Which camera

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I am not conned into everything new meaning everything better. Years ago we had lots of solid fuel stoves in house, all ripped out and modern gas heating fitted, guess what is the " in thing " at the moment........did you fit one recently? Remember when cds came out? The saviour of the music industry, so much better than vinyl will nut jump or skip....like hell and guess what has become the latest gimmick......yep shelves again stacked with turntables in leccy stores and vinyl being the " in thing " again. Remember diesel cars being sooooo much better etc etc and guess what happened to their sales last month now the reality is out.................need I carry on? How much money are you willing to bet against me that in approx. 20 years time celebrities will be appearing on telly etc having paid x number of pounds to have a real foto taken on a real camera by one of the new wave of " specialist " photographers who use " Film "...................................

We didn't rip out the central heating to fit our multitude stove, just a gas fire.

Vinyl isn't quite the 'in thing' I think you will find that accolade goes to music streaming. I have a vinyl turntable too as it happens bought mainly to reprieve my old l.p. collection but without doubt it is easier and more convienient to use digital media which I can play in any room in the house (or caravan) not just in the room where my turntable, amp, and speakers are.

Film photography is for dinasours, at least your signature recognises this.

Edited January 6, 2018 by MJG

[mrsmelly]

13 minutes ago, MJG said:

We didn't rip out the central heating to fit our multitude stove, just a gas fire.

Vinyl isn't quite the 'in thing' I think you will find that accolade goes to music streaming. I have a vinyl turntable too as it happens bought mainly to reprieve my old l.p. collection but without doubt it is easier and more convienient to use digital media which I can play in any room in the house (or caravan) not just in the room where my turntable, amp, and speakers are.

Film photography is for dinasours, at least your signature recognises this.

Did you buy a kindle first week they came out? checked the latest figures on real book sales going up or down and e book sales going up or down?

[Guest]

Just now, mrsmelly said:

Did you buy a kindle first week they came out?

No. A while later.

I now often read on my Samsung tablet though.

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, MJG said:

No. A while later.

I now often read on my Samsung tablet though.

As you know the e book was going to " revolutionise " books  the paper book was finished blah blah blah.......and now in reality.....................

Ok ok so much stuff is improved with technology but not everything and proper cameras still produce awesome fotos and theres a feeling that you have actualy achieved something with genuine input over the finished article.....just sayin like.  Bloomin caravaners

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

As you know the e book was going to " revolutionise " books  the paper book was finished blah blah blah.......and now in reality.....................

Ok ok so much stuff is improved with technology but not everything and proper cameras still produce awesome fotos and theres a feeling that you have actualy achieved something with genuine input over the finished article.....just sayin like.  Bloomin caravaners

But using the right camera digital gives you the same creative control as using a film camera. In fact more, but if you want to get equivalent quality offered by your average digital camera with film, 35mm is not the way to go.

[Dr Bob]

41 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

 

Ok ok so much stuff is improved with technology but not everything and proper cameras still produce awesome fotos and theres a feeling that you have actualy achieved something with genuine input over the finished article.....just sayin like.  Bloomin caravaners

Digital photography has many advantages over film. Quality with the full frame DSLRs is now good enough to compare to medium format and certainly surpasses 35mm. The big thing for me is the learning curve for photography. I have been doing bird photography for 5 years now and have learnt far quicker with digital. I take over 30,000 shots per year and each night after a shoot can reveiw the shots and learn what i have been doing with all the info on each shot, exposure, focus, dof, colour, white balance, etc etc. You just couldnt do that with film. You get back in with a days worth of poor shots and quickly recognise what went wrong so the following morning you can go out and get it right. Storing all the shots on a laptop and then having immediate access to the digital files helps in improving knowledge. A large part of current digital photography is the post processing ie the use of photoshop etc to reproduce the scene you photo'd. That is a totally different skill to what people did with film. With my shots, every keeper is processed to bring up exposure, clarity, input sharpening, output sharpening and usually a bit of saturation. Shooting in Raw requires the user to do this rather than let the camera make those choices which it often gets wrong. I find there is a great deal of satisfaction in producing the 'accurate' shot.

