Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
pwa
Posts: 8010
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby pwa » 9 Jun 2018, 11:14am

I bought my Lumix partly because after a bit of internet research I worked out that I could, if I chose, set it up to work in a manual "aperture priority" fashion to allow me to be a proper photographer making decisions about depth of field, knowing that the camera would sort out the exposure. I used to do that with a film camera and found it a really quick way to take photos that come out the way I want them. Few of us really need or want all the functions on modern cameras, but we need the handful that get the images we want.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8162
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby Cunobelin » 9 Jun 2018, 11:40am

Flinders wrote:
brynpoeth wrote:Do you take pictures of distant stars? What sort of camera is suitable for that?

If that's for me, no, apart from the landscape stuff, horseracing and other horse sports, and falconry is what I do. Often I need a long lens, and am working in poor light and need very high shutter speeds to stop movement- faster than 1/2500 of a sec for preference, at a high number of frames per second. I often have to enlarge them to A2 or more as well, so I need large file sizes. And RAW files when the light is difficult, as you can do more to rescue parts of images that are underexposed. That means a DSLR, with all the weight and bulk that involves.

Modern compacts are amazing, though very complicated, and if you stick them on auto they do a pretty good job most of the time. I can remember the days of cassette films and cameras with two settings- 'sunny' and 'cloudy'. And it never got sunny enough here for sunny. My newest DSLR came with a manual that is genuinely an inch thick (I just measured it), and I needed to buy a 600-page book to be able to understand it.



Simple problem is that the stars move!


This is more of a software answer


You need a lot of pictures to "stack" and software that will then align the multiple points so that the stars are sharp as opposed to "trails.

My Olympus Stylus does some reasonable star shots with an inbuilt setting, but in needs a "dark sky" to function well

User avatar
fausto copy
Posts: 2162
Joined: 14 Dec 2008, 6:51pm
Location: Pembrokeshire

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? Thoughts/Experiences

Postby fausto copy » 9 Jun 2018, 12:33pm

brynpoeth wrote:
fausto copy wrote:I can heartily recommend Lumix compacts and I've recently bought a TZ70 travel zoom compact camera which cost just over £200.
Its got a viewfinder which I use all the time.
There's an option on it to use: either screen on the back, or the viewfinder, or screen normal and viewfinder functions as you move your eye to it.
It's compact enough to carry with you virtually all the time and the extended zoom is amazing.
My expensive Lumix GX80 with separate lenses now sulks in the drawer. :roll:

You could sell the GX80 ("a significant sum in used notes was quietly handed over" :wink: ) or will you keep it a while just in case? Does the TZ70 take black and white too?

I love photography but I wish it was not so complicated to choose a camera
What might be the photographic equivalent of Upgrading to Fixie?

A rollfilm SLR with many features had to be big and heavy back then, but can a top camera be small now?


I'll keep the GX80 for "serious" stuff in case I rejoin the camera club.

Yes, the TZ70 does B&W and many other options (sepia, soft focus etc) in the custom section.

And in comparison to "upgrading" to a fixie, there's only one option........a pinhole camera. :wink:

User avatar
fausto copy
Posts: 2162
Joined: 14 Dec 2008, 6:51pm
Location: Pembrokeshire

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby fausto copy » 9 Jun 2018, 12:40pm

I tried out the Sony HX90 and I was almost convinced, but found it a tad too bulky compared with the TZ70 (and they both have 30 x zooms).
Also, having three Lumix cameras already, I'm more familiar with the control layouts and menu functions and couldn't get my head around learning new stuff. :roll:

fausto.

PH
Posts: 6085
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? Thoughts/Experiences

Postby PH » 9 Jun 2018, 12:46pm

fausto copy wrote:My expensive Lumix GX80 with separate lenses now sulks in the drawer. :roll:

Mine too, though the carry around is the diminutive GM1 so at least the smaller lenses are still in use. Same sensor but missing lots of features including the viewfinder. The GX80 still comes on tour and if I go somewhere specifically to take photos, it's just so nice to use, even if it's rare to be able to distinguish which camera was used.
If I were buying now, a 1" sensor would be right near the top of the spec list, it's all a compromise but I think this is the best sensor in a camera that can still easily go in a pocket. IMO once you start carrying a camera bag the size become less relevant.
I'm never sure how to compare optical zoom on a small sensor with digital (Cropped) on a larger sensor, there's several factors at play, but generally a larger sensor allows enough cropping to compensate for some lack of zoom.

brynpoeth
Posts: 7407
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby brynpoeth » 9 Jun 2018, 1:16pm

n+1?

Cameras and bikes are so alike, many of us have several

I would prefer to have one camera only, but I do not have the knowledge to decide which one to buy, there seems to be a lot of creative pricing, to get a feature one wants one must pay for others one does not want

Choosing a car was much easier :?
Cycling - of course, but it is far better on a Gillott..alternative facts welcome

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 7403
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby 661-Pete » 9 Jun 2018, 1:19pm

Cunobelin wrote:Simple problem is that the stars move!

This is more of a software answer

You need a lot of pictures to "stack" and software that will then align the multiple points so that the stars are sharp as opposed to "trails.

My Olympus Stylus does some reasonable star shots with an inbuilt setting, but in needs a "dark sky" to function well

There is one star for which you don't need a driven mount! The sun. But you do need special filters - both to protect your camera, and to protect your eyes. If you're interested, don't be tempted to improvise! Buy a proper solar filter from a recognised manufacturer (e.g. Baader).

Here is one shot of the sun which I was able to take with the filter off: albeit in rather special circumstances! :lol:
Img_8657-01r_hue+15.jpg
Img_8657-01r_hue+15.jpg (57.42 KiB) Viewed 157 times

This was taken with an elderly Canon EOS350 body attached to a 500mm mirror lens. The occasion was the total eclipse seen from Indonesia, 9 March 2016. Not the most professional of eclipse shots, I concede - but then I had other things on my mind! We have booked a trip to Argentina/Chile next year (2 July), when we hope for another chance!

For other astro shots, yes a driven mount, preferably auto-guided, is essential. Here is one of my favourite 'Deep Sky' images:
M13 23Sep09 003r.jpg

This is the great globular cluster M13, in Hercules. I took this in 2009, using the same camera but this time attached to my 10" Newtonian. It is a stack of 18 x 1-minute exposures at ISO1600, processed using ImagesPlus and PaintShopPro.
Pete

Et qui rit des curés d'Oc?/De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques./De quelles loques ce turque coin./Et ne d'anes ni rennes,/Ecuries des curés d'Oc. - Louis d'Antin

Psamathe
Posts: 9296
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby Psamathe » 9 Jun 2018, 4:37pm

brynpoeth wrote:Do you take pictures of distant stars? What sort of camera is suitable for that?

I use my DSLR for my attempts at that.

Ian

Psamathe
Posts: 9296
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby Psamathe » 9 Jun 2018, 4:53pm

Flinders wrote:I've had Lumix and Fuji compacts in the past, and they have been okay for their time, but in the end both failed. These days I have a Cybershot, the HX90. The HX90 has an electronic (wysiwyg type) viewfinder, and it's not a bad one. In strong light, or if trying to frame a shot properly, it's darn near impossible to manage without a VF.
As a camera, the HX90 is seriously brilliant (and I say this as someone whose job involves using a top-end DSLR).
....
There is also version of the HX90 that has the capacity to record GPS on the image EXIF data, but it's more expensive......

Not really noticed the NX90 but it's spec. does look impressive. I can't find a variant that supports GPS (either in-built or from a smartphone - Sony's support for that functionality via smartphone seems very limited).

In my "going round in circles" I seem to be most interested in the Canon M100 at the moment https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-eos-m100-digital-camera-15-45-ltd-edition-black-1636563/. Not waterproof/rugged and no viewfinder but my DSLR is a Canon and I have some good lenses for it so the "keep in the same'ish system appeals a bit but the adapter @£100+). But the standard offering lens has a very limited zoom range (24-72mm 35mm equivalent) so considering body only with an 29-240mm (35mm equivalent) https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-ef-m-18-150mm-f35-63-is-stm-lens-black-1607280/ but that puts the bulk (and cost) up significantly. Or I could just go with the standard offering and add a 90~320mm (35mm equivalent) which is a bit cheaper but then into the hassle of multiple lenses. Nice thing about the small standard lens is that using it is less obvious when you don't want to become a target for mugging ... and yet again I'm going round in circles!

Ian

Psamathe
Posts: 9296
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby Psamathe » 9 Jun 2018, 4:55pm

661-Pete wrote:....
This is the great globular cluster M13, in Hercules. I took this in 2009, using the same camera but this time attached to my 10" Newtonian. It is a stack of 18 x 1-minute exposures at ISO1600, processed using ImagesPlus and PaintShopPro.

