[sanjuro]

I am considering a Canon A610, but I know I will want to use on bike trips. I read it is a slow camera, but obviously a good value.

From my experience with digi, there is a delay between pushing the shutter button and when the picture is actually taken. I got used to timing it, but I was suprised it was not instaneous

When looking at a camera under $400, is speed secondary?

 

[Rainer Wolfcastle]

Funny, I'm about to buy the same camera. I've been reading alot of reviews and it seems like it's pretty good. Some call it a a compact DSLR .You can go all automatic or set up manual. You can put other lenses on and you can shoot 2,4 frames pr second in high resolution untill you card runs out.

The period of time from when you press til the picture is taken is called shutter lag. So look for that in the reviews. Here's a pretty good one http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A610/A610A.HTM

Full Autofocus Wide 0.48 second
Full Autofocus Tele 0.63 second
Prefocused 0.071 second

The A610 is a fairly fast little consumer digital camera, in almost all aspects of its performance. Start-up is quick, and shutter response time is noticeably better than average at both wide angle and telephoto lens settings. Prefocused (half-way holding down the Shutter button), the A610 is very quick, at 0.071 second. Normal large/fine JPEG cycle times are faster than average in its price class, and its Continuous speed is pretty good as well. However, the boon on the Continuous mode is that the camera can capture an unlimited number of frames this fast, without stopping to clear the buffer. (Note though, that these times were measured with a very fast Kingston 133x SD card. The shot to shot times or the number of frames you can capture without pausing may be lower with a slower card, particularly in continuous mode.)

I'm not totally sure I'm buying, but I'll post if I do.

 

[binary visions]

When looking at a camera under $400, is speed secondary?

You are going to have a tough time at that price point, finding a camera that will be really suitable for action shots (because of both focus speed and lag issues).

However, they aren't so slow that you can't adapt. Several of the websites (dpreview.come, imaging-resource.com) that do reviews have numbers regarding shutter lag posted so you can do comparisons.

For comparison, imaging-resource.com puts my Sony DSC-F717 at 0.120 for prefocused shutter lag, and I have no trouble at all compensating for it. It is a little bit of a bother if a scene rapidly unfolds in front of me since there is little time for compensation, but if I have any kind of warning at all it's easy to handle.

Focus speed is always going to be pretty poor with these compact digital cameras though, so don't count on easily being able to focus and shoot during an action sequence. Pre-focus is the best way to go.

 

[mongo]

Hey sanjuro. Lag is an issue for mt. bike action shots, but even more important -- if you're gonna be shooting in the woods or somewhere with less than optimal lighting -- is how much adjustment the camera offers for low light and/or rapid motion of the subject.

You may not wanna get into the whole traditional photography thing, but at the very least you need a Low Light Mode of some sort, a Sports or Action Mode, a Burst or Motordrive Mode, and a good flash. From my experience, a big optical zoom is not important if your camera has 7 megapixels or more -- you can simply crop close to get the detail shot.

Here's a shot I took on Wonderland on Galbraith Mt. Happy trails... Mongo



Russ Barlow airing out the Sandy Stone Drop on Galbraith Mt.'s Wonderland Trial.

 

[sanjuro]

Hey sanjuro. Lag is an issue for mt. bike action shots, but even more important -- if you're gonna be shooting in the woods or somewhere with less than optimal lighting -- is how much adjustment the camera offers for low light and/or rapid motion of the subject.

You may not wanna get into the whole traditional photography thing, but at the very least you need a Low Light Mode of some sort, a Sports or Action Mode, a Burst or Motordrive Mode, and a good flash. From my experience, a big optical zoom is not important if your camera has 7 megapixels or more -- you can simply crop close to get the detail shot.

I have done some photography in the past, but is has been a forgotten art.

When it comes time for serious action shots, I will be using my Nikon 35mm SLR. The primary reason for a digital camera is snapshots and ebay photos, but I know I will use it for biking as well.

 

[BigMike]

As BV said, at that price point, you are going to have to do some type of compensating. That said, if you prefocus (hold the button halfway down until your subject comes, then press it all the way) it should not be much of a problem.

If you plan on taking it on biking trips, invest in a good case, and get the protection plan from wherever you buy it!

Camera in Camelbak + Crash + landing on back = not good times!

 

[Rainer Wolfcastle]

Camera in Camelbak + Crash + landing on back = not good times!

I just use a plasticbox for food, you know freezer and microwave box. I cost me 2 dollars, it's waterproof and it works out fine. Just find one in a plastic type that doesn't splinter.

 

[-dustin]

i find action shots rather hard with my S45. i generally set the focus with a half-click, then press the manual focus button to lock it in, and hope it all turns out. i get maybe 1 out of 10 action shots to be exaclty like i wanted them.

 

[manimal]

i have a rough time with action shots on my digi. i'm hoping to have the $$ for a full on digi slr soon but until then, i'll continue compensating by pre-focus and panning when necessary. the pics can come out "ok" but my sony has horrible response to lower light conditions. it's a great soccer mom camera but sucks for the trail.

decent light conditions = decent pic

low light = crummy pic

(all of this could be corrected with a decent shutter speed and a better lens. my sony's fastest shutter speed is 1/400! that's retarded slow!)

 

[macko]

I have the 4 megapixel version of that camera (can't remember the name A5sumthin'). It definitely wouldn't consider it "slow." Relative to other point-and-shoot digital cameras it's actually fairly fast. Or at least mine was when I did the research on it.

It's a GREAT camera. Plenty of settings, I'd like to be able to reach a lower f-stop but we can't always get what we want. The pull-out screen in the back is great for taking angle shots. The batteries last FOREVER and the thing is pretty much bomb-proof (except the memory card door which is plastic. WTF?).

Here's one trade-off you're going to have to deal with, which may be important to you if you're looking at riding around with it: portability. It's not very small, in fact, it's rather bulky and quite heavy. Feels like you've got a brick in your pocket. Not a big deal for me as I just keep it my bag, but it has prevented me from taking it some places.

Aside from that, if you pick this thing up head down to Radio Shack grab yourself some 1.2V/2000mAh Ni-MH AA rechargeables (and a charger). You'll be able to shoot all day long and then some on 4 of those suckers. Funny, how I can reel off that techno-jargon on the batteries but I don't know the model of my camera. Heh.

If you want pretty much the same camera just in a smaller format, get the S600 (or whatever the comparible model num. is). I have one of those for work and it's MUCH easier to carry on your hip and it's battery power is just fine for most uses. Only thing I don't like is that is has one of those proprietary rechargeables and I've had bad luck dealing with those in the past. So far, this thing hasn't given me any probs though.

I think this has the been the longest post I've ever typed up on RM... not even bike related.

 

[Rainer Wolfcastle]

Digital camera shutter lag comparison table: http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm
(The a610 rates very good)

This is a very fast time. Although there are faster cameras around I would say that shutter lag is not an issue that should stop you from buying this camera.

The Canon Powershot A610 is an exceptional digital camera. It offers a number of advanced features at a very reasonable price. Picture quality is of a very high quality for a camera that costs so little.

 

[Changleen]

Have a look at the Casio Exilim Z750 - This has super fast autofocus and shot times. The equivalent Canon is pretty fast too. I *think* it's in your price range in the US...

 

[Rainer Wolfcastle]

Ok I bought the A610 last week. It seems very good. Haven't had a chance to get some mtb shots yet, but it manages to capture my little fastmoving son very well. The burstmode is extremely fast, the flash is fast and doesnt screw up the colors. There's a kids/pets/sports mode for fast moving objects. I'll probably get some shots to poste here, next wednesday when the indoor skatepark is open to mtb'ers.

 

[PatBranch]

I have a rebel g (film slr). Its really good for biking/moto (other fast stuff) shots. I would never take it on the trail though.

For the trail, I use a disposable camera. Then I have it scanned onto a cd after its developed. These are nice because they are so durable and fast. You can get them with different iso films. They are best in decent light.

Here are some with a disposable:
http://photobucket.com/albums/a132/mtnbrider/05 8 Biking in SLO w Justin/
Some are messed up, but the ones that are decent, I can correct slightly in photoshop.

 

[blue]

erf erf sorries...um...read up on my Geneva Steel thread, all those pix were with an A610...its a schwingity little camera for how much you pay for it. And killa for the action shots.

 

[Austin Bike]

Just got a canon SD550 last weekend but haven't used it yet.

Amazing how quickly it goes from off to ready and ready to off.

The continuous shot capability is unreal. Literally 2 per second if the flash is off. And that is with a slow memory card. I need one of those 100X cards now

 

[Transcend]

I bet you can find an original digital rebel really close to $500 now with a kit lens. Then you wouldn't have any shutter lag to worry about (which sucks IMMENSELY). I cannot stand it even when just taking snapshots on my digi elph.

You can get 10Ds for about $550.

 

[sanjuro]

BTW, I am sure I am going to impress everyone with my purchase of a Canon A520 for $200. Considering all I have taken so far is a picture of my nephew and a Manitou fork, it seems like money well spent.

I am thinking about getting a handlebar mount for my road bike. There is some interesting sh t around San Francisco.

 

[Senôr Lopez]

I just got my wife a FujiFilm FinePix F10. But since her birthday is next weekend I haven't had a chance to use it. I have family members that swear by it, and the pictures they've taken plus the overall great reviews and ease of use made the purchace a no-brainer. Once I get it out and take some pics I'll post my own findings.

 

[Bullitrider]

So how do the lower end DSLRs(Canon Reb XT, Nikon D70, etc.) do in low light? Any shutter lag? How about when using a flash? Does the flash affect the lag if any?

 

[Transcend]

So how do the lower end DSLRs(Canon Reb XT, Nikon D70, etc.) do in low light? Any shutter lag? How about when using a flash? Does the flash affect the lag if any?

SLRs do not have shutter lag. They have physical shutters, like a film camera. Smaller PS cams do not actualy have a shutter, they just turn on and off the sensor. The problem with these is that the AF is so damned slow it makes the lag intolerable.

Newer Digi SLRs have very good low light sensitivity, making high iso shots quite useable.

edit: what narlus said. You can always get a pimp ass F/1.2 lens and shoot in super low light. Hell, blow 3k and get a f/1 and a trailer to haul it in.

 

[narlus]

So how do the lower end DSLRs(Canon Reb XT, Nikon D70, etc.) do in low light?

fine. depending on the lens you are using, you can bump the ISO up and get a good compromise.

Any shutter lag? How about when using a flash? Does the flash affect the lag if any?

i don't think it should (the shutter release should be totally independent of light and flash), but i haven't experimented.

edit - transcend beat me to it.

 

[Bullitrider]

Sweet. Saving money now.

Next (essay) question:

According to the forums I've read, the D70 and the XT take great photos. One thing I've seen half the people complain about is the D70 requires(for better images) you to shoot in a "RAW" mode and then use their aftermarket software(another $100) to format them. Otherwise the color is a little washed. The XT didn't require any aftermarket software and has more megapixels. What's the deal?

 

[merrrrjig]

Full Autofocus Wide 0.48 second
Full Autofocus Tele 0.63 second
Prefocused 0.071 second
Thats still very slow, even at the prefocused, I think my canon DSLR is like 0.001 second

 

[SilentJ]

edit: what narlus said. You can always get a pimp ass F/1.2 lens and shoot in super low light. Hell, blow 3k and get a f/1 and a trailer to haul it in.

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/canon/PRD_83381_3111crx.aspx

f1.0 would be ridiculous, though...this shot was taken at f2.0, 1/1000s, iso200. It got all grainy from the resize, but in the original you can read his tire sidewalls.

 

[binary visions]

According to the forums I've read, the D70 and the XT take great photos. One thing I've seen half the people complain about is the D70 requires(for better images) you to shoot in a "RAW" mode and then use their aftermarket software(another $100) to format them. Otherwise the color is a little washed. The XT didn't require any aftermarket software and has more megapixels. What's the deal?

You don't have to shoot in RAW mode. There's a million different ways to get great out-of-camera shots. The D70 and the XT both have in-camera settings for hue, saturation, contrast, sharpening etc. and these can be adjusted to suit your tastes.

You can get great great unprocessed shots with either camera.

Full Autofocus Wide 0.48 second
Full Autofocus Tele 0.63 second
Prefocused 0.071 second
Thats still very slow, even at the prefocused, I think my canon DSLR is like 0.001 second

So, your solution is that everyone needs to own a DSLR?

Compact cameras are what they are. They're small and inexpensive. That's kinda like complaining that the $700 Stumpjumper doesn't have as much travel as the $5000 Demo 9, or isn't as light as the $3500 Epic.

 

[brungeman]

Sweet. Saving money now.

Next (essay) question:

According to the forums I've read, the D70 and the XT take great photos. One thing I've seen half the people complain about is the D70 requires(for better images) you to shoot in a "RAW" mode and then use their aftermarket software(another $100) to format them. Otherwise the color is a little washed. The XT didn't require any aftermarket software and has more megapixels. What's the deal?

I have a D50, and the raw mode doesn't mean you have to run their software. PhotoShop works just fine for processing. I will say the file size is larger in RAW, but if you get a great shot and want to use it for something other than an image on a web site at 72 ppi such as a submission to a mag or you just want it blown up, you have a super good file for it.

the color doesn't seam washed out at all.

the low light thing is a little skanky with the stock lens, being that it is an f3.5at 18mm and f5at55mm. in low light any camera set on auto is going to have a slow shudder speed setting therefore any motion will be blurry, a flash will definately help that a lot!

talk to a reputable camera shop about the 2 cams, also most shops will tell you as they did in my cast the D70s wasn't worth the extra$$$ over the D50. if I could have afforded it the Rebel Xt would have been a definate candidate, but I already had Nikon gear that interchanged, and the D50 was a lot less!
Good luck and let us know what you get!!!

 

[dfinn]

I personally think the default images off of my D70, even in raw mode are a little flat color wise. I've read that Nikon does that on purpose to get more true color, and then they give control to the person taking the photo to manipulate the colors however they want. That's the great thing about shooting in raw is that I can use photoshop to bump the levels to however I want it without degrading the photo.

 

[Bullitrider]

Hey Binary, you ever buy any lenses for your Sony DSC 717? If so what & how did the pics turn out? I have the same camera and it works great but the low light thing is killing me.

 

[Carbon Fetish]

I used a Sony DSC F717 for a few years. I was able to adjust to the shutter lag and was able to get some good photos from it. Now I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT but neither are good for taking along on the trail.

With the Sony...

 

[Transcend]

As mentioned above, youc an adjust Jpeg output settings in camera. Shooting raw gives you much mroe room to recover photos you screwed up taking. Great for beginners who will screw stuff up or studio photogs who need exposure/white balance/saturation etc to be PERFECT.

So Nikon doesn't ship any software with their lower end dslrs??? What a scam.

The Canon software is garbage interface/program wise, but it sure puts out some sick pics. Best rendering engine for Canon shots.

You can also you Photoshop with the raw plugin (i recommend cs or cs2, but any will work). Just make sure you have the most recent Adobe camera raw plugin or it won't read certain raw formats. (free on the adobe site).

Besides these aps, there are many aftermarket ones from C1 pro ($500 and the choice of many professionals), to $60 programs like photo mechanic which do a great job as well.

also - what CF said. SLRs suck for taking riding. No way I am carrying my 1dmk2 with me on the trail. Too heavy, and i'd be constantly afraid of falling on it. I use a digi elph with mucho shutter lag for playing in the woods and only bring out the big guns when i have a planned shoot and won't be riding at all.

 

[Transcend]

I personally think the default images off of my D70, even in raw mode are a little flat color wise. I've read that Nikon does that on purpose to get more true color, and then they give control to the person taking the photo to manipulate the colors however they want. That's the great thing about shooting in raw is that I can use photoshop to bump the levels to however I want it without degrading the photo.

Yes, raw images from most manufacturers are pretty flat. This also depends on lens obviously, as fancy glass will always give you more color and contrast, but generally RAW is flat, soft and by definition, completely unprocessed. (Although there is some evidence now that both canon and nikon actually do a tiny bit of in cam processing, even on raw files).

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>
So Nikon doesn't ship any software with their lower end dslrs??? What a scam.

They do, but it sucks.

 

[binary visions]

Hey Binary, you ever buy any lenses for your Sony DSC 717? If so what & how did the pics turn out? I have the same camera and it works great but the low light thing is killing me.

You mean, add-on lenses? Yeah, I've got the telephoto attachment. It's alright - it's effective, but really messes up the fine details on the edges, and you don't get as much center detail. Kind of to be expected with that kind of attachment - it's certainly a nice piece of glass, and distorts far less than I would have expected.

I thought I'd use it a lot more than I do, but let's face it - the short reach of the F717 isn't an effective telephoto camera, even with a 1.7x teleconverter. Put a 1.7x on something like the new Sony H1, and that gives you a huge reach.

Still love the F717, though. Eyeing the dSLR market closely, but I don't have the coin to drop on one now. I think the F717 is still one of the most effective compact cameras you can have for low light - big aperture and the holographic AF is super effective (even if it does scare people ). Noisy at high ISO, of course, but there's only a very small handful of compact cameras that aren't.

 

[Transcend]

They do, but it sucks.

Ah ok, so does canon's - badly. Why would this guy need an extra $100 to edit raw files then???

 

[SkaredShtles]

Ah ok, so does canon's - badly. Why would this guy need an extra $100 to edit raw files then???

He doesn't. There are a number of open source solutions to the Nikon RAW format.

My wife like's the $100 Nikon software, though - so we've got it.

 

[binary visions]

Ah ok, so does canon's - badly. Why would this guy need an extra $100 to edit raw files then???

He doesn't. There are lots of utilities to edit RAW files. He's just talking about the $100 Nikon Capture software that you can buy.

 

[Bullitrider]

Ah ok, so does canon's - badly. Why would this guy need an extra $100 to edit raw files then???

Just repeating what I read somewhere else. Maybe the supplier jacked his software kit before they sold it to him so they could get more coin.