The Best Camera for the Rail Enthusiast

Hi all

I don't expect one answer and I suppose its all down to personal preference, but I was wondering if you had any views on what you think is the best still digital camera for a rail enthusiast like me, just so that I can start searching somewhere.

I'm looking for something that is relatively "professional" without being too expensive, and I would also hope it could do some relatively good video as well.

 

The key thing in this is to find something that you like. Personally I use a Canon 450D, and went to a shop and tried that and a Nikon - I got the Canon purely because it felt better in my hands, but you won't have the same hands as me!

If you can afford it, the Canon 500D has a video mode, as does i think the 1000D, though this is a noticeably lower spec (and price tag, but still a great starting point)

What sort of budget are you looking at? And what sort of photos do you want to take? Point and shoot shots of locos in stations, lineside shots, or artistic landscapes? (A combination is normal of course, but primarily)

 

Depends on how you define "not too expensive." What sort of budget do you have in mind?

 

I can highly recommend the Sony a380,

 

I can recommend the Canon pwershot A650. I've owned one for over a year and apart from a faulty lens which suffered from poor build quality it has proven to be very good. The video quality is also good

 

Sony Alpha 350

 

I would recommend the Pentax K10 or K20 but if you want one that can video shoot aswell there is the new K7 but that costs £994 just for the body.

 

Perhaps you should decide if you want a bridge camera or dslr.If its a dslr then see what lens meets your requirements and choose a body accordingly.

 

I echo that. The lens is the thing to focus on (awful pun!)
IMHO you need to be spending well over half of your total budget on the lens

 

I could recommend what I use - as could everyone else here but wouldn't it be more sensible if you were to go and look at a few cameras that seem suitable to you and are in the right price range then come back and ask for opinions from those who use them?
Answers to your original question will end up with so many opinions that you'll end up very little the wiser.
Though, if you are going for a DSLR, I agree that you should spend a good proportion on the lens.
Back in the good old days of film, I always used to advise people to spend more than half their budget on the lens but all too often they wanted a camera body with lots of bells and whistles that they would probably never use then by the cheapest lens available. That usually lead to much disappointment!
Also, whatever you end up with, remember you'll have to carry it.
A pocket size compact that goes everywhere with you is far better than the hi-spec brick that you leave at home.

 

This is a difficult question to answer because there is more to it might meet the eye.

If you want the best quality of picture as free from distortion as you could possibly want, then go for a SLR.

Depending upon your budget go for Nikon or Canon. The cheaper ranges are much of a muchness although I have heard good things about Sony.

If you don't mind some distortion in your picture or if you don't have the space in your bag or can't afford multiple lenses then go for a 'bridge' camera. These cameras have a single lens, quite often covering the (35mm equivalent) range of around 40mm to 400mm. They are very convenient but you will almost certainly see more barrel and pincushion distortion at any given focal length that you would in a SLR lens. You will always get a better quality picture from an SLR camera than a 'bridge' even where they are from the same manufacturer.

Another consideration is on what equipment you are going to view your pictures. If you are only going to see them in small prints or on the tele or a computer, then the distortion of a bridge isn't going to matter too much. But ... if you are going to project them using a home cinema projector then the distortion will show and an SLR will be best.

The whole point about an SLR is that it is possible to change lenses. Although the modern SLR lenses are very good, far better than the lenses I was brought up on, they take up space in your bag and they cost lots of money. If you are going to cover the focal range 28mm to 500mm, you will need at least three good quality zooms, although the 300 to 500 part of this will not as often be used as the 28 to 300 for railway shots. A 500mm lens is essential for aviation subjects if that is also a consideration.

You can save money on SLRs by buying a package or kit. Most manufacturers do offers. Lenses from independant manufacturers are quite often very good indeed. I have personal experience of Tamron and Sigma and have been pleased. A good mix if you are on a budget is a body and a zoom from (say) Nikon or Canon and then the additional lens or lenses from Tamron or Sigma

You ask about video. In my experience stills cameras do lousy video and vice-versa. That might have changed but I'm not a techno-freak so I don't fuss to much about the latest trends, I just try to catch up when I need to!

I have made my choice, I have a Canon HG10 camcorder and a Canon Powershot S5IS bridge for stills. Both are excellent although I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if neither is currently in production.

HTH

Regards

 

Some good advice here

Have a look at http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm for some advice and reviews on what equipment is currently available from Nikon and Canon in particular. OK, he's American, but he's not going to recommend a particular camera just because it's got a vast number of megapixels and so is hugely expensive.

 

Hi,

A lot depends what your after with the camera but the best advice is to find a camera you find easy to use and is durable for all round conditions. How many megapixels it has is largely irrelevant. My first one was a 1.3MP one with no screen and yet it was capable of pictures being printed to A4 size without loss of quality. Most cameras out today are far above this. Extra functions can be useful where needed particually with shutter speeds and exposure times but too many can make it a bit cumbersome to use. As far as videos, videos taken by a camera won't be the same quality as from a camcorder or similar. Manufacturers vary somewhat in what sort of video set up they have, with or without sound etc. To back up cameras are not always the best at video is my current camera has a tendancy to add background noise-its fine for use when I don't use the sound or where there's sufficient sound produced by a loco to drown it out!

Regards

Duncan

 

You want to see the HD video from Canon EOS 5D Mk2 with an L lens on it. Wow!

Many commercial companies are actually shooting TV commercials on this kit now.

So there are (expensive) exceptions.

 

I wouldn't take what he says too seriously.

 

Pleased to hear it. It would be good if it were possible, at a reasonable price, to combine stills and movie in one package and achieve the quality that is currently available with separate cameras.

A good deal of my footage is shot hand held because a tripod doesn't offer the flexibility needed for aviation action. The ergonomics of a long lens fitted to an SLR body is very much better for this type of shot than is possible with the comcorder. To improve the camcorder I attach it to a compressed monopod, holding the camera conventionally with the right hand and supporting the monopod at its bottom with the index finger and thumb of the left. It's a lot better than using the camcorder unsupported but it can't beat the SLR/long lens option for ease of use or accuracy in panning.

Regards

 

You could also use something like THIS, which would then leave you with both hands to hold the camera whilst also getting the support of your monopod.

 

Edit......

 

Thanks for that, I'll look into it.

Regards

 

My monopod has a fold out metal "foot", which I just hook into my belt to the same effect.