[OT] (?) Camera for walking ..

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

I'd prefer a viewfinder as backup, but the larger LCDs have just eaten
up the real estate (and the cameras got smaller too).

Well this is what has happened as a result of buyer's obsession with small
size and weight. It's their own fault for complaining that a tiny, light
camera like the G3 was "big and heavy". People seem to have lost touch with
how big and heavy a "proper" camera is. Miniaturisation is all well and good
up to a point, but is being taken to ridiculous extremes.

Quoted message said:

I guess these
days you just shoot 2x more pixels than you need

Oh yes, must have far more pixels than any amateur would ever need! It must
be absolutely tiny, weigh no more than a feather, yet have a huge zoom range
and massive unnecessary resolution!

The designers and marketers are just giving people what they they want.

Quoted message said:

with a bracket on exposure and focus,

How do you do that with an auto only camera?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Nigel Cliffe said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Experience with friends on ski trips showed how bad LCD-only
>> cameras were at taking pictures.
>
> Ever heard the quotation about bad workmen and tools? You can't
> blame bad composition on the LCD. All your experience proves is
> that your friends weren't very good at composing pictures with an
> LCD.

You are being rude about photogaphers who you have never met, nor
have no idea of their ability with cameras.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, but you seemed to be suggesting that
the camera design was to blame.

The absence of a viewfinder *is* the camera design.

You said that *LCD-only cameras* were bad at taking pictures. Cameras don't
take pictures, people do. Even if the design is bad, it's still possible to
take a good picture with it. I've got a Mamiya Press camera, which has an
horrendously user-unfriendly design, but it's possible to take great
pictures with it.

Quoted message said:

LCDs are
perfectly good in many conditions, but sometimes suffer serious
glare, so the image cannot be seen.

I've never "not seen" an image on an LCD. It's sometimes been very hard to
see, but never impossible.

Quoted message said:

At the more expensive end (eg. Canon G-series and competitors, and
various super-zoom models), LCD + viewfinder seems the normal
arrangement. One can speculate whether the purchasers of these
cameras: - expect this additional, though useless, feature.
- are such traditional photographers that they must have a redundant
feature - find viewfinder preferable
- find viewfinder essential in some conditions

Probably most of the above. The thing with more expensive cameras is that
they have more options, not just an extra viewfinder, but manual modes, RAW
modes and so on. More options mean that a camera is usable in more ways by
more people. Really cheap cameras have to cut corners and only appeal to
very specific market segments. If a cheap camera doesn't have what you want,
buy a more expensive one that does. The cheapest cameras are designed for
the lowest common denominators, i.e. what most snappers want.

Quoted message said:

My Canon A710i (think its still a current model) has glare issues on
the LCD in some light conditions.

My G3 had glare issues, but never so bad that it was impossible to see.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And if LCD quality in sunlight is variable, then why would you
automatically dismiss any camera that only has an LCD? In such a case
I'd presume it to be one that worked in all lighting conditions.

Because I've yet to handle a camera which has a sufficiently
glare-free LCD to mean that pictures are not, sometimes, guesswork
through the LCD. Photographers I know, and various review websites
seem to agree with my views.

Fair enough, but I've never found it enough of a problem to warrant using
the viewfinder instead.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

Having spent an hour standing in Comet, Jessops, Dixons, etc, I'm
coming round to either one of the Olympus 'splashproof' Mjus (but not
the 770 or 790, since I don't plan to snorkel), or a Canon powershot
(maybe even an A series) ...

Quoted message said:

Still think there are too many options .. eg Canon have about 20
different compact and subcompact models available (some I admit on the
way out), with completely meaningless model numbers in most cases ....

I too found it confusing. It still "doing it on a budget", the A710i I own
is a "jessops group only" model for the UK. The rest of the UK camera trade
get the 5xx version with a slightly shorter zoom range.

I considered the pocket sized "powershot" models, but decided that they were
a little too small, and thus fiddly to use, as well as lacking a few manual
overrides.
(I've since found the close-up lens adaptor for the A-series (similar to
those for G-series) to be a huge advantage over the normal macro, it reduces
the curved distortion of closeup work. But that's for photographing small
model making projects rather than outdoors ).

I thought about the S-series Canon's, but couldn't see a huge advantage over
"A" models.

The G-series seemed too heavy and expensive for shoving in a pocket.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Nigel Cliffe said:

I thought about the S-series Canon's, but couldn't see a huge
advantage over "A" models.

I think one advantage was that the S series had RAW mode, but they've
discontinued that since the S70. It may have had a better quality sensor
too.

Quoted message said:

The G-series seemed too heavy and expensive for shoving in a pocket.

