Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  9
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    North Yorks
    Posts
    3,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skiptonian View Post
    Compacts are great for taking photographs but to LEARN about photography, I would go for a beginners SLR with full manual controls.

    Up to you of course.
    Yes, but the high end compacts have full manual control, in built ND filters etc and manual focus, just like entry plus SLRs.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Skipton
    Posts
    845

    Default

    They do indeed.

    Someone who wants to learn about photography will, (as soon as they get beyond the snapping phase) probably seek more creative options than a compact can offer and if wanting to see larger sized photographs will want a bigger sensor than that provided by the cheaper compacts.

    Despite owing two high end SLR's (and a very small compact) one of my very favourite cameras is my black Fujifilm X100s. Its a very traditional looking compact but with the latest technology inside. It also has an APS-C sensor which means it takes superb photo's if used correctly.

    Unfortunately, it cost over 1k and for that kind of money an SLR with a small range of reasonable quality interchangeable lenses, offers more possibilities.

    It's always an SLR I pick up when going out specifically to take photographs for photography's sake (if that makes sense)

  3. #13

    Default

    If you think fishing can be expensive, then wait till you start buying lenses, filters, bags, tripods, image software etc. Always something to spend your money on. I know a professional photographer whos images are outstanding. As hard as I try to produce something as close to the standard as they do I find it impossible. I keep trying though!
    I find it frustrating, but also challenging. Every now and then I get it right and the satisfaction of looking at a photo and thinking 'thats not bad' makes it worthwhile. An example being I took over 120 pictures yesterday, just 1 made the grade and even then only just.
    Enjoy

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Skipton
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Remember its the photographer that takes the photo not the camera and you don't need to spend a lot (but like fishing tackle it's nice if you can)

    A long time ago whilst at college, I remember a challenge between two members of the Photographic group. One had an expensive Nikon SLR film camera and the other a cheap 120 film camera with very little (if any) controls.

    Because the chap with the cheap camera (who also had middle of the range stuff when he wasn't trying to make a point) knew it's limitations and did not push those limits, he produced just as good (if not better)photographs as the other chap on a 2 hour photo expedition around Keighley town centre.

    One Photo in particular everyone said was outstanding of the (then) new slipway into the multi-storey car park taken from an unusual angle. Everybody who saw it agreed it was the best photo of the day. The Photographer with the cheapo camera was me.

    This isn't to brag in any way (not my style) but to show that when you understand your camera kit you can produce better photo's than the chap with the expensive kit who doesn't really know how to use it.

    Bit like Salmon fishing then?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Skipton
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Which option did you go for FishingTom?

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skiptonian View Post
    Remember its the photographer that takes the photo not the camera and you don't need to spend a lot (but like fishing tackle it's nice if you can)

    A long time ago whilst at college, I remember a challenge between two members of the Photographic group. One had an expensive Nikon SLR film camera and the other a cheap 120 film camera with very little (if any) controls.

    Because the chap with the cheap camera (who also had middle of the range stuff when he wasn't trying to make a point) knew it's limitations and did not push those limits, he produced just as good (if not better)photographs as the other chap on a 2 hour photo expedition around Keighley town centre.

    One Photo in particular everyone said was outstanding of the (then) new slipway into the multi-storey car park taken from an unusual angle. Everybody who saw it agreed it was the best photo of the day. The Photographer with the cheapo camera was me.

    This isn't to brag in any way (not my style) but to show that when you understand your camera kit you can produce better photo's than the chap with the expensive kit who doesn't really know how to use it.

    Bit like Salmon fishing then?
    All very true but you must remember that you had a big advantage when it comes to printing as the SLR is printing from a negative size of about 1"x 1 3/8" and the 120 roll film camera is printing from a negative size
    2 1/4" square. That is why Hassleblads and Bronicas used 120 roll film.
    Before the days of digital, magazines like Trout and Salmon and others would not consider 35mm pics for the front cover, it had to be from 120 roll film.
    Now with digital it is a more level playing field.
    The only advice I would add is not to get over excited about megapixels, it is the lens that matters. That is where the compacts will fall down due to the small lens.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Skipton
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heather point View Post
    All very true but you must remember that you had a big advantage when it comes to printing as the SLR is printing from a negative size of about 1"x 1 3/8" and the 120 roll film camera is printing from a negative size
    2 1/4" square. That is why Hassleblads and Bronicas used 120 roll film.
    Before the days of digital, magazines like Trout and Salmon and others would not consider 35mm pics for the front cover, it had to be from 120 roll film.
    Now with digital it is a more level playing field.
    The only advice I would add is not to get over excited about megapixels, it is the lens that matters. That is where the compacts will fall down due to the small lens.
    That's why I grabbed the club 120 rather than the 35mm SLR.

    Despite what some compromised chaps say, size DOES matter

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    somerset
    Posts
    141

    Default

    I agree with MCX.
    I was given a compact Sony HX9. I take it with me constantly, and use it. It is old kit now, but has a 16x zoom, and is easy to use.

    Before digital I had an SLR, but hardly took it with me unless I knew I was going to take photos, because of size and weight issues.

    I understand totally the comments about learning photography using an SLR, but am now convinced that with a good quality compact, most people will
    be more than happy with their results.

    As has been pointed out, if you enjoy this new hobby, move up to bigger
    and better kit-just like salmon fishing.

    Nick.

  9. #19

    Default

    Sorry no advice just commenting to keep an eye on the thread as the wife wants to take up photography so seeing whats reccomended for when i buy her a setup.

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,084

    Default

    Which compact cameras would be classed as one of the better ones, ie, having as many of the features as a SLR.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •