OT - 'Simple' digital camera

Neil Pugh said:

Morgan Computers have got a few Olympus cameras on their website at the
moment, they're generally older models, but don't cost a fortune.

Thanks - I really must look there more often. They tend to come and go v.
quickly.
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

Peter Clinch said:

PeterC said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 20:23:27 +0100, David Skinner wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This month's Practical Photography carries a positive review of the
Olympus Mju 770 SW. Drop-proof, waterproof, crush-proof and freeze-proof

Quoted message said:

Ouch! Twice the price we're considering.

You're paying that much more for /fully/ waterproof. I've taken
underwater video with my 725 (part of the reason I want this level of
waterproofing is I'm a sea kayaker, and it might be in my pocket in a
capsize). But if (as is entirely likely) you don't need that level of
waterproofing then why pay for it?
OTOH, you might slip during a river crossing and want more than
showerproof, but there's no denying it ramps up the cost a lot.

True, but really looking for it to be just suitable for on the hills.

She doesn't want to be bothered with complexity; it's not really a big
problem, as she was a critical care nurse so can handle techy stuff, but
can't be arsed just for snaps.
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

Akiralx said:

"PeterC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Been looking at such for a friend. Checked Olympus for a start, as most
models are OK in rain, but the reports aren't good.
So, any advice please on this:

basically point'n'shoot
OK for scenery/daylight
weather/muck/jolt-resistant
simple menu structure
~3X optical zoom
good battery life

Sony seem good but, as with most makes, would soon 'die' in a rucksack.

She doesn't want anything too complex and heavy. I don't want it to be too
expensive.

I'll repeat what an earlier thread contained here: a wideangle (at least
28mm wide) is pretty essential for landscapes.

So I would look at the Panasonic LX2, FX07, FX30 or TZ3, and Canon Powershot
SD800IS (Ixus850 IS). The Canon is the only one with a viewfinder (optical)
sadly. All have image stabilisation, the Canon is the smallest and
lightest.

I have the LX2 and like it a lot - it has a 28mm lens, sensor and LCD, fully
manual and supports RAW. It is fine noise-wise except at high (400+ ) ISO
which I doubt you'll need on the fells! Quite small, not a 'trouser pocket
cam' but fine in a coat/jacket. But may be too much camera for some.

If your friend's not bothered about fully manual and is happy with auto or
scene
modes, then one of the FX models (very similar to each other) will be OK or
the TZ3 - which is distinctive because it has a 10x zoom. I also have an
FX01 (the predecessor of the FXs mentioned above) and it is a great pocket
cam with a strong (metal) body, simple menus, takes good movies too.

Battery life for both Panasonics I have is superb.

I've no experience with Canons but obviously it will be pretty good -
though not as fine imagewise as other Canons or the LX2, I think, reading
the reviews on http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd800is/page11.asp

Thanks for this - I'll delve into the sites again (but there's a new mobo
calling to me).
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

Paul Saunders said:

David Skinner wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I adore my Sigma 10-20mm zoom (that's about 17mm at the wide end in
35mm equiv). I bet there aren't many compacts that match that!

Quoted message said:

Same with my Canon 10-22, equivalent to 16mm at the wide end.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

28mm
would do though.

Quoted message said:

At a pinch, although I've always found that 24mm gives you that essential
little bit extra. 24mm is quite rare with digicams, but the Sony R1 has one,
and it's supposed to be an excellent lens, worth buying the camera just for
the lens, so I've read.

I recently bought one (Sony DSC-R1) second hand, hoping that with its
accessory lenses etc. (which were part of the second hand package
deal) it might well be a good and complete enough package to prevent
me for ever from needing to go as far as a DSLR for high quality
digital camera stuff. I'm very impressed with the lens quality,
comparing the results with web pictures from allegedly good DSLRs in
the same kind of price range. It hasn't yet been up anything bigger
than Edinburgh's bonsai mountain Arthur's Seat, but this view from the
top should give an idea of what it can do.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/487104840/in/set-72157600185073185/

As you will be able to see from the "more properties" under the camera
type, that was taken at near max zoom. Max zoom is is 71.5mm in fact,
120mm in 135 equiv terms.

Click on the "all sizes" button and get the original size, the jpg
straight out of the camera, no photoshop fiddling.

H'ever, it's bigger and heavier than a small light DSLR, so it's not
for the lightweight backpacker unless the reason you're lightweight is
because you want to carry more serious camera gear :-) The 1.7X
telephoto extension is a monster, since it's an end lens add on, and
you wouldn't want to take that anywhere without a serious specific
purpose in mind. But the wide angle extender is small and light enough
to consider packing along with the camera, and usefully extends the
24mm (135 equiv) wide end of the zoom down to about 19mm (135 equiv).

I'll be quite happy to carry the R1 plus wide extender on trips I
regard as photographic in purpose. Much too big and heavy to carry
around just in case.

As someone used to changing SLR lenses while perched in a tree or
standing in a stream an unexpected benefit of a fixed lens camera plus
extension lenses is that when changing lenses you only have to remove
or add one, not two, and you don't have to worry about small animals
etc. getting inside the camera while you do it :-)

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In message <[email hidden]>

PeterC said:

On Wed, 9 May 2007 13:14:09 +0100, Paul Saunders wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You say that like it's a bad thing! Depends on your requirements of
course, but a DSLR will give much better quality, and they all have
fully automatic modes if that's what you want.

Not bad, Paul, just that she wants a simple, small, light but fairly
robust camera that doesn't cost a fortune.

Personally an SLR is attractive, but I have 2 cameras that I don't use
and can't justify not using another one!

I've got several (many) cameras that I rarely use, but that's
generally because I'm using one of my other cameras!

Cameras are for taking pictures, but it's the pictures that matter. The
important thing is to have at least one camera that you will
definitely use regularly. My wife and I have more than 20,000 35mm
slides and a similar number of 35mm negatives. A few years ago I went
digital, firstly with digital compacts and now with DSLR as well, and
the number of digital image files is catching up on the slides and
prints very quickly.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

PeterC said:

Not bad, Paul, just that she wants a simple, small, light but fairly
robust camera that doesn't cost a fortune.

Fair enough. I wouldn't mind one of those too, to reside permanently in my
pocket wherever I go. It doesn't need to be complex, manual control only
would suffice. :-)

Quoted message said:

Personally an SLR is attractive, but I have 2 cameras that I don't
use and can't justify not using another one!

Are they film cameras? If so you can definitely justify not using them. But
it's hard to justify not using a digital camera because they don't cost
anything after you've bought them.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

PeterC said:

She doesn't want to be bothered with complexity; it's not really a big
problem, as she was a critical care nurse so can handle techy stuff,
but can't be arsed just for snaps.

I can't be arsed just for snaps either, so for family gatherings like
birthdays I turn everything on my fancy DSLR to auto and forget about it.
All I have to do is zoom, frame and wait for the decisive moment.

DSLRs are way better than digicams for point 'n' shoot work. Do you know
why?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

Paul Saunders said:

it's hard to justify not using a digital camera because they don't cost
anything after you've bought them.

Except time in Photoshop :-)

But what about extra stuff? Extra lenses, extra memory cards, extra
batteries, extra hard drives eventually. It all adds up.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Angletarn Pikes via Beda Fell.

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You say that like it's a bad thing! Depends on your requirements of
course, but a DSLR will give much better quality, and they all have fully
automatic modes if that's what you want.

Not quite, but the lower spec ones do. My Nikon D200 has neither auto or
scene modes and I suspect that's true of all Canon and Nikon high-end SLRs.
Whether the Leica M8 does, I'm not sure...

"PeterC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for this - I'll delve into the sites again (but there's a new mobo
calling to me).

Here are some Panasonic LX2 shots I took on Crinkle Crags on Friday (it was
a bit hazy):

http://alexandjustine.smugmug.com/photos/149495754-L.jpg

http://alexandjustine.smugmug.com/photos/149497023-L.jpg

http://alexandjustine.smugmug.com/photos/149498766-L.jpg

Shot on aperture priority, but it has full auto. Note the wideangle sensor
gives a widescreen ratio to the photos, but there is a simple slider on the
lens barrel to crop the sides if you want a normal ratio..

In message <[email hidden]>, PeterC
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Neil Pugh said:

Morgan Computers have got a few Olympus cameras on their website at the
moment, they're generally older models, but don't cost a fortune.

Thanks - I really must look there more often. They tend to come and go v.
quickly.

Be a bit careful with the older Olympus cameras - some are a bit
particular about the flavour of xD card that they will take. We bought a
mju410 which according to:

http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/images/DI_Media_Compatibility.pdf

shouldn't take the type M or H xD cards, but only the standard ones. The
standard ones are difficult to obtain these days.

Having said that our particular 410 seems to take the large capacity
type H cards with no bother, and Olympus support have confirmed to me
that if it works it isn't a problem!

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh

In message <[email hidden]>

Neil Pugh said:

In message <[email hidden]>, PeterC
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Neil Pugh said:

Morgan Computers have got a few Olympus cameras on their website at the
moment, they're generally older models, but don't cost a fortune.

Thanks - I really must look there more often. They tend to come and go v.
quickly.

Be a bit careful with the older Olympus cameras - some are a bit
particular about the flavour of xD card that they will take. We bought a
mju410 which according to:

http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/images/DI_Media_Compatibility.pdf

shouldn't take the type M or H xD cards, but only the standard ones. The
standard ones are difficult to obtain these days.

Having said that our particular 410 seems to take the large capacity
type H cards with no bother, and Olympus support have confirmed to me
that if it works it isn't a problem!

Regards,

I think the other thing for the OP to sort out is whether the camera
needs an optical viewfinder, or whether framing using the LCD screen
will be the preferred method of use. The mju 410 is nice fpr me because
it has an optical viewfinder and the LCD screen can be disabled thus
saving battery power. For long ski-touring trips where most of the
photos are in bright sunlight of snow covered mountains the optical
viewfinder is best.

However if the LCD screen is the preference then there are several more
recent mju series models that have an excellent large bright screen
display. Models such as the mju 600, mju 700 and mju 800 for example.
Since these have also been superseded by the mju 770SW etc there are
bargains to be had for end of line samples.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Mike Clark said:

For long ski-touring trips where
most of the photos are in bright sunlight of snow covered mountains
the optical viewfinder is best.

Bright sunlight and snow covered mountains? Not necessary in Wales then. ;-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

In message <[email hidden]>, Mike
Clark <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I think the other thing for the OP to sort out is whether the camera
needs an optical viewfinder, or whether framing using the LCD screen
will be the preferred method of use. The mju 410 is nice fpr me because
it has an optical viewfinder and the LCD screen can be disabled thus
saving battery power. For long ski-touring trips where most of the
photos are in bright sunlight of snow covered mountains the optical
viewfinder is best.

However if the LCD screen is the preference then there are several more
recent mju series models that have an excellent large bright screen
display. Models such as the mju 600, mju 700 and mju 800 for example.
Since these have also been superseded by the mju 770SW etc there are
bargains to be had for end of line samples.

Mike

I'm old fashioned enough to think that an optical viewfinder is an
essential. The screen is fine for some shots (notably close ups (where
the parallax between viewfinder and lens causes problems) and over other
the heads of other people) but the sight of someone holding a camera at
arms length and hoping to get any sort of a sharp photo makes me
shudder.

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh

Neil Pugh said:

In message <[email hidden]>, PeterC
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Neil Pugh said:

Morgan Computers have got a few Olympus cameras on their website at the
moment, they're generally older models, but don't cost a fortune.

Thanks - I really must look there more often. They tend to come and go v.
quickly.

Be a bit careful with the older Olympus cameras - some are a bit
particular about the flavour of xD card that they will take. We bought a
mju410 which according to:

http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/images/DI_Media_Compatibility.pdf

shouldn't take the type M or H xD cards, but only the standard ones. The
standard ones are difficult to obtain these days.

Having said that our particular 410 seems to take the large capacity
type H cards with no bother, and Olympus support have confirmed to me
that if it works it isn't a problem!

Thanks for the warning - now I know why my last lass doesn't want an
Olympus (she did say something about the cards).

--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

Paul Saunders said:

PeterC said:

She doesn't want to be bothered with complexity; it's not really a big
problem, as she was a critical care nurse so can handle techy stuff,
but can't be arsed just for snaps.

I can't be arsed just for snaps either, so for family gatherings like
birthdays I turn everything on my fancy DSLR to auto and forget about it.
All I have to do is zoom, frame and wait for the decisive moment.

DSLRs are way better than digicams for point 'n' shoot work. Do you know
why?

No Paul, but we come back to cost and size. The sort of camera that she can
handle would slip between my fingers - I've seen a cell 'phone on which I
could press all the buttons at once with my thumb.

--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

Chris Malcolm said:

It hasn't yet been up anything bigger
than Edinburgh's bonsai mountain Arthur's Seat, but this view from the
top should give an idea of what it can do.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/487104840/in/set-72157600185073185/

As you will be able to see from the "more properties" under the camera
type, that was taken at near max zoom. Max zoom is is 71.5mm in fact,
120mm in 135 equiv terms.

Click on the "all sizes" button and get the original size, the jpg
straight out of the camera, no photoshop fiddling.

It's superb. The foreground looks almost 3-D, like the slides from my OM1
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

PeterC said:

No, not DSLR!

You say that like it's a bad thing! Depends on your requirements of course,
but a DSLR will give much better quality, and they all have fully automatic
modes if that's what you want.

Paul

I now have three digital cameras, an ageing Fuji 2800z, a Fuji S5500,
and a tiny Casio which fits in the palm of my hand, and provides very
acceptable 6Mp photos and video.

If I was starting again, I would get the little Casio, which can be
carried everywhere in a shirt pocket, and a DLSR with a clonking great
telephoto for those leisurely walks looking for bird and other wildlife
shots.

As my photos have improved (folk tell me), so my requirements have
grown, but I have spent enough....
--
Gordon H
(Remove invalid to email)

Phil Cook said:

Paul Saunders said:

it's hard to justify not using a digital camera because they don't
cost anything after you've bought them.

Except time in Photoshop :-)

But what about extra stuff? Extra lenses, extra memory cards, extra
batteries, extra hard drives eventually. It all adds up.

Yep, but hardware stays with you or can be sold later. It's only really the
cost of the hard drives and DVDs to store the images that's the issue, and
they work out very cheap. Currently I can store four 10MP images for just
one penny! That makes a nice change from 25 pence per slide, and they take
up very little physical space too.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

Neil Pugh said:

I'm old fashioned enough to think that an optical viewfinder is an
essential.

I'm new fashioned enough to think that perfect framing is highly desirable.

Quoted message said:

The screen is fine for some shots (notably close ups (where
the parallax between viewfinder and lens causes problems) and over
other the heads of other people) but the sight of someone holding a
camera at arms length and hoping to get any sort of a sharp photo
makes me shudder.

If they don't know what they're doing then it wouldn't matter anyway, but
why would you assume that using the LCD would cause unsharp photos? For a
start, it's not necessary to hold it at arms length, unless your eyesight is
really bad. Secondly, you can brace your arms against your sides if
necessary. Thirdly, more to the point, in good light you can use a fast
enough shutter speed that camera shake isn't an issue.

I took thousands of photos with my G3 using the LCD to frame my pictures and
I never had a problem with sharpness. Of course, I always used additional
support when I knew it would be an issue.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk