What camera for me?
Discussion
Hi all.
I dont really have much of a clue regarding what to look for in camera specs/ capabilities so thought I would seek the help of the snappers here.
I have been borrowing a Canon G5 upto now, it does produce the occasional great pic but its nowt special. The main problem I have with it is that I'm often trying to take pics in woodland areas while out with the dog and there is rarely enough light, for example this is the fastest shutter speed I can use without the pic being really dark and this was taken on a sunny day with the dog moving at half speed lol.
I would ideally like something that can take fairly nice photos in this environment, and I'm heading off to Iceland in a few weeks which is probably going to be perma dim and would like some nice pics there.
I would prefer something not too big or complicated and dont want to have to buy multiple lenses.
The Sony Rx100 looks good and is a nice size but it is at the top end of my budget and I'm worried it might not be capable enough.
I have been told a bridge camera would be OK but I have no idea which one to go for.
Think a DSLR will be OTT and too expensive.
So really my priorities are
Pic quality and low light useability - ability to have a certain amount of manual control but an auto mode would be good so the OH can use it too
Size - as small as possible to achieve desired results, no point getting a small compact if it cant take the right pics
price - Deffo no more than £400 but preferably £200-300
Good video capability would be nice as it saves carrying the video cam around too
Range of ability- would be nice to be able to do reasonable macro shots as well as having a reasonable zoom on it.
Thanks for any help
I dont really have much of a clue regarding what to look for in camera specs/ capabilities so thought I would seek the help of the snappers here.
I have been borrowing a Canon G5 upto now, it does produce the occasional great pic but its nowt special. The main problem I have with it is that I'm often trying to take pics in woodland areas while out with the dog and there is rarely enough light, for example this is the fastest shutter speed I can use without the pic being really dark and this was taken on a sunny day with the dog moving at half speed lol.
I would ideally like something that can take fairly nice photos in this environment, and I'm heading off to Iceland in a few weeks which is probably going to be perma dim and would like some nice pics there.
I would prefer something not too big or complicated and dont want to have to buy multiple lenses.
The Sony Rx100 looks good and is a nice size but it is at the top end of my budget and I'm worried it might not be capable enough.
I have been told a bridge camera would be OK but I have no idea which one to go for.
Think a DSLR will be OTT and too expensive.
So really my priorities are
Pic quality and low light useability - ability to have a certain amount of manual control but an auto mode would be good so the OH can use it too
Size - as small as possible to achieve desired results, no point getting a small compact if it cant take the right pics
price - Deffo no more than £400 but preferably £200-300
Good video capability would be nice as it saves carrying the video cam around too
Range of ability- would be nice to be able to do reasonable macro shots as well as having a reasonable zoom on it.
Thanks for any help
Head-on dog is a tough shot even with a DSLR.
You have two problems, (1) adequate shutter speed and (2) focus accuracy.
For (1) go to aperture priority, if you have it, and open it up as much as possible (small f-number). Then increase ISO - but no more than necessary. These combined will give you the fastest possible shutter speed given your camera/lens combo.
In dark woods then some flash could help to freeze the action, but that's another department.
For (2), without a DSLR you have no chance of finding or tracking focus before the dog has moved too far towards you. The way to deal with this is to pre-focus, eg in this case on the log, then call the dog. The easiest way to prefocus is to find focus using autofocus and semi-depress the shutter release, which should/usually fix it ready for the shot.
You have two problems, (1) adequate shutter speed and (2) focus accuracy.
For (1) go to aperture priority, if you have it, and open it up as much as possible (small f-number). Then increase ISO - but no more than necessary. These combined will give you the fastest possible shutter speed given your camera/lens combo.
In dark woods then some flash could help to freeze the action, but that's another department.
For (2), without a DSLR you have no chance of finding or tracking focus before the dog has moved too far towards you. The way to deal with this is to pre-focus, eg in this case on the log, then call the dog. The easiest way to prefocus is to find focus using autofocus and semi-depress the shutter release, which should/usually fix it ready for the shot.
I don't know the camera, but you might want to Google or search the manual for zone focussing.
You could simply measure the light first and then set the set the iso, aperture, shutter speed and 'zone focus' correctly and anytime your dog is in the focus zone you only have to fire away like a paparazzi.
You could simply measure the light first and then set the set the iso, aperture, shutter speed and 'zone focus' correctly and anytime your dog is in the focus zone you only have to fire away like a paparazzi.
Maybe I wasn't expressing myself correctly, but I have no problems shooting running dogs with manual focus. What I do is I read from the lens which distances are in focus at which apertures. I then try to predict where the dogs wil run.
I have a photo below as an example of my own dogs. Could easily have had the other dog in focus if I wanted to.
Anyways, just make sure you buy a compact that has manual controls including manual focus.
You can for instance up the iso so you can set the shutter to 1/250 or higher and with an aperture that gives you a few good meters of what will be in focus. Then let your dog play around and when it's entering your focus zone, fire once or twice. You don't need a camera with a 1,0000 shots per second. You only need one with a decent shutter speed.
It's always hard to explain stuff in other languages than Dutch, but I hope you get the idea.
I have a photo below as an example of my own dogs. Could easily have had the other dog in focus if I wanted to.
