# What camera?



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 12, 2013)

I would like to videotape my upcoming trip so I need a camera and I need to buy it fast. Cannot order it online, won't arrive in time. Looking for a cheap and reliable HD camera with sound, tripod or bipod optional. Don't need complicated lighting options etc.

I've also found that everytime I try taking a still picture out the front windshield, there's loads of glare and you can't see anything. I have never taken a video on a moving vehicle, so I don't know how it will be.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: minor error


----------



## oregon pioneer (Oct 12, 2013)

I've got a Kodak Playtouch. Here's the first video I took with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9ViOhqIhUY. It's quite easy to use. To take a photo through the glass on a moving train, just hold the camera quite close to the glass so it won't be able to focus on the dirt, ha, ha! This works for any type of camera.

I see that you can still buy them at WalMart, quite cheap: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Kodak-Zi10/15118985

(It says "available at limited stores", just see what they have in stock)


----------



## CHamilton (Oct 12, 2013)

Most cities still have a camera store that caters to professionals and serious hobbyists. I would strongly recommend that you go to such a place, so that you can try out something that will be comfortable for you. Generally, such stores have knowledgeable salespeople and competitive prices. Dunno what Praven has  but here in Seattle, it would be Glazer's, and in Reno, looks like there's a place called Gordon's. Stay away from the discount stores and the big-box stores if you can, since their salespeople are not knowledgeable, as a rule.


----------



## GG-1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Aloha

No camera that is uncomfortable in your hands is worth it. You need to go into a store that will let you handle them.

I personally prefer a heavy camera because these are easier to keep steady. Camera movement, unless following action, is the worst thing photographers do.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 12, 2013)

I'm so inexperienced at making a video that I have no idea what will be suitable for me, but I am quite versatile. The Kodak Playtouch looks simple and light enough to use, I think I'll go for that. I can't got to Gordon's, not enough time.

Currently I have a Sony Cybershot, but it takes terrible videos with no sound. The Playtouch looks quite similar so it should be a good option, however, it might be a bit too thin to handle, the same reason why I never bought a smartphone.

A bigger camera would look to be more suitable, I just fear it will be too heavy, clumsy, and expensive.

Any other ideas? Hopefully something similar to a Cybershot except for taking HD videos.


----------



## oregon pioneer (Oct 13, 2013)

I have no trouble holding the PlayTouch steady. Just hold it with both hands, elbows braced at your sides (or on your knee if you're sitting). Give it enough time at the beginning and end so the "bounces" when you tap the start and finish can be edited out. YouTube has enough tools to do simple editing like that.

BTW, I find the sound on the PlayTouch to be quite adequate, but my bird-feeding video had a lot of obnoxious wind noise, so I used music instead of native sound. I wish I had posted the video of my niece's jazz piano piece, it sounded great but was too long for my dysfunctional internet connection to upload, ha, ha!

I speak from experience. I am not a videographer, but I've been an amateur (and sometimes pro) photographer for 45 years. I don't see any difference between lightweight and heavy cameras in my ability to hold it steady, it's more the balance and hand-hold pattern. I've had everything from pocket digitals to 6x7 SLR film cameras. This one's easy to balance, with no lens sticking out the front.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 13, 2013)

Thanks, I think I might go for the Playtouch. Leaving tommorrow, I'll see if I have to time to get one, if not, then too bad. But I will surely take lots of pictures with my Cybershot and post them on Flickr.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 13, 2013)

But please, could someone help me with taking pictures out the front windshield. This is the same reason why I don't like oversized windshields, they make me nervous when I sit at the front. I have not problem taking pics out the side, but when I try the front there's always lots of glare, even when the sun is to the rear.


----------



## oregon pioneer (Oct 13, 2013)

Is it impossible to get right up to the glass on the front windshield? Your best bet is always to hold the camera as close to the glass as possible, and if possible to also turn it at a slight angle so the angle you're aiming is not "straight through" (90 degrees to) the glass.

If the glare is from your flash, and it's daylight, you need to find the setting that stops your flash from firing every time it thinks you need it. My point-and-shoot digital camera has three flash settings: auto-flash, always on, and always-off. All three settings are available to me in the "program" exposure mode, but not in "auto" mode. I usually just leave it in "program" because I like being able to select the flash mode without any fuss. If shooting through glass, I _always _turn the flash off. It's not likely to have a long enough range to illuminate anything on the other side of the glass anyway.

Sometimes your only hope is a polarizing filter, which I've only seen available for cameras with a threaded front to the lens (so the filter can screw into the front of the lens). Many of the heavier, more expensive cameras have lenses that will accept polarizing filters. So that might be a reason to go with one of them.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 13, 2013)

oregon pioneer said:


> Is it impossible to get right up to the glass on the front windshield? Your best bet is always to hold the camera as close to the glass as possible, and if possible to also turn it at a slight angle so the angle you're aiming is not "straight through" (90 degrees to) the glass.
> 
> If the glare is from your flash, and it's daylight, you need to find the setting that stops your flash from firing every time it thinks you need it. My point-and-shoot digital camera has three flash settings: auto-flash, always on, and always-off. All three settings are available to me in the "program" exposure mode, but not in "auto" mode. I usually just leave it in "program" because I like being able to select the flash mode without any fuss. If shooting through glass, I _always _turn the flash off. It's not likely to have a long enough range to illuminate anything on the other side of the glass anyway.
> 
> Sometimes your only hope is a polarizing filter, which I've only seen available for cameras with a threaded front to the lens (so the filter can screw into the front of the lens). Many of the heavier, more expensive cameras have lenses that will accept polarizing filters. So that might be a reason to go with one of them.


Technically I could get up the the glass of the front windshield, but my path is blocked by the driver shield. Thus it is impossible for me to hold my camera less than 30 inches from the windshield unless I have some sort of extension arm, which would probably freak out the driver if I tried to stick it out to the right of him. It's also harder to turn at an angle when you're so far away on a moving vehicle.

My best bet right now is to check the instructions book of that camera again to see if I can turn off the flash. I've never used the flash before, eveytime I take a picture in the dark, the picture is very dark and the only thing you can see are the lights outside.

I'll try my best, but it's really hard.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 13, 2013)

Yeah, there's no good solution there.


----------



## oregon pioneer (Oct 13, 2013)

Just a tip -- the night photos are very dark because your flash is not powerful enough to reach out to the distance where the subjects are. If you can manage to turn off the flash, you'll get a "shake" or slow shutter speed warning, but then all you have to do is hold the camera as steady as possible -- the light meter will do its thing and give you a proper exposure for the ambient lighting. My motto has always been: "a little blurry is better than so dark you can't see anything."


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 16, 2013)

Actually turned out that my Cybershot is not that bad. I got some really good pictures but I failed to get a good picture of the CZ that ran right by me or the D4500CT that ran right under me, which would have both turned out to be awesome shots. My poor skill is to blame, not the camera.

I'll post my pictures on Flickr sometime soon and then link it here.


----------



## SP&S (Oct 18, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> But please, could someone help me with taking pictures out the front windshield. This is the same reason why I don't like oversized windshields, they make me nervous when I sit at the front. I have not problem taking pics out the side, but when I try the front there's always lots of glare, even when the sun is to the rear.


Have you tried a polarizing filter? When positioned at the proper angle they are amazing at reducing/eliminating reflections.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 19, 2013)

SP&S said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > But please, could someone help me with taking pictures out the front windshield. This is the same reason why I don't like oversized windshields, they make me nervous when I sit at the front. I have not problem taking pics out the side, but when I try the front there's always lots of glare, even when the sun is to the rear.
> ...


What's a polarizing filter? Some kind of shade?


----------



## GG-1 (Oct 20, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> SP&S said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


Aloha
Here is a quote from Tiffen supplier to Hollywood films.



> Polarizing Filters
> 
> Polarizers provide color and contrast enhancement. Reflected light often shows up as whitish glare that washes out color in an image. A Polarizer corrects this problem producing deep, dramatically blue skies. It also removes glare from non-metallic surfaces, such as windows and water. Color saturation in general, especially outdoors, can be improved significantly.
> 
> ...


----------



## fredevad (Nov 7, 2013)

oregon pioneer said:


> I've got a Kodak Playtouch. Here's the first video I took with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9ViOhqIhUY. It's quite easy to use. To take a photo through the glass on a moving train, just hold the camera quite close to the glass so it won't be able to focus on the dirt, ha, ha! This works for any type of camera.


I've found that using the "Landscape" mode helps reduce focus on the dirt, raindrops, etc. that may be on the window. I also find that filming away from the sun gives me the best picture, although that's not always possible depending on where you're seated, the direction of travel, and how mobile you can be. At the very least I try to keep the lens out of the sun (I'm guessing that's the part of the function of the rectangular cover over movie cameras), even if I have to use my other hand to shade it.

One other tip is to go to a fabric store and buy some "fur" to put over the microphone(s) to cut down or eliminate wind noise.


----------



## fredevad (Nov 7, 2013)

GG-1 said:


> Here is a quote from Tiffen supplier to Hollywood films.
> 
> 
> > Polarizing Filters
> ...


Hmmm... interesting. I've been trying to do the same thing colorizing during editing. Even though I've come up with a preset, it increases the render time tremendously, I get a slight purple tint on darker shots, and I'm not a colorist (obviously, if I'm using a preset for every shot). Could save some time. I'll check that out.


----------



## caravanman (Nov 11, 2013)

Good luck Mr Swadian... just enjoy your ride as best you can and don't fret too much about the pics... Concentrate on the experience while it is happening, the ride is the real adventure, the pics will just help you to remember the trip in the future.

Ed.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 11, 2013)

caravanman said:


> Good luck Mr Swadian... just enjoy your ride as best you can and don't fret too much about the pics... Concentrate on the experience while it is happening, the ride is the real adventure, the pics will just help you to remember the trip in the future.
> 
> Ed.


Yeah, I know, but sometimes I'm just sitting there and I want to take a pic out the front and it gets all messed up. This is what happens when I take such a picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9958622425/.


----------



## GG-1 (Nov 11, 2013)

> Yeah, I know, but sometimes I'm just sitting there and I want to take a pic out the front and it gets all messed up. This is what happens when I take such a picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9958622425/.


Aloha

That is caused by the level from the brightest to dimmest being greater that the film or sensor can handle most film is limited to 2 F stops, and digital mostly allows 3 F stops. Some digital software can control the difference and save the shot.


----------



## oregon pioneer (Nov 12, 2013)

The light meter in the camera is setting the exposure for what it sees most of in the frame, i.e. the inside of the bus which is darker. If you could use your zoom, or at least prop your camera on the top of that seat in front of you so that most of the frame is filled with the outside (as seen through the windshield), it would come out better. As the poster above indicates, you may be able to use the photo software in your computer to adjust the brightness of the photo - BUT - I played with this photo a bit, and the highlights are so overexposed that the detail outside the bus just isn't there to enhance. So somehow, you need to force the camera to expose for what you want to see in the picture. The simplest way is to frame the photo so that it does not include a lot of material that is very much brighter or darker than your subject.

Here's another thing to try -- now that I see exactly what you are talking about. This sometimes works for me: I know I said in an earlier post to turn your flash off - BUT (another "but"), you could try using the flash as a "fill flash" to brighten the foreground. This works ONLY if you do not shoot straight into the glass (if you shoot straight at the glass, it will act like a mirror and reflect the flash right back at the camera lens). Try it once, and use your image preview to see if it worked. Set your camera to a mode where you can manually turn the flash to "always on" (on my little Canon, that is Program mode, and the flash setting on the control ring will cycle through "auto flash," "always on," and "always off"). The flash will up the exposure level inside the bus, and in many cases this will equalize the lighting with the outside.


----------



## Alice (Nov 12, 2013)

The photo says it was taken with a Sony Cybershot. Which model number? Some of them have a lot of manual controls but you have to go through the menu system to get to them, cumbersome but worth it. For instance, you may be able to change the metering to spot instead of an area or several areas. If you don't have any manual controls, you can sometimes "trick" the camera to expose and focus the way you want. For that shot, you could try pointing outside the side window (to get distant and bright), hold shutter down partway, then frame as you did and press the rest of the way. This takes experimentation to get to know what works for the shots you like to take. Also, if you have different "scene" settings, you might take a look at the manual to see what each of them actually does, sometimes what you want is not obvious.

What oregon pioneer said about flash might work for two reasons, what she said about lighting up the inside to reduce contrast, and also because turning on the flash changes the settings. In fact, some cameras and shots work best with the flash on for scenery so far away there is no way for the flash to actually be doing anything, but it changes the camera settings.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 12, 2013)

I'm not a photographer so I have no idea what I'm supposed to do. Just for the record, I have a Sony DSC-P31 Cybershot. Does this one have manual controls to help out? The flash is a bit buggy on mine, when I seemingly select it, I still can't take a picture in the dark.


----------



## GG-1 (Nov 13, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I'm not a photographer so I have no idea what I'm supposed to do. Just for the record, I have a Sony DSC-P31 Cybershot. Does this one have manual controls to help out? The flash is a bit buggy on mine, when I seemingly select it, I still can't take a picture in the dark.


Aloha

A Photographer is someone that sees, and learns how to convey what they see to share with others. All it takes is practice, and patience. It will come.


----------



## Alice (Nov 13, 2013)

This camera got very good reviews for entry level photographers when it first came out in 2002. You'll benefit by reading complete reviews (do a web search) because some of them give hints on how to use it. Retrovo has the manual if you don't. Sony has a link to videos with some good ideas. Imaging Resource's test is still online. This is just a start, there is a lot out there about this camera.

You have more manual controls than most point-and-shoot cameras. You get to them in "set up" on the wheel. For this shot, you have EV adjustment -2 to +2 in 1/3 increments. Use the minus direction to darken photos, plus to lighten them. You might also experiment with manual focus, or with center auto-focus (so it focuses on just one point in the crosshairs in the center).

Sony's menu system is no fun and gets panned in pretty much all their pocket cameras. When I was using one as a primary camera, I'd figure out in advance what kind of photos I planned and set for that. But first I took a ton of photos where I'd take photo, change one setting, repeat, writing down image numbers and settings so I'd know what I did later when I put them on the computer.

Your flash might not be buggy, it might be you don't know how to use it. Sony's pocket cameras have a weak flash, only good for around 10 feet. So if you are shooting in landscape mode on scene setting, it won't fire no matter what settings you use. There is more info about it online.

That's a good little camera you've got, well worth learning to use all its capabilities.


----------



## CHamilton (Dec 23, 2013)

Here's a fascinating article about taking concert pics with the pocket Sony RX-100. I've never used the camera, but the photos are amazing. And there are some similarities between the challenges of taking pictures of trains, and taking pictures at concerts. What do the AU pros think?


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Dec 24, 2013)

Its a mini SLR sensor in a Point and shooot body ........ Its a cute cam but If you are gonna blow some money

get a Micro 4/3s panasonic G6 or G5 .. Its a open system with many lens to play with and can rival most sub 2 grand SLRs ..

I have 2 APS-H canon 1D cams * 1.3 crop* Frankly If I had to do it all over again I would use MFT ( micro 4/3) they hold like a large point and shoot Yet are as good as a good SLR ! ....

remember for a fixed pixel count . a larger sensor will allwas have more gain in the photocells and have less ISO noise from Amp-ing the photo after the fact .

costco had a pani G5 with 2 lens for under 700 bucks last year ......

here is the G6

http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-g-compact-system-cameras-dslm/dmc-g6heb.html


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Dec 24, 2013)

Peter KG6LSE said:


> Its a open system with many lens to play with...


And juggling a bunch of lenses is JUST what you wanna be doing with that once-in-a-blue-moon railroad shot pounding toward you with mere seconds left to make a decision, set up, focus, and catch it!! Yes, you'll thank yourself forever that you didn't have to rely on some simple little point-and-shoot to get a job done that only a heavy-duty DSLR and all its weighty paraphernalia could do at all. Not ITS fault you missed the shot cuz you couldn't decide what to do, or put your combination and composition together in time. Better to have that great missed shot in your own memory than any real one taken with lesser equipment.

Right?


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Dec 24, 2013)

Here are the trade offs........ You can get that 600$ sony and have a really BAD 3.6 zoom ..OR get a " super zoom " point and shoot * bridge cam * and have a cam phone sized sensor .

That sony has a very open lense at F1.8 No wonder they got the low light performance they did . that with a larger sensor is a killer cam for one thing . Low light ................ the zoom is very weak .

Or you can just get a ILC that has a Mid sized sensor and get a good lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674725-REG/Olympus_261504_M_Zuiko_Digital_ED_14_150mm.html

14-150 is FAR more range then the sony ........

Or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/968587-REG/panasonic_14_140mm_f_3_5_5_6_ois_micro.html

If you want just range and not noise quality then get the FZ-200 .. its got a F2.8 28-600 mm range and is a

VERY good balance of a cam...... Heck its the ONLY non ILC/SLR on the market with a Mic in jack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was shoot on the Pana FZ-200 http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterthethinker/9092981459/sizes/h/

its a VERY nice cam . but you can tell it has noise ......

At the very least with a F2.8 I can let a TON more light in the poor sensor then any other bridge type Point and shoot .

remember the FZ-200 is not a normal point and shoot but a * bridge * cam ....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/880958-REG/Panasonic_dmc_fz200k_Lumix_FZ200_Digital_Camera.html

the sony is also a bridge in its own way .

Issue #2 Point and shoots have to boot up !

I have lost more pics from the boot time then any other reason .

An SLR and most ILCs have no boot issues ... no lens to extend .. its CLick photo.

Issue #3 SLRs and ILCs have better AF then a normal point and shoot . ( Some bridge cams have a OK AF .)

I dont think most people here need a true * SLR * . but would be better off with a ILC 4/3s ........ its easy half the size and weight .

When I got in to photoprhy the 4/3s was a stunted system ....... Its now in many ways better then nikon or canon .

The mount fits the sensor and the lens are also matched to the sensor .and have VERY VERY fast AF .

in fact they smoke the AF on many of the top gear from both canon and nikon .

By the way .... If a shot is that needed . then get more then one body Like I did .

and then you have the wanted shot AND it looks good too.........no fiddle ... I have a full time backup and I can let others use the spare body and i dont have to swap lens .

Yea you can fiddle with a point and shoot or heck my cam phone , but I am not one whom wants a muddy pic due to a stunted sensor ............

might as well use a silly GoPro for all your needs as its soo small and has a Fixed focus and its lens is so wide as long as the thing is in the direction of the wanted shot you can crop in later ,,,,,,,,,


----------



## Ryan (Dec 25, 2013)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Peter KG6LSE said:
> 
> 
> > Its a open system with many lens to play with...
> ...


Prior Proper Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance.
Having the right lens on the camera at all times is second nature at this point.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Dec 25, 2013)

Exactly Ryan ,, It takes only a few min of reading to learn what glass is warranted for a trip or a shot .

Eg I never leave my 50mm Prime on unless I know I need superlow light use Or I need to blow out the back of a photo .

My short lens the EF 24-85 USM is my one size fits all lens....... If I need more range in a single then I ll rent the 28-300 L .


----------



## jis (Dec 25, 2013)

True that. I find that a versatile lens like the 18-200 AFS VR stays on my Nikon DSLR on most occasions and is an excellent lens for most train rides. If I a doing static rail fanning at places like Priceton Jct. I go for the 55-300mm instead. It seldom involves shuffling lenses frequently and on the fly.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Dec 25, 2013)

I have heard great things about that lens..

Some day I WILL own the EF 28-300 L IS USM.... i rented it once and yea its HUGE but sans the F range being just so-so . Its Truly a one size fits all......

For now I have a *EF 24-85 F3.5-4.5 USM2 *.... sadly After fukisema canon did not re-start production .

Its a 400 buck lens but has FULL time Man over ride on the focus! just like the L series ! . So I can grab and twist and I dont mess up the guts ..

I also have a *EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM *. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_EF_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html

My uncle is gonna sell to me in the spring . his 24-105 F4 L

Oh Heck I need to let you all in on my train shots secret..

The best way to really choke out the extra light IF you can get your cam near the window is to use a CV boot !

OR a rubber lens hood .... it lets you Like bellows were in the Old days . make a area light tight.

you can jam the hood against the window and it wont mar it . and it docks quite nice .


----------



## Ryan (Dec 25, 2013)

jis said:


> True that. I find that a versatile lens like the 18-200 AFS VR stays on my Nikon DSLR on most occasions and is an excellent lens for most train rides.


I utterly love that lens and wish that there were something comparable in FX-land. My 28-200 AF-D isn't anywhere near as nice.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Dec 27, 2013)

I did some chatting with the Sony Rep . at Frys and Tried out the RX-100 . Its not a bad cam . but the glass has like I said ... Really bad zoom range.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSCRX10-Cybershot-Digital-Camera/dp/B00FRHTSMW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388200039&sr=8-1&keywords=RX-10

I give you a cam that can do VERY much what a ILC can .........

Better pony up cash . 1300 MSRP is not THAT great unless you are never ever gonna want to swap glass .

If you must have a fixed lens cam then the RX 10 and the FZ-200 are the top 2

* granted the FZ is half the price on a bad day .


----------

