Beginner New camera?

[Carpy2001]

Hi all, as a total beginner in this world of pictures, I am using an old camera that I forgot I had, it was bought for my wife (who never used it), it is a Fujifilm Finepix s4200 bridge camera, due to its age, the software that came with the camera is no longer usable, if I try the disc on my PC it just says it needs windows xp or windows 7, I can get around this, but it is a pain. So to the issue of do I get another camera or not?, then do I stay with bridge cameras (as an all round solution) or get a cheap DSLR?, mirrorless is out due to cost unfortunately. I have no ambitions of being a pro photographer, or starting this as a business, I am purely doing it for my own enjoyment. As someone who is now in their 60's and not as mobile as I used to be, I also do not drive, so I am stuck with my local area which fortuntely has a park with a lake in it, so I see a lot of ducks, swans, etc and quite a few squirrels. The question is on a very limited budget of £500 no more, what is the best option for me?. I have upto now just been taking shots of Flowers and a few landscape type shots in the park, I tried to take some bird shots (using burst mode of 6 shots) but they just seem to be blurred, down to me and practise I know, I am waffleing on a bit now so will end here, any suggestions would be gratefully recieved, I will try to post some of my pics later, when I figure out how lol, wont be many only started this week.
cheers Andrew.

 

[realspeed]

As your on a limited budget you don't weant to have additional costs in buying lenses for it. So on that basis I would suggest a compact camera I have the panasonic lumix DC-TZ95 (approx £400) which takes excellent photos/videos and leave enough cash to get Memory cards as well as spare batteries.. Has a flip up rear screen and packed with loads of features including 4K. Small enough to put into a pocket as well.
Other members may well suggest something different so best go to a proper camera shop and get hands on to see what you think.

using manual for effect focus video (My dog Teazle) but has fast auto focua as well

. check out the spec
https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consum...cameras/superzoom-cameras/dc-tz95d.specs.html

 

[Mintchocs]

I had a quick look at the technical specifications of the S4200. It’s only going to perform at its best in bright light ISO 64-200 (possibly 400 at a stretch.) The lens is of average quality. I am not sure why you need the software. You can just take the memory card out of the camera and connect it to a computer to transfer your JPEGs /photos. I am not surprised you had issues taking bird shots as birds in flight need a decent auto focus tracking ability in the camera. I would just learn how to use it and if you really don’t like it then consider getting a used DSLR.

 

[ancient_mariner]

A question might be to ask what you want to do with the photos after you've taken them? Bloke in his 60s also answering BTW.

If you want to just show people pictures on your phone then a bridge camera like the Fuji is fine. Mostly anyway. Bazza's suggestion is good.

You mentioned birds - bird photography is possibly the most equipment-dependant type, often needing very large and expensive telephoto lenses, highly accurate and fast focusing and an ability to deal with low light levels. A bridge camera with a crazy-long zoom will get you closer to the birds than you could afford any other way based on your budget, but the results may be disappointing compared with a lot of what you'll see on this site.

Although you mentioned mirrorless being out of budget, you might want to take a look at micro four thirds (M43) cameras, which are mirrorless but use a smaller sensor. They are very affordable, lightweight, compact and capable of decent pictures. Olympus and Lumix/Panasonic are the makers here - I'd look for something like a used Olympus E-M10 or E-M5 with a 'standard' zoom of 12 or 14mm to 42 or 60mm. Should be easily within you budget.

DSLR - there's a lot of choice, but you should think 'system' here. Also 2 formats based on sensor size: APS-C (smaller) and Full Frame (larger). Everyone has their favourites, but there are some good reasons to chose one or another. I would stay away from 'entry-level' DSLRs because the controls are simply less good than enthusiast middle-tier cameras. I'd also stay away from APS-C/crop cameras on your budget because they won't save you much money or weight these days, while having lesser performance than full frame.

Canon AF lenses seem to adapt better to Canon mirrorless than Nikon or Sony (I'm a Sony/Minolta user) so if you ever did decide to change up and had invested in lenses then it might be an easier move.
There are some good deals on Nikon FX (full frame) such as a D610 under £400 - I'd add an AF-D 28-105 for general shooting to that for around £100-£130 for a regular outfit.
I'd stay away from Sony DSLR kit at this stage.

 

[Carpy2001]

Thanks all for your replies, Ancient Mariner, when I said birds I meant birds in trees, sat still lol, I got no hope of tracking a moving one yet lol. I was looking at something like the Panasonic FZ330 or FZ82 or possibly the Cannon SX70, something in that range, that is if I stay with bridge cameras.

 

[realspeed]

Others have made suggestions based on their own experience as I have. What may have been overlooked is the suggestions are for the camera only, then there is the expense of buying lenses which would take well take you over your budget limit. As you said you have a mobility issues I don't thing you want to be lugging around heavy multi bits of camera equipment either.
this is hand held and unedited (about 80ft away) but reduced in size to fit on here. can't do a bird in a tree but gives an idea of a still sharpness with this camera. Top of my 4 bed detached house chimney. I honestly don't think you will do much better considering -size- cost- portability

you have seen the video quality so now the stills quality. Just taken a couple of minutes ago. oh and I am 78 years old so the camera does well to stop any hand shake





quote " I tried to take some bird shots (using burst mode of 6 shots) but they just seem to be blurred," uinquote.

with the camera set to video this would not happen, then you can get a frame from the video for the best photo


burst rate in spec

4K PHOTO Mode (*²)	4K Burst: 30 frames/sec, max. 15 min 4K Burst (S/S): 30 frames/sec, max. 15 min 4K Pre-Burst: 30 frames/sec, approx. 2 sec

 

[Faldrax]

You have said that mirrorless is out of your budget - but if you were happy to consider second hand from a retailer, then you could certainly get a mirrorless body with a basic lens within your budget.
I don't know where in the country you are, but LCE at Colchester (for example) have a Sony A6000 + 16-50 for £399 - and being from a dealer you get a 6 month warranty.
I'm sure there will be models available from other brands within your budget as well.

 

[Sangoma]

But do remember that if you go for M43, any lens you buy can also be used if you upgrade the M43 camera.

The bridges you mention are OK for what they are, but an inexpensive 16 MP M43 (like a G3) gives far better images than a FZ82, and the lenses you use on a G3 can be used on a G9 if you choose that direction.

The TZ series are very good, and give good results on stills and videos, and are certainly a good starting point.

 

[realspeed]

Faldrax​

The only issue I have with second hand cameras shutter count and why is it second hand?

Sangoma​

I do have a Nikon D810 DSLR as well bought new . The issue I have with it now is weight and portability as I mainly use my camcorder now for most things.

I did pay particular attention to Andrews post and not having a car and not as mobile as used to be and restricted to local area.. This is why I suggested the Panasonic Lumix DC- tz95 which if it rains it can easily be put in a pocket. There is also the remote chance that a larger camera may get snatched out of an older persons hand.
Obviously everyone has their own opinon which I respect , but also took into consideration his requirements and budget limitations to include extra battery and memory card no doubt would have to be included. Therfore I discounted any camera that needs different lenses

 

[LeeRatters]

I would recommend a mirrorless apsc really but for your circumstances maybe a more modern/better spec bridge type camera would be more suitable. I would imagine ISO performance/sensor size would be a good thing to prioritise maybe.....? I would imagine they would all shoot RAW, have jpeg picture profiles or whatever they are called, white balance, all the M, Av, Tv, auto etc modes as standard......

I prefer the catalogue style of editing in Lightroom. But if you do want to get into editing the photos you take then putting £50 aside for Affinity Photo isn't a bad idea unless you can pick up an older cheaper version of Lightroom.

Plenty of places to buy used from such as LCE, Park, WEX, MPB

 

[Faldrax]

Faldrax​

The only issue I have with second hand cameras shutter count and why is it second hand?

....​

Shutter count is often quoted in the listing (the A6000 I mentioned has a mere 485 actuations).
With an entry level camera like this, it will be either that the original owner has traded up to something newer (or FF from APS-C), or has decided that their phone takes better snaps than them, and given up before learning how to use it to it's full extent!
Buying from a dealer with warranty takes a lot of the worry out of second hand.

 

[Don Fischer]

As your on a limited budget you don't weant to have additional costs in buying lenses for it. So on that basis I would suggest a compact camera I have the panasonic lumix DC-TZ95 (approx £400) which takes excellent photos/videos and leave enough cash to get Memory cards as well as spare batteries.. Has a flip up rear screen and packed with loads of features including 4K. Small enough to put into a pocket as well.
Other members may well suggest something different so best go to a proper camera shop and get hands on to see what you think.

using manual for effect focus video (My dog Teazle) but has fast auto focua as well

. check out the spec
https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consum...cameras/superzoom-cameras/dc-tz95d.specs.html

I think this is your best answer. You can find them for quite a bit less than L500, think I did that right, and they take good photo's. You find you want to get a DSLR later on, you can. I have a Nikon D7000 and a Panozonic ZS 100 and mostly I use the Panosonic now. Of course Canon, Nikon and Minolta, probably other's, also make less expensive cameras that would work for you too. The only drawback of my Panosonic is I'm stuck with the 25-250mm lens built into it and it hasn't been one problem so far.

 

[Sangoma]

A question might be to ask what you want to do with the photos after you've taken them? Bloke in his 60s also answering BTW.

If you want to just show people pictures on your phone then a bridge camera like the Fuji is fine. Mostly anyway. Bazza's suggestion is good.

You mentioned birds - bird photography is possibly the most equipment-dependant type, often needing very large and expensive telephoto lenses, highly accurate and fast focusing and an ability to deal with low light levels. A bridge camera with a crazy-long zoom will get you closer to the birds than you could afford any other way based on your budget, but the results may be disappointing compared with a lot of what you'll see on this site.

Although you mentioned mirrorless being out of budget, you might want to take a look at micro four thirds (M43) cameras, which are mirrorless but use a smaller sensor. They are very affordable, lightweight, compact and capable of decent pictures. Olympus and Lumix/Panasonic are the makers here - I'd look for something like a used Olympus E-M10 or E-M5 with a 'standard' zoom of 12 or 14mm to 42 or 60mm. Should be easily within you budget.

DSLR - there's a lot of choice, but you should think 'system' here. Also 2 formats based on sensor size: APS-C (smaller) and Full Frame (larger). Everyone has their favourites, but there are some good reasons to chose one or another. I would stay away from 'entry-level' DSLRs because the controls are simply less good than enthusiast middle-tier cameras. I'd also stay away from APS-C/crop cameras on your budget because they won't save you much money or weight these days, while having lesser performance than full frame.

Canon AF lenses seem to adapt better to Canon mirrorless than Nikon or Sony (I'm a Sony/Minolta user) so if you ever did decide to change up and had invested in lenses then it might be an easier move.
There are some good deals on Nikon FX (full frame) such as a D610 under £400 - I'd add an AF-D 28-105 for general shooting to that for around £100-£130 for a regular outfit.
I'd stay away from Sony DSLR kit at this stage.

Some important and good points there, and I have to say again that M43 could be the way to go.

About 20 months ago, I changed from Canon to M43 due to wanting more compact and lighter stuff to carry, in the process I bought several Panasonic G3s, with 14-42 lens, paid between £50 and £139 (from a dealer) for them.
I had some luck and got 100-300 lens on ebay for £180.
As I confirmed this was the format I wanted to stay with, more M43 cameras (Panasonic Lumix) came along, but the lenses could be used on all of them.

The G3 is very small and light, at the same time comfortable to hold, and if you upgrade later, other Panasonic cameras have the same menu system (this goes for their compacts and bridge cameras too)

I have a friend who finds his hands get very tired using a TZ compact, I gave him a FZ28 as it has more grip, and he is fine with it, but he sometimes borrows a G3 and a 100-300 lens which he finds similarly comfortable to use.

The FZ82 is probably the most flexible camera within your range, but then the question above

A question might be to ask what you want to do with the photos after you've taken them?"

is relevant, as it usually gives nice results if you use what comes out of the camera, but the limitations of the small sensor soon start to show for anything more.

These photos illustrate the difference in quality I mentioned before. The house (semi-detached, no idea how many bedrooms ) is about 650m away, and both have been cropped to show the same framing

Changing lenses may be an extra inconvenience, but if better quality is needed within budget (there are some lovely "bridge" cameras with good quality if budget is not limited) I would agree with ancient_mariner that M43 is worth a look

FZ82 at max zoom




G3 & 100-300 at 300





And for interest, though way off budget and every other requirement, the same with a G9 & 100-400 at 400

 

[ancient_mariner]

I have a friend who finds his hands get very tired using a TZ compact

but the limitations of the small sensor soon start to show for anything more.

For several years my wife had a TZ7 or 9 (can't remember which) and even in bright light the quality was always a bit disappointing, becoming very disappointing if conditions were a little more demanding. We bought an Olympus E-M10 MkI with the pancake 14-42 zoom, which was a tiny bit bigger than the TZ but still an easy carry in a handbag, and image quality improved enormously.

The one thing that can cause problems with some camera/lens combinations is shutter shock, but it doesn't affect the pancake zoom.

 

[Sangoma]

For several years my wife had a TZ7 or 9 (can't remember which) and even in bright light the quality was always a bit disappointing, becoming very disappointing if conditions were a little more demanding. We bought an Olympus E-M10 MkI with the pancake 14-42 zoom, which was a tiny bit bigger than the TZ but still an easy carry in a handbag, and image quality improved enormously.

The one thing that can cause problems with some camera/lens combinations is shutter shock, but it doesn't affect the pancake zoom.

I had a TZ1 (still got it) in 2008, and it was great, used it for a trip to the Philippines.
Next one I bought was a TZ10, which I also used for the same purpose, I had skipped the ones between as I just didn't like them for no specific reason. I now have a TZ60 and TZ70 (the 60 is better)

However, all the M43 are much better image quality, as you say. (I have Panasonic, don't say it is better, just didn't get on with Olympus, ergonomics and menu system)

There was a comparison test done between a Panasonic GF2 and the latest iPhone earlier this year, and the GF2 was rated better, however if you just want to look at them on a phone, the iPhone processing will probably look as good if not better, which is what makes your first statement important.

I think for some one new, who hasn't used a compact before, and they were going to use the small sensor, it would be an idea to start with something like a TZ60 and not pay several times the price for a higher model, the losses if it doesn't suit them would be far less, and it will always make a useful pocket camera at not much expense if the upgrade or change direction later.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Just came across one of my old Samsung S850 compacts from mid-late 2000s. It has a larger sensor and ISO 50, and produced noticeably better pictures than the TZ. It did need care in use however - no image stabilisation for example.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I had a quick look at the technical specifications of the S4200. It’s only going to perform at its best in bright light ISO 64-200 (possibly 400 at a stretch.) The lens is of average quality. I am not sure why you need the software. You can just take the memory card out of the camera and connect it to a computer to transfer your JPEGs /photos. I am not surprised you had issues taking bird shots as birds in flight need a decent auto focus tracking ability in the camera. I would just learn how to use it and if you really don’t like it then consider getting a used DSLR.

Correct, the perceived software problem simply doesn't exist.

You've had some good advice in this thread, but perhaps it's a bit over-complicated . . .

Your camera has limitations, and will never produce top-quality results. BUT it's small and lightweight, simple to use and, although if you become interested in the finer points of photography you'll outgrow it in time, I don't see any point in upgrading it until you find that you need something better - which may take a very long time.

The main limitation is that you can't set it to high ISO, but in practice all that this means is that you'll be limited to fairly bright lighting conditions. There's also a potential problem with camera shake when using it at the longer end of the lens, and I note that you have some mobility problems. A good sturdy tripod is the ideal answer to this, but if that isn't a practicable solution for you then just get a 1/4" Whitworth screw, screw it into the tripod bush on the baseplate, tie a bit of string to it and stand on the string, so that it's taut, when taking your shots - problem solved, as long as you can stand. If you're in a chair, then just tie the loose end the chair instead.

 

[Carpy2001]

Thanks every one for your replies, on the issue of software, that was my stupidity lol, I was trying use the disc that came with the camera, but it requires an older operating system, so now I just plug the camera in the USB port, and access the images direct from there, so no problem. I have taken onboard the advice given, and will for now (until next year at least) stick with this camera and try to learn about taking decent images, if at that point I am still interested in photography I may look to upgrade. Regarding my mobility, I am able to walk and carry my camera without to many issues, I just suffer with gout in my left foot and am having hip problems in my right leg (need a new hip) lol, so walking can be a bit painful, but not problematic.

I wish this camera had an option to use a remote shutter release, most of the time I seem to push the camera down when I push the shutter button. I also seem to shake a bit when using the camera. The pictures I take are just for my enjoyment, I may share the odd one on social media, but other than that they just sit on my PC for me to look at, I have no interest in being anything other than a hobbiest.

I have got Adobe Photoshop express, a free photo editing program that I am enjoying playing with, although I am not sure exactly what I am doing with it. I think the hardest thing for me is understanding exposure and iso, when to use what settings, I took some images yesterday just to play around with different things and got a bit confused with the results lol, (not hard to confuse me). I took images of the same part of my garden, from the same place using different shutter speeds and different ISO, I was supprised that some were bright, 1/10 sec, ISO 64, F10, and others were darker 1/100 sec ISO 80 F4, and others were realy dark 1/1000 sec ISO400 F4, and almost black on 1/2000 sec ISO 400 F4. I think I need to find some reading material (preferably free) that will help me understand what settings do, and when to use them. I also need to stop looking at all the fantastic images on this site, and comparing them to the ones I produce, I just get jealous lol.

I also found out that when I hit the max 24x zoom on this camera that I can then open another digital zoom on top of that, I tried it yesterday and found that the image is so pixelated or rough that I will never use it again lol, so at least I have learned one thing.

May I also ask if my SD card is good enough or do I need a different one? I am using a Sandisk ultra 32gb 80mbs it has also got a 10 in a circle??

Thanks Andy

 

[swanseamale47]

linkI carry a TZ80 (around £250) all the time for shots while I'm out and about walking or whatever. In good light the quality is pretty good, heres a link to two pics showing the zoom range.
Is it the best camera, no but it's half decent and cheap.
I'd suggest a used DSLR but for birds the lens is going to cost more than the camera if your doing it seriously

 

[Citizen of Bath]

A friend of mine was in the same situation as you and I advised her to buy a second-hand DSLR. Last week, we found a Nikon D3300 with 18-55 and 55-200 VR II lenses (VR II = vibration reduction v.2; called image stabilisation by Canon). Everything is like new, not a single scratch or mark, nothing. Total price: £189.

Post-processing of the RAW files can be made with NX Studio, a free application.

Canon is another excellent solution, and they also provide a free post-processing app.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I wish this camera had an option to use a remote shutter release, most of the time I seem to push the camera down when I push the shutter button. I also seem to shake a bit when using the camera. The pictures I take are just for my enjoyment, I may share the odd one on social media, but other than that they just sit on my PC for me to look at, I have no interest in being anything other than a hobbiest.

From my book on beginner photography
"If camera shake is a problem, train yourself to improve your stance.

• Stand with your legs comfortably apart, for stability.
• Don’t stick your elbows out, have them as close to the centre of your body as possible.
• Don’t press the shutter button sharply, squeeze it gently.
• Hold your breath (briefly) while taking the shot."

If you want a free copy of this book, see this thread https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/free-e-book-about-photography-for-beginners.752112/

I also found out that when I hit the max 24x zoom on this camera that I can then open another digital zoom on top of that, I tried it yesterday and found that the image is so pixelated or rough that I will never use it again lol, so at least I have learned one thing.

May I also ask if my SD card is good enough or do I need a different one? I am using a Sandisk ultra 32gb 80mbs it has also got a 10 in a circle??

Forget about digital zoom, it's just a marketing point, not an actual benefit, and you'll get the same (poor) result by cropping the image on computer.
That card should be fine.

 

[ancient_mariner]

wish this camera had an option to use a remote shutter release, most of the time I seem to push the camera down when I push the shutter button.

Does it have a self timer? You can use that like a remote release.

 

[Carpy2001]

Yes it has a 2 second and a 10 delay, but I need a tripod for that lol, have been browsing the forum for info on tripod, every thing I have read tends to say avoid the cheap one from the like of Amazon, but unfortunately that is about all I can afford lol, might just have to get one and see how I get on with it.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Where are you in the UK? I've an old but reasonably solid one I don't use.

 

[Don Fischer]

