smallest DSLR?

[Surfy]

I took a small Sony compact camera with me. You can watch some pictures in my Blog: Trans-Africa

Some of them looks very amazing. But when i watch other blogs - i often think that others get better pictures. I dont know - if they are more skilled photographers - or if the camera makes the difference.

One of mine


A sample of another guy


That colors looks amazing in the 2nd sample. I guess that it may be worth to take some lessons, and invest money in a good equipment.

Unfortunately i don't had the time for looking to learn more about

Surfy

[photographicsafaris]

Surfy, the difference between your shots is the lighting, not the camera or photographer specifically.
Your shot has an obvious lack of light, was shot at noon with overhead cloud cover giving a blue tint to the shot, whilst the other shot has bundles of sunlight and shot at dusk with warm angled lighting.

Then there are polarising filters and a multitude of other options which the camera doesnt control.
Worryingly you could have selected AdobeRGB, shot in jpg and not sRGB which will have a worse colour palate when viewed on a computer screen, but more dynamic colours when printed. (it is marginal and difficult to control)

On the camera front each brand offers a different take on colour representation, obviously theres some variation by brand, Olympus out the camera Jpeg's are awesome and I feel punchy but spot on, kind of like Astia film. Fujis's jpegs have deep rich tones, Sonys border on the soft gentle subtle colours, Canon and Nikon each have their own spin, also down to the effect on highlights caused by the number of aperture blades.
In short its doubtful that the camera is the differentiator, but there is an element to your photography. if you are shooting in RAW then the various editing software makes the difference.

There is also editing.

Personally I prefer the dynamic clouds that your shot has, and other than the really boring lighting you could tweak it to create the drama.
Adjust the white balance slightly towards the yellow and Magenta side. Increase the saturation. Darken the sky's, and adjust the levels to give the colour a bit more depth, and hey presto, all told - a flat image revitalised.

Also your shot would look great with a peppercorn grain effect to it

regards

[Genghis9021]

Originally Posted by photographicsafaris

Surfy, the difference between your shots is the lighting, not the camera or photographer specifically.
Your shot has an obvious lack of light, was shot at noon with overhead cloud cover giving a blue tint to the shot, whilst the other shot has bundles of sunlight and shot at dusk with warm angled lighting.

Then there are polarising filters and a multitude of other options which the camera doesnt control.
Worryingly you could have selected AdobeRGB, shot in jpg and not sRGB which will have a worse colour palate when viewed on a computer screen, but more dynamic colours when printed. (it is marginal and difficult to control)

On the camera front each brand offers a different take on colour representation, obviously theres some variation by brand, Olympus out the camera Jpeg's are awesome and I feel punchy but spot on, kind of like Astia film. Fujis's jpegs have deep rich tones, Sonys border on the soft gentle subtle colours, Canon and Nikon each have their own spin, also down to the effect on highlights caused by the number of aperture blades.
In short its doubtful that the camera is the differentiator, but there is an element to your photography. if you are shooting in RAW then the various editing software makes the difference.

There is also editing.

Personally I prefer the dynamic clouds that your shot has, and other than the really boring lighting you could tweak it to create the drama.
Adjust the white balance slightly towards the yellow and Magenta side. Increase the saturation. Darken the sky's, and adjust the levels to give the colour a bit more depth, and hey presto, all told - a flat image revitalised.

Also your shot would look great with a peppercorn grain effect to it

regards

What he said . . . excellent image quality, really small, completely pocketable with several of the pancake lenses and the 2.8 zooms are as good as my Canon L 2.8s (!) but far lighter.

I'll be using the GX1 on my KTM this summer in Siberia.

[iainnic]

I'm currently looking around as I'm finding the EOS 50 d with a 200mm zoom too large and heavy to take around some times - as well as the size.

I've seen many excellent pics from some 4/3 compact cameras as am seriously looking at something like the Panasonic G5 for travel.

There is a compromise from APC to 4/3, but with teh current resolutions its a lot less than I expected

Has anyone used on of these travelling ? I'd be interested in their robustness

[kpredator]

check out the Panasonic lumix fz-200
great traveling camera
good luck
kp

[Warin]

I've just bought the FZ200... comparison to my old Olympus C5060.

Weights less - plastic body vs aluminum.
Zoom range - much more - why I bought it, missing out on shots of birds.

Feel - the olympus is much much better ... eg the shutter release button ... much better feel on the olympus to get that mid level focus/exposure setting done.

Settings .. The FZ200 when set to delayed release shutter ... only stays set to it for one shutter release.. if you want to take a series of delayed releases then you have to set it each time.

The remote shutter release is via cable. The olympus is infrared, a better system as you can be certain that any vibration is eliminated and you can be better placed into the shot.

--------- Despite the draw backs I'll be traveling with it. The weight and zoom range win. Note there are two versions of it - native video in either PAL or NTSCT, the PAL version is more expensive.

Neither of these is a SLR camera, they both have fixed lenses. The compromise on sensor size is not resolution so much as noise. The larger the sensor size the lager the lens has to be - so more weight.

=================
Old saying among racers - 90% rider, 10% bike. The same is true of photos.

[orangecicle]

I have to mention my camera. I've owned DSLRs for years, but I tended to not carry a DSLR with me. DSLRs are just generally too heavy once you add in the body, a lens or two, a flash. Ick! Very quickly you are carrying a LOT of weight.

I forget exactly how I learned of it, but I discovered the Fuji X-Pro1 about a year ago and bought one. It is an APS-C sized sensor camera, meaning it is the same sensor size as most of the consumer-grade Nikon and Canon DSLRs. It has a great lens lineup with absolutely wonderful glass and fast apertures like the 35mm f1.4 (50mm equivalent) and the 14mm f2.8 (21mm equivalent). Most importantly, the camera system is light, which means that I'm not nervous about carrying it around. In addition, Fuji did something unique with the sensor in this lineup. The important thing to know is that the image quality is stunning. I carry the camera everywhere, and I absolutely love it. I have a Canon 60D with nice lenses, and I never touch that camera.

Moreover, it's just darn sexy.

[Samy]

Originally Posted by Surfy

I took a small Sony compact camera with me. You can watch some pictures in my Blog: Trans-Africa

Some of them looks very amazing. But when i watch other blogs - i often think that others get better pictures. I dont know - if they are more skilled photographers - or if the camera makes the difference.

One of mine


A sample of another guy


That colors looks amazing in the 2nd sample. I guess that it may be worth to take some lessons, and invest money in a good equipment.

Unfortunately i don't had the time for looking to learn more about

Surfy

Second photo was taken in the afternoon and light was warmer. May be a polariser also used.

To me your photo is very good too. It is not about the camera.