[OT] (?) Camera for walking ..

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message 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 don't have a "just in case" camera, but I need one. 10MP RAW pics are a
bit over the top for casual snaps.

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 .. ?

No such thing. Let's see...

Robust
Fast on the draw
Light
Huge zoom range
Low price

You can have some of the above, but not all. Any camera will be a
compromise, the question is this, what are you prepared to compromise on?

If it's robust, it won't be light. If it's fast, it won't be cheap. If it's
light, it won't have a huge zoom range. If it has a huge zoom, it won't be
small or cheap. If it's cheap, it'll be [censored]... ;-)

Why not rate each of the above from one to five, depending on how important
they are to you. For example, my priorities are probably something like
this:

Robust 3
Fast on the draw 4
Light 3
Huge zoom range 5
Low price 2

Which is why I carry a DSLR with a range of lenses. Not the heaviest or most
robust, but I'm prepared to carry more than most.

If I wanted a pocket camera for snaps and opportunity shots, I'd rate them
thus:

Robust 1
Fast on the draw 3
Light 5
Huge zoom range 3
Low price 3

Then it's just a matter of finding a model that fits your priorities.

I still think that the Canon S70 is an excellent choice. Very small and
light (literally fits in a pocket), RAW mode, 7MP, reasonable quality lens
(if you stop it down) and a 28-100mm zoom (not very long but wider than most
compacts, essential for landscapes).

It's not made any more, but you can pick them up second hand quite cheaply.

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

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 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 .. ?

I'd agree with most of what Paul said and add (when I had to buy a new
camera)

Must be usable with gloves.

And can take standard off the shelf batteries.

Oh and has a proper viewfinder.

I've got a canon a530 that goes on all my walks. Its light and the
photos seem fine but it chews up batteries if you use the lcd screen.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 .. ?

No such thing. Let's see...

Yes, I know I was kidding ..

Quoted message said:

Robust
Fast on the draw
Light
Huge zoom range
Low price

You can have some of the above, but not all. Any camera will be a
compromise, the question is this, what are you prepared to compromise on?

Price not a big problem actually. Nor even weight is it's < about 8-9oz,
and fits in a pocket (I have BIG pockets .. I mean I've already got a
60CSX in one pocket).

Quoted message said:

Which is why I carry a DSLR with a range of lenses. Not the heaviest or most
robust, but I'm prepared to carry more than most.

Nope, that's too big and heavy for me ... unless I'm on a mission to
photograph something specifically..

Quoted message said:

If I wanted a pocket camera for snaps and opportunity shots, I'd rate them
thus:

Robust 1
Fast on the draw 3
Light 5
Huge zoom range 3
Low price 3

Don't really need RAW or TIFF, if the .JPG output is reasonable (yeah I
know, heresy, so sue me). I guess I'd want

Robust - 4
Huge zoom range - 4
Light/small .. as possible (as long as <8-9 oz, and pocket sized).

I was looking around current models and the sub-compacts still don't
seem all that attractive (Sony T100 or whatever) compared to a Ixus type
Canon, or maybe a Panasonic TZ3 (really really like to have that 10x
zoom, if I'm down at 6-7 Mpixels).

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

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.. perfect .. ?

No such thing. Let's see...

Yes, I know I was kidding ..

I know.

Quoted message said:

Price not a big problem actually. Nor even weight is it's < about
8-9oz, and fits in a pocket (I have BIG pockets .. I mean I've
already got a 60CSX in one pocket).

I wouldn't call that particularly big! I'd have thought that any compact
with a super zoom wouldn't fit in a pocket. Not all "compacts" are that
compact!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which is why I carry a DSLR with a range of lenses. Not the heaviest
or most robust, but I'm prepared to carry more than most.

Nope, that's too big and heavy for me ... unless I'm on a mission to
photograph something specifically..

I'm always on a mission to photograph something specifically, even when I'm
not! :-)

Actually that's not really true, or it shouldn't be. There are occasions
when I really don't need a DSLR, for example on a rain walk, or when cycling
on the prom.

Quoted message said:

Don't really need RAW or TIFF, if the .JPG output is reasonable (yeah
I know, heresy, so sue me).

Depends what you want to do with your images. If you're not a pro then I
can't really complain (even though I could give you lots of reasons why it's
still a good idea). If you're not into post-processing and you're prepared
to accept the consequencies of getting the exposure wrong, then I suppose
it's okay.

It is essential for me though, which rather limits my choices.

Quoted message said:

I guess I'd want

Robust - 4

I guess you mean robust as in waterproof? (as opposed to "built like a brick
[censored]"😉 Few digital cameras are. You'd need to look for one specifically
labelled as weatherproof or waterproof if that's really important to you.
You might get away with whipping it out occasionally for a quick snap while
it's raining, but most probably won't stand up to any kind of prolonged use
in rain. In fact, they may just stop working due to humidity. Some kind of
rain pouch would be a good idea, I believe they make them for compacts. One
reason why I like the S70 is that there's an underwater case specifically
designed for it.

Quoted message said:

Huge zoom range - 4
Light/small .. as possible (as long as <8-9 oz, and pocket sized).

Previously I would have said that the above was impossible, but it seems
that things have moved on in recent times. I'd also have said that a huge
zoom range was incompatible with a wide angle at the short end, but it seems
I'm wrong there too...

Quoted message said:

I was looking around current models and the sub-compacts still don't
seem all that attractive (Sony T100 or whatever) compared to a Ixus
type Canon, or maybe a Panasonic TZ3 (really really like to have that
10x zoom, if I'm down at 6-7 Mpixels).

I had a quick look at a review of the TZ3. Doesn't look too shabby actually,
sample pics aren't bad for a compact. Pity it doesn't do RAW though.
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_panasonic_lumix_dmc_tz3.php

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

Mike said:

I'd agree with most of what Paul said and add (when I had to buy a new
camera)

Must be usable with gloves.

Yes, that's quite an important consideration when it's cold.

Quoted message said:

And can take standard off the shelf batteries.

Now I must disagree with that. I was always wary of proprietary batteries
until I tried them. The battery life is fantastic.

Quoted message said:

Oh and has a proper viewfinder.

I'd disagree with that too. One of the problems with compacts has always
been that "what you see is not what you get", due to parallax problems with
the viewfinder not being lined up perfectly with the lens. The only way to
see the actual composition you're getting is to look at the LCD. I really
enjoyed using the LCD for composition when I had my G3, and I still miss it,
even with my DSLR. The only way a proper viewfinder would be any good is
with a DSLR IMO.

Quoted message said:

I've got a canon a530 that goes on all my walks. Its light and the
photos seem fine but it chews up batteries if you use the lcd screen.

Are they off the shelf batteries? If so, then that's your problem. When I
bought my 400D I bought 4 spare di-lithium batteries to go with it. 3 of
them are still unopened! I only use 2 of them, they last forever! Even when
it looks like the battery is about to run out, it just keeps on going! I've
had many days of shooting from just one charge, and I often shoot 100 or
more per day.

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

Paul Saunders said:

Are they off the shelf batteries? If so, then that's your problem. When I
bought my 400D I bought 4 spare di-lithium batteries to go with it. 3 of

Most defintely the camera, my other powershot (which I dropped) ran for
ages on a set of AA's

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 .. ?

No such thing. Let's see...

Yes, I know I was kidding ..

Quoted message said:

Robust
Fast on the draw
Light
Huge zoom range
Low price

You can have some of the above, but not all. Any camera will be a
compromise, the question is this, what are you prepared to compromise on?

Price not a big problem actually. Nor even weight is it's < about 8-9oz,
and fits in a pocket (I have BIG pockets .. I mean I've already got a
60CSX in one pocket).

Quoted message said:

Which is why I carry a DSLR with a range of lenses. Not the heaviest
or most
robust, but I'm prepared to carry more than most.

Channel 5's Gadget Show did a test on robust compact cameras last
Saturday. Might be worth looking on their website? It seemed like a
pretty thorough testing regime was used.

Quoted message said:

I was looking around current models and the sub-compacts still don't seem
all that attractive (Sony T100 or whatever) compared to a Ixus type Canon,
or maybe a Panasonic TZ3 (really really like to have that 10x zoom, if I'm
down at 6-7 Mpixels).

I have just seen the light...bought a Panasonic TZ3, ( now available for
£175 from 7day shop)

Just back from Italy, and the thought of taling my D70 in my Computrekker
back pack was going to be too much weight with my knacked knees. I have a
12-24mm Sigma zoom which is perfect for landscape and interiors, but is very
heavy.

the results have been stunning. You get a 28-280mm zoom AND image
stabilisation and auto ISO if you want it, fast autofocus and a 3" LCD.
I have shots in churches handheld at 1/15th that are pin sharp and looking
good on A4.
It is very light and sits in a belt bag, easy access.

Downside
No RAW
No EVF...but I soon got used to using the LCD, in bright sunlight, you have
to guess sometimes, but I just went wide and cropped later.

JT

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 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 .. ?

Canon A-series: cheap, pocketable but large enough for my big hands,
viewfinder (not a brilliant one, but so many don't have anything which makes
them impossible in bright light !), manual overrides, AA batteries (so same
spares/charger as the GPS!), takes decent shots for a digital.

Mine (A710i) has a 7x optical zoom and image stabilisation. Cost about £140
with various special offers.

Only downside is that they are not waterproof (so keep it in a poly bag in
the rain!), unlike a few other makers offerings.

- Nigel

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

Paul Saunders said:

Mike said:

I'd agree with most of what Paul said and add (when I had to buy a
new camera)

Must be usable with gloves.

Yes, that's quite an important consideration when it's cold.

Quoted message said:

And can take standard off the shelf batteries.

Now I must disagree with that. I was always wary of proprietary
batteries until I tried them. The battery life is fantastic.

Quoted message said:

Oh and has a proper viewfinder.

I'd disagree with that too. One of the problems with compacts has
always been that "what you see is not what you get", due to parallax
problems with the viewfinder not being lined up perfectly with the
lens. The only way to see the actual composition you're getting is to
look at the LCD.

Not a practical proposition in bright sunshine, when any LCD I've ever seen
is impossible to see. Unless you've carried some sort of hood/tripod
arrangement like a Victorian plate camera.

A crummy viewfinder is an essential in some quite common light conditions.
Though I would prefer a nice bright one, like my Hexar film camera, crummy
viewfinders make the camera usable.

One needs to be aware that the viewfinder is not optically aligned, but for
most people this is not a problem. I even think the Canon arrangement of
making the viewfinder "under area" a good one; the actual exposure can then
be cropped later.

- Nigel

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

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

Thanks, that's one review I hadn't found yet.

Quoted message said:

I had a quick look at a review of the TZ3. Doesn't look too shabby actually,
sample pics aren't bad for a compact. Pity it doesn't do RAW though.
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_panasonic_lumix_dmc_tz3.php

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

Nigel Cliffe said:

Paul Saunders said:

Mike wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd agree with most of what Paul said and add (when I had to buy a
new camera)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Must be usable with gloves.

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's quite an important consideration when it's cold.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And can take standard off the shelf batteries.

Quoted message said:

Now I must disagree with that. I was always wary of proprietary
batteries until I tried them. The battery life is fantastic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh and has a proper viewfinder.

Quoted message said:

I'd disagree with that too. One of the problems with compacts has
always been that "what you see is not what you get", due to parallax
problems with the viewfinder not being lined up perfectly with the
lens. The only way to see the actual composition you're getting is to
look at the LCD.

Not a practical proposition in bright sunshine, when any LCD I've ever seen
is impossible to see. Unless you've carried some sort of hood/tripod
arrangement like a Victorian plate camera.

A crummy viewfinder is an essential in some quite common light conditions.
Though I would prefer a nice bright one, like my Hexar film camera, crummy
viewfinders make the camera usable.

One needs to be aware that the viewfinder is not optically aligned, but for
most people this is not a problem. I even think the Canon arrangement of
making the viewfinder "under area" a good one; the actual exposure can then
be cropped later.

- Nigel

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

I really do have to agree about the viewfinder for mountain
photography. Nigel says it all - who's worried about optical
alignment and anyway the "under area" allows for later adjustment .
The real down-sider I find with the screens, apart from wash-out, is
that I consistently misalign the photo with the horizon - there are
just too many that a couple of degrees off and that never happens with
a view finder shot.

Rob

Rob G said:

I really do have to agree about the viewfinder for mountain
photography. Nigel says it all - who's worried about optical
alignment and anyway the "under area" allows for later adjustment .
The real down-sider I find with the screens, apart from wash-out, is
that I consistently misalign the photo with the horizon - there are
just too many that a couple of degrees off and that never happens with
a view finder shot.

Is the slope consistently to one side ? If so, I wonder if you are pushing
the camera down at the point of pressing the shutter ?

I often use the 2-sec timer release on the Canon A-series, even hand-held.
I find I can hold it steadier that way.

Back on the optical vs. LCD viewfinder. I like the LCD, its nice when I can
see it, but wouldn't do without the viewfinder. Those models which lack one
were crossed off my shortlist when buying. Experience with friends on ski
trips showed how bad LCD-only cameras were at taking pictures.

- Nigel

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

Nigel Cliffe said:

Back on the optical vs. LCD viewfinder. I like the LCD, its nice when I can
see it, but wouldn't do without the viewfinder. Those models which lack one
were crossed off my shortlist when buying. Experience with friends on ski
trips showed how bad LCD-only cameras were at taking pictures.

My pocket camera lacks a viewfinder, and while in terms of optimising a
picture I'm taking may well benefit from one (especially in sunshine),
in the broader view the chance of me taking a picture in the first place
with a more compact and lighter camera /is/ greater, so there is an
upside. This also goes for batteries, with rechargeable flat ones maybe
not being something you can find in any newsagents, but they do keep
down weight and bulk.
It depends what you're after though: if you want a Serious Camera to go
and take pictures with then a more serious piece of kit is warranted
than if (like me) you occasionally stumble across a good picture and
fancy a quick crack at it without carting much around.

Looking at the OP's post I'd say he's tending more towards my sort of
camera than Paul's ;-) I have an Olympus Mju 725 SW (since superseded
by the more deeply waterproof 770 SW), though it will only do a 3x zoom.
Completely waterproof (I tested that with some underwater video) and
"shockproof to 1.5m" (which I have not tested, and have no particular
intention of doing so, but it's nice to know it's got a good chance if
dropped) and, critically for me, very light and compact (usually lives
on the chest strap of my pack while I'm walking, where it doesn't make
its presence felt at all.

The results have been at least as good as the 35mm compact Olympus XA1
and XA3 I used to use. Some examples on the pages in the sequence
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/hmn1.htm, but bear in mind
these are a fraction of the original quality as they start at 7 MPix,
and I'm an indifferent photographer at best.

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/

Nigel Cliffe said:

Back on the optical vs. LCD viewfinder. I like the LCD, its nice when I can
see it, but wouldn't do without the viewfinder. Those models which lack one
were crossed off my shortlist when buying. Experience with friends on ski
trips showed how bad LCD-only cameras were at taking pictures.

My pocket camera lacks a viewfinder, and while in terms of optimising a
picture I'm taking may well benefit from one (especially in sunshine),
in the broader view the chance of me taking a picture in the first place
with a more compact and lighter camera /is/ greater, so there is an
upside. This also goes for batteries, with rechargeable flat ones maybe
not being something you can find in any newsagents, but they do keep
down weight and bulk.
It depends what you're after though: if you want a Serious Camera to go
and take pictures with then a more serious piece of kit is warranted
than if (like me) you occasionally stumble across a good picture and
fancy a quick crack at it without carting much around.

Looking at the OP's post I'd say he's tending more towards my sort of
camera than Paul's ;-) I have an Olympus Mju 725 SW (since superseded
by the more deeply waterproof 770 SW), though it will only do a 3x zoom.
Completely waterproof (I tested that with some underwater video) and
"shockproof to 1.5m" (which I have not tested, and have no particular
intention of doing so, but it's nice to know it's got a good chance if
dropped) and, critically for me, very light and compact (usually lives
on the chest strap of my pack while I'm walking, where it doesn't make
its presence felt at all.

The results have been at least as good as the 35mm compact Olympus XA1
and XA3 I used to use. Some examples on the pages in the sequence
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/hmn1.htm, but bear in mind
these are a fraction of the original quality as they start at 7 MPix,
and I'm an indifferent photographer at best.

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/

The message <[email hidden]>
from Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Looking at the OP's post I'd say he's tending more towards my sort of
camera than Paul's ;-) I have an Olympus Mju 725 SW (since superseded
by the more deeply waterproof 770 SW), though it will only do a 3x zoom.
Completely waterproof (I tested that with some underwater video) and
"shockproof to 1.5m" (which I have not tested, and have no particular
intention of doing so, but it's nice to know it's got a good chance if
dropped) and, critically for me, very light and compact (usually lives
on the chest strap of my pack while I'm walking, where it doesn't make
its presence felt at all.

I happened to watch the Gadget Show for the first time last week and
they gave a couple of compact cameras some really cruel treatment which
both survived. I was sufficiently interested to make a note and they
were the Olympus MJU 770 SW and the Pentax Optio W30. They quoted the
best price for the Olympus @ £165 and the Pentax @ £143 but the best
price I could find on the net for the Olympus was £208 and Jessops was
asking over £300 so I quickly lost interest. I didn't follow up the
Pentax.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Nigel Cliffe said:

Quoted message said:

I'd disagree with that too. One of the problems with compacts has
always been that "what you see is not what you get", due to parallax
problems with the viewfinder not being lined up perfectly with the
lens. The only way to see the actual composition you're getting is to
look at the LCD.

Not a practical proposition in bright sunshine, when any LCD I've
ever seen is impossible to see.

That's a slight exaggeration. I used a G3 for over a year, often in bright
sunshine, and I NEVER used the optical viewfinder. Sure, there were a few
times when it was a bit hard to see, but it was never "impossible". All you
have to do is shade the viewfinder from the sun.

Quoted message said:

Unless you've carried some sort of
hood/tripod arrangement like a Victorian plate camera.

Or put your hand over it to cast a shadow onto the LCD.

Quoted message said:

A crummy viewfinder is an essential in some quite common light
conditions.

Not in my experience. I guess LCDs vary in quality though.

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

Rob G said:

I really do have to agree about the viewfinder for mountain
photography. Nigel says it all - who's worried about optical
alignment

Me!

Quoted message said:

and anyway the "under area" allows for later adjustment .

i.e. cropping, which wastes pixels. Call me fussy, but I like to maximise
the available sensor resolution with precise in-camera cropping.

Quoted message said:

The real down-sider I find with the screens, apart from wash-out, is
that I consistently misalign the photo with the horizon - there are
just too many that a couple of degrees off and that never happens with
a view finder shot.

Actually, I find exactly the opposite problem. I've determined that when I
shoot through the viewfinder (which is almost all the time of course, with
film and digital SLRs) I have a natural tendency to tilt it in one
direction. The only way I can stop myself doing this is if I can see a level
horizon, such as with coastal shots, so I'm very careful to line it up with
that. But when there is no reference point I consistently tilt the camera
slightly. I don't even realise I'm doing it, even though I *know* I do it.

Fortunately the effect is not noticeable on most photographs, since there's
usually no reference point, but when there is, I often have to correct this
later.

Of course, the best solution is to use a spirit level, I have a hotshoe
spirit level which I always use with tripod photography (impossible if I'm
looking through the viewfinder of course).

I can't say I ever noticed myself tilting the camera when I used an LCD
though.

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

Nigel Cliffe 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.

My experience is that my compositions were much more accurate with an LCD,
due to seeing exactly what the lens/sensor was seeing. Even with an
SLR/DSLR, the viewfinder doesn't show the full image (it's usually around
95%, and may be misaligned), so you always get a little bit extra (which
annoys me, because I hate having to trim photos, I like to get it right
in-camera).

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