Ya know what? Everytime I see advice on one thing or another it's avoid the cheap one. I disagree with that. I'd avoid the one that's leg's are joined together so they might not expand enough. But after that if the cheap one is all you can afford, go for it, beats not having one at all! You get the light weight cheap one, fix it up so you can hang a bag with some weight on the bottom of the head. Weight pulling down on the head will steady it up some. People seem to have lots of money and seem's like their advice is always to spend more, even if you don't have it. The inexpensive one I had with my camera bag hanging under it worked! Worked great, probably not, but better than not having one at all. Found a heavier duty Monfrotto later used and price I could afford and got it. My inexpensive one was no match for it but that inexpensive one served it's purpose till I could get another! The Monfrotto leg's will spread out till it's close to flat on the ground. Of course if cost doesn't matter, go for the best you can afford. Then again if cost does matter, also go for the best you can afford. My inexpensive one serves to hold up my chronograph for measuring velocity from guns.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Ya know what? Everytime I see advice on one thing or another it's avoid the cheap one. I disagree with that. I'd avoid the one that's leg's are joined together so they might not expand enough. But after that if the cheap one is all you can afford, go for it, beats not having one at all! You get the light weight cheap one, fix it up so you can hang a bag with some weight on the bottom of the head. Weight pulling down on the head will steady it up some. People seem to have lots of money and seem's like their advice is always to spend more, even if you don't have it. The inexpensive one I had with my camera bag hanging under it worked! Worked great, probably not, but better than not having one at all. Found a heavier duty Monfrotto later used and price I could afford and got it. My inexpensive one was no match for it but that inexpensive one served it's purpose till I could get another! The Monfrotto leg's will spread out till it's close to flat on the ground. Of course if cost doesn't matter, go for the best you can afford. Then again if cost does matter, also go for the best you can afford. My inexpensive one serves to hold up my chronograph for measuring velocity from guns.

My own advice (and that of many others) isn't to avoid cheap, it's to avoid flimsy, lightweight and with too many sections. The choice isn't about cost, it's about convenience - we have a choice of useless and convenient or good and awkward, you simply can't get convenient and good in the same package, despite the claims of the sellers.

Many years ago I bought an extremely heavy-duty Manfrotto, many years old, for a silly cheap price because nobody else wanted it. I still have it, it looks like a set of scaffolding and is far too heavy to carry around, but goes right down to almost ground level and is still rock-steady at its maximum height of 9 1/2 feet.

Hanging weight underneath it does help, but you can't rely on finding suitable weights on-site when you need them and if you're going to get around that by taking the weights with you it would be better just to have a better tripod in the first place, although a camera bag is better than nothing.

 

[Don Fischer]

My own advice (and that of many others) isn't to avoid cheap, it's to avoid flimsy, lightweight and with too many sections. The choice isn't about cost, it's about convenience - we have a choice of useless and convenient or good and awkward, you simply can't get convenient and good in the same package, despite the claims of the sellers.

Many years ago I bought an extremely heavy-duty Manfrotto, many years old, for a silly cheap price because nobody else wanted it. I still have it, it looks like a set of scaffolding and is far too heavy to carry around, but goes right down to almost ground level and is still rock-steady at its maximum height of 9 1/2 feet.

Hanging weight underneath it does help, but you can't rely on finding suitable weights on-site when you need them and if you're going to get around that by taking the weights with you it would be better just to have a better tripod in the first place, although a camera bag is better than nothing.

I agree. Better to have a better tripod in the first place, if you can afford it! If you can't afford it an inexpensive one is gonna be better than standing on your own two feet in some case's! I think people should be encouraged to live within their means and also to improve their situation within their means. One thing I found with the inexpensive tripod was to lower it on the leg's, move the camera down, and it would get somewhat steader! Same can be said for a $300 tripod. Doing that might mean you have to shoot off your knees but it can work in many situations. Actually over the years I have found I don't need one as much as I though. Then again I'm not a stuido shooter and I suspect that would make a big difference! Probably make a big difference shooting wild animals from a blind also.

 

[Carpy2001]

Thanks everyone, I am going to have a look around and see what is available in my meagre price bracket, I mostly just wander around taking pictures of whatever grabs my attenion or what I think might be intersting, as I use an old bridge camera I dont carry a bag or anything , just me and the camera, so nothing to hang from the tripod (at the moment), I am wanting the tripod so I can help myself learn, I was thinking that if I had my camera on a tripod at home in my garden for example, then I could take the same image over and over again whilst adjusting exposure or shutters speed etc, and then compare the images and try and understand how they all work, if that makes sense??. At the moment I am unsure if some of the blurry images I get are from me shaking, from the wrong settings or from the limitations of the camera, most of it will be down to me not knowing what I am doing lol. For ancient mariner I am " up north" lol, I live in Bradford, West Yorkshire, so quite a way from your good self. Well as the sun is shining here in sunny Bradford, I think it would be rude not to get my camera out and have another go at leaning some stuff, only going in my garden, but got some nice flowers and the odd pidgeon about lol. Once again thanks to all, and I hope I am not being a pain by asking so many questions.
Thanks Andy

 

[sphexx]

Thanks everyone, I am going to have a look around and see what is available in my meagre price bracket, I mostly just wander around taking pictures of whatever grabs my attenion or what I think might be intersting, as I use an old bridge camera I dont carry a bag or anything , just me and the camera, so nothing to hang from the tripod (at the moment), I am wanting the tripod so I can help myself learn, I was thinking that if I had my camera on a tripod at home in my garden for example, then I could take the same image over and over again whilst adjusting exposure or shutters speed etc, and then compare the images and try and understand how they all work, if that makes sense??. At the moment I am unsure if some of the blurry images I get are from me shaking, from the wrong settings or from the limitations of the camera, most of it will be down to me not knowing what I am doing lol. For ancient mariner I am " up north" lol, I live in Bradford, West Yorkshire, so quite a way from your good self. Well as the sun is shining here in sunny Bradford, I think it would be rude not to get my camera out and have another go at leaning some stuff, only going in my garden, but got some nice flowers and the odd pidgeon about lol. Once again thanks to all, and I hope I am not being a pain by asking so many questions.
Thanks Andy

You don’t absolutely need a tripod to stready the camera. You can use a bean bag to rest it on any available surface or steady yout hand or camera against a tree.

The reference to using the self timer/delay release above wasn’t just for tripods. You can use it handheld to exclude the movement induced when you move your finger to press the shutter button.

 

[Sangoma]

Yes it has a 2 second and a 10 delay, but I need a tripod for that lol, have been browsing the forum for info on tripod, every thing I have read tends to say avoid the cheap one from the like of Amazon, but unfortunately that is about all I can afford lol, might just have to get one and see how I get on with it.

Your camera is light, you are probably not going to use it every day, probably not going to use it in strong winds or very trying conditions, probably not going to use it professionally, and there's probably not a compelling reason to make a major investment in a tripod.

If that is the case, a less pricy one will do what you need.

I was looking last year and I ended up with two that serve my needs perfectly, normally that is just a camera and small lens, but they have worked fine with a G9 and 100-400 lens (it is well balanced)

They are both very small and easy to carry, and both have good ball heads (though for my most common use I use a pan and tilt head).

They would NOT be my choice if they were used every day, or with a heavier set up.

Strangely they look similar to tri pod things costing three times as much, and putting them together, apart from branding and colours, are identical!

This one is useful in that one leg can be used as a monopod https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/14521978...2VgUP1dFcPDTWo/iwB1DnnwA==|tkp:Bk9SR7jwsMHHYg

And this one is almost the same, and had a more expensive version that has the monopod facility https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/33497557...9v4x3w9M/CRURTmasae2PQCFxd|tkp:Bk9SR5K40sHHYg


Both of them come in a carbon version, but little difference in weight. I ended up with two of the Hama ones, really like them

 

[Garry Edwards]

Thanks everyone, I am going to have a look around and see what is available in my meagre price bracket, I mostly just wander around taking pictures of whatever grabs my attenion or what I think might be intersting, as I use an old bridge camera I dont carry a bag or anything , just me and the camera, so nothing to hang from the tripod (at the moment), I am wanting the tripod so I can help myself learn, I was thinking that if I had my camera on a tripod at home in my garden for example, then I could take the same image over and over again whilst adjusting exposure or shutters speed etc, and then compare the images and try and understand how they all work, if that makes sense??. At the moment I am unsure if some of the blurry images I get are from me shaking, from the wrong settings or from the limitations of the camera, most of it will be down to me not knowing what I am doing lol. For ancient mariner I am " up north" lol, I live in Bradford, West Yorkshire, so quite a way from your good self. Well as the sun is shining here in sunny Bradford, I think it would be rude not to get my camera out and have another go at leaning some stuff, only going in my garden, but got some nice flowers and the odd pidgeon about lol. Once again thanks to all, and I hope I am not being a pain by asking so many questions.
Thanks Andy

Well, I'm not far from you, in overcast Baildon
one of the few things that Bradford has going for it is an abundance of second-hand and charity shops, you should be able to get an old but perfectly serviceable tripod for very little, if you really feel that you need one- but do you really need one?

Yes, if you're using a plate camera, it's impossible without one - but I bet you aren't . . .
Yes, if you're shooting still life, because you need to put the camera in the right position, locked firmly into place, so that you can forget about it, concentrate on the lighting and get absolute consistency in every shot - are you shooting still life?

