Vorpal wrote:A good phone camera will have a decent digital zoom, and it's also possible to get add-on zoom lenses for phones that get quite good results.
Digital zoom is the same as cropping. The only difference is whether it's photoshop or the camera doing the crop and interpolation. I'd expect proper Photoshop to do a better job.
Digital zoom is almost the same as cropping. The capability of phone/camera software to do interpolation varies somewhat.
If the OP were planning to do nature or sports photography where having a good optical zoom is critical, he likely wouldn't even be posing the question. For most other applications, a good sensor, sufficiently high camera pixel density, and decent camera software, it is unlikely to make that much difference.
Digital zoom on my old Nokia with the 41 mp sensor was better in some circumstances than optical zoom and an 8 mp Canon.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Here's an alternative view I'm one of Tangled Metals in between people. I want to jog memories, I want to take interesting photos, I want to enjoy the taking of the photo. I'm not flush with cash, I am technically poor (but learning) and I don't take a lot of photos. I use film cameras. Shock! Horror!
By the time you've bought a couple of 1980s top/mid range cameras (at around £30-50 each) and factored in films, processing and scanning to email you've got a lot of money left over. You've also got either a decent camera or you can bin it and start again or resell it and get your money back. You are less likely to worry about theft or damage, and the knowledge that you only have 36 shots per film makes you more discerning about the pictures you take. Depending on the camera charging becomes a non-issue, although you may want to have the security of a spare battery. It works for me, but if you're a tech-head then you might dismiss it out if hand;
I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.
Leicester; Riding my Hetchins since 1971; Day rides on my Dawes; Going to the shops on a Decathlon Hoprider
I don’t take many photos but have a couple of observations from touring with someone who takes lots of good ones.
Convenience is important (if it’s not convenient there won’t even be a photo) A competent photographer can get great results with a good phone (better than a novice with a good quality camera)
Vorpal wrote:If the OP were planning to do nature or sports photography where having a good optical zoom is critical, he likely wouldn't even be posing the question. For most other applications, a good sensor, sufficiently high camera pixel density, and decent camera software, it is unlikely to make that much difference.
Digital zoom on my old Nokia with the 41 mp sensor was better in some circumstances than optical zoom and an 8 mp Canon.
By high camera pixel density, I can only presume you mean sensor pixel density - which typically means lower image quality - higher pixel density means smaller pixels which means less light per pixel - this is why bigger sensors give better quality images (other factors such as optics/lenses aside).
millimole wrote:By the time you've bought a couple of 1980s top/mid range cameras (at around £30-50 each) and factored in films, processing and scanning to email you've got a lot of money left over.
The last time I used a film SLR, I shot 6 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm film. Even with Jessops low prices, the cost was a considerable chunk of the cost of an entry level DSLR. At the time, even though I had a digital compact camera, the cost of the film, developing and printing caused me to give film up and go DSLR. Admittedly, I wasn't taking the odd shot on a cycle tour (I was taking airshow photographs), but it was obvious that a DSLR would be cheaper than a 35mm SLR in a very short time.
Wanlock Dod wrote:A competent photographer can get great results with a good phone (better than a novice with a good quality camera)
Although I agree with this sentiment, a competent photographer will recognise the limitations of the equipment and will accept that the equipment dictates the shot he or she takes. If a particular shot is the goal, then the competent photographer will ensure they have the right equipment or they will move the goalposts to suit the equipment they have. They would not attempt some shots with a phone camera that they would with a DSLR.
Disclaimer: Treat what I say with caution and if possible, wait for someone with more knowledge and experience to contribute.
freiston wrote:The last time I used a film SLR, I shot 6 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm film. Even with Jessops low prices, the cost was a considerable chunk of the cost of an entry level DSLR. At the time, even though I had a digital compact camera, the cost of the film, developing and printing caused me to give film up and go DSLR. Admittedly, I wasn't taking the odd shot on a cycle tour (I was taking airshow photographs), but it was obvious that a DSLR would be cheaper than a 35mm SLR in a very short time.
The people I use charge £6.50 per 35mm colour roll for processing, scan to small JPEG & electronic transfer of the scans, return of the scans on CD with the negatives, so 6 rolls would come to £41.75 including their postage, but excluding postage to them. Scans generally get back to me the day after they receive them. (If you need higher quality scans or prints then the price increases). Film is about £4 per roll, although this is very variable depending on quality, and availability of special offers.
freiston wrote:The last time I used a film SLR, I shot 6 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm film. Even with Jessops low prices, the cost was a considerable chunk of the cost of an entry level DSLR. At the time, even though I had a digital compact camera, the cost of the film, developing and printing caused me to give film up and go DSLR. Admittedly, I wasn't taking the odd shot on a cycle tour (I was taking airshow photographs), but it was obvious that a DSLR would be cheaper than a 35mm SLR in a very short time.
The people I use charge £6.50 per 35mm colour roll for processing, scan to small JPEG & electronic transfer of the scans, return of the scans on CD with the negatives, so 6 rolls would come to £41.75 including their postage, but excluding postage to them. Scans generally get back to me the day after they receive them. (If you need higher quality scans or prints then the price increases). Film is about £4 per roll, although this is very variable depending on quality, and availability of special offers.
I still use an old Pentax film camera on occasion, just as a reminder of the skills we used to need
However, I do like the fact that digital images cost nothing
I am a fan of the Northern Lights and have seen them in Norway, Lofoten Islands, Iceland and Svalbard
Having a DSLR enables me to vary exposures, match exposures to light intensity, and if they do not work, alter the parameters and try again. This can be a once in a lifetime experience and I son some nights I have taken over a hundred photographs.
The fact that I know I have succeeded as opposed to waiting for a week to discover the pictures are rubbish and the lack of active feedback makes a digitsl camera essential (yo me)
Cunobelin wrote:Until recently. I used an Olympus Stylus 1s, a brilliant little camera with a "superzoom"
Bulkier than a true compact, but much smaller and lighter than a DSLR and spare lens that would make up the alternative.
Unfortunately, this has broken after some years of hard service and was declared BER by a couple of local companies and finally Olympus.
They did offer me a massive discount on the body of an Olympus OM-D 10 Mk2, which I accepted.
Only had it a few days, but a brilliant piece of kit.
Basically, I now run two principal cameras, The ON-D as above, and a comparatively massive Pentax k70
If I am on day's out, and similar then the Olympus will be the camera of choice, but for bad weather, the sealing and weatherproofing of the k70 is the deciding factor
I am decided on a small mirrorless camera: an older version of the Olympus you cite, I am looking now at an Olympus OD E -M -something second hand plus (initally) a used 14-42 micro 4/3 lens. I nearly got seduced by a Pentax Q-10 but they are near obsolete and the image quality/toptions thouygh apparently more manifold are perhaps not so hiigh qualifiy or a long-tem investment. (The alternative is a Fuji X-T 10 also used and a similar sized lens) I am mostly decided on the Olympus. and only swithering between used camera retailers. I spent hours in the physical shop of a big camera retailer (buying my son his birthday present Niikon DSLR) also discussing the merits of the various successors to the used models I was thinking of buying, having wrongly anticipated they would have used models in store to look at, so kinda feel obliged to buy from Jessops (rather than Park Cameras). The laddie also gave me 50% discount on all the camera gubbins to match the cost of any online package plus the full amount of the online discount codes/vouchers I had (maybe just to get rid of me).
I bought a Nikon iD-7000 n 2013 to replace my elderly and beloved Olympus E-400, at a time when Olympus had ceased making all non-4/3 bodies, and later only had v expensive professional bodies upwards of £5K I recall (I initally held on to my lenses etc in the hope, but eventually had the E-400 restored/gussied up and gave it to a friend's child studying Photography Nat 5/HNC and needing a DSLR. I have never got on with the Nikon as well nor do I find it as intuitive, in addition to how big it is. But few companies now do amateur budget DSLR and since I have all the lenses now, it is what we got my son so he can share the lenses (maybe).
(I have owned a Ricoh Rangefinder I loved, back in the 80s, a Practika with Zeiss? lenses (second hand), a Pentax (given me) then the Olympus. I had a wee Pentax Optio s55 Compact which was outstanding for all it ate batteries (like a 15 year odl boy eats French fries at Nandos) till it gave up the ghost about 3 years ago (I had bought another Pentax Optio to replace it earlier but the quality/functionality on that one was not good).
Well I needed a new phone more than a camera so I nearly hit three pixel 3a XL. They had none in stock so got a Samsung a70 instead. As someone who has fallen out of proper photography this should be enough. An improvement on the honor 8 camera phone. Not as good at the pixel 3/3a camera but it'll be slightly better than my old phone. I'm more likely to use the camera I have than one i only carry for organised trips out such as full day trips when we know we'll want a better camera. Even then we're don't often take one.
What I like about the Samsung phone is the screen. Images look better on it than other phones I've seen. Since most after taking visits to photographs seems to be on our phones so it'll help make images look better.
pwa wrote:I can see why people take pics with their phones. They have the phone with them anyway, so the ability to record is there all the time in a fairly handy pocketable form. Compact cameras still give you more control and precision if you want it, and they too can be just about pocketable. But I would never go back to bulky SLRs. The bulk means that when you go out with one you go as a photographer first and everything else you are doing is for the photography. And that just isn't me. I do things and occasionally choose to bring back an image or two. I don't go out on an image safari. So for me a bulky camera would stay in a cupboard unloved and unused.
Many of the greatest photos that I never took where because I did not carry a camera at the time.
I love my cameras but would admit that some photos on the phone are just as good.
The only time I have ever been where the phones fail is chasing the Northern Lights in Iceland, Norway, Arctic Circle and Svalbard, these are the areas where the additional control is necessary
I felt sorry for the people who were trying to take the Aurora on their phones.
I now have (agaiin) a barbag (Ortlieb not Karrimor with my cycling renaissance) and went out - no camera in the barbag but a phone, a GPS majiggy, a cagoule, a pump, other odds and sods (no tools), and found the barbag (small - too small for the big camera) did affect the handlebars/steering (though I also need to lower the saddle a tad - the bike shop mannie had put it up from my ideal height while switching over the Euro brakes given they were hydrauliic? discs about which I know nothing).
I have bought a second hand Olympus OM D E-M 5 and 14mm - 40mm (42mm) lens for the holiiday in question but I do stiill want to take out my Nikon D7000 and telephotos if I go out locally eg to the Bird Reservatiions at (Montrose or St Cyrus*) or Crawton and am a bit stymied about how carry them safely (I got my son a Nikon D3500 for hisi birthday and that camera is so much lighter/smaller). I am unhappy about the thought of them in a barbag given the weight/iinterference (at least tiill I am full back up to speed/adeptness with cycling). *I'd probably get the train part of the way to Montrose if going for photo excursiion.
I know I could get an Ortlieb or Basil rackpack/trunk bag that is attached via a adapter/plate/click system rather than just the velcro of my Karriimor rack pack (that has its own mind at times, being rather older than newer) but also use the rack with the spring for a basket for shopping and the allotment, it being the only rack that that basket works on properly and does not have me shedding celeriac seedlings along the High Street as the basket flies off the biike. That being so I do not want a permanent attachment on the rack for such a trunk bag, which is suboptimal.
I can only think otherwise on an active sports camera backpack (nae cheap - the Lowe ones or the Thule ones, as in really nae cheap), and I am not keen either on cycling with a backpack for any distance/with any weight. Unless a bumbag.... Not taking a cargo trailer, not on these routes, for just a camera, plus it would get awfu jiggled about. I could have the body/small lens in the front and additional zoom in the bumbag (which leads to trying to change a lens in a windy, sandy location in NE Scotland).
I got all knowitall in another thread about barbag as a camera bag... before I tried it out after such a gap.
LittleGreyCat wrote:Noting that I've just played back some recent short videos and it reminds me that the most important thing for video recording is a microphone which can suppress wind noise.
I discovered this when using a "proper" video camera some years ago. The answer is to be able to use an external microphone but my video camera didn't have the connection. Likewise my compact camera does not support an external microphone.
The windnoise here is beyond suppression. Only I think Shetland or Lewis woulod be more unsuppressible.
mercalia wrote:on a related matter how many people here actually print their pictures or just view them on a pc screen, as I do? My pc screens are just 1920x1080 ( for blu rays) - thats just 2 mega pixels I think? My phones have 5 & 8 mega pixel sensors that are way beyond the screen display, You often see in reviews blow up of tiny sections from your 30 mega pixel sensor - may make sense in a review but unless you are a spy or cop makes no sense? I have a simple Kodak 5 mp camera I take on my bike gives good pictures, uses AA batteries and has an zoomable optical viewfinder, fits in the palm of your hand
I print portrait photos of my son or some black and white shots that are (if I ever put the up) designated to line the staircase. Other shots I tend to have on a screen saver on the Desktop (we have no TV) or did till I came home and found my son had moved the Desktop ("his" computer) up to his room for his birthday party last year. It has not ever managed to be brought down again .... a pity for the photo reason and for the music/iTunes that was wired up via a sound card to the old, old hi fi/amp. I have improvised and discovered his "cheap" laptop actually while useless for photos or photo editing (horrible blue-spotty non glare screen) has a B&O sound card itself... but that does not solve the photo display issue. I may get a digial photo frame, though it is not a priority and I do not really want to.
Wanlock Dod wrote:I don’t take many photos but have a couple of observations from touring with someone who takes lots of good ones.
Convenience is important (if it’s not convenient there won’t even be a photo))
I use a Sony RX100 compact camera, which is a wondrous little thing. But I've always struggled with where to put it for easy access when cycling. It will fit in a pocket, but that means you have to be wearing something with a pocket... obviously. And even if you are, it's still noticeable while you're riding, and getting it out on the move is a bit precarious.
This year I've finally cracked it with one of these:
Just the right size for a compact camera. Attaches to the stem, so easily within arm's reach while riding. No need to open a lid/zip as you would with a handlebar bag. And it costs £4.99.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
Tangled Metal wrote:It also depends on whether you need the top quality photographs. What do you do with your images? Are you a photographer out for the best image possible for printing out? Or are you a snapper out for a memory jogger of a holiday or activity? Or any stage in between?
Answer that and the tool to get those images become easier to decide on.
Whilst I look at the fancy cameras in the shop and might want them I realise that a £3k dslr won't have most of its functionality used. I always look for a camera and think that's a good choice. Then I notice the one next to it, it has more functionality and better reviews. It's only £40 more with cashback. Hmmmm! That's a good deal. But that one along the shelf has WiFi / nfc / BT connectivity, a fast lens and even better for just a little bit more. £50 more isn't much. Before long I'm looking at a very expensive camera (to me). So I think I'll think about it and in the meantime I'm using my old honor 8 and get images good enough for our use. We can see decent images on the screen, which is how we often share the photographs.
It's not the best images I'm sure but who cares if it jogs our memories when we look at them. It serves my purpose. However if you tell me there's a £150-200 camera that's so much better I'll think about it.
I think i am both but on the bike on holiday a holiday snapper: I am not going to get the most stunning shot ever of Bruges bell tower - that can be bought as a postcard or some such. At home and out and about locally (or without a bike) maybe it isi the quality/street photos/wild life. And these would be printed.
Vorpal wrote:If the OP were planning to do nature or sports photography where having a good optical zoom is critical, he likely wouldn't even be posing the question. For most other applications, a good sensor, sufficiently high camera pixel density, and decent camera software, it is unlikely to make that much difference.
Digital zoom on my old Nokia with the 41 mp sensor was better in some circumstances than optical zoom and an 8 mp Canon.
By high camera pixel density, I can only presume you mean sensor pixel density - which typically means lower image quality - higher pixel density means smaller pixels which means less light per pixel - this is why bigger sensors give better quality images (other factors such as optics/lenses aside).
millimole wrote:By the time you've bought a couple of 1980s top/mid range cameras (at around £30-50 each) and factored in films, processing and scanning to email you've got a lot of money left over.
The last time I used a film SLR, I shot 6 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm film. Even with Jessops low prices, the cost was a considerable chunk of the cost of an entry level DSLR. At the time, even though I had a digital compact camera, the cost of the film, developing and printing caused me to give film up and go DSLR. Admittedly, I wasn't taking the odd shot on a cycle tour (I was taking airshow photographs), but it was obvious that a DSLR would be cheaper than a 35mm SLR in a very short time.
Wanlock Dod wrote:A competent photographer can get great results with a good phone (better than a novice with a good quality camera)
Although I agree with this sentiment, a competent photographer will recognise the limitations of the equipment and will accept that the equipment dictates the shot he or she takes. If a particular shot is the goal, then the competent photographer will ensure they have the right equipment or they will move the goalposts to suit the equipment they have. They would not attempt some shots with a phone camera that they would with a DSLR.
Many of my serious photos (though I have not taken many in a good long while) are black and white: portraits, odd items in interesting closeups, street photo and some buildings, though I would take landscape shots in colour (or sunsets etc) but printing out would be black and white. This is why I abandoned film: because it became impossible (costly/long time duration) to print B&W (and I don't have the space or the tolerance of chemicals to develop myself, nor the equipment: I did work experience on a newspaper/worked on student paper and remember stinking of the chems. for developing).
For my holiidays/cycle touring, it would generally be holiday snaps/memories with the odd captivating street shot or still life of something interesting. I settled on a second hand "excellent" (low shutter count) Olympus OM D E-M 5 for just over £150 and £50 "mint" 14mm-42mm lens, which gives me options for additonal affordable used lens without them being £300 odd things as my Nikon lenses are. I do want to find a means to transport safely my Nikon D7000 and (telephoto and other) lens, in various combos, to local points of interest on a bike (no other vehicle) and without the weight of the camera and accessories in the barbag affecting the handlebar as in making it more skittish to steeer. I may get used to it again, of course. If it is shorter local trips (once I get back up to speed/adeptness) I may resort to a DSLR bumbag or active sport backpack... panniers would be a risk with the bike getting blown over if standing still.
My tuppence-worth: A few years back, I had the pleasant prospect of some really long tours in interesting places. I had previously used Nikon DSLRs quite keenly, at club level, but couldn't face the weight & bulk on a bike. I had also used little waterproof compacts, which generally got lousy results unless it was a bright but overcast scene, with the subject in the centre.
Like a previous correspondent, I chose an Olympus OM-D E-M5, the Mk1 version. It was then being phased out, so quite cheap new. Mine came in a travel bundle with a standard, weatherproof zoom, a long zoom, and a 45mm (equiv 90mm) prime. It had a reasonable viewfinder, which I found essential, although I certainly use the back panel, and its fold, at times. The controls are nice, and the M5 is (claimed) weatherproof. The big attraction of the micro 4 3rds systems was the small lenses, including primes.
It has worked well, but didn't quite go to plan. First off, although the M5 is weatherproof, very few of Olympus (or Panasonic's) lenses are, especially not small ones. Since the weather can therefore get in through the lens, one perhaps might as well buy the near-identical, cheaper, lighter, non-weatherproof M10. In the event, I had no weather ingress issues.
The system had been well reviewed, but as reviewers had said, that weatherproof zoom and cheap long zoom were not very sharp, and had a rather small aperture. The 45mm prime was lovely. And small. So discarded the zooms and forked out for a 25mm prime, and a 14mm prime. The three of them were (roughly) no bigger or heavier than the weatherproof zoom, although bigger than the very common 14-42 zoom, which (2016 at least) isn't especially sharp or bright. The primes are all sharp and bright. Set off on trip 1, then longer trip 2. 45mm on the camera, other primes to hand. I found I didn't use the others, perhaps I should have. But while awheel, if I wanted a wider-angle grab, I used my phone. At stops, it was nice that my other half and I had different viewpoints. I posted home first the 25mm, then the 14mm. Just used the 45mm.
It's still now my main camera - in fact I sold my Nikons before trip 2. If it gave up the ghost, I might buy a non-weatherproof version, for the reason above.
My partner had a similar background, but she opted to ignore her heavy Nikons, and buy afresh a low end Nikon DSLR - D5500. Lightly built, with "consumer" controls, it nonetheless has a fab sensor, and, critically, the kit zoom lens is widely praised for its sharpness. It was a little bulkier than my Oly, but lighter. She loved it. The flash unit died when she dropped it on it. It died altogether when she fell asleep on a bus with both the camera and a bottle in her bag - perhaps my M5 would have survived that!
We took one of those universal chargers that can run off mains or a USB battery pack, and one spare battery each.
On trips, we each carried the cameras in Altura or Ortlieb bar bags, with a carrymat/duct tape divider, and some soft foam under. I certainly did feel the weight, but it was very convenient, on or off the bike. Barbag bounces up and down more than a rack-pack, but that shows me it is taking the bumps out. I think a rack pack would be a brutal place to carry a camera. Saddlebag probably ok, again, there's compliance in the mounting.
We set off thinking we could download and manage our photos on Android. Totally wrong, it couldn't provide tools for shuffling pictures en-mass from card to card, or to upload. We stopped and investigated Apple, but non-Apple connectivity was poor. In the end we forked out for a Microsoft Surface 3, W10, keyboard, big insert SD card, mini cardreader, and Adobe Lightroom 6 (no longer available I believe, now have to pay monthly). That combo worked well and was reasonably portable. We found that both the Nikon and the Surface were at times intolerant of some micro-SD cards - another aspect worthy of pre-trip testing.
My key thoughts: * It has to fit with your luggage. * Does it need to be weatherproof or not? Costs a lot and adds weight, at whatever level. * Do you feel the need for sharpness & brightness in limited light, or exact focus control? * If removable lenses, lens choice may lead to camera choice, not vice-versa. * Try it out on short trips first. Try it out on touring-like days off, too. * On long trips, sort your photo processing IT before you go!
Technical info/opinions may now be slightly dated, as I last added to the system in 2016. I think viewfinders are a lot more common now.
