Camera for Walking
Discussion
Mate of mine wants to do coast to coast in the UK up and down the mountains. Has £500 to spend and asked me what he should buy. I know nothing about small cameras so recommendations welcome for a camera suitable to be thrown in a rucksack please, and be idiot proof as he doesn't normally take photos. Sorry John!
paul.deitch said:
Mate of mine wants to do coast to coast in the UK up and down the mountains. Has £500 to spend and asked me what he should buy. I know nothing about small cameras so recommendations welcome for a camera suitable to be thrown in a rucksack please, and be idiot proof as he doesn't normally take photos. Sorry John!
Spend £100-130. No need to spend more.All the known brand camera's are perfectly fine and will likely take better pictures than most of the operators can. i.e. the camera is not the limiting factor.
All they really need to decide on is how big a zoom they want, or if they want a water proof one. These generally have less zoom, but might be a bit more robust for outdoor use.
I quite like the look of the Fujifilm XP80. But as said, that's just example, and pretty much any camera these days will exceed the expectations of your average user.
You do need to RTFM with any complex electrical device. Overall the camera's are pretty easy to use, but there is no excuse in being lazy and not even attempting to understand the symbols, modes and options they have.
EDIT:
To add, the mini DSLR or bridge camera's are all fine and good. But all largely and less pocket friendly. And to be completely honest, if you aren't prepared to make use of the additional features and controls those camera's offer, i.e. you need to know more about photography. Then chances are they'll offer no real world benefits to the end user. The lenses are sometimes better and faster with a better F stop, and maybe the CCD is different and/or it uses different compression algorithms. But if it's just for snaps, putting on the computer and printing the odd post card sized print, then they may as well pocket the saving in money and spend less on a camera.
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Wednesday 13th April 12:30
300bhp/ton said:
Spend £100-130. No need to spend more.
All the known brand camera's are perfectly fine and will likely take better pictures than most of the operators can. i.e. the camera is not the limiting factor.
All they really need to decide on is how big a zoom they want, or if they want a water proof one. These generally have less zoom, but might be a bit more robust for outdoor use.
I quite like the look of the Fujifilm XP80. But as said, that's just example, and pretty much any camera these days will exceed the expectations of your average user.
You do need to RTFM with any complex electrical device. Overall the camera's are pretty easy to use, but there is no excuse in being lazy and not even attempting to understand the symbols, modes and options they have.
EDIT:
To add, the mini DSLR or bridge camera's are all fine and good. But all largely and less pocket friendly. And to be completely honest, if you aren't prepared to make use of the additional features and controls those camera's offer, i.e. you need to know more about photography. Then chances are they'll offer no real world benefits to the end user. The lenses are sometimes better and faster with a better F stop, and maybe the CCD is different and/or it uses different compression algorithms. But if it's just for snaps, putting on the computer and printing the odd post card sized print, then they may as well pocket the saving in money and spend less on a camera.
^ Not this.All the known brand camera's are perfectly fine and will likely take better pictures than most of the operators can. i.e. the camera is not the limiting factor.
All they really need to decide on is how big a zoom they want, or if they want a water proof one. These generally have less zoom, but might be a bit more robust for outdoor use.
I quite like the look of the Fujifilm XP80. But as said, that's just example, and pretty much any camera these days will exceed the expectations of your average user.
You do need to RTFM with any complex electrical device. Overall the camera's are pretty easy to use, but there is no excuse in being lazy and not even attempting to understand the symbols, modes and options they have.
EDIT:
To add, the mini DSLR or bridge camera's are all fine and good. But all largely and less pocket friendly. And to be completely honest, if you aren't prepared to make use of the additional features and controls those camera's offer, i.e. you need to know more about photography. Then chances are they'll offer no real world benefits to the end user. The lenses are sometimes better and faster with a better F stop, and maybe the CCD is different and/or it uses different compression algorithms. But if it's just for snaps, putting on the computer and printing the odd post card sized print, then they may as well pocket the saving in money and spend less on a camera.
There is pretty much no point buying any camera in the <£130 price range. They will take worse pictures than the average smart-phone these days.
Spend the extra to get something like an RX100/G7X will get you a noticeable increase in quality, as GetCarter's shots rightly show. Obviously skill plays a big part too, but you won't get images like that without the correct equipment too.
Mr Will said:
^ Not this.
There is pretty much no point buying any camera in the <£130 price range. They will take worse pictures than the average smart-phone these days.
Disagree. As an owner of smart phones, DSLR's and compact camera's in that price category. I bought a compact Nikon a couple of weeks ago, as I don't want to take my DSLR on holiday this time. And it takes some brilliant pics all things considered. And if all you want it point and click, then job done.There is pretty much no point buying any camera in the <£130 price range. They will take worse pictures than the average smart-phone these days.
Mr Will said:
Spend the extra to get something like an RX100/G7X will get you a noticeable increase in quality, as GetCarter's shots rightly show. Obviously skill plays a big part too, but you won't get images like that without the correct equipment too.