[PD1964]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I am not conned into everything new meaning everything better. Years ago we had lots of solid fuel stoves in house, all ripped out and modern gas heating fitted, guess what is the " in thing " at the moment........did you fit one recently? Remember when cds came out? The saviour of the music industry, so much better than vinyl will nut jump or skip....like hell and guess what has become the latest gimmick......yep shelves again stacked with turntables in leccy stores and vinyl being the " in thing " again. Remember diesel cars being sooooo much better etc etc and guess what happened to their sales last month now the reality is out.................need I carry on? How much money are you willing to bet against me that in approx. 20 years time celebrities will be appearing on telly etc having paid x number of pounds to have a real foto taken on a real camera by one of the new wave of " specialist " photographers who use " Film "...................................

It's all to do with the links in the chain, Vinyl can sound better then CD, but you need a top turntable, head & arm, high end phone stage, valve pre-amp, valve-power amp, high high end speakers not to mention £1000's of cables. Same with film photo's, if film is so good why is it not the norm anymore? You can buy medium format digital camera's and lenses, but once again £50k plus. If you want digital similar to film look at the Sigma Foveon sensor cameras or Leica digital, Film is history and will not be back.

  There will be no celebrities getting their photo's shot on film this year, next or in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years time, just like non of them get their weddings or promo shots done with film now. The reason why? Because it's much easier to make them look good using digital and Photoshop editing.

Edited January 6, 2018 by PD1964

[ronnietucker]

I'd say go for a second-hand DSLR camera. I have a Nikon D3100 that I bought a while back and, while I'm no camera/photo buff, the difference in photo quality between a decent DSLR and a cheap camera/phone is quite obvious.

Like others have mentioned this one has a half-press to focus and full-press to photograph function. Also an auto-settings function for quick snaps.

I bought a cheap remote button for it. It's a little battery-powered box that dangles from the side of the camera and I have a little battery-powered box with a button. I can then do the half and/or full press to take a photo without looking/touching the camera. Of course, that's assuming it's already pointing where you want it and on a tripod or something. It does do video, but is limited to videos no longer than, if I remember rightly, about 15 minutes.

Again, like others have said, you can then branch out into buying additional (clip-on) lenses allowing you to do telephoto/macro photos.

Beware: buying add-ons gets addictive!  

[Laurie Booth]

Now't wrong with using a proper 10x8 plate camera.

 

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, ronnietucker said:

I'd say go for a second-hand DSLR camera. I have a Nikon D3100 that I bought a while back and, while I'm no camera/photo buff, the difference in photo quality between a decent DSLR and a cheap camera/phone is quite obvious.

Like others have mentioned this one has a half-press to focus and full-press to photograph function. Also an auto-settings function for quick snaps.

I bought a cheap remote button for it. It's a little battery-powered box that dangles from the side of the camera and I have a little battery-powered box with a button. I can then do the half and/or full press to take a photo without looking/touching the camera. Of course, that's assuming it's already pointing where you want it and on a tripod or something. It does do video, but is limited to videos no longer than, if I remember rightly, about 15 minutes.

Again, like others have said, you can then branch out into buying additional (clip-on) lenses allowing you to do telephoto/macro photos.

Beware: buying add-ons gets addictive!  

I think the OP wants a quick point and shoot camera that is small enough to fit in a pocket?

[ronnietucker]

12 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I think the OP wants a quick point and shoot camera that is small enough to fit in a pocket?

True, but a DSLR with a nice lens can easily be slung around the neck with a strap.

[Mike Todd]

18 minutes ago, ronnietucker said:

True, but a DSLR with a nice lens can easily be slung around the neck with a strap.

Whilst I have long coveted a 'proper'camera (last one was long ago back in the days of film) on a boat I really do need a pocket sized one, together with a neck strap. I have only actually lost one - that was climbing up a lock ladder - but I don't want to do so again. I lost a number of pix of canal features that took several years to replace as we did not go back there for that length of time.

The problem with a larger non-pocket camera is when working locks. When I get off I want to take pix of the lock itself and special features eg an unusual weir. I find that having something swinging around is all but impossible to cope with not to mention endangering the camera itself.

Sadly I find that my smartphone take better pix than the separate higher  end pocket camera but does not come with a tethering point and I do not intend to risk losing it into the murky depths.

[Horace42]

13 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

Digital photography has many advantages over film....................................................... Shooting in Raw requires the user to do this rather than let the camera make those choices which it often gets wrong. I find there is a great deal of satisfaction in producing the 'accurate' shot.

Exactly, it is the difference between 'photography' and 'snapshots'. I was dead keen as a kid but could not afford a 'decent' camera or films - certainly not to take dozens of shots and pick the best.  So I had to learn 'photography' to get it right first time.  Then doing the best I could in the darkroom to manipulate exposure etc to get the desired print.   

Now that digital 'graininess' (always an issue for enlargements) is a quality equivalent to the best colour film of the time - and the quality of the lens in today's ordinary pocket camera is as good as the best lens in pricey old cameras - issues of focus and definition have largely been solved - (but with more improvements in telescopic aspects still to come) - and the noticeable inherent delay in taking a picture - that appears, from what has been said, is a focusing delay - and also I think due to data capture and transfer - but solved at a price..  

To the extent the best 'old' mechanical camera technology is being resurrected and adapted to accommodate digital 'film' - far superior to the old wet film process except it is all saved to memory for easy retrieval and processing - which with modern graphics processing power has become an art form of it's own.  

The only limitation it seems will be weakness in the skill and knowledge of the user - that I imagine will take a lot of time and practice - and the camera equipment - to get up to speed to match Dr.Bob's work.

 

 

 

[mrsmelly]

17 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

Digital photography has many advantages over film. Quality with the full frame DSLRs is now good enough to compare to medium format and certainly surpasses 35mm. The big thing for me is the learning curve for photography. I have been doing bird photography for 5 years now and have learnt far quicker with digital. I take over 30,000 shots per year and each night after a shoot can reveiw the shots and learn what i have been doing with all the info on each shot, exposure, focus, dof, colour, white balance, etc etc. You just couldnt do that with film. You get back in with a days worth of poor shots and quickly recognise what went wrong so the following morning you can go out and get it right. Storing all the shots on a laptop and then having immediate access to the digital files helps in improving knowledge. A large part of current digital photography is the post processing ie the use of photoshop etc to reproduce the scene you photo'd. That is a totally different skill to what people did with film. With my shots, every keeper is processed to bring up exposure, clarity, input sharpening, output sharpening and usually a bit of saturation. Shooting in Raw requires the user to do this rather than let the camera make those choices which it often gets wrong. I find there is a great deal of satisfaction in producing the 'accurate' shot.

One of my best buddies teaches " Photshop? " stuff here and in the USA. He took a foto of fantastic looking me ( portrait? ) on one of his cameras a SONY A7R11 whatever that is but thats what it says on his website. If you lucky people want to see just how good looking I am he has put it with his portraits online Glyn Dewis is his name he takes fab fotos and has done some interesting work. If you like foto stuff google his web thingy.

[rusty69]

4 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

One of my best buddies teaches " Photshop? " stuff here and in the USA. He took a foto of fantastic looking me ( portrait? ) on one of his cameras a SONY A7R11 whatever that is but thats what it says on his website. If you lucky people want to see just how good looking I am he has put it with his portraits online Glyn Dewis is his name he takes fab fotos and has done some interesting work. If you like foto stuff google his web thingy.

For those of you who want to see what mrsmelly looks like, but can't work the search engine, I have done the hard work for you...........................

[system 4-50]

He appears to have two rudders as well as bow diving planes.