Bit (maybe totally?) off-topic but M13 is my favourite observing target. I'm fascinated by Globular Clusters and M13 must be one of the most dramatic (and easiest to find!).

Ian

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 7403
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby 661-Pete » 9 Jun 2018, 5:29pm

Psamathe wrote:
661-Pete wrote:....
This is the great globular cluster M13, in Hercules. I took this in 2009, using the same camera but this time attached to my 10" Newtonian. It is a stack of 18 x 1-minute exposures at ISO1600, processed using ImagesPlus and PaintShopPro.

Bit (maybe totally?) off-topic but M13 is my favourite observing target. I'm fascinated by Globular Clusters and M13 must be one of the most dramatic (and easiest to find!).

Ian
Quite easy to find in binoculars* - yes - but very difficult with the naked eye. I've only ever been able to pick it out once, and that was on an exceptionally dark night and I had the advantage of knowing exactly where to look!

*Note to other aspiring astros: You'll only see a fuzzball in the binoculars. You need a medium-sized telescope to resolve individual stars in it. Once you've learned to pick out and recognise the constellation Hercules, it's more or less on a line between ζ and η (zeta and eta). Somewhat closer to ζ.

If you have a good steady tripod, (and a dark sky site!) you might consider a stab at a widefield shot of the night sky even without tracking. With, say, a 50mm lens, you should be able to manage a 30-second shot without appreciable trailing. Digital cameras are quite sensitive and you'll be amazed at how much more you can pick up, than with the naked eye!

Or you can take a long exposure and accept that there'll be trailing. Some very spectacular shots have been produced that way, especially with the camera pointed towards Polaris!
Pete

Et qui rit des curés d'Oc?/De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques./De quelles loques ce turque coin./Et ne d'anes ni rennes,/Ecuries des curés d'Oc. - Louis d'Antin

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8162
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby Cunobelin » 9 Jun 2018, 6:42pm

GPS on cameras is not essential.

Carry any GPS system and download the tracks, there is software that will geotag the images. All you need is to ensure that the times are in Sync

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8162
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby Cunobelin » 9 Jun 2018, 6:44pm

661-Pete wrote:
Psamathe wrote:
661-Pete wrote:....
This is the great globular cluster M13, in Hercules. I took this in 2009, using the same camera but this time attached to my 10" Newtonian. It is a stack of 18 x 1-minute exposures at ISO1600, processed using ImagesPlus and PaintShopPro.

Bit (maybe totally?) off-topic but M13 is my favourite observing target. I'm fascinated by Globular Clusters and M13 must be one of the most dramatic (and easiest to find!).

Ian
Quite easy to find in binoculars* - yes - but very difficult with the naked eye. I've only ever been able to pick it out once, and that was on an exceptionally dark night and I had the advantage of knowing exactly where to look!

*Note to other aspiring astros: You'll only see a fuzzball in the binoculars. You need a medium-sized telescope to resolve individual stars in it. Once you've learned to pick out and recognise the constellation Hercules, it's more or less on a line between ζ and η (zeta and eta). Somewhat closer to ζ.

If you have a good steady tripod, (and a dark sky site!) you might consider a stab at a widefield shot of the night sky even without tracking. With, say, a 50mm lens, you should be able to manage a 30-second shot without appreciable trailing. Digital cameras are quite sensitive and you'll be amazed at how much more you can pick up, than with the naked eye!

Or you can take a long exposure and accept that there'll be trailing. Some very spectacular shots have been produced that way, especially with the camera pointed towards Polaris!


General consensus is 25 s as the maximum for a sharp star

MY Pentax has a program that uses the image stabilisation to fix the stars. but unfortunately it means that terrestrial features are blurred

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8162
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby Cunobelin » 12 Jun 2018, 7:01pm

If you really want deep stars, consider a Telescope, which can be priced reasonably
Then get aT2 adapter for the camera and mount the camera. With a magnifying lens as well you can get some interesting photos

Do be aware that even with some sturdier tripos, a heavy DSLR can be sufficient to cause the whole assembly to slip

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8162
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

Postby Cunobelin » 12 Jun 2018, 7:01pm

If you really want deep stars, consider a Telescope, which can be priced reasonably
Then get aT2 adapter for the camera and mount the camera. With a magnifying lens as well you can get some interesting photos

Do be aware that even with some sturdier tripos, a heavy DSLR can be sufficient to cause the whole assembly to slip