SKill is more about knowing how to use the camera. If you leave it in Auto, then it'll do the same thing the compact camera's do. Only you might have a slightly better lens. Metering, focusing and all the other settings are likely to be similar.And unless you are printing poster prints, all modern Digi camera's are way high enough pixel rating. And lots don't over compress.
From the op, it doesn't sound as if the expected user will want manual control or run in Av priority or mess about manually setting white balance.
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Wednesday 13th April 13:56
I do a fair bit of walking & normally take my Canon S95 with me, it's small, light, easy to use & takes great pics.
It's a few years old but I'm sure S100 or S120 or whatever it is now can be had for less than the Sony mentioned above, I've also heard the Sony is bigger? My S95 replaced a G10 & I found that too bulky for walking with.
It's a few years old but I'm sure S100 or S120 or whatever it is now can be had for less than the Sony mentioned above, I've also heard the Sony is bigger? My S95 replaced a G10 & I found that too bulky for walking with.
schmunk said:
In a thread a long time ago:
Lol - that blows my contribution out of the water then, Steve knows more than I ever will!GetCarter said:
I have S95 and RX100 mk 1. Sony takes better photos almost every time, but it's bigger than the Canon. Having said I have both, as soon as I got the RX100 and saw the results, I gave the Canon away.
300bhp/ton said:
Mr Will said:
^ Not this.
There is pretty much no point buying any camera in the <£130 price range. They will take worse pictures than the average smart-phone these days.
Disagree. As an owner of smart phones, DSLR's and compact camera's in that price category. I bought a compact Nikon a couple of weeks ago, as I don't want to take my DSLR on holiday this time. And it takes some brilliant pics all things considered. And if all you want it point and click, then job done.There is pretty much no point buying any camera in the <£130 price range. They will take worse pictures than the average smart-phone these days.
Mr Will said:
Spend the extra to get something like an RX100/G7X will get you a noticeable increase in quality, as GetCarter's shots rightly show. Obviously skill plays a big part too, but you won't get images like that without the correct equipment too.
SKill is more about knowing how to use the camera. If you leave it in Auto, then it'll do the same thing the compact camera's do. Only you might have a slightly better lens. Metering, focusing and all the other settings are likely to be similar.And unless you are printing poster prints, all modern Digi camera's are way high enough pixel rating. And lots don't over compress.
From the op, it doesn't sound as if the expected user will want manual control or run in Av priority or mess about manually setting white balance.
They'll also take some pictures in automatic that your Nikon (or similar) wouldn't be able to match even in the hands of a seasoned professional. It's not a question of pixel count or messing about with the settings, they have vastly bigger and better sensors and significantly better lenses. Particularly in less than perfect light, these things make a huge difference.
Sometimes, spending slightly more money buys a significantly better product. This is one of those times.
Mr Will said:
they have vastly bigger and better sensors
"vastly" is over stretching the issue. That's like trying to claim a BMW engine is "vastly" better than a Ford engine of the same type.Mr Will said:
and significantly better lenses.
Probably moderately better, not significantly better. And maybe sometimes no better at all. As that's how profit margins are increased.Mr Will said:
Particularly in less than perfect light, these things make a huge difference.
I'm not saying there won't be a difference. But you'd probably need a side by side comparison to see it. And the reality is, a cheaper camera these days is likely way above the expectation threshold of most people anyhow. So even if they can get better images, it means little in real terms.Mr Will said:
Sometimes, spending slightly more money buys a significantly better product. This is one of those times.
But you see, I don't think is one of these times, or that you are getting a significantly better product.Back in the early 2000's, yes you would have. And it could have been very manufacture and even model sensitive. But the tech as moved on considerably since then, to the point where even modest budgets can get good results.
I'm not saying don't spend the money on a more expensive camera, but if you aren't going to make use of the extra things it offers, then it really is dead money. And you would likely be just as pleased with the results if you'd spent half the amount of money.
GetCarter said:
I'm not getting into this 'difference of opinions', but just to say, If I was doing a once in a lifetime walk - coast to coast climbing mountains, I'd want a half decent camera with me!
But surely that's the point I'm making.Almost all camera's these days are way above "half decent".
I am no way denying you can get better. But better only really counts if you are going to be doing something with it, that lets you notice the difference.
To paraphrase.
If this was 1950 and you wanted a car to abuse and use daily for 20,000 miles a year. You'd have limited choice on what would be capable of doing this. And you'd probably have to pay a premium to get anything remotely capable.
Today, well any car will do this with relative ease.
Is a BMW 3 Series 'better' than a Ford Fiesta. Yes of course it is. But if you aren't interested in cars, badge snobbery or driving. Then the Fiesta is more than good enough.