Anyways, just make sure you buy a compact that has manual controls including manual focus.
You can for instance up the iso so you can set the shutter to 1/250 or higher and with an aperture that gives you a few good meters of what will be in focus. Then let your dog play around and when it's entering your focus zone, fire once or twice. You don't need a camera with a 1,0000 shots per second. You only need one with a decent shutter speed.
It's always hard to explain stuff in other languages than Dutch, but I hope you get the idea.
Edited by allen l on Monday 28th October 23:34
Janesy B said:
Any reason why the camera was at ISO 200, upping that would give you a faster shutter speed. As with anything moving, if you don't move/pan with the subject it will look blurry up to a point anyway.
This is the problem, not the camera. 1/125 is not fast enough for moving subjects (as we can see) but even going from ISO 200 to 800 will reduce that to 1/500 which should be enough to freeze most things. The only downside would be slightly more grainy photos when viewing them zoomed right in.Mr Will said:
This is the problem, not the camera. 1/125 is not fast enough for moving subjects (as we can see) but even going from ISO 200 to 800 will reduce that to 1/500 which should be enough to freeze most things. The only downside would be slightly more grainy photos when viewing them zoomed right in.
This. Even 1/500th can be a bit slow. I try for as fast as I can given the light. (Which means bumping up the ISO). Lighting was pretty dull in this pic:
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 29th October 09:36
RB Will said:
So current opinion is keep the camera and go on a photography course lol.
The reason for the setting being as they are in the pic was that the camera has different modes where you can vary different things, in my case the shutter speed and it sorts everything else out for you.
You should be able to force the camera into a higher ISO - then the shutter speed will be faster for the same amount of light.The reason for the setting being as they are in the pic was that the camera has different modes where you can vary different things, in my case the shutter speed and it sorts everything else out for you.
allen l said:
Anyways, just make sure you buy a compact that has manual controls including manual focus.
You can for instance up the iso so you can set the shutter to 1/250 or higher and with an aperture that gives you a few good meters of what will be in focus. Then let your dog play around and when it's entering your focus zone, fire once or twice. You don't need a camera with a 1,0000 shots per second. You only need one with a decent shutter speed.
It's always hard to explain stuff in other languages than Dutch, but I hope you get the idea.
But I think the main issue with compacts are shutter lag? For this reason, and also the need for smaller DoF (for better separation of the subject from the background), I would say DSLR is still the best option for this particular type of shots. You can for instance up the iso so you can set the shutter to 1/250 or higher and with an aperture that gives you a few good meters of what will be in focus. Then let your dog play around and when it's entering your focus zone, fire once or twice. You don't need a camera with a 1,0000 shots per second. You only need one with a decent shutter speed.
It's always hard to explain stuff in other languages than Dutch, but I hope you get the idea.
Edited by allen l on Monday 28th October 23:34
Gemm said:
But I think the main issue with compacts are shutter lag? For this reason, and also the need for smaller DoF (for better separation of the subject from the background), I would say DSLR is still the best option for this particular type of shots.
Wouldn't disagree with that. My D3 does 11 frames a second and has no real noise at 4000 ISO - but it costs a fortune and weighs a ton 
RB Will said:
So presuming I learnt to use a camera properly. Would I get better photos from something like the Sony RX100 or a bridge camera? Would they be much better than the G5?
An RX100 will be better than the G5 (as will an S120, LX7, XF-1, etc on a slightly lower budget). A bridge camera would be worse. With a couple of exceptions a bridge camera will give you the bulk of an SLR with lower image quality than an equivalent compact.The other option would be a CSC (Sony NEX, Olympus PEN or similar). These are half way between a compact and a DSLR and could be a good option, even if you never change the lens.
GetCarter said:
This. Even 1/500th can be a bit slow. I try for as fast as I can given the light. (Which means bumping up the ISO). Lighting was pretty dull in this pic:
What an awesome pic Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 29th October 09:36
- absolutely love it - looks like he's a WW1 flying ace running to his plane being scrambled for combat To the OP - Go for the RX100 if your budget will stretch to it. It focuses much quicker than any CSC I've used and blows away my previous Canon S110 for IQ and low light performance. I often get "better" pics than I do with my FF DSLR, because a) it's always with me, b) the in-built flash lets me "fill" in low light.
There are loads of enthusiast compacts that have bright lenses that would help you increase shutter speed for the type of picture posted in the original post.
The lens on the RX isn't anything special in this respect. Yes, it has a nice fast f/1.8 at the wide end but soon closes down to a disappointing f/4.9 at the tele end of the lens. Having the larger sensors though means that you can up the ISO to compensate but image quality will suffer.
Something like a Lumix LX-7 has a faster all round lens and is just as capable a camera as the RX100. Half the price too.
Other people have already suggested how you can reduce motion blur so I wont bother reposting.
The lens on the RX isn't anything special in this respect. Yes, it has a nice fast f/1.8 at the wide end but soon closes down to a disappointing f/4.9 at the tele end of the lens. Having the larger sensors though means that you can up the ISO to compensate but image quality will suffer.
Something like a Lumix LX-7 has a faster all round lens and is just as capable a camera as the RX100. Half the price too.
Other people have already suggested how you can reduce motion blur so I wont bother reposting.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Wednesday 30th October 13:43
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff