Which camera

[ditchcrawler]

6 minutes ago, Tim Lewis said:

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

Tim

Are you sure you don't mean a £4.00 one Tim

[Guest]

3 hours ago, geehils said:

At the end of the day, digital cameras get out of date very quickly, so I would avoid getting any compact more that 2/3 years old.

'Out of date' in what sense exactly.

[StephenA]

2 hours ago, bizzard said:

Here it is.

Dad used to have one of those - I used it quite a bit and got some good photos from it.

 

[Grassman]

Well you've all certainly given me much food for thought following my OP. Going for a decent quality second hand SLR is tempting and I can see the advantages that they offer, especially in terms of quality and ability to shoot things you probably can't with 'lesser cameras', however because I will be using it mainly when we are on the boat and on the move much of the time, I think I'm going to go for one of those smaller 'point and shoot' ones and one at the higher end quality wise. Looking at the good reviews of some of those you've recommended I will choose one of those.

They don't seem to have the delay that my current one does, and some of you have told me how to improve this anyway. I want a camera that will tuck away nicely in my pocket therefore lessening the risk of damaging or dropping it. I'm okay with the fact that the quality of shots mightn't be up to SLR standards, but provided I can photo what I come across (rather than being too late because we've passed it) I will be happy with the compromise on quality compared to an SLR.

Thanks again for your input everybody.

[WotEver]

11 hours ago, Tim Lewis said:

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

Tim

Even that wouldn’t be sufficient for me. 

[geehils]

11 hours ago, MJG said:

'Out of date' in what sense exactly.

In the sense that it's a very fast changing market and over a very short space of time there have been massive improvements in the sensor capturing the image and firmware operating the camera.

[mrsmelly]

11 hours ago, Tim Lewis said:

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

Tim

[Guest]

3 hours ago, geehils said:

In the sense that it's a very fast changing market and over a very short space of time there have been massive improvements in the sensor capturing the image and firmware operating the camera.

Really?

At the end of the day they still capture a digital image and I would wager most people couldn't tell any difference between an image taken on a 2 year old camera and one taken on the equivalent model today.

I've just bought a used (in excellent condition) Panasonic Lumix GF1 on ebay, it is a model that first came out in 2009 and it takes superb pictures. OK it doesn't connect to my tablet using wi-fi but I can use an 'on the go' cable to do that and neither does it tag photo's with it's location using GPS, but I can live without that 'feature'.

Going back to the OP's issue - it focuses in around 1.5 seconds in relatively poor light.

It cost me £133, including a 14-45mm micro four thirds kit lens. It cost around £600 when new and so does the equivalent model being sold today.

[rusty69]

My Panasonic Lumix TZ-8, is again older technology which cost me a tenner off gumtree. I  didn't really need it, as my Fuji F11 is still ok after over ten years use, but thought I would splash out and treat myself to an upgrade.

Edited January 8, 2018 by rusty69

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

My Panasonic Lumix TZ-8, is again older technology which cost me a tenner off gumtree. I  didn't really need it, as my Fuji F11 is still ok after over ten years use, but thought I would splash out and treat myself to an upgrade.

Good little travel camera, I had a TZ-35 for a while. When I sold that I got nearly as much as originally paid for it as the guy bidding on it was desperate to replace one he had dunked in water.

[Mike Todd]

I haven't checked recently but when I was buying a replacement last spring I found that almost all cameras in the pocket-size range have dropped the GPS function which was a bit of a disappointment. I found it very useful to be able to locate a photo (of a canal feature such as a milestone) that is hard to find via Google Maps etc. Given that mobile phones have it almost by default these days (and when the market is feature-driven) it was not easy to understand this trend.

[Guest]

Just now, Mike Todd said:

I haven't checked recently but when I was buying a replacement last spring I found that almost all cameras in the pocket-size range have dropped the GPS function which was a bit of a disappointment. I found it very useful to be able to locate a photo (of a canal feature such as a milestone) that is hard to find via Google Maps etc. Given that mobile phones have it almost by default these days (and when the market is feature-driven) it was not easy to understand this trend.

The sony compacts still retain it I believe.

But yes I think Pana have dropped it from their compact Lumix range, with I think the TZ40 the last one to have it. (but I'm happy to be corrected)

[rusty69]

When I was researching which camera to buy,it was advised that leaving the GPS function on was a great drain on the battery.

[Tim Lewis]

3 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

When I was researching which camera to buy,it was advised that leaving the GPS function on was a great drain on the battery.

Easily solved by buying spare batteries and chargers.

Tim

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, Tim Lewis said:

Easily solved by buying spare batteries and chargers.

Tim

Why would you need to buy a spare charger?

