Hello all. I'm now starting to look for a DSLR camera that is suitable for bus photography. It would be my first DSLR camera and I've only ever used very standard digital cameras beforehand. I'm looking for something that would give me the sharpest images possible, the best features to use for the hobby and one that can do a decent job at capturing vehicles on the move, sometimes at some speed. Does anyone have any recommendations or advice on models or where to look please?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Choosing a DSLR Camera for Bus Photography
- Thread starter Busman792
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
I'm a bit out the loop regarding DSLRs as my current one (still in service) dates from 2013....
Sharpness is very subjective and depends on multiple factors; mainly quality of glass (lens), resolution, depth of field (how much front-to-back sharpness), shutter speed, aperture, skill of photographer. When I used to take photos of buses in London during the early 1990s(T's, M's, L's) I used film. Haven't really taken photos of buses since but I do a lot of railway photography.
Buses generally move more slowly than trains so you can probably get away with a shutter speed of up to 1/500 sec for moving buses. Most, if not all DSLRs go up to 1/2000 sec shutter speed. If you want the "best" sharpness, then you need to "stop" down on a lens (low "f" number) which means a slower shutter speed unless you increase the ISO which then leads to noisier images. Generally, moving subjects can be "acceptably sharp" at around "f8" but this really depends on type/quality of lens, shutter speed and available light. No picture can be "perfectly sharp" throughout and apart from the "f" number/shutter speed combination, you also have to fact in other variables such as lens distortion (pincushion/barrel), chromatic aberration, diffraction, haze (through heat), single focal-length lenses or variable focus-length (zoom) lenses
Loads to consider - not to mention, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony etc. are all "good makes" of camera. Most, if not all cater for both the amateur and professional market.
But a lot depends on the skill of the photographer so lots of practice needed....
Sharpness is very subjective and depends on multiple factors; mainly quality of glass (lens), resolution, depth of field (how much front-to-back sharpness), shutter speed, aperture, skill of photographer. When I used to take photos of buses in London during the early 1990s(T's, M's, L's) I used film. Haven't really taken photos of buses since but I do a lot of railway photography.
Buses generally move more slowly than trains so you can probably get away with a shutter speed of up to 1/500 sec for moving buses. Most, if not all DSLRs go up to 1/2000 sec shutter speed. If you want the "best" sharpness, then you need to "stop" down on a lens (low "f" number) which means a slower shutter speed unless you increase the ISO which then leads to noisier images. Generally, moving subjects can be "acceptably sharp" at around "f8" but this really depends on type/quality of lens, shutter speed and available light. No picture can be "perfectly sharp" throughout and apart from the "f" number/shutter speed combination, you also have to fact in other variables such as lens distortion (pincushion/barrel), chromatic aberration, diffraction, haze (through heat), single focal-length lenses or variable focus-length (zoom) lenses
Loads to consider - not to mention, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony etc. are all "good makes" of camera. Most, if not all cater for both the amateur and professional market.
But a lot depends on the skill of the photographer so lots of practice needed....
Last edited:
This is so true you can have the best camera in the world but if you do not know how to use it you will get poor results
John
Firstly, be aware that DSLRs are largely being superseded by MILCs (mirrorless intechangeable lens cameras), not entirely, but only Canon, Pentax, Nikon and Hasselblad are still making them and only Pentax has made it clear that they will continue to do so. There are advocates for both, but MILCs are better for video and fast focussing, but I prefer a DSLR for my own type of photos.
Any DSLR or MILC camera made since about 2010 by Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, OM*, Panasonic, Leica, Hasselblad, or Phase One, is capable of superb pictures, with sharpness beyond the capability of the human eye with any sane degree of enlargement; some say they are all OTT, the result of a resolution arms race between the makers. As a previous poster said, the picture quality depends on you.
The most important choice you need to make is format. There are four real alternatives, in order of increasing size they are Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, Full Frame, and Medium Format. As a beginner in this area you can probably rule out Medium Format (unless you have like £10,000+ to spare) and probably Full Frame too (like £2000+); these are large, quite heavy, and conspicuous. APS-C cameras are more the size of an old 35mm film SLR, and Micro Four Thirds look like toys to me but are loved by their advocates and are generally small and light, although not necessarily the cheapest. APS-C is probably the best all-rounder for a newbie.
The lens of a DSLR or MILC is detachable and a separate thing, and can be as expensive as the camera - or more, much more, especially for a telephoto which you would need for trains and maybe for buses. However there is a big bargain market for used lenses, and with a Nikon or Pentax DSLR their own film era lenses will still fit and work fully. The lens mounts are all brand specific but there are independent lens makers like Tamron and Sigma who cover most of them. There are also adaptors between mounts, with various degrees of effectiveness. The maximum aperture of a lens is important: the larger it is, the smaller the number (counter-intuitively), the faster shutter speeds it allows, and the more expensive it is. So a F2.8 lens is a lot bigger and more expensive than a F4 lens.
The picture below was taken with a Full frame Pentax DSLR with a film-era but excellent Sigma 70-300mm zoom lens, the latter of which cost me a princely £20 off Ebay. I won't say what the camera cost. Bear in mind I had to reduce the resolution to fit it in here, on the original you can count the screws on the front of the train.
* OM System : sucessors to Olympus who ceased making cameras in 2020.
Any DSLR or MILC camera made since about 2010 by Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, OM*, Panasonic, Leica, Hasselblad, or Phase One, is capable of superb pictures, with sharpness beyond the capability of the human eye with any sane degree of enlargement; some say they are all OTT, the result of a resolution arms race between the makers. As a previous poster said, the picture quality depends on you.
The most important choice you need to make is format. There are four real alternatives, in order of increasing size they are Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, Full Frame, and Medium Format. As a beginner in this area you can probably rule out Medium Format (unless you have like £10,000+ to spare) and probably Full Frame too (like £2000+); these are large, quite heavy, and conspicuous. APS-C cameras are more the size of an old 35mm film SLR, and Micro Four Thirds look like toys to me but are loved by their advocates and are generally small and light, although not necessarily the cheapest. APS-C is probably the best all-rounder for a newbie.
The lens of a DSLR or MILC is detachable and a separate thing, and can be as expensive as the camera - or more, much more, especially for a telephoto which you would need for trains and maybe for buses. However there is a big bargain market for used lenses, and with a Nikon or Pentax DSLR their own film era lenses will still fit and work fully. The lens mounts are all brand specific but there are independent lens makers like Tamron and Sigma who cover most of them. There are also adaptors between mounts, with various degrees of effectiveness. The maximum aperture of a lens is important: the larger it is, the smaller the number (counter-intuitively), the faster shutter speeds it allows, and the more expensive it is. So a F2.8 lens is a lot bigger and more expensive than a F4 lens.
The picture below was taken with a Full frame Pentax DSLR with a film-era but excellent Sigma 70-300mm zoom lens, the latter of which cost me a princely £20 off Ebay. I won't say what the camera cost. Bear in mind I had to reduce the resolution to fit it in here, on the original you can count the screws on the front of the train.
* OM System : sucessors to Olympus who ceased making cameras in 2020.
Last edited:
Sun Chariot
Established Member
Great to hear of your photography scope - I wish you every success.
DSLRs can weigh quite a lot and can be unwieldy. It's well worth thinking of where and how often you'll need to lug it around.
From what you're describing, I'd suggest an "all in one" DSLR - with one lens permanently attached; good optics and a good focal range for your needs. Panasonic Lumix do some good models, with Leica lens optics.
I used to shoot with film, using a Canon EOS 1v + power pack + 100-400mm lens + 2x teleconverter (getting 800mm focal length). It was such a beast, I always had it on a monopod.
These days, I merely use a digital compact - not as sharp but it has an acceptable lens range - and, in my hands, it's quite a wonder any photos come out
Here are a seletion:Loco hauled around Havant
A summer "challenge" deep in SWR/Southern land - Photograph loco-hauled, or light, services within within my locality. Focus is freight workings or uncommon traffic. I'll add to this thread during the year. Main line steam haulage in South Hampshire - my thread is...
www.railforums.co.uk
Last edited:
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Here's a picture of a bus I took a few years ago at a rally using a Canon 5D Mk II and 24-105mm f4L zoom lens. Back then, the camera cost about £2.000 and the lens around £1500.00. The picture has been converted and resized for web display.
As an example, a Canon Rebel DSLR can be bought for under £200.00 with a reasonable kit lens. But as @Sun Chariot suggests above, you may prefer a camera with a non-interchangeable lens (often called a "bridge" camera) which are widely available from all the "big names" like Panasonic, Sony, Canon, Nikon etc....
Don't be fooled into thinking that "more pixels are better". This is what the salesman would like you to believe. Sometimes, "too many pixels" crowded onto a small sensor reduces resolution and increases noise. And as @Lucan mentions, you may wish to start with APS-C which is slightly smaller than standard 35mm film size (or "full frame") as DSLRs with this format are usually cheaper and lighter (along with the lenses). Depends if you want to travel light.
As an example, a Canon Rebel DSLR can be bought for under £200.00 with a reasonable kit lens. But as @Sun Chariot suggests above, you may prefer a camera with a non-interchangeable lens (often called a "bridge" camera) which are widely available from all the "big names" like Panasonic, Sony, Canon, Nikon etc....
Don't be fooled into thinking that "more pixels are better". This is what the salesman would like you to believe. Sometimes, "too many pixels" crowded onto a small sensor reduces resolution and increases noise. And as @Lucan mentions, you may wish to start with APS-C which is slightly smaller than standard 35mm film size (or "full frame") as DSLRs with this format are usually cheaper and lighter (along with the lenses). Depends if you want to travel light.
ac6000cw
Established Member
A good summary and I'd agree with all of it (especially APS-C probably being the 'sweet spot' of camera & lens size versus quality for most users).
(For the uninitiated - Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, Full Frame, and Medium Format refer to the size of the image sensor in the camera - 'Full Frame' is nominally the same size and shape as a 35mm film frame, APS-C is about 1.5 x smaller in width and height and Micro Four Thirds is 2 x smaller in width and height. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format ).
What's your budget, and are you looking to buy new or used?
Buying used from major dealers like Wex, Park Cameras, London Camera Exchange (LCE) or MPB will generally get you better value than new, with a 6 or 12 month warranty (so it's worth thinking about).
I've never owned a DSLR, only Micro Four-Thirds sensor-size MILC cameras from Panasonic Lumix and Olympus/OM System, so if you're interested in those I'd suggest these as a few good value used buys. I've owned all of them except the Olympus E-M5 iii :
Olympus E-M5 iii plus either a 14-42mm lens (if you want to keep it cheaper and compact) or the 14-150mm lens (for maximum flexibility). Fairly small and light. Camera body and 14-150mm lens are weather-sealed.
Olympus E-M1 ii plus either of the above lenses or the 14-45mm F4 'pro' lens. A bit larger and heavier, but a pro-grade camera which is excellent to use and has great battery life.
(Note the E-M1 ii and E-M5 iii are basically the same camera, just in different bodies with a few more bells and whistles and better build quality for the E-M1 ii).
Panasonic Lumix G80 plus 12-60mm lens - fairly cheap now but very capable, especially for video.
Panasonic Lumix G9 plus 12-60mm lens - largest of the group but stunningly good value used for a pro-grade camera (less than £500 for a used body from a dealer), which was top of the Lumix Micro Four-Thirds range until quite recently. As well as great stills, an excellent viewfinder and superb in-body stabilisation, it shoots video of a quality better than cameras several times its price. Below is frame taken from 4k UHD video I shot with it in 2019 (a still photo taken with it would look even better), using the Lumix 14-140mm lens:
Thank you all for your comments, it's very interesting reading and researching everything to take into consideration. I'm looking to spend no-more than say £600 on the camera. I've been looking at 'High Street' names and camera manufacturers own sites to compare and contrast the products available. I'm leaning towards a 'Canon EOS 2000D DSLR Camera with 18-55mm IS Lens'. This is one that seems to meet some of the criteria I have. Would anyone have any opinions on this example at all?
As previously stated I have only ever previously employed a standard 'pocket sized' digital camera. These have served me well for many years and are I suppose a good cost effective piece of snapping equipment compared to DSLR cameras.
As previously stated I have only ever previously employed a standard 'pocket sized' digital camera. These have served me well for many years and are I suppose a good cost effective piece of snapping equipment compared to DSLR cameras.
Without being familiar with Canon cameras, although I am experienced with cameras generally, that sounds like a good entry-level choice. I have had a look at the specs and while the 2000D is not leading edge tech for 2024, it would have been not very long ago and I'm sure it will do what you require. The lens looks like a staple mid-range zoom, although you might want to pay some more for the 18-155mm which adds some significant telephoto capability. I was looking at the Wex website for this info, although they themselves seem to be out of stock and possibly not the best prices, being pro oriented. You generally get a better price by buying camera body and lens together as a "kit" (the trade term for this, even if the boxes are separate).
ac6000cw
Established Member
Have you looked at what is effectively the modern MILC replacement for the (6 year old) EOS 2000D, the EOS R100? It's about £600 as a kit with the 18-45mm lens - https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk.../Canon-EOS-R100-Camera-with-RF-S-18-45mm-Lens.
If you haven't come across it before, the US-based dpreview.com is an excellent site for camera reviews, information and buying guides - https://www.dpreview.com/ - this is their R100 review and EOS 2000D review. The UK-based https://www.cameralabs.com/ and https://www.ephotozine.com/ are also good review sites.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Couple of other things...
Whatever camera/lens combination you choose, you may want to upgrade again in the future. The most important "asset" is the lens. Camera bodies come and go/get superseded but good lenses stay around for a long time. For the camera you buy now (which, if the Canon 2000) is already dated (but a good deal), can you use the kit lens on a more-up-to-date body in the future or attach future lenses to your camera body? If you seriously want to improve your photography, consider future upgrades. You don't want to buy into a "dead/obsolete" system.
Another consideration is will the camera come with image editing software? Will you shoot straight jpegs out of the camera, or will you shoot raw and "post-process" on a PC afterwards. There are also many 3rd part image software programs on the market (although I use Canon, I'm out of touch on the software side). The memory card that you use (assume it will be SD?) - will it be around for the coming years.
Not wishing to put you off in any way but it's far more than just the initial camera/lens combination
Whatever camera/lens combination you choose, you may want to upgrade again in the future. The most important "asset" is the lens. Camera bodies come and go/get superseded but good lenses stay around for a long time. For the camera you buy now (which, if the Canon 2000) is already dated (but a good deal), can you use the kit lens on a more-up-to-date body in the future or attach future lenses to your camera body? If you seriously want to improve your photography, consider future upgrades. You don't want to buy into a "dead/obsolete" system.
Another consideration is will the camera come with image editing software? Will you shoot straight jpegs out of the camera, or will you shoot raw and "post-process" on a PC afterwards. There are also many 3rd part image software programs on the market (although I use Canon, I'm out of touch on the software side). The memory card that you use (assume it will be SD?) - will it be around for the coming years.
Not wishing to put you off in any way but it's far more than just the initial camera/lens combination
Western Sunset
Established Member
One other thought; security. Taking photos of buses, I imagine, means being in busy streets, cities, bus stations, underpasses and the like.
Having ££££ hung around your neck, or in a camera bag, might be tempting for others...
I just use a Panasonic DMC-TZ70 which fits into my pocket so I can appear less conspicuous as a photographer.
Having ££££ hung around your neck, or in a camera bag, might be tempting for others...
I just use a Panasonic DMC-TZ70 which fits into my pocket so I can appear less conspicuous as a photographer.
Last edited:
TheSmiths82
Member
I use Micro Four Thirds (on my second now, a Lumix G100) and have prime lenses, 45-200mm lens and kit lenses. I use Canon DLSRs (the cheaper ones) at work. I prefer my Micro Four Thirds as camera as it is a lot more forgiving in low light than the Canons I also use. I would say mirrorless is the way to go as the cameras are much lighter which is important when travelling. I got my G100 (£350 new) very cheap as it is was the prime kit and I am guessing not many people want a 25mm lenses without the use of others. As I already had the kit lenses and the 45-200mm I just couldn't refuse that offer.
I think the format is a matter of preference, but I would say what ever you invest in, stick with that format then you can build up a collection of lenses etc. Kit lenses are OK but they are a bit of a jack of all trade.
I think the format is a matter of preference, but I would say what ever you invest in, stick with that format then you can build up a collection of lenses etc. Kit lenses are OK but they are a bit of a jack of all trade.
I'm grateful for all your continued advice and guidance. I never knew there were so many different things to take into consideration when it comes to selecting a suitable camera and/or lens. I've been looking some more into what is currently my preferred option, the 'Canon EOS 2000D DSLR Camera with 18-55mm IS Lens'. A number of sites I've consulted says it produces images with a background blur. Ideally this is not something I'm looking for as a default outcome. I'm assuming this refers to a mere option rather than that it would be the case with every single image captured.
I don't particularly see myself getting up to much after dark photography so that's one area I'm less concerned about. In an ideal world I'm after one that could snap with sharpness stationary vehicles and those travelling at say 30mph or less decently. I do sometime perform some edits to 'sharpen' up the overall picture on my PC afterwards. Also, am I correct in believe an IS lens is a reference to Image Stabilisation?
I don't particularly see myself getting up to much after dark photography so that's one area I'm less concerned about. In an ideal world I'm after one that could snap with sharpness stationary vehicles and those travelling at say 30mph or less decently. I do sometime perform some edits to 'sharpen' up the overall picture on my PC afterwards. Also, am I correct in believe an IS lens is a reference to Image Stabilisation?
TheSmiths82
Member
That is just depth of field, you can easily avoid that if you want by using a higher F stop (F number). It is simply the aperture, you can use a low value to great a shallow depth of field which creates the blurred background. The Canon D2000 is a good camera if you don't mind it being an old fashioned DSLR with a mirror box and all the disadvantages that come with that. It also (from memory) doesn't come with a microphone input but that isn't an issue if you're not filming.
What I will say is about Canon's is they very well made. Without revealing too much about my job I look after a lot of them, and they are very reliable.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
You will never get a lens with perfect sharpness all over - they can't defy the laws of physics. The general term in photography circles is "acceptable sharpness" which of course is subjective. Depending on where you focus (and with most kit lenses), the part of the picture that will be in most focus will be at the front - after which sharpness gradually reduces as you look further back (behind) in the photo.
The nearest you will get is with a fixed focal length wide angle lens stopped down to a small aperture (large f-number).
The best chance of a sharp bus photo (that is stationary) is to focus about 2/3 into the frame and set a small aperture (again large f-number), lower value shutter speed and the lowest ISO (film sensitivity) you can get away with, depending on available light. Look up the "sunny f16 rule". Aperture is the main "thing" for sharpness and generally speaking, a smaller aperture (large f-number) gives more front-to-back sharpness but lets less light through, so you will need to "compensate" by using a slow shutter speed. That's even before you go into more advanced stuff like diffraction, distortion, flare, haze etc...etc...
Many lenses now have image-stabilisation which is a tool to stop photos being blurry due to camera shake at slow shutter speeds, but it will never be perfect.
My advice to you is to get the camera and lens you want and just go out and shoot photos. Get the feel of the kit and once you feel confident with "auto" mode, switch to manual mode and experiment with different aperture/shutter speed/ISO settings. You can then see the effects of each.
Don't worry about it. The Wex website for example says of the Canon D2000 :- Create effortlessly gorgeous background blur but I assure you that is hype, nothing special to Canon or this model - it comes out of the Laws of Physics.
Any lens can only focus exactly at one distance at a time (the one you choose) and anything nearer or further than that is progressively out of focus. However, the rate at which focus falls off is less with smaller apertures (bigger F-numbers), and you choose the aperture (or the camera automatically does it for you). The term for the range of subject distance not quite in focus but tolerably so is "Depth of Field". Given that, the Laws of Physics mean that it will be the same with all brands and models of cameras of the same format. It is also true that focus falls off at a slightly lower rate (ie there will be a greater depth of field) with smaller sensor formats.
On a bright day with an aperture set at typically of F8 or F11, focussing on a subject at a middle distance as a bus is likely to be, you will hardly notice any blurring in the picture. The pictures posted earlier in the thread are examples. It is in portraiture, flower and still life photography that photographers want the background to be out of focus, so as not to distract from the subject, so then they will use large apertures like F2 or F1.4. There are lenses specifically aimed at portraiture like the Canon EF 85mm F1.4L IS USM at about £1700 - people can pay a lot to get out-of-focus! There is also a current
Lenses these days have become so good, so sharp at their focussed distance, that there is little more to discuss about that aspect, so some of the more advanced photogrphers have become fussy about exactly how the out-of-focus areas look. These areas are termed the "bokeh" which I think comes from Japanese. They want those areas to look "creamy" which is generally achieved by having more blades in the aperture - up from the six or eight of a cheaper lens to ten or twelve, and shaped to give a circular aperture rather than a polygon. I could not care less myself what the bokeh looks like, I don't do portraiture or flowers.
Last edited:
I've been continuing my research today. Would anyone know what a 'grey market importer' or 'grey market product' is at all? I've come across one site that deals with the selling of cameras, including individual bodies and lenses and this is how I have seen reviewers describe them. They are all positive reviews but all highlight this none-the-less. The Canon camera I am favouring for example is a good £120 cheaper with them then the next cheapest retailer. I wouldn't want to invest a still large amount into something that turned out be a knock-off of an official product.
Grey market means imports of products not through authorised distributors. You may find the guarantee isn't honoured
Grey market - Wikipedia
Grey market means imports of products not through authorised distributors. You may find the guarantee isn't honoured
Grey market - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Many thanks. It's advertised as having a three year warranty, perhaps it best I avoid this retailer then.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Best to buy from a reputable dealer; for a beginner like yourself - one that has a shop front on the High Street where you can get some hands-on and get a feel of the camera in your hand before you buy. At least you have a better chance of getting a refund or exchange if you're sold a lemon (sorry slang for faulty....)
Mind you, there are very few camera shops now on the High Street - especially ones that sell second hand but I believe you have one in Cardiff called Camera Centre UK (which gets very good reviews)
www.cameracentreuk.com
Mind you, there are very few camera shops now on the High Street - especially ones that sell second hand but I believe you have one in Cardiff called Camera Centre UK (which gets very good reviews)
Camera Centre UK Photo & Video | Camera Centre UK
Camera Centre UK stocks new digital cameras, drones, lenses, binoculars, telescopes and much more for photographers and filmmakers in the UK and internationally, from beginners to pros. Order online, call or visit us for the best UK prices with free UK delivery.
www.cameracentreuk.com
You might want to consider secondhand, the London camera exchange or camera jungle https://www.camerajungle.co.uk are two I've used and been pleased with
Something I can’t see that this thread has touched on yet, but What do you intend using the photos for once taken?
My elderly DSLR failed a few months back and due to funds at the time I replaced with a pocket sized digital camera from around the £150-200 mark. The photos are no worse than I see shared by the lads with all singing and dancing DSLRs. It has most of the features my old DSLR had.
A DSLR will only come into being worthwhile if you’re publishing or blowing the size of the photo up in print. If you’re doing these things it’s obviously worth the extra money, otherwise I’d question if it’s worth the financial outlay over a decent pocket camera, where the technology has come on leaps and bounds in quality. Also means no hefty lump to carry around.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
From the OP's opening post, I assume he already has a pocket-size camera and wants to upgrade.
Certainly a few years ago, compact cameras had much smaller sensors than DSLRs and had less features and controls. It was the case that generally speaking; the larger the sensor, the better the image quality. You had less options for controlling sharpness, depth of field, movement etc, etc... Compact cameras were never really good at capturing moving subjects but for stills, they generally had good sharpness. I have no idea what compact cameras are like now but I suspect most people that would have used them just use their phones. I'm one of them
DSLRs (and their mirrorless replacements) offer more choice and flexibility with a range of shutter speeds and lenses. But they can be heavy to lug around - especially the professional ones like I have
Sun Chariot
Established Member
Absolutely. Post #5 has a link to my photos thread, using nothing more than a Panasonic Lumix compact.
It can lack absolute sharpness with faster moving subjects and it has just a moderate focal length; but it makes up for those with its portability,, ease of use and price point.
My photos look absolutely fine on a 28" monitor - and that's good enough.
Sun Chariot
Established Member
I grew tired of lugging my EOS 1v film camera + big power pack + 100-400mm IS lens + 2x teleconverter + monopod.
As my photos are solely for personal/family, use I went the digi-compact route.
I like the Leica optics on Panasonic's Lumix compact range; and I upgrade my camera every 4 years, to a current model.
Just checked and Mines a Sony with very similar spec to the Lumix, and can’t notice the difference between that and other peoples expensive DSLRs on my 28’’ neither. It’s only when printing to high definition it becomes noticeable. I don’t do that so I couldn’t justify the outlay nowAbsolutely. Post #5 has a link to my photos thread, using nothing more than a Panasonic Lumix compact.
It can lack absolute sharpness with faster moving subjects and it has just a moderate focal length; but it makes up for those with its portability,, ease of use and price point.
My photos look absolutely fine on a 28" monitor - and that's good enough.
Deepgreen
Established Member
That is very fine for a 4K still (and a fine composition). I have a Canon R5 that does 8k, and the stills are superb, but this is not far off. BTW, I have stayed overnight in a motel not far from there, where I could wander up to the tracks in the morning!
Deepgreen
Established Member
I use a Canon R5 mirrorless, but I also have a Sony RX10 mk4 which is probably the best bridge camera (i.e. fixed lens) available. 24-600mm lens, 1" sensor and 4k video - it is a superb all-rounder and is very convenient and flexible in having a fixed lens (i.e. no need to carry various lenses around). It competes with low to medium range SLRs very well. Sharp images and many useful features. Probably around £1,400 these days. This is from my Flickr set: https://flic.kr/p/2myZPux
ac6000cw
Established Member
Thanks, it's one of my favourite pieces of video from that trip, with a lovely desert morning and a matched set of ES44s on the front too
This is the video of the same train (from the 2 minute point) -
Very nice camera the R5 (although I've never used one) - Canon certainly pulled out most of the stops when they designed that one.
In Needles, CA? (which is where I stayed the night before I took that video)