You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'd like to get a camera that lets me take nice photos of distant-ish things. I currently have a mid-range phone which (for me) is great for most photos but doesn't let me take e.g. a photo of the dog 30 metres away. I've only ever used a phone or compact camera.
It looks like I can get an old mirrorless camera or DSLR with a long lens for not too much money. I've been looking at the Sony A5000 - which should be around £200 for camera and lens.
Obvious alternative suggestion is an iPhone Pro - but even second hand these are too expensive I think. I'd expect a cheap camera to last me a good few years; while a cheap-enough iPhone Pro only has a year or two of Apple updates left.
Anyone have any thoughts / advice?
Stand closer?
Mirrorless cameras are great for getting a good zoom range. I have a fixed lens Fuji now but I do miss being able to take good wildlife photo's.
I used to have an Olympus 40mm-150mm lens which on an Olympus or Panasonic M43 camera gives a 300mm equivalent zoom. It is a very cheap, small and light lens but it is also pin sharp. Overall it makes a pretty compact package. Actually prices have gone up a bit for cameras and lenses since I moved on so might stretch the budget a bit.
https://www.mpb.com/product/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-40-150mm-f-4-5-6-r?page=4
Sony A series can be a pain to operate due to lots of sub menus. Better bet would be one of the Olympus Pen cameras with a stock telephoto lens. More like a 'phone in operation.
Sony A series can be a pain to operate due to lots of sub menus
I get that, but you can put your top 10 setting on the quick menu which seems to work for me.
Before you venture down this path, have a think how much time are you willing to expend on this and what level of frustration can you endure before your write something off as too much hassle.
Because moving from a phone which does a decent amount of work for you to make photos look good to a camera where photos look good because the person using the camera has made a series of choices is the primary reason a lot of folks don't stick with it. You will spend much of the first few outings looking at your pictures with dismay, do you see yourself as someone who would take that as a challenge to improve or are you looking for good shots out of the box?
Pretty much every single older mirrorless camera has a different way of making the process of importing photos onto a mobile phone an awful frustrating experience that will sometimes work seamlessly and other times completely fail. You will do nothing different, it's just early tech and it is exceedingly frustrating. I use a compute for all my editing, but when I was out and about editing on an ipad I gave up with the apps and added a card reader to my camera bag.
Yes, no matter what anyone says, you'll need a camera bag and you will get fed up of having to take a bag places you didn't used to. Anyone who says even a micro 4/3 camera is pocketable must not care about having a heavy thing in their pockets bouncing about.
If you've got here undeterred then I apologise for being seemingly negative, but it's been a truth for as long as I can remember that better camera does not always equal better photos.
A dog 30m away is also a fair amount to ask, especially a small dog and even more so if doggo is in motion. The previously suggested olympus 40-150mm on a micro 4/3 body is a good shout though - although the older micro 4/3 cameras did not have the greatest autofocus so you would be less likely to get action shots.
With a tight budget you may find yourself better served by an older DSLR rather than mirrorless. These all have phase detect autofocus which is better at focussing than cheaper mirrorless cameras and their contrast detect autofocus. You end up with a larger camera overall but not as large as you think. I'm pretty amazed that a popular for not much over £200 you can get camera/lens combos that were delivering stellar results 10+ years ago that still hold up to scrutiny today.
I have a Sony a6300 for stills which, despite only using the kit lens, takes good photos. But it is much heavier and bulky than a mobile and I always have my mobile on me. The Sony is usually attached to the camera helmet I use when filming, or with the rest of my gear if I don 't need to take stills.
It's nice to have if I am travelling (and I will take it with me on holiday), but it really needs a bag to carry it and a bigger lens would make that more so.
Id agree with seriousrik,it depends a lot what you want to photograph, but are you going to be happy with an out of focus picture of a kingfisher, or will you want to spend days/thousands in a hide for a poster on your wall?
Another thing is portability, you dont want to carry a huge lens everywhere on your bike
Something like a Panasonic FZ100 bridge camera with 25-400mm may suit you, if you dont need the extra stops and cutting edge tracking/autofocus, at least until you decide otherwise
do you see yourself as someone who would take that as a challenge to improve
Yes - happy with some effort needed to learn how to make pictures work.
you may find yourself better served by an older DSLR ... for not much over £200 you can get camera/lens combos that were delivering stellar results 10+ years ago
Thanks @seriousrikk - any suggestions for a good buy of that type? Both body and lens.
Something like a Panasonic FZ100 bridge camera with 25-400mm may suit you
That does look a good option. £100 on ebay.
I used to have an Olympus 40mm-150mm lens which on an Olympus or Panasonic M43 camera gives a 300mm equivalent zoom. It is a very cheap, small and light lens but it is also pin sharp.
@jp-t853 thanks for the lens link. Would this Olympus Pen E-PL5 be a good match?
And software.
I used lightroom,I have been. Tempted to get away from the subscription model and move to something else.
Basically what Rick says. You can still take a cracking picture on your phone, it's a lot to do with composition.
Printing off pictures (family) between my old pixel 4 and my old canon 60d or my current r6 and the difference is outstanding. I'm assuming they would knock the socks off my current pixel 8pro too.
Sorry for late update I just noticed the question.
The E-PL5 is a pretty good camera and has some image stabilisation which is useful on the telephoto lens. Panasonic bodies from this time tended not to have this so you had to pay more for the lenses which had the stabilisation in. This is partly why the Olympus lens is so cheap. The downside with the E-PL5 is probably focus speed and the lack of manual dials for exposure compensation etc.
As a curveball you could try a cheeky offer on something like the below. The RX10 has a 200mm lens but it has a good quality digital zoom that gives great results up to 300mm.
The downside is it is larger with a smaller sensor but it is a brilliantly designed camera if you want manual controls. The sensor whilst smaller than M43 is much larger than most bridge cameras. They are generally cheap for what you get because they were prone to fungus on the lens. The one below looks clean though.
EDIT - just noticed this one says wifi might not be working. They generally come up cheap though so worth looking. I find wifi essential but if you copy from SD card etc. then there is even more of a chance of a low offer being accepted