Stills not video

C

Charles B

Suspended / Banned
Messages
88
Name
Charles
Edit My Images
Yes
Try ‘though I have I cannot find any articles or reviews that discuss which cameras, in any format, concentrate their technology on still images rather than video. So many are marked down in reviews because they can’t do 4K video, for example. I really don’t want to be paying out for the bells and whistles that are seemingly deemed necessary on so many camera bodies right now. Where do I look for a camera that will let me take images to print up to A3, doesn’t weigh a ton and doesn’t cost more than £1,500. Or am I seeking the impossible?
 
well - printing at a3...

so that's 410mm x 297mm - assuming 300dpi print density, that's around 4900x3550 pixels or so... so, pretty much anything 18mp or above. (* yes, to the regulars, I know that pixels aren't the be-all and end all of things, i'm just making it clear that A3 isn't that demanding a target to print to.)

so, in no real order, here's a few mirrorless cameras that fit the brief as being compact and relatively light compared to a full-on DSLR...

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/fuji-...59a109539505a36273b64dba4f4e979&utm_source=aw

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-alpha-a7-mark-ii-digital-camera-with-28-70mm-lens-1563796/

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-eos-m5-digital-camera-with-18-150mm-lens-1607274/

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/olymp...l-camera-with-12-40mm-pro-lens-black-1567216/

but really, with the spec of "small and prints to a3, not interested in video" you really could just look at any bridge or pocket camera...


Now, if you've some more demanding requirements - like long lenses for wildlife or motorsports for example, then you may need to elaborate on them, as pretty much anything suggested is going to cover your initial requirements, including most likely the camera in your phone.
 
I have A3's taken with my Canon 300D and for normal viewing they're fine.

As for bells and whistles, yes you are paying for them but you'll be paying for them no matter what you buy these days so my advice is to take that on the chin, turn them all off and forget about them. That only leaves finding good reviews for stills shooters and all I can recommend is that you stay away from reviews and sites that are obviously video centric, concentrate on reviews which are more balanced or weighted towards stills and ignore the video section of those reviews.

I'm sure it's been said about a million times but I think it is very possibly true that pretty much any camera from MFT and up is good enough for A3 and anything else is just nit picking and fanboyism :D
 
It's a common misconception that we pay a load extra for those 'bells and whistles', the expensive parts are the sensor and the processor (faster processors give quicker AF and image saving, allowing for faster burst speeds), other than that, the really expensive bits aren't even in the camera, we all have 3 or 4 times more money invested in lenses than cameras.

Again... When DSLR manufacturers wanted to attract users who'd learned on digital, they realised they needed 'live view' on the rear screen (P&S users it seems don't understand that a viewfinder is simply better) and as soon as they'd made that possible, it became a matter of software to capture that video stream to the memory card - so DSLRs that do video became normal.

I've never read a single review of a camera that ignored stills in favour of video, as a reader it's up to us to filter the info out.

And as Alan says above, all modern cameras will give you a decent A3 print, I think you're possibly getting your knickers in a twist over something inconsequential, or going to the wrong places for your reviews.
 
Thanks. Just to eleborate - I want to take wildlife shots, especially garden and sea birds and am keen on macro work.
 
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-Niko...857565&hash=item1a5a25ef84:g:Rv4AAOSwzIJbal9v

the best camera for the money and just under your budget fantastic for stills and video not 4k which isn't necessary in my opinion. i got mine from an Irish retailer and could not be happier with it. The type of photo depends on the lens, not the camera so much
i did mention this in another thread, I don't know why you don't just get one
 
Last edited:
Charles B said:
Thanks. Just to eleborate - I want to take wildlife shots, especially garden and sea birds and am keen on macro work.
Click to expand...
Charles B said:
Try ‘though I have I cannot find any articles or reviews that discuss which cameras, in any format, concentrate their technology on still images rather than video. So many are marked down in reviews because they can’t do 4K video, for example. I really don’t want to be paying out for the bells and whistles that are seemingly deemed necessary on so many camera bodies right now. Where do I look for a camera that will let me take images to print up to A3, doesn’t weigh a ton and doesn’t cost more than £1,500. Or am I seeking the impossible?
Click to expand...

There's a Panasonic G MFT (Micro Four Thirds) owners thread here...

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/panasonic-g-series-owners-thread.262800/page-283

In recent times some new to Panasonic MFT people have been posting a lot of bird pictures, BIF or even sat still are not my thing at all but even so I think that some of the pictures are just stunning. My point being that just about anything from MFT and up will probably be perfectly adequate from an image quality point of view so that leaves bulk and weight and other factors such as focus speed and maybe tracking too and handling and how you feel about mirrorless v DSLR's.

If you want to try and keep the bulk and weight down whilst using lenses suitable for birds and wildlife maybe you should be looking at the smaller sensor systems as the bigger the format the bigger the longer lenses you'll possibly be looking at. If that is the case maybe MFT would be a good starting point and if that's not suitable you could then look at another format but looking at larger formats will mean more bulk and weight. However, whatever the format a good long lens might eat up a lot of your budget, for example a lot of those nice bird shots in the Panasonic thread were taken with a 100-400mm lens that is lovely but not exactly cheap.

There's always the 1" sensor bridge cameras and some seem to be getting very good results from them but I don't know if they'll be within your budget.
 
TheBigYin said:
but really, with the spec of "small and prints to a3, not interested in video" you really could just look at any bridge or pocket camera...

.
Click to expand...

I don't get this - even if OP wanted to just shoot family images with a kit lens why would a compact be the answer? They seem to want the best image quality they can get within budget, a compact isn't doing this.

I hate that video is now a specific selling point too, it used to be an add on that only a handful cared about until 'vlogging' took off. Now comment sections on reviews are flooded with the 4K brigade, the same ones who have nothing actually 4K capable and probably watch the reviews on cheap 720p phones. IMO video is ruining camera these days, really wish they were separate entities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top