Olympus, but guess its pretty much the same for them too.

The Pentax K-5 looks a fine camera and would happily buy one, but would like a better range of lenses to put on it.
Yes there are the third party makes, but the Canon and Nikon longer lenses in particular still set the standard and one of the main reason they corner the market

Not sure about Sony and Olympus

Can't say I've looked into the long stuff on olympus. It wouldn't fit in my pocket...

yet compacts feel like total tat in comparison

They're not. You would do well with a 'bridge camera' or whatever they call them nowadays. All the manual control, lots of features but much smaller and more portable. You can also get weatherproof compacts for cheap, and so on.

Re Oly zoom lenses - they do a fair few. The crop factor of 2 really helps. I've got the 70-300 fsomethingorother which was only £300 ish in the US, and considering it's 600mm's worth it's tiny. Only slight problem is strange bokeh which can look a bit like camera shake to the uninformed photographer (ahem.. see earlier threads by me 🙂 )

There are lots more long zooms in the Oly range. For a while Sigma were making some of their lenses with a 4/3 mount, but they were mostly made for cameras with smaller crop factors which meant they became mega zooms when attached to an Oly. One they no longer make was a 500mm one that is popular with wildlife photographers on a budget, giving 1000mm.. known as the 'Bigma' on some forums 🙂

You can also get weatherproof compacts for cheap, and so on.

my mobile works underwater, however I'll be shooting blind unless I go under too 🙁 Need to find some nice clean water for getting some riding shots 🙂

I think it depends on what you're shooting and under what circumstances, but this is amusing:

it's not about the quality of the photos but the handling. The D300 never gets turned off, zooms in a fraction of a second, has the inertia to hold steady, shoots blisteringly fast and has a viewfinder I can see without holding it at arms' length!

it's not about the quality of the photos but the handling.

Yeah, and the large size of a DSLR would be considered detrimental to the handling by many (including me).

and the large size of a DSLR would be considered detrimental to the handling by many (including me).

get a grownup to hold it for you sonny 🙂

Yeah, and the large size of a DSLR would be considered detrimental to the handling by many (including me).

another Olympus user here too 🙂

Yeah, and the large size of a DSLR would be considered detrimental to the handling by many (including me).

Really?

Yep. Not only are DSLRs much larger, they are an awkward shape - as I am sure you are aware. Portability is an aspect of handling imo.

HTTP404 - what stuff do you have?

E420, 50mm pancake, 14-42 and 40-150.
I did have the E300 but sold it as I wasn't getting the use.
I'd like to have the newer truepic sensor but would have to save the pennies. I would also consider moving onto a hybrid m4/3 camera as I do believe the best camera being the one are more likely to lug along with you.

Has Sophistry For Beginners started up again?

Not only are DSLRs much larger, they are an awkward shape - as I am sure you are aware

it feels really sorted in my hands 🙂 Awkward [b]size[/b] deffo, but that seems to go with the territory, and smallness is always accompanied by compromise.

Has Sophistry For Beginners started up again?

we beginners don't know what that is 🙁

I love compact things as I hate carrying stuff around when I am on hols so I have gone through a fair amount of small cameras. In the end there is a D40 + 1 lens that is predictably with me for several reasons:

1. Weird shape or not you can actually hold it somehow to steady it long enough to take a picture.
2. It has a viewfinder, dunno how people manage it but I cannot for the life of me frame a half decent shot through an LCD.
3. Noise, I know people can find it artistic at times but I hate it, I like smooth pictures and no m4/3 or compact beats the D40 yet.
4. Depth of field, I like isolating my subject, I already find the APS-C sensor to be a limiting factor to this. Try with an even smaller sensor camera... good luck!

To that extend I am more likely to buy a D7000 than I am to get a GF1/2 or Pen.

3. Noise, I know people can find it artistic at times but I hate it, I like smooth pictures and no m4/3 or compact beats the D40 yet.

The D40 is a 4yo camera that costs 150£. So still m4/3 just about manage to match in noise terms only the lowest end model aps-c of 4 years ago. How do they compare to the d3100 which is closer in features/price?

No not ready to move over yet I will await for some more aps-c mirrorless attempts m4/3 not quite for me

Both the epl2 and g2 are a match for the D40 (comparison here...) when compared for the same size print.

Oh don't be so practical! Everyone knows this isn't about printing photos to display! It's about PURITY dammit! Zoom in as much as you can and admire the pixels 🙂

I can't imagine a printing technology which would actually be able to resolve the kind of noise I get even at ISO800 on my 4/3.

Barnes - my point really is that with an SLR you have to make allowances to carry it around with you. A compact can easily be tossed in whatever bag you happen to have, or a pocket. Mrs Grips for instance has a Sony Cybershot in her handbang/baby bag all the time, and we've got some lovely baby pics and videos because of it. I'd always have a compact as well as a SLR.

Yeah, sure, bigger sensors of the same generation are better, they always will be.

HIJACK

How do I get my prints the same as whats on my screen i.e. WYSIWYG? I'm thinking new printer may be in order as the current one is on its last legs anyway

How do I get my prints the same as whats on my screen i.e. WYSIWYG? I'm thinking new printer may be in order as the current one is on its last legs anyway

I've also had issues with that. Still need to mess about with it. I've got photos taken in Adobe RGB, opened in PS Elements, and printed with 'let photoshop manage colour settings' selected which apparently means it's using ICC profile... Still not quite right though. I don't know if the ICC profile for my printer is the right one? I suspect I don't really know what ICC means.

it's not difficult with a proper colour managed workflow:

calibrated monitor that can show all or most of adobe1998 colourspace.
a monitor that has user defined blackpoint so contrast range can be matched to paper.
a printer with decent 8-10 colour inkset.
a bespoke printer profile for each paper you use.

knowing how to use all of the above.

I've been thinking about getting one of those little calibration thingymajigs that you stick on the screen but put it off due to cost - but now looking into it; regarding printing - it's significantly different to what is on my screen i.e. looks great on screen but underexposed when printed with detail in blacks virtually non-existant

it's not difficult with a proper colour managed workflow:

I do very little printing of images but have been doing a lot more recently and therefore now becoming an issue.....off to do some reading

looks great on screen but underexposed when printed

MrSmith - and for the home user with a PC world printer?

I have seen profiles for the various papers actually - but I thought that selecting the correct paper brand and type from the dropdown in the printer driver settings was doing that.

Actually, colours seem ok to me but brightness isn't (brighter on the printer). And what about the LCD on the camera? My monitor matches that pretty well, what does that mean?

Oh and the little widget they show on the reviews on dpreview.com suggests my monitor is calibrated okay.

just use generic profiles for your printer downloaded from the paper manufacturers. they only tend to do them for a3 canon/epson/HP printers though.
if you have a non listed paper then pay the £10-£15 for a profile. permajet paper will profile for free (if you buy their paper)

"Oh and the little widget they show on the reviews on dpreview.com suggests my monitor is calibrated okay. "

i can tell you now it isn't. you need hardware to calibrate a monitor (spyder-3, eyeone or similar) twiddling the controls isn't the same as calibration.

I use a HP printer (Photosmart 5 colour job, was 150 or so) and HP paper, so I think they're included.

I thought I'd done everything right but apparently not.

i can tell you now it isn't

Apologies. I meant to say that my brightness settings appear to be correct...

How close am I likely to be able to get with generic home PC stuff? Given that I don't want to spend hundreds, should I just leave it?