[Tim Lewis]

11 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I haven't checked recently but when I was buying a replacement last spring I found that almost all cameras in the pocket-size range have dropped the GPS function which was a bit of a disappointment. I found it very useful to be able to locate a photo (of a canal feature such as a milestone) that is hard to find via Google Maps etc. Given that mobile phones have it almost by default these days (and when the market is feature-driven) it was not easy to understand this trend.

The Olympus TG 4 rugged/waterproof camera (Now replaced by the TG-5) mentioned earlier has GPS. I have one use use where I wouldn't take other cameras such as on restoration digs, beach etc, it is an excellent camera but not cheap - TG-5 is £400 new.

Tim

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Why would you need to buy a spare charger?

if you can get one a 12v one is handy in the car.

[Tim Lewis]

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Why would you need to buy a spare charger?

Because most chargers supplied with cameras are 230 volt. Go on to amazon and you will find USB powered ones that you can charge in your car, from back up batteries etc

Tim

[geehils]

1 hour ago, MJG said:

Really?

At the end of the day they still capture a digital image and I would wager most people couldn't tell any difference between an image taken on a 2 year old camera and one taken on the equivalent model today.

I've just bought a used (in excellent condition) Panasonic Lumix GF1 on ebay, it is a model that first came out in 2009 and it takes superb pictures. OK it doesn't connect to my tablet using wi-fi but I can use an 'on the go' cable to do that and neither does it tag photo's with it's location using GPS, but I can live without that 'feature'.

Going back to the OP's issue - it focuses in around 1.5 seconds in relatively poor light.

It cost me £133, including a 14-45mm micro four thirds kit lens. It cost around £600 when new and so does the equivalent model being sold today.

Depends how the image is used; as a web page probably not, but enlarged to A4 plus and yes you could. In its day the GF1 was a great top end compact and will outperform many of today's cameras. However, compare the spec 'side by side' with the current GF7/8 and you can see the difference and how things have moved on, which was the point I was making. Whether these spec. changes or additional functionality make any practical difference to the owner really depends on how they intend using the camera

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, geehils said:

Depends how the image is used; as a web page probably not, but enlarged to A4 plus and yes you could. In its day the GF1 was a great top end compact and will outperform many of today's cameras. However, compare the spec 'side by side' with the current GF7/8 and you can see the difference and how things have moved on, which was the point I was making. Whether these spec. changes or additional functionality make any practical difference to the owner really depends on how they intend using the camera

Exactly, a lot are an unnecessary addition that add no real value to the end result (certainly not hundreds of pounds worth), eg a selfie screen or various creative filters, all of which can be done on a PC anyway.

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, rusty69 said:

When I was researching which camera to buy,it was advised that leaving the GPS function on was a great drain on the battery.

Why is it so different from a mobile phone? Especially as the phone is usually left on all the time whilst a camera is not.

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

Why is it so different from a mobile phone? Especially as the phone is usually left on all the time whilst a camera is not.

My phone hasn't got gps.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Why is it so different from a mobile phone? Especially as the phone is usually left on all the time whilst a camera is not.

It isn't really different but it is generally true that if you leave features (eg GPS and,wi-fi and Bluetooth)  switched on and apps. running in the back ground you will run your phone battery down quicker than if you do not.

But probably only a marginal affect on a camera I would have thought given as you say it will only be tracking your location while the camera is actually switched on, unless of course they use the GPS locator while switched off which I don't believe is the case. (happy to be corrected)

Edited January 8, 2018 by MJG

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, MJG said:

Really?

At the end of the day they still capture a digital image and I would wager most people couldn't tell any difference between an image taken on a 2 year old camera and one taken on the equivalent model today.

I've just bought a used (in excellent condition) Panasonic Lumix GF1 on ebay, it is a model that first came out in 2009 and it takes superb pictures. OK it doesn't connect to my tablet using wi-fi but I can use an 'on the go' cable to do that and neither does it tag photo's with it's location using GPS, but I can live without that 'feature'.

Going back to the OP's issue - it focuses in around 1.5 seconds in relatively poor light.

It cost me £133, including a 14-45mm micro four thirds kit lens. It cost around £600 when new and so does the equivalent model being sold today.

I think that is really the way to go, there are people with cameras like people with Apple products, as soon as a new one comes out the old one is useless. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think that is really the way to go, there are people with cameras like people with Apple products, as soon as a new one comes out the old one is useless. 

It is of course possible to get caught out eBay but the camera looks as if it has barely been used and as if it has just left the shop (Comet!!) when it was brand new.

By co incidence the lens takes all my existing filters which is a bonus.

A good source of new but superseded or about to be superseded cameras is Argos' and Currys pc world's shops on eBay.

Edited January 8, 2018 by MJG