New camera dilemmas - what to do...

Ok, I've owned a Canon S1 1S for a few years now.



This is a non-SLR, with 12x optical and 4 x digital zoom (48x max with optical and digital combined). Reasonable size, not pocket, but not SLR.

It also has a video function on it, with all that zoomery, so can do 2 very useful functions. It's not a video camera though, since the SD card will fill in 15 mins max.

Unfortunately it's been misbehaving lately, having been dropped earlier in the year, and is on its last legs.

What I can't decide on is what to do next.

The thing with this camera is it immediately frustrated me with how slow it was to focus on an object (photos or video), making moving photography an exercise in prediction (or is all moving photography like this? )

It occasionally becomes very slow, having a think whilst I miss what I'm trying to photograph, almost PC-start up-like, as it ponders 'what next'.

I also could never use many of the functions on it - macro eluded me and I always had to put the camera over a metre from an object to get any focus. I'm not a camera techie, and have not read the manual back to front, but remained staggered at how complicated everything was.

Anyway, I nipped over to Jessops, had a look around, looked at the replacement version of the one I had, mentioned the moving objects situ, so was pointed to the SLRs. I tried one in the shop, on auto function and it won't allow the continuous shooting feature in Auto (same as the one I already have). On another function it would, and guess what: unfocused photos of the shop

So I clearly need to learn more to use these things properly, and if I touch an SLR, I need to know I can use it.

Question is: how hard is it to "get with" an SLR, and get results.

Are there any other alternatives? All I really want is a decent camera, which has some degree of user-friendliness and (ideally) video facilty combined - and I do want to pick up moving objects reliably.

I realise I may need to separate the two and get a video camera, but had originally bought the S2 1S hoping it would suffice, and be a good compromise on size.

 

IIRC most DSLR's don't autofocus in Video mode.

 

SLRs are not that hard to get used to. The biggest advantage over what you have now is that the shutter fires when you click the button - no more predicting/missing shots.

There are now a couple of SLRs that also do video. Not sure on the models, but Google should help.

There are pros (as above, plus the ability to control size, using RAW for post processing, etc) and cons (cost, size, multiple lenses, etc) but for me, I would get an SLR and (if necessary) a separate video recorder.

Any specific questions, shout.

 

Thanks - this is something that eludes me:

Is the SLR hardware that controls the shutter completely different to that of a non-SLR?

To me, an SLR is a mirror, which looks directly through the lens from the viewfinder.

But I can't understand what else needs to be different. This delay in focusing has been one of the most frustrating aspects of my S2 1S. Having said that, if an SLR fires but doesn't necessarily focus, same difference, ie rubbish pic vs missing it altogether.

 

Lots of the newer slr's like the Nikon d5000 are focusing (no pun intended) more on video as part of the functionality rather than a neat little side show if you get what I mean.

SLR's though are very useful tools to have around. I would say it depends on what you take pictures of the most? If it's mostly action type stuff get an slr and learn it properly no other type of camera will come close.

If it's snapshots with a little video thrown in stick with something similar to what you already have. Canon and Nikon both have mid-range cameras that give you video plus the ability to adjust aperture and shutter speed to suit the scenario.

I don't know if your camera has this but on many you can have two types of auto focus:

The first is when you focus on your subject and to refocus you have to release the shutter button and then half press it again for it to refocus.

You can also have the auto focus that will track your subject - half press the shutter button for it to focus and then as you track the subjects movement it will continually refocus for you. Quite ahandy little feature.

Ps for the macro function on your camera don't you need the lens extension kit? My old man has the Nikon equivalant and i'm sure he needed some 'optional extras' for his to do that.

 

If you want an slr kit that is better than a 300 Panasonic lumix 38 you're gonna need to spend 800+



Can you afford to go slr?

 

This is the Q, but I'm thinking eBay also.

I had a 570 Canon pointed at me (it had HD video capability), but with just the basic 20x optical lens, it appears SLRs can't do digital video zoom in situ, and requires after-shot crops for images.

 

I had similar frustrations with my Fuji (similarly mid-range as your Canon) when trying to take moving shots at motorsport events.

The lag between pressing the button and the shutter firing was achingly slow.

Stepping up to the SLR (Canon 450D) made it all so much easier.

Around 600 got me the body and two AF lenses. Brand new obviously, so ebay or Amazon will get you better prices on used stuff.

Auto function is not the best for rapid moving shots. What you need there is `Sports` mode (running man symbol). This makes it so easy it`s unreal. Rapid auto-focusing, and if you set it for continuous shooting then it`s just a case of holding the shutter release in, and panning with your subject. Half the pics may be crap, but with a bit of practice, you`ll have nice sequences of shots.

You could of course do it all on full manual for the absolute best results, but this takes a lot of practice and knowledge, so for a `beginner`, sports mode is more than adequate.

Some examples of what I`ve achieved with it;

 

Yes, that's why it's called "shutter lag", for action shots you need an SLR! Look at this link for a better explanation:


http://kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm

 

Thanks

 

The lumix is good, and for auto type stuff then your probably be right. But an entry level SLR body (250?) with a decent lens (sigma 10-20 300) will outperform it and give much more flexiblity for when you want to learn more.

I would go SLR chris, unless a compact fits in your pocket (which your old camera wouldn't) then your already used to carrying the camera in a bag etc and the entry level kit is really good nowadays

 

SLR. Full stop.

I'm not keen on those with video function included. It's OK for the odd bit, but if you want decent video, then get a dedicated video camera.

Most of the mid-level DSLRs have an Auto mode that you can use until you feel confident enough to use Aperture/Speed priority or fully manual.

See if you can go out with a mate who has one and cadge a go with it.
You'll see the end of shutter lag.

 

You will miss the 12x zoom of the old camera with an SLR. Although the standard kit lenses (18 - 55mm) are good for 90% of things, if you've got legs/access.

An SLR doesn't focus any faster! But it does shoot faster when focused

Nikon cameras with Nikon lenses are reputed to be the most reliable focusing combination. Although Stu's post is a good advert for Canon

 

They almost certainly do!

DSLRs focusing is like lightening (with a f2.8 lens that has ultra-sonic motor focusing)

 

I've just read it... he doesn't like non-DSLR but I can see the points he's making.

One good point was the DSLRs don't have the detachable/flippable rear screen, which would rule out some of the undercar shots I often grab in race paddocks and motor shows.

I definitely would miss that on an SLR, plus the size of the body increases.

Damn - it isn't going to be easy deciding what to do here. I'm thinking downsize to getting a smaller point and shoot or get an SLR, and I'll need to get the other later anyway

To be fair, the menus on my Canon drove me nuts (especially when settings seemingly changed themselves if I glanced a few buttons) and I can't see that changing on an SLR from what I saw on the one I had pointed at me.

Jessops were offering a day's tuition on how to use an SLR which might be a customer service revenue bolt on, but I just don't fancy having to do an A-level to use something I've handed over cash to use. It's surely the camera R&D team's job to make it simple for the consumer, and from what I've seen, there's been menus full of Greek in both point/shoot and SLR.

 

You should be able to adjust the following without menus on a DSLD

Shutter Speed
Aperture Value
ISO
Exposure Value (control)
Focus (obviously)
Zoom (obvisouly)
Flash Exposure Compensation
Change Auto Focus Points

Might have forgotten something... but you get my drift!

 

Shame Chris, just sold an EOS 450D that would have been perfect for you.

 

For taking photos of moving objects a basic slr with a 10-20 will give awful shots - unless the object is close enough to run you over.

For most motorsport photography, most people will be needing 200mm+ equivalent, to get that, with a decent quality bit of glass, on the front of an SLR body is big money.

Chris - The lumix 38 has a zoom equivalent of around 28-350mm. To cover that on an SLR is going to take you 2 or 3 lenses, which is a lot more hassle to carry around and it's a lot of money to spend.

I took a mate to castle combe rally action day this year, he's in his wheelchair after a bike accident so didn't have the easiest choice of viewing points. He'd bought the Lumix a couple of days before, and by the end of the day I was pretty impressed with the action shots he was getting (and the HD video)

For 99% of people - if you buy an SLR it's because you *want* one for your photography, not because you *need* one.

You don't need an SLR to do any of the photography you do. In fact, a more compact camera will be better for some of it. But if you "want" one - then that's as good a reason to buy one as any.

 

Like Dex said if you want it for take photos of stuff on track you are going to need a bigger lens the the standard one the come on most DSLR's. I got a Sony A200 earlier in the year which came with a 18-70mm lens & at Brands Hatch this is fine at Druids but could have done with a bigger lens for some of the other areas. So I'm now looking out for an another lens.

eg

Druids


Paddock

 

I`d disagree slightly there...

Whilst, yes, you`ll need a 200mm+ lens, you don`t necessarily have to spend huge amounts.

The 600 I mentioned above, for my Canon, included a 18-55mm lens (as `standard`), and a 70-300mm Tamron lens (as a packaged extra).

A friend of mine has looked at similar Nikon packages at similar prices. Again seciond-hand will reduce costs massively.

To give an idea of the the advantage you gain, look gain at the last shot I posted above...

This is another shot from exactly the same vantage point (well, about 30 foot to the left, but no closer to the track) , but with the `smaller` lens;



A world of difference in action shot, for about an extra 90 expense...