Yes, I'll admit that the G models are a bit too big for a shirt pocket. But
they do have much better quality lenses, my G3 lens was f2.0, which made it
great for low light photography.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Bill Grey said:

Do you really want RAW -?--- High quality jpegs are very good -
honest.

Only if you don't want to do any processing to your pics later.

Quoted message said:

Remember Paul is a serious photographer who does want RAW images, but
for casual high quality shots SF jpegs will do the job admirably.

But there's another problem, there's no manual exposure on the camera, it's
auto only, and no manual focus either.

Paul

It all depends on you proposed use of the camera. Your use is far
different from many people who just want to carry a camera on the hill.

Your use and knowledge is too complicated for casual users.

I write this not really knowing what the OP really wants, but I gather
convenience and size is important. This would usually mean more
automatic than manual.
--
Bill Grey

Paul Saunders said:

Well this is what has happened as a result of buyer's obsession with small
size and weight. It's their own fault for complaining that a tiny, light
camera like the G3 was "big and heavy". People seem to have lost touch with
how big and heavy a "proper" camera is. Miniaturisation is all well and good
up to a point, but is being taken to ridiculous extremes.

Without a really small camera, I would typically not bother taking a
camera with me, so it's not "ridiculous", it opens up photography to
people who wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

Quoted message said:

The designers and marketers are just giving people what they they want.

[censored], eh!

Quoted message said:

How do you do that with an auto only camera?

My wee Olympus isn't "auto only", so it wouldn't surprise me if some of
its peers aren't either.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Having spent an hour standing in Comet, Jessops, Dixons, etc, I'm coming
round to either one of the Olympus 'splashproof' Mjus (but not the 770
or 790, since I don't plan to snorkel)

While I did want something that could stand being underwater, if the sea
kayaking involves an unplanned capsize, the shock-proofing element is a
welcome thing to have too: don't know how well the "splashproof" ones
are specified in that department. OTOH, if the price difference is
significant it may well just be a case of replacing it if you /do/ hurl
it at the ground inadvertently, which is something most people manage
not to do.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Without a really small camera, I would typically not bother taking a
camera with me, so it's not "ridiculous", it opens up photography to
people who wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

People who have such weak muscle strength from all that TV watching that
they can't pick up a camera that weighs more than 2 ounces? Maybe yours
isn't "ridiculously" small, but I've seen some that are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The designers and marketers are just giving people what they they
want.

[censored], eh!

Yeah. Manufacturers should stick to making proper cameras aimed at
professionals, to put photography out of the reach of amateurs and allow it
to regain the elite status it deserves! ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you do that with an auto only camera?

My wee Olympus isn't "auto only", so it wouldn't surprise me if some
of its peers aren't either.

I was referring specifically to the Panasonic model he was thinking of
buying.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Paul Saunders said:

People who have such weak muscle strength from all that TV watching that
they can't pick up a camera that weighs more than 2 ounces? Maybe yours
isn't "ridiculously" small, but I've seen some that are.

And you've spent how much, exactly, on lowering pack weight and bulk of
tent, sleeping bag etc...? ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

And you've spent how much, exactly, on lowering pack weight and bulk
of tent, sleeping bag etc...? ;-)

Quite a bit. All so that I can carry lots of quality camera gear with me!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Paul Saunders said:

Peter Clinch said:

And you've spent how much, exactly, on lowering pack weight and bulk
of tent, sleeping bag etc...? ;-)

Quite a bit. All so that I can carry lots of quality camera gear with me!

The flipside being take a very small camera to carry more camping gear...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders said:

People who have such weak muscle strength from all that TV watching that
they can't pick up a camera that weighs more than 2 ounces? Maybe yours
isn't "ridiculously" small, but I've seen some that are.

And you've spent how much, exactly, on lowering pack weight and bulk of
tent, sleeping bag etc...? ;-)

Pete.

It's a question of Give and take. There is no truth in the rumour that
Paul packs his 400D with Cous-Cous - to save space at least :-)

--
Bill Grey

not mine! My new digital set up with four lenses takes up a 50 litre
rucksack, well almost!
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

So what do folks drag up the hill with them, or keep in their pocket
'just in case' they run across the perfect picture?

I use a Canon Ixus 60. I like it for its compactness, simplicity of
use, capacity (with replacement 2GB SD card), battery life, quality of
build and appearance, picture quality, and 640 x 480 movies.

Specs:
http://www.cameras.co.uk/specs/canon-ixus-60.cfm
Review:
http://www.cameras.co.uk/camera-reviews/canon-ixus-60.cfm

Quoted message said:

I usually have a
camera phone with me, but the pictures from that are cr&p .. I have a
nice Olympus 2100-UZ, which takes great pictures, but needs a couple of
porters to take it on an expedition.

