Which Cameras

[tcwozere]

Originally Posted by codprawn

I used to be a great fan of Steve's but I think his site has lost the way a bit now - just not keeping up with newer models.

A far more professional site is this one

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/

What's more it's British.

He can be a bit slow in reviewing things.. The Digital Photography Review site is an excellent place, but as JW had linked to it second post in, I didn't bother..

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by tcwozere

He can be a bit slow in reviewing things.. The Digital Photography Review site is an excellent place, but as JW had linked to it second post in, I didn't bother..

Whoops - missed that!!!

If people are getting confused by all this then I would say obviously you will get better quality with a proper digital SLR with a bagful of lenses costing £1,000++ but do you want to go down that road? May as well buy a slide scanner and dig out the old 35mm gear - now there's a thought!!!

[Aidan]

Originally Posted by tcwozere

With regard to Ebay, if your buying new, check with the manufacturer to make sure its covered under warranty.. Canon can be funny when it comes to things they regard as "grey imports"..

Indeed they can and though I am no Legal Eagle, I do believe that stance will cost them alot of money some day and rightly so.
Thank you for info on Products in USA by the way.

I still believe they have the best products which is one of the few reasons that I deal with them. Though we do not sell Cameras as they all come through the United Drug Company as in "Pemberton" which sems to have the agency for all makes nearly. So for my twopence worth, I would buy the Canon but from the lower price supplier.

[jwalker]

Originally Posted by codprawn

...I would say obviously you will get better quality with a proper digital SLR with a bagful of lenses costing ...

I disagree with that. The notion that simply because the camera is of the SLR type the image will be better is wrong but a SLR is certainly more versatile.

A SLR, by it's nature of operation, produces its own camera shake right at the time of exposure. The mirror is released, the mirror lands, the first shutter is released, the shutter lands, exposure is taking place, the second shutter is released, the second shutter lands. The whole fekkin thing is shakin'. If one wants the best quality, it is common practice, when using a SLR on a tripod, to tie a big rock to the rig to prevent shake. For the pedantic, I do realise that the second shuttler may well be released before the first one has landed.

None SLR cameras mosly use a leaf shutter where the forces are balanced. My Sony actually has a facility to use a simulated shutter sound because it is often impossible the hear the shutter.

Also, many SLR's, even the renowned makes, have lenses of poor optical quality in there range and the buyer needs to be aware of this. As a rough guide, if the difference in cost between the body alone and the body + lens is not great, then the lens is likely to be a dog. Although I own one, I recognise that Canon are as guilty of this as any other manufacturer.

Something I feel strongly about is how digital cameras and their lenses render colours. It usually isn't considered by the camara specification freaks but there can be substantial differences across makes and across lenses of the same make and it can be the making, or not, of a picture. I suppose for those inclined, an hour or three could be spent putting it right afterwards in Paintshop or Photoshop but that's not for me.

[Brambles]

Originally Posted by jwalker

I disagree with that. The notion that simply because the camera is of the SLR type the image will be better is wrong but a SLR is certainly more versatile.

A SLR, by it's nature of operation, produces its own camera shake right at the time of exposure. The mirror is released, the mirror lands, the first shutter is released, the shutter lands, exposure is taking place, the second shutter is released, the second shutter lands. The whole fekkin thing is shakin'. If one wants the best quality, it is common practice, when using a SLR on a tripod, to tie a big rock to the rig to prevent shake. For the pedantic, I do realise that the second shuttler may well be released before the first one has landed.

None SLR cameras mosly use a leaf shutter where the forces are balanced. My Sony actually has a facility to use a simulated shutter sound because it is often impossible the hear the shutter.

Also, many SLR's, even the renowned makes, have lenses of poor optical quality in there range and the buyer needs to be aware of this. As a rough guide, if the difference in cost between the body alone and the body + lens is not great, then the lens is likely to be a dog. Although I own one, I recognise that Canon are as guilty of this as any other manufacturer.

Something I feel strongly about is how digital cameras and their lenses render colours. It usually isn't considered by the camara specification freaks but there can be substantial differences across makes and across lenses of the same make and it can be the making, or not, of a picture. I suppose for those inclined, an hour or three could be spent putting it right afterwards in Paintshop or Photoshop but that's not for me.

Agree with all of this however...


Camera shake can be eliminated by selecting an appropriate shutter speed. I have been taking action photos for many years and have never had a problem with camera shake.

Some "kit" lenses may be poor quality, but I can only speak as I find: My Nikon D70 kit lens (17mm - 70mm) is very sharp and produces results as good as my old manual focus Nikkors from my film cameras. I have purchased a second hand autofocus Nokikor 70mm - 210mm for £70 on Ebay and this is aslo a cracker.

Colour rendition is a very imprtant aspect of digital photography. As a rule Nikon seem to produce a more film like image, where Canon produce more of a smooth "processed" image. Go for what ever pleases you I guess.


Going back to the original question, Roy wants to take some action photographs. The main criticism of the non slr digital cameras is the time delay between releasing the shutter and the image being recorded. This can result in many lost photos and is an important consideration. In my view, bearing in mind Roys requirements, an slr is the way to go.

Cheers

Ian

[jwalker]

Originally Posted by Brambles

Camera shake can be eliminated by selecting an appropriate shutter speed.

Well maybe it can't because there will be situations where a high shutter speed is not achievable.

Some "kit" lenses may be poor quality, but I can only speak as I find: My Nikon D70 kit lens (17mm - 70mm) is very sharp and produces results as good as my old manual focus Nikkors from my film cameras.

Yep, I agree. My modern lenses leave my old Olympus ones far behind.

Colour rendition is a very imprtant aspect of digital photography. As a rule Nikon seem to produce a more film like image, where Canon produce more of a smooth "processed" image. Go for what ever pleases you I guess.

If only it were so simple, Brambles.

Here is two shots taken with the same camera on the same day at the same place but using different lenses.

[fred bolton]

Originally Posted by Brambles

Agree with all of this however...



Going back to the original question, Roy wants to take some action photographs. The main criticism of the non slr digital cameras is the time delay between releasing the shutter and the image being recorded. This can result in many lost photos and is an important consideration. In my view, bearing in mind Roys requirements, an slr is the way to go.

Cheers

Ian

I have a Pentax Optio 550 which is painfully slow and I suspect getting slower. I really fancy a Canon EOS 30D but I am finding it hard to justify the cost ( I already have a Canon SLr film camera and lenses) I believe this takes shots at about 5 frames per second. But to get to the point, why should an SLR digital have a faster shutter speed than a quality (panasonic FZ50) compact? what governs the speed on a digital? Software?

[fred bolton]

Originally Posted by jwalker

Here is two shots taken with the same camera on the same day at the same place but using different lenses.

Yeah but the light is different isn't this the key to everything photographic

[Aidan]

[QUOTE=jwalker;182027] I disagree with that. The notion that simply because the camera is of the SLR type the image will be better is wrong but a SLR is certainly more versatile.

Also, many SLR's, even the renowned makes, have lenses of poor optical quality in there range and the buyer needs to be aware of this. As a rough guide, if the difference in cost between the body alone and the body + lens is not great, then the lens is likely to be a dog. Although I own one, I recognise that Canon are as guilty of this as any other manufacturer.

Hi jwalker, I just twigged the j walker, is the first name "johnny" by any chance...
Meanwhile, I would agree alot with what you say but when it comes to Lens However you cannot knock Canon. Just take a look at all the professional Photographers at any event. They also provide on site service in the Canon Bus/Coach for these cameras, free of charge at these events such as "Roland Garros, Golf etc"
Canon are possibly the proudest of their camera heritage and in inventing the SLR too. The Canon Lens is beyond question as the finest Quality. There are other issus I could suggest such as Marketing etc, but not in fact never their quality of manufacture (with one or two oviousl exceptions of joint ventures with Olivetti Photocopiers which they have stopped thank God).

[slimtim]

Nikon D50 or D40 with maybe a 18-70 ED lens. The lens is a cracker for the money if you get a good example...there are some not-so-good ones out there but there is no way to tell. You won't have that much top end zoom (105mm equivalent) but its good allround budget lens. If you want more zoom, but only want one lens you're going to lose quality as generally the more zoom range you have, the higher the compromise. The 18-200 VR lens is supposed to be good and covers just about all zoom you would need but its £450 and rare as rocking horse sh*t. You still might just be able to get that lens and a D50 body for your budget. The lens has Vibration Reduction too which would be useful in a RIB

[jwalker]

Originally Posted by Aidan

Hi jwalker, I just twigged the j walker, is the first name "johnny" by any chance...

Nope...

[Brambles]

Originally Posted by jwalker

Well maybe it can't because there will be situations where a high shutter speed is not achievable.
Yep, I agree. My modern lenses leave my old Olympus ones far behind.
If only it were so simple, Brambles.

Here is two shots taken with the same camera on the same day at the same place but using different lenses.

Well the beuty of an slr (& some advanced compacts) is that you can adjust the ISO rating and lens aperture to obtain the desired shutter speed. Picture quality is obviously affected but it does mean that you can get the shot. A bit of basic photographic knowledge and some experience will see you right. During many years as a motorcycle racing freelance I never came accross a situation where i could not use the shutter speed that was required.

With regard to the two photographs posted I can't comment without more information regarding camera, settings, lenses used and any time delay between taking the images. Doesn't look good though!

[Brambles]

Originally Posted by fred bolton

I have a Pentax Optio 550 which is painfully slow and I suspect getting slower. I really fancy a Canon EOS 30D but I am finding it hard to justify the cost ( I already have a Canon SLr film camera and lenses) I believe this takes shots at about 5 frames per second. But to get to the point, why should an SLR digital have a faster shutter speed than a quality (panasonic FZ50) compact? what governs the speed on a digital? Software?

Fred,

There are two things to bear in mind: Shutter delay ie the delay between when you press the button and when the image is recorded. This can be painfully slow on some compacts.

Secondly the time it takes to write the images to the memory card. Some compacts offer a buffer of for example 5 frames per second for a second, but then take a minute or so to write those images from the buffer to the card. During this time your camera is will not work.

I guess that this is down to product placement in the market place. If you pay £4,000 for a professional slr you will expect it to shoot continously at 8 frames per second and write the images in real time. At the other end of the food chain if pay £300 for a compact you can't expect the same performance.

Cheers

Ian

[Aidan]

Originally Posted by jwalker

Nope...

I thought you may have adopted the name from the Whiskey.

It is a Scottish Whiskey, isnt it?

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Aidan

I thought you may have adopted the name from the Whiskey.

It is a Scottish Whiskey, isnt it?

There is no such thing as Scottish WhiskEy.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Brambles

Fred,

There are two things to bear in mind: Shutter delay ie the delay between when you press the button and when the image is recorded. This can be painfully slow on some compacts.

Secondly the time it takes to write the images to the memory card. Some compacts offer a buffer of for example 5 frames per second for a second, but then take a minute or so to write those images from the buffer to the card. During this time your camera is will not work.

And don't forget the time it takes from turning it on until its ready for the first shot. This can be painfully slow sometimes - and might mean you miss an important shot.

[Aidan]

Originally Posted by Polwart

There is no such thing as Scottish WhiskEy.

So is it Scottish Whisky then?

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Aidan

So is it Scottish Whisky then?

Johnnie Walker is indeed a selection of Scottish Blended Whiskies.

[BogMonster]

Originally Posted by Polwart

And don't forget the time it takes from turning it on until its ready for the first shot. This can be painfully slow sometimes - and might mean you miss an important shot.

One of the things I like about my Fuji is because the lense is not electrically retracting the startup time is something like 0.8 seconds unlike my original Olympus superzoom which was about 5 or 6 seconds! Also for the same reason the battery life seems excellent in fact I have never flattened a set yet I just put them on charge because "they must be nearly flat by now"!

[Tony]

I bought a canon 5d with a selection of pro lens last year and the quality is truly amazing. Its a full frame dslr camera so what you see is what you get..
I find for every day usage its a bit cumbersome so i bought a canon powershot s3is and its really excellent.
http://www.purelygadgets.co.uk/prodi...islist=5~16~90