You don’t absolutely need a tripod to stready the camera. You can use a bean bag to rest it on any available surface or steady yout hand or camera against a tree.

The reference to using the self timer/delay release above wasn’t just for tripods. You can use it handheld to exclude the movement induced when you move your finger to press the shutter button.

As above. If your problem is jabbing at the magic button instead of squeezing it gently, then just train yourself. Imagine that you're firing a rifle - if you jab at the trigger then you're guaranteed to miss, squeeze it gently and even I can stay on target. That's a good analogy because the effects of movement are exaggerated in exactly the same way.

People (and especially the sellers) talk a lot of nonsense about tripods. Simple is better, few sections are better than many, adjustable centre columns should be used very sparingly and except in the examples I mentioned earlier (and similar) they don't perform magic.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Simple is better, few sections are better than many, adjustable centre columns should be used very sparingly and except in the examples I mentioned earlier (and similar) they don't perform magic.

Agreed.

On top of this, like cameras, the best tripod in the world is the one you have to hand when you need it.

This "Atlantic" tripod is as far from a good tripod as you can get but it was dirt cheap (£5 from a charity shop) and weighs something less than "booger all", so I can take it along, if I want the security blanket of having one with me. It's actually quite steady with most M43 cameras and lenses, though I'm not mad enough to try putting my G9 and 100~400 on it!

There are quite a lot of tripods like this in charity shops and they're usually very cheap indeed.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Agreed.

On top of this, like cameras, the best tripod in the world is the one you have to hand when you need it.

This "Atlantic" tripod is as far from a good tripod as you can get but it was dirt cheap (£5 from a charity shop) and weighs something less than "booger all", so I can take it along, if I want the security blanket of having one with me. It's actually quite steady with most M43 cameras and lenses, though I'm not mad enough to try putting my G9 and 100~400 on it!

There are quite a lot of tripods like this in charity shops and they're usually very cheap indeed.

View attachment 399609

A perfect example - a fiver is all that's needed for a small camera and occasional use.
But you call that a tripod?
Sorry, couldn't resist

Here's my Crocodile Dundee version

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Here's my Crocodile Dundee version

I'll raise with my Mutant Star Wars combo...

 

[Garry Edwards]

You call that a raise?
THIS is a raise, my studio stand, which is OK with a 10" x 8" monorail - horses for courses

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You call that a raise?
THIS is a raise, my studio stand, which is OK with a 10" x 8" monorail - horses for courses

That is a very big stick for a very small camera!

Actually, the last time I saw something like that in the metal, it was in an aircraft hanger and had what looked like a 10x8 camera on board. There was more lighting scattered around than in the main store at Pelling + Cross. However, I was on a tight schedule so couldn't stop to chat and when I'd finished my own stint they'd packed and gone, so I never did find out what the job was.

From what I was told later, they may have been photographing a bit of this...

 

[Garry Edwards]

I've taken this thread well off course, my apologies - but photography is a very broad church with lots of specialties, most of which I know nothing about, and some people may be interested in something very different to their own experience and interests.

The D3 camera in that pic doesn't need such a heavy-duty support, but it's an essential bit of kit for commercial studio photographers regardless of camera size, because it's height-adjustable from about 4cm - 3m, and adjustment is lightening-fast, the tube has a counterbalance weight inside, so just release the locking clamp and move it to any height instantly, far faster than any tripod.

And the other great advantage is safety - when used at height with a stepladder, the photographer can be in exactly the right place without overbalancing, which is almost impossible with a tripod, with the legs pointing in all sorts of awkward directions.

It's on (lockable) wheels of course, but still a pain to move around, I used to use a forklift to move it any distance, and of course had to use a forklift to move it for location shoots, but if you're taking a lorryload of lighting kit then taking a heavy studio stand makes no difference.

I retired nearly 8 years ago and still have it, I've thought about selling it but haven't got around to it yet

 

[Topsy]

If shutter stabbing therefore camera shake is the issue and walking is not easy consider a walking pole that has a tripod thread on the top (I saw one on Steve O'Nions' YouTube once) ( https://mountainsforeverybody.com/hiking-poles-with-camera-mount ) it will act as a monopod to steady the shot and assist in the walking between shots. When I am going out over particularly difficult ground I will use my monopod as a walking pole anyway.