There must be a perfect 'in between' solution there somewhere ..
something reasonably robust in case it gets rained on, knocked .. fast
on the draw ... light ... huge zoom range .. low price .. you know ..
perfect .. ?

Obviously doesn't meet some of those, especially zoom range.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> said

[re: scattergun photography]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you do that with an auto only camera?

My wee Olympus isn't "auto only", so it wouldn't surprise me if some
of its peers aren't either.

I was referring specifically to the Panasonic model he was thinking of
buying.

Actually my comment about 'shoot a spread of exposures and focus ranges,
and sort it out later', was not about any particular model, just the way
things are headed in general. 'Film' is now free and almost unlimited
(16GB SDHC cards or whatever). Unless you shoot RAW I guess.

But even an auto camera could manage to shoot a range of EV values if it
so chooses (I think i've even seen that option on one, somewhere).

Oh, and I finally bought a Canon A720 .. time will tell whether it
survives, and whether I decide to take it everywhere or not. It is
certainly not 'shirt pocket' size, but the ones that were involved
unacceptable compromises.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
10,002 Km walked. 1,952 Km PROWs surveyed. 35.5% complete.

Peter Clinch said:

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Having spent an hour standing in Comet, Jessops, Dixons, etc, I'm coming
round to either one of the Olympus 'splashproof' Mjus (but not the 770
or 790, since I don't plan to snorkel)

While I did want something that could stand being underwater, if the sea
kayaking involves an unplanned capsize, the shock-proofing element is a
welcome thing to have too: don't know how well the "splashproof" ones
are specified in that department. OTOH, if the price difference is
significant it may well just be a case of replacing it if you /do/ hurl
it at the ground inadvertently, which is something most people manage
not to do.

It is something I've done with most of the cameras I've owned. My old
Zenit E snapped the neck strap when I jumped over a fence - five nasty
looking rams were coming after me - but it only left a dent in the
ground. My Pentax MX has a dent in the top plate and the latest camera
to ground mishap was when my Dimage A2 fell foul of a trying to do
three things at once situation whilst holding poles. Luckily it landed
on the lens hood and knocking that off acted as a crumple zone. So far
the 400D hasn't fallen from my vice like grip...
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Geal Charn above Glen Markie
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Oct07/wh11.htm

Peter Clinch said:

Paul Saunders said:

Well this is what has happened as a result of buyer's obsession with small
size and weight. It's their own fault for complaining that a tiny, light
camera like the G3 was "big and heavy". People seem to have lost touch with
how big and heavy a "proper" camera is. Miniaturisation is all well and good
up to a point, but is being taken to ridiculous extremes.

Without a really small camera, I would typically not bother taking a
camera with me, so it's not "ridiculous", it opens up photography to
people who wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

Quoted message said:

The designers and marketers are just giving people what they they want.

[censored], eh!

Quoted message said:

How do you do that with an auto only camera?

My wee Olympus isn't "auto only", so it wouldn't surprise me if some of
its peers aren't either.

Auto only can be sidesteped by using comensation which almost all auto
only cameras have. I used to keep my Canon digicam set to a default
2/3 stop underexposure to try and keep the highlights from blowing. In
extreme cases I'd increase it sometimes to the maximun two stops.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Geal Charn above Glen Markie
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Oct07/wh11.htm

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> said

[re: scattergun photography]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> How do you do that with an auto only camera?

My wee Olympus isn't "auto only", so it wouldn't surprise me if some
of its peers aren't either.

I was referring specifically to the Panasonic model he was thinking of
buying.

Actually my comment about 'shoot a spread of exposures and focus ranges,
and sort it out later', was not about any particular model, just the way
things are headed in general. 'Film' is now free and almost unlimited
(16GB SDHC cards or whatever). Unless you shoot RAW I guess.

Even then digital alows amateurs to shoot like proffessionals. Cards
are so cheap and once bought they alow you to shoot away, covering all
the options and select the best one later.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Geal Charn above Glen Markie
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Oct07/wh11.htm

Mike.. said:

not mine! My new digital set up with four lenses takes up a 50 litre
rucksack, well almost!

Yeahbut you has a 300-500mm and a Benbo tripod in there don't you? My
camera gear (400D with two lenses, tripod and panoramic head) probably
adds 20 litres and about 4kg to my pack requirements.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Geal Charn above Glen Markie
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Oct07/wh11.htm

Following up to Phil Cook said:

Quoted message said:

not mine! My new digital set up with four lenses takes up a 50 litre
rucksack, well almost!

Yeahbut you has a 300-500mm and a Benbo tripod in there don't you?

I does, what a prat I is? :-)
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email