LordHaveMurci said:
schmunk said:
In a thread a long time ago:
Lol - that blows my contribution out of the water then, Steve knows more than I ever will!GetCarter said:
I have S95 and RX100 mk 1. Sony takes better photos almost every time, but it's bigger than the Canon. Having said I have both, as soon as I got the RX100 and saw the results, I gave the Canon away.
I previously owned a Canon S100 which I was fairly pleased with, but the one major downside to it was the shockingly poor battery life. The RX100 battery lasts for considerably longer and I've not yet been caught out with a flat battery as yet, though it might be an idea to acquire a 2nd battery and charge it up. Note that the Sony battery is charged whilst in the camera so there is no need to lug a charger around with you, just don't forget to take the mains cable with you.
John Lewis sell RX100 Mk1, Mk2, Mk3 and Mk4 versions, so plenty to choose from depending upon your budget.
Also worth noting is that you can record pretty good video with the RX100, though if you go down this route it might be a good idea to fit a 32GB class 10 SD card or larger, just don't go and buy a cheap fake from ebay. I tend to buy SD cards from either PCWorld because they are local and pretty competitive with their pricing, or from Amazon providing it is supplied AND Fulfilled by Amazon and not a reseller. For info I have a PNY 32GB class 10 SD card in my RX100.
The Canon S100 was fairly well made but a bit plasticky, whilst the Sony is in a different league in terms of build quality, it feels like it's been machined out of a solid piece of aluminium, and though fractionally bigger than the S100, it easily fits in a jacket pocket, so I do tend to carry it around with me everywhere I go.
Ta Rich!
Show me the £130 camera that does that, and I'll recommend to the O/Ps mate a.s.a.p.
ETA.. O/P here is a 'half decent camera' - lacks some of the features of the latest, but will do the job at less than £300
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-DSCRX100-Advanced-Dig...
300bhp/ton said:
But surely that's the point I'm making.
Almost all camera's these days are way above "half decent".
Well (jumping in again against my better judgement!), to be half decent, they have to take/save as RAW, they have to be able to bracket multiple images with +/- Ev exposure , They'd have to print to A3 at decent resolution (which rules out cameras with tiny sensors), they'd have to be able to take handheld images in low light without flash (see above), they really should have to have a rangefinder, adjustable backscreen, proper waterproof leather case available ...and they'd have to have a great residual value when sold.Almost all camera's these days are way above "half decent".
Show me the £130 camera that does that, and I'll recommend to the O/Ps mate a.s.a.p.
ETA.. O/P here is a 'half decent camera' - lacks some of the features of the latest, but will do the job at less than £300
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-DSCRX100-Advanced-Dig...
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 13th April 17:00
That price from Amazon looks expensive, John Lewis are selling the RX100 MK1 for £249.99
http://www.johnlewis.com/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100...
http://www.johnlewis.com/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100...
rich888 said:
That price from Amazon looks expensive, John Lewis are selling the RX100 MK1 for £249.99
http://www.johnlewis.com/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100...
OP's mate has money left for replacement shoes!http://www.johnlewis.com/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100...
300bhp/ton said:
Mr Will said:
they have vastly bigger and better sensors
"vastly" is over stretching the issue. That's like trying to claim a BMW engine is "vastly" better than a Ford engine of the same type.Mr Will said:
and significantly better lenses.
Probably moderately better, not significantly better. And maybe sometimes no better at all. As that's how profit margins are increased.Mr Will said:
Particularly in less than perfect light, these things make a huge difference.
I'm not saying there won't be a difference. But you'd probably need a side by side comparison to see it. And the reality is, a cheaper camera these days is likely way above the expectation threshold of most people anyhow. So even if they can get better images, it means little in real terms.Mr Will said:
Sometimes, spending slightly more money buys a significantly better product. This is one of those times.
But you see, I don't think is one of these times, or that you are getting a significantly better product.Back in the early 2000's, yes you would have. And it could have been very manufacture and even model sensitive. But the tech as moved on considerably since then, to the point where even modest budgets can get good results.
I'm not saying don't spend the money on a more expensive camera, but if you aren't going to make use of the extra things it offers, then it really is dead money. And you would likely be just as pleased with the results if you'd spent half the amount of money.
He will be making use of the extra things it offers every single time he turns it on, even if he never leaves auto mode.
To extend the car analogy, we've got a guy with a modest budget asking for a practical, easy to drive car for a motorway commute. We're recommending a nice Volkwagen Golf Diesel with a few toys and you are coming in going "I have a Hyundai i10 1.0 and nobody else needs anything more unless they are a racing driver". Now the i10 is a perfectly good car, and it will do the job, but the Golf will do it better.
schmunk said:
300bhp/ton said:
Mr Will said:
they have vastly bigger and better sensors
"vastly" is over stretching the issue. That's like trying to claim a BMW engine is "vastly" better than a Ford engine of the same type.
I'd say that a BMW M3 has a vastly larger and more powerful engine than a base model Fiesta. It's the same scale of difference.
Message Board | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff