Camera advice please..

[pjdowns]

Hi one and all,

I am interested in getting myself a new camera and wanted some advice.

The Camera needs to have shock resistance or whatever it's called because I shake like a Mofo.

I've used a Nikon D90 and quite liked that, would definitely like a view finder and it could be a SLR.

Thanks in advance,

Paul

[Stratmangler]

Image stabilisation is what I think you're looking for.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Image_Stabilizer.asp

I think quite a number of the camera manufacturers do something similar.

[walpurgis]

Yes it is 'image stabilisation' you need. It can vary in ability from camera to camera, so best buy a good model from a decent brand, i.e., Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc. Decide what spec you need and check model reviews on the net. Steves-digicams and dpreview are good sites.

It may be worth Googling 'image stabilisation' as there's plenty of info. Cheaper compact cameras just bump the shutter speed up to reduce the effects of shake, best avoid these. Most SLR types (Single Lens Reflex) feature more advanced active stabilisation, via lens or mirror devices. I stopped using SLRs a few years ago and now stick with 'bridge cameras', which are a sort of cross between an SLR and a compact. They provide me with all I need and can offer some very advanced and comprehensive features.

[pjdowns]

Aha thanks gents, will look into it more when I get back home :)

[Haselsh1]

Image stabilisation only corrects camera shake though. If your subject moves, you're buggered.

[julesd68]

I've used a Nikon D90 and quite liked that, would definitely like a view finder and it could be a SLR.

The D90 is an excellent camera. Do you still have it? If so, did you use it with a Nikon VR lens? This vibration reduction system works very well in my experience ...

[walpurgis]

Image stabilisation only corrects camera shake though. If your subject moves, you're buggered.

Nah! Just keep it in 'Sports Program' mode and remember to pan. :)

[Stratmangler]

I shake like a MofoImage stabilisation only corrects camera shake though. If your subject moves, you're buggered.

The OP is aware of this.

[hoopsontoast]

I would look at the Pentax models, the original K-5 is around £450 new now (SRS) which is brilliant value.
Weather Resistant metal body, in built 'SR' Shake Reduction and a wide variety of lenses that fit them.
The Dual control wheels are also a good feature.
I am really pleased with my 'old' but new to me K-7.

[dave2010]

I think it very much depends what you want the camera for. A compact camera is useful because of portability, though modern ones can be all but useless because of the lack of any sensible viewfinder. If you wanted to go on safari for example, some bridge cameras are useful, because they won't get dirt inside, and are small enough to be manageable, and also they are not so "flash" that they're likely to be stolen. Obviously an SLR - probably digital - offers the most flexibility (there are people who still like film!), but the bulkiness counts against them.

I'd say think what you want the camera for first, then decide. You may need different cameras for different scenarios, though a DSLR offers flexibility because of the interchangeable lenses, and frequently the highest quality results are obtainable that way. Most DSLRs offer RAW mode, which is good for anyone who want to try to extract the best quality from their images - but consider that many people won't bother, or won't have time to do that. Also RAW mode images take up more space.

Sometimes photographers want to be less conspicuous. A bulky SLR is likely to draw attention to the photographer.

One more factor - despite the flexibilty and quality factors on some expensive cameras now, it does look as though camera manufacturers are in general improving their products year on year (with the exception of taking the viewfinder off compact cameras) - so making a heavy investment in one camera may not be optimum as cheaper and better ones will come along next year or the year after.

A few last things, some cameras give excellent results in sunlight, but are rubbish in low light. If you want to take photos in low light you should know this. Also, if you take sports photos, you will need a camera with a very fast operation, and/or fast sequence shooting. There's no point in having the perfect shot of a goal attempt about 1 second too late!

I repeat, list what you want to use the camera for, and then choose appropriately.

[StanleyB]

I think it very much depends what you want the camera for.
Very much so. These days I use my DSLR mainly for shooting in RAW mode when I need that option. But for every day use I find that my Nokia 808 Pureview camera phone covers most bases. It is supposed to be the most advanced camera on any phone right now, and the results are superior to any of the compacts I own.

[walpurgis]

Don't get caught up in the 'megapixel race'. The quality of your lens is far more important than the size of your mp count.

I've had high mp cameras, but I find a good camera with over 6mp gives perfectly fine results for everyday shots. My old Olympus C8080 has 8mp as does my equally elderly Kodak P880 and both give great results due to their high quality lenses. They are a pleasure to use and have very useful wide angle manually zoomed lenses.

[Barry]

Don't get caught up in the 'megapixel race'. The quality of your lens is far more important than the size of your mp count.

I've had high mp cameras, but I find a good camera with over 6mp gives perfectly fine results for everyday shots. My old Olympus C8080 has 8mp as does my equally elderly Kodak P880 and both give great results due to their high quality lenses. They are a pleasure to use and have very useful wide angle manually zoomed lenses.

Agree the number of pixels is a bit of a red herring. Of more importance is the size (in mm2) of the sensor itself and the quality of the lens.

I hve a 12Mp Lumix fitted with a Leica Vario-Elmar lens. It takes decent enough pictures, but the picture quality is nowhere near as good as that obtained with my Leica rangefinder cameras loaded with Kodachrome filmstock.

[Stubies]

We recently bought a new camera, and are very pleased with it.

Canon 100D

It is extremely light and small (lightest of all DSLRs), has great image stabilisation, and has shockingly good 'low light' picture mode where it takes three pictures and merges them together - making the picture both bright and crisp despite near complete darkness and no tripod.

I will put a pancake lens on it, so it is easy to take in a bag - almost like a compact (without the zoom).

All around an excellent non-professional SLR, not cheap however, the extra lightness is charged at a premium - less for more sort of thing ;)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EOS-100D-Digital-Camera/dp/B00BYOY9EO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372843861&sr=8-1&keywords=100d+canon

[Haselsh1]

The OP is aware of this.

Then I suggest from my own experience the suggestions made here are not going to be a lot of use. Even with a VR lens you have to be pretty good at taking images.

[pjdowns]

Hmm I really like the look of that Canon :)

[Stubies]

We are still very pleased with the Canon - you wont be disapointed!

[Andrei]

+ 1 on the Pentax. I have the K-x that I am happy with. Basically the big names are the safest, Nikon and Canon; but Pentax and Sony are worth a look.

Is size and issue for you? If so then have a close look at the sub-species called four thirds.

Are you are into digital manipulation (with a camera, I hasten to add)? +1 on RAW operation. RAW is great because you have a lot of non-destructive options in software such as photoshop.

[walpurgis]

Last Pentax I had was a K100D. Good camera despite the low pixel count by today's standards. Easy to use and it gave very decent shots. Bit bulky though. As I said earlier, I'm sticking to bridge cameras now. They cover all bases for me.

[Clive]

I agree that the megapixel is largely irrelevant - unless you want to crop photos significantly or print on massive paper. For myself the revelation I had going from an Olympus E410 to a Nikon D7000 was in low light performance (the camera, not mine :lol:). The lack of grain at higher ISO settings is impressive I can shoot up to 1600 easily and sometimes 3200 and still capture a sharp picture. For indoors I rarely need a flash. Most current DSLRs have come on in this area but some are better than others.

[dave2010]

Then I suggest from my own experience the suggestions made here are not going to be a lot of use. Even with a VR lens you have to be pretty good at taking images.We still haven't had much clue what the camera is going to be used for. Try taking a picture of a small bird in a tree from some distance away, and you'll need a good camera, good stabilisation, plus also a very good technique. Even then it might not work.

A tripod would help, but then one doesn't always have one available, or want to carry one around. If that is too much of a challenge, even try taking shots of birds coming to bird feeders in your garden. Even in good light that turns out to be rather challenging. You're very unlikely to get anything like some of the wonderful pictures you see in nature magazines, or the photos which win in competitions.

[walpurgis]

Some of the birds I know will do a saucy pose if you ask them nicely! ;)

[pjdowns]

Some of the birds I know will do a saucy pose if you ask them nicely! ;)

LOL

[pjdowns]

Hi Dave,

The camera will be used for general use but if I begin to enjoy taking pictures, I might start taking more challenging photographs as a hobby :)

P.