Advice, please

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

Hello all.

Is this the right newsgroup to ask for advice on which camera to buy for
my budget and requirements? And if it isn't, could someone kindly point
me in the right direction?

Thanks.

Paul Rooney

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-03 07:22:29 -0700, PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY

This is one of the groups of which the regular participants would be
more than happy to provide their opinion, at times so strongly, you
might not believe you were ever part of the discussion, or that it was
ever about cameras.
That said, the usual suspects are to be found in the four significant
photo groups, so this one should do. If you are interested, the other
appropriate NG to use would be rec.photo.digital. However if you do, I
suggest you cross post to both groups as multi-posts with the same
material/subject matter can become an irritation to all.

Now what we need to know, so we can start our little debate, is the following:
1: What are your requirements? or what do you actually want to do with
a camera?
2: What, if any photography experience do you have?
3: What are your expectations?
4: What is your realistic budget?
5: Are you intending to do any post processing of your images on your computer?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

On Fri 03 May 2013 22:46, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-05-03 07:22:29 -0700, PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY
> <paulv...@snotmail.com> said:
>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> Is this the right newsgroup to ask for advice on which camera to buy
>> for my budget and requirements? And if it isn't, could someone kindly
>> point me in the right direction?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Paul Rooney
>
> This is one of the groups of which the regular participants would be
> more than happy to provide their opinion, at times so strongly, you
> might not believe you were ever part of the discussion, or that it was
> ever about cameras.

Ha ha! That's true for pretty much all enthusiasts (-:

> That said, the usual suspects are to be found in the four significant
> photo groups, so this one should do. If you are interested, the other
> appropriate NG to use would be rec.photo.digital. However if you do, I
> suggest you cross post to both groups as multi-posts with the same
> material/subject matter can become an irritation to all.

Thanks - I'll see how it goes here first. My news server is a little
strange when it comes to cross posting.

> Now what we need to know, so we can start our little debate, is the
> following:
> 1: What are your requirements? or what do you actually want to do
> with a camera?
> 2: What, if any photography experience do you have?
> 3: What are your expectations?
> 4: What is your realistic budget?
> 5: Are you intending to do any post processing of your images on your
> computer?
>

1. I'm a birdwatcher, but not an obsessive birdwatcher. I'd like to
take some acceptable photos of birds from a distance (I can't specify
the distance - you know what birds are like, sometimes close, sometimes
far, sometimes absurdly far. Forget the absurdly far.)
I'm equally interested in landscapes, people, buildings, trees, insects,
flowers...
I'm looking for a compact superzoom/bridge that's easily portable and
reasonably easy to use. I know that the best cameras need
interchangeable lenses, but I don't want that, and I don't need
professional quality.
2. Many years of wholly amateurish, poorly taken photos, starting from
a box camera and developing and printing my own stuff, flirting with
SLRs too complicated for me to use, and ending up with a very simple
point and shoot digital camera, which is nice but doesn't do birds (and
I can't see the viewing screen in bright sunlight, which is very annoying).
I know what an aperture is, but not much more than that...
3. Sharp pictures from near and far. An intelligible system of buttons
for someone who is not a camera expert but has the ability to learn.
4. Around 400 GBP.
5. Yes. I'd like the RAW option (again, something I have no experience
of but can learn).


I'd also like to play around with the camera for hours at home using AC
not batteries, and I don't need any gimmicks or special effects.
Video ability - yes, but not very important.

[ray carter]

So you want RAW capability and a viewfinder. I don't find many fixed lens
superzooms with those capabilities. I would suggest you look into the
Panasonic micro 4/3 line. That may be more than you want to deal with,
though.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-03 08:43:24 -0700, PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY

In that case consider some of the newer offerings from Canon, Nikon,
Panasonic, Olympus, etc.

> 3. Sharp pictures from near and far. An intelligible system of buttons
> for someone who is not a camera expert but has the ability to learn.

As usual the advice here is, read the manual with the camera close at hand.

> 4. Around 400 GBP.

I believe you should be able to get something to meet your requirement
at or near that price point.

> 5. Yes. I'd like the RAW option (again, something I have no experience
> of but can learn).

Without moving to a replaceable lens 4/3, up market mirrorless, or DSLR
I don't believe you are going to get many offerings in the type of
camera you have in mind which will offer RAW.

> I'd also like to play around with the camera for hours at home using AC
> not batteries, and I don't need any gimmicks or special effects.

I wouldn't worry about AC, just get yourself a spare battery, you might
need it for your birding road trips.

> Video ability - yes, but not very important.

Most have video capability today.

I am a Nikon DSLR user, but when it comes to any of the bridge/super
zoom type cameras I have no particular prejudice, they all have some
decent offerings.
All of that said I would suggest looking at the following:
1: Nikon CoolPix L820
<
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Compact-Digital-Cameras/26402/COOLPIX-L820.html
>
2: Nikon CoolPix P520
<
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Compact-Digital-Cameras/26397/COOLPIX-P520.html
>
3: Canon Powershot SX50HS
<
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_sx50_hs
>
4: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ30
< http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/DMC-LZ30K >
5: Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300
<
http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-Cyber-shot-HX300-High-Zoom-Camera/en/p/DSCHX300/B
>

Good luck shopping.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

[BobA]

I have all those features in a Panasonic FZ150.
An FZ200 would be a better choice (and a little
bit more expensive). I have much more expensive
cameras, but I use the FZ150 most of the time.
If there's enough light, it takes good pictures
and it's *much* more convenient that my u4/3 or
dSLR cameras.

-bobA

[John Turco]

On 5/3/2013 11:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-05-03 08:43:24 -0700, PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY
> <paulv...@snotmail.com> said:

<edited for brevity>

Of the five cameras you listed, only the Canon "PowerShot SX50 HS"
shoots RAW. It's the sole one with a hot shoe, as well.

John

[Savageduck]

Just making a few unbiased suggestions to meet the OP, Paul's
requirements, RAW being just one of them. Personally my preference
would lean toward one with the ability to make RAW captures. However, I
will leave that choice to Paul, once he has checked the various specs
and hypes.

Any of them would give him the reach for the birdies, and the
versatility for most other shooting. If he does choose the Canon, my
recommendation would be to shoot RAW+JPEG and deal with the RAW post
processing learning as his familiarity with the camera and whatever his
software choices might be climbs the learning curve.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

On Sat 04 May 2013 06:12, Savageduck wrote:

>
> Just making a few unbiased suggestions to meet the OP, Paul's
> requirements, RAW being just one of them. Personally my preference would
> lean toward one with the ability to make RAW captures. However, I will
> leave that choice to Paul, once he has checked the various specs and hypes.
>
> Any of them would give him the reach for the birdies, and the
> versatility for most other shooting. If he does choose the Canon, my
> recommendation would be to shoot RAW+JPEG and deal with the RAW post
> processing learning as his familiarity with the camera and whatever his
> software choices might be climbs the learning curve.

Thanks, everyone, for the advice.

Your suggestions have guided me towards the Panasonic FZ200 and the
Canon SX50, both of which meet all my requirements (both do RAW). I've
also found lots of discussions about the relative merits of each of
these. It's going to be a difficult decision: the Canon has a huge
zoom and some reviews suggest it has a better picture quality than the
Panasonic, while the Panasonic is reckoned to have a better electronic
viewfinder, and has a constant f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. Both
are extremely tempting.

I do rather like the RAW + JPEG option on the Canon too. I'm unsure
about the true usefulness of a 50x zoom.

[Tony Cooper]

I very seriously suggest that you personally handle both cameras
before making your buying decision. Specs don't tell the full story.

I have a compact camera with an extensive zoom range. However, the
rocker that zooms the lens has a gear system (or whatever you call it)
that takes the image from low mag to high mag so quickly that it is
almost impossible to find the right setting in a grab shot. I end up
going back and forth excessively.

Given enough time to compose the shot, the camera produces excellent
results in both RAW and jpg. Beautifully sharp image. It's when I'm
trying to take a quick grab shot that the camera is a problem. The
low mag setting is too much of a wide angle, so some zoom is almost
always necessary.

Reading the specs doesn't reveal this problem, and I bought the camera
online after reading glowing reviews of the camera. Next time, I'll
buy from a store after personally handling the camera.

I usually use my dslr, but the compact is my "car camera" available at
all times when I'm out.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

Yes, I'll do that. I want to get the feel of them before making a
decision. It'll take some time: it seems that every camera shop stocks
Canons but very few have Panasonics.

Today, after reading dozens of reviews and comparisons written by people
who have actually used these two cameras I think the Panasonic will suit
me better, despite the Canon's greater zoom. The dedicated bird
photographers seem to prefer the Canon, but for me, bird photography is
only one of my interests, and not the most important.

Although the Panasonic doesn't have RAW + JPEG it does have RAW or JPEG,
so that would still allow me to learn about processing the images.




--

Paul Rooney

[Noons]

On 4/05/2013 10:56 PM, PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY wrote:

> Although the Panasonic doesn't have RAW + JPEG it does have RAW or JPEG,
> so that would still allow me to learn about processing the images.

For that I thoroughly recommend Corel's Aftershot Pro. It used to be
called Bibble Pro before Corel bought it. It is cheap, has a very
powerful "auto" feature to get a quick jpg result and still lets you do
all the fancy stuff of others much more expensive. It also uses all
cores in a multi-core home desktop computer, which is a rarity even in
this day and age and makes it sick fast.
I used to use Capture One Pro and it is a great product. But it is much
more expensive than the other one and the upgrades are not always free.
So it got put aside.

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

Thanks. I'll have a look at them both. I have Photoshop - how does that
compare (bearing in mind that I'm a novice)?
Price isn't really an issue where I live, as pretty much all software is
available free of charge without illegality (-:

--

Paul Rooney

[PeterN]

the best way to learn PS is to use it. there are tons of tutorials, many
free. Folow the tutorials with your own images. Have fun.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-04 07:11:50 -0700, PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY

If you have PS then look no further. Just start using it.
I would note that depending on the version you have, you might have to
jump through some hoops to process the RAW files from some of the newer
cameras, but there is always a way.

...and just where is this wonderland where "pretty much all software is
available free of charge without illigality"?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

Paul posts in another group I read. I think he's from Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada. Not, as far as I know, a free zone for Photoshop.

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

On Sat 04 May 2013 23:28, Savageduck wrote:

> If you have PS then look no further. Just start using it.
> I would note that depending on the version you have, you might have to
> jump through some hoops to process the RAW files from some of the newer
> cameras, but there is always a way.

Thanks. I installed it a while back but have only just begun to
investigate it.

>
> ...and just where is this wonderland where "pretty much all software is
> available free of charge without illigality"?

I live in a remote province of China which is to some extent autonomous
and where law is made by local leaders. They nod their head to Beijing,
and then they continue to make their own laws. It's a very poor,
underdeveloped place (one of the poorest part of the country), so
international copyright doesn't rank high (or low, for that matter) on
their agenda.

If you buy a laptop, for example, you can choose to have almost any
software installed free of charge. The downside is that you can't be
sure you're buying genuine goods. But good cameras are difficult to fake.

It's no wonderland, not by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a
photographer's dream for landscapes, portraits and birds.

This is why I'm inclined to buy the Panasonic (subject to playing around
with it, and if I can find one). The potential for very good photos is
certainly here, but I need to learn how to take them.


--

Paul Rooney

[Noons]

On 5/05/2013 8:56 AM, PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY wrote:

>
> I live in a remote province of China which is to some extent autonomous
> and where law is made by local leaders. They nod their head to Beijing,
> and then they continue to make their own laws. It's a very poor,
> underdeveloped place (one of the poorest part of the country), so
> international copyright doesn't rank high (or low, for that matter) on
> their agenda.
>
> If you buy a laptop, for example, you can choose to have almost any
> software installed free of charge. The downside is that you can't be
> sure you're buying genuine goods. But good cameras are difficult to fake.
>
> It's no wonderland, not by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a
> photographer's dream for landscapes, portraits and birds.
>
> This is why I'm inclined to buy the Panasonic (subject to playing around
> with it, and if I can find one). The potential for very good photos is
> certainly here, but I need to learn how to take them.

LOL! You had me going for a minute there!
Of course you should use Photoshop: after all it's the most pirated
piece of graphics software ever, so who cares. Free is optimal, in
anyone's language.
The Panasonic will definitely be suitable and likely the best choice,
but don't let that stop you from sourcing a theoretically much more
expensive piece of gear through the usual channels.
Of course one day you may come back to a common law country, in which
case I do advise care...

[BobA]

In article <aukesl...@mid.individual.net>,

Sure it does. At least my FZ150 does RAW+JPEG. Why do you think it doesn't?

--BobA

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

Because I mis-read something in one of the reviews - my mistake. Thanks
for pointing that out.


--

Paul Rooney

[Alex Monro]

Tony Cooper wrote:

>
> I very seriously suggest that you personally handle both cameras
> before making your buying decision. Specs don't tell the full story.
>

Seconded.

> I have a compact camera with an extensive zoom range. However, the
> rocker that zooms the lens has a gear system (or whatever you call it)
> that takes the image from low mag to high mag so quickly that it is
> almost impossible to find the right setting in a grab shot. I end up
> going back and forth excessively.
>

I would suggest that Paul has a look at the Fuji HS50. As well as RAW and
RAW + JPEG, it has a 24-1000mm zoom range, with a manual zoom ring, which
is more convenient and quicker than trying to frame a shot with fiddly
little switches like most other superzoom bridge cameras.

[PeterN]

That's an easy mistake to make. I make a point of reading the specs as
stated by the manufacturer. I have learned to look at reviews with a
jaundiced eye.

--
PeterN

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

Thank you all for your help.
I was unable to find the Panasonic to try it out, and rather than wait
until my next trip to civilisation I have opted for the Canon SX50.
Very nice it is too - I think it will be more than enough for my needs,
and it was well within my budget.
Naturally, the feature that I've been playing around with for the last
few hours is the zoom. It really is astonishing.

Now, back to the manual........

--

Paul Rooney

[John Turco]

You've made a very wise decision. The Canon "PowerShot SX50 HS" is
probably the best "super zoom" camera presently available, overall.

Good luck and happy snapping!

John

[BobA]

In article <av1mfb...@mid.individual.net>,

PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY <paulv...@snotmail.com> wrote:
>

>Thank you all for your help.
>I was unable to find the Panasonic to try it out, and rather than wait
>until my next trip to civilisation I have opted for the Canon SX50.
>Very nice it is too - I think it will be more than enough for my needs,
>and it was well within my budget.
>Naturally, the feature that I've been playing around with for the last
>few hours is the zoom. It really is astonishing.
>
>Now, back to the manual........

Congratulations. While I think the FZ200 is a
better camera, the SX50 may well have been the
better choice. Many Canon cameras can do something
that no other manufacturer's cameras can -- run
additional software on the camera to give it
extreme functionality. I'm speaking about CHDK
<http://chdk.wikia.com>, and there is an SX50 port.
You should definitely look into it. This is huge
selling point for Canon cameras.

--BobA

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

Thanks, John.

It is undoubtedly a very good camera, and I'm slowly getting to grips
with it. A proper manual focus would make it better still. To focus on
a bird in the undergrowth is something I haven't yet been able to do.

--

Paul Rooney

[PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY]

I agree. I've had advice from a number of people who all told me that
the FZ200 was the better camera in various ways. But not being able to
handle one without a delay of several months was rather off-putting, and
although I'm not exclusively interested in birds, that huge zoom on the
Canon was so tempting.
I am delighted with it but still have to discover how to be more precise
with the focus in tricky situations. I guess that problem applies to
most compact superzoom cameras, but I'm sure it can be resolved.
Buying gear can be difficult here. Panasonics exist, but there aren't
many of them. It's all Canon, Sony and Nikon.
Accessories are equally awkward to find. Most enthusiasts shop online,
and that's how I'll be buying any accessories that I need, but I wasn't
really up for buying the camera online.

I've been looking into CHDK and it's very interesting.
More study required!

--

Paul Rooney

[BobA]

In article <avk1cs...@mid.individual.net>,

PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY <paulv...@snotmail.com> wrote:

> [ ... ]

>I am delighted with it but still have to discover how to be more precise
>with the focus in tricky situations. I guess that problem applies to

> [ ... ]

>
>I've been looking into CHDK and it's very interesting.
>More study required!

With some careful thought and luck, it might be
possible to write a CHDK script that helps with
the manual focusing problem. In the mean time
though, you'll probably have the best luck with
the smallest spot auto-focus. Good luck and good
shooting!

BobA

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

PAUL {HAMILTON} ROONEY <paulv...@snotmail.com> wrote:

> I was unable to find the Panasonic to try it out, and rather than wait
> until my next trip to civilisation I have opted for the Canon SX50.
> Very nice it is too - I think it will be more than enough for my needs,
> and it was well within my budget.
> Naturally, the feature that I've been playing around with for the last
> few hours is the zoom. It really is astonishing.

Find out how good or bad the resolution really is at 1200mm,
especially handheld and with higher ISO.

You may want a walking stick-cum-monopod or something like
that to reduce shake at such extreme lengths, even with IS.

-Wolfgang