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Whilst I have long coveted a 'proper'camera (last one was long ago back in the days of film) on a boat I really do need a pocket sized one, together with a neck strap. I have only actually lost one - that was climbing up a lock ladder - but I don't want to do so again. I lost a number of pix of canal features that took several years to replace as we did not go back there for that length of time.

The problem with a larger non-pocket camera is when working locks. When I get off I want to take pix of the lock itself and special features eg an unusual weir. I find that having something swinging around is all but impossible to cope with not to mention endangering the camera itself.

Sadly I find that my smartphone take better pix than the separate higher  end pocket camera but does not come with a tethering point and I do not intend to risk losing it into the murky depths.

That is why I take the straps off, they ended up on the floor more from me catching the strap than being dropped and hanging round your neck was always banging things. It just sits on a shelf inside the hatch

 

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

That is why I take the straps off, they ended up on the floor more from me catching the strap than being dropped and hanging round your neck was always banging things. It just sits on a shelf inside the hatch

 

That's fine when on board, steering or not, but not really when off, working locks. Or perhaps you have crew to do that? . . . 

[Dr Bob]

1 hour ago, system 4-50 said:

He appears to have two rudders as well as bow diving planes.

....and a red end!

[ditchcrawler]

34 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

That's fine when on board, steering or not, but not really when off, working locks. Or perhaps you have crew to do that? . . . 

No I tried that and swinging a windlass with a camera round my neck was a complete disaster, I stand it on the lock beam and make sure I pick it up before moving the beam or lay it back on the boat.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

No I tried that and swinging a windlass with a camera round my neck was a complete disaster, I stand it on the lock beam and make sure I pick it up before moving the beam or lay it back on the boat.

Ditto, a neck strap is a PITA when boating. I tended to use a heavy duty wrist strap to help secure the camera and set it down but within easy reach when not taking a pic.

Ed - one of these.

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/optech-slr-wrist-strap-black-1531291/?mkwid=sfvBxLDoO_dt&pcrid=227148421563&kword=&match=&plid=&product=1531291&gclid=Cj0KCQiAp8fSBRCUARIsABPL6JZQx6Uy7Kr9__hpagNH4ppX_syRaT-b2zSm_LG7mzBaSs_hzsip1_gaAvylEALw_wcB

Edited January 7, 2018 by MJG

[geehils]

It really depends how 'Automatic' you want things to be.

For your budget you will get an aged DSLR, which will still take great photo's but, for a boat, will be rather bulky and have lots of lenses.

If you want point and shoot, then the latest phones have brilliant cameras in them.

If you want a compact complex camera, with great flexibility on movies, then the Canon GX7 series II is fantastic. It will also shoot in RAW should you wish to edit.

When cruising I just kept a Sony Digital Camera hanging by it's strap, took reasonable photo's and if I wanted to take a video, just got my iPhone out.

At the end of the day, digital cameras get out of date very quickly, so I would avoid getting any compact more that 2/3 years old.

Why not go to a second hand camera shop and have a play with the stock they have; at the end of the day the choice is so personal

[bizzard]

You shouldn't need a camera if you happen to have a photographic memory.  I have an Olympus Trip 35 film camera for sale, because I couldn't find a USB port on it anywhere So it is for sale, mint condition, the rarer more collectable one with the chrome shutter button instead of the black plastic button. £45.

I'll take a photo with it of itself later and stick it on here.  Its the type that that David Bailey fellow used to advertise on the telly.

Edited January 7, 2018 by bizzard

[bizzard]

Here it is.

[Tim Lewis]

6 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

One of my best buddies teaches " Photshop? " stuff here and in the USA. He took a foto of fantastic looking me ( portrait? ) on one of his cameras a SONY A7R11 whatever that is but thats what it says on his website. If you lucky people want to see just how good looking I am he has put it with his portraits online Glyn Dewis is his name he takes fab fotos and has done some interesting work. If you like foto stuff google his web thingy.

You need a £4,000 camera and Photoshop to make you look good?   :-)

Tim