Likes Likes:  4
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Are connected/wifi cameras worth the hassle?

  1. #1

    Are connected/wifi cameras worth the hassle?

    I'm thinking of getting an inexpensive (<150) compact point and shoot camera that I can carry round with me for taking snaps. A lot of my photos end up getting shared somewhere online, so I'm wondering whether to go for a wifi/NFC enabled device so I can share things when I'm out and about or if I'd be better of (given my relatively limited budget) in just focussing on something that takes good pictures.
    Anyone have experience of connected cameras? Are they worth it, or does the process of connecting end up being clunky enough that you don't use it.
    Follow up question - any recommendations of cameras in my price range?

    Cheers

    Olly

  2. Likes bolaberlim liked this post
  3. #2
    Scam Hunter Broker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Posts
    2,569
    Blog Entries
    1
    I didn't even know this technology existed.

  4. #3
    King of Mars bolaberlim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Porto, Portugal
    Posts
    649
    I never used one myself, but what I know of the technology is that it's pretty straightforward to use. However you have a second choice, just buy a Wi-fi SD card. You can use the card in any camera you want and synch the card with whatever device you want- phone, computer or tablet. Again, I haven't used one either. Just looked it up, a wi-fi card goes for $99.99, see what you would pay extra for a camera with this feature and if it's worth it. You can use the card in more than one device, so that's a plus. This is the one I just found, but there must be others I think.

    http://www.eyefi.com/products/prox2

  5. Likes jsw41 liked this post
  6. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by bolaberlim View Post
    I never used one myself, but what I know of the technology is that it's pretty straightforward to use. However you have a second choice, just buy a Wi-fi SD card. You can use the card in any camera you want and synch the card with whatever device you want- phone, computer or tablet. Again, I haven't used one either. Just looked it up, a wi-fi card goes for $99.99, see what you would pay extra for a camera with this feature and if it's worth it. You can use the card in more than one device, so that's a plus. This is the one I just found, but there must be others I think.

    http://www.eyefi.com/products/prox2
    Wow, that looks pretty cool, I hadn't even considered that. Thank you
    Apeks | Archimede | Breitling | Bulova | Cabot Watch Company | Casio | Daniel Wellington | Davosa | Glycine | G-Shock | Hamilton | Nomos | Omega | Rolex | Seiko | Slow | Swatch | Timex | Vostok

  7. Likes bolaberlim liked this post
  8. #5
    King of Mars bolaberlim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Porto, Portugal
    Posts
    649
    As for camera suggestions, what's your budget? And what do you look for in a camera other than portability? Or in other words what type of images do you plan on taking and for what purpose? Do you need a zoom, do you plan on printing or is it for online use only? If you want to print do you plan on enlarging? Do you do portraits or landscapes? Good lighting or dark? With or without flash?

    I use a Fuji x100, it has my favorite focal distance-35mm, excellent performance in low light, beautiful skin tones. Focus is slow, but I don't need a fast one, and no zoom. The sensor is APS-C which allows me to print and enlarge up to a decent size, it's 12 Mp so the files are not huge and easily processed by my computer. On the other hand I use a lot of film of late, so the instant connectivity is something that I definitely am not looking for

  9. #6
    From my previous experiments with photography I would definitely want a decent optical zoom. I will be printing, but probably not enlarging beyond 10x8". Don't like flash, because in my experience unless you have a proper rig they ruin photos. Pics will be mostly outdoors, but some family stuff too which may be indoors, so I suppose I want a solid all rounder. Budget is < 150, I'm not looking for anything amazing, just something I can carry round with me and pull out when I want to take a pic.
    Edit: that Fuji looks lovely, but I'm after something much more affordable right now

  10. Likes bolaberlim liked this post
  11. #7
    King of Mars bolaberlim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Porto, Portugal
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by whatmeworry View Post
    From my previous experiments with photography I would definitely want a decent optical zoom. I will be printing, but probably not enlarging beyond 10x8". Don't like flash, because in my experience unless you have a proper rig they ruin photos. Pics will be mostly outdoors, but some family stuff too which may be indoors, so I suppose I want a solid all rounder. Budget is < 150, I'm not looking for anything amazing, just something I can carry round with me and pull out when I want to take a pic.
    Edit: that Fuji looks lovely, but I'm after something much more affordable right now
    That's not a lot of money, I'd recommend an older model honestly. You can get compacts for that price, but they will not be great performers in low light, in focusing speed or even in fast action. Like These:

    http://www.techradar.com/news/photog...der-200-987655


    But I've had a few cameras that i liked a lot and are worth it: Olympus E-PL1 with 14-42 lens, these are sold for a song these days, new,, refurbished or used. If you can get a later model even better. They are m4/3 sensor cameras, with interchangeable lenses. The focus is not very fast, but faster than a compact, zooming is done by hand, so super fast. It's a 28-84mm equivalent with this lens. The low light performance is so-so, better than a compact but worse than a SLR. The images are gorgeous, jpegs straight out of camera are beautiful. I've had two of these and my wife still has one. My second recommendation is another m4/3 camera, the panasonic GF3. The Gf1 was a great all rounder camera. the GF2 was considered a step back because of ergonomics and the public just straight out hated the GF3, they were a commercial failure. It has all the quality of the GF1, great build, great image quality. But they made it a lot smaller and as such less ergonomic a fiddlier to use. It's 20 steps up from a compact in my opinion, just slightly larger if you don't count the lens, the cheaper 14-42 from panasonic is a bit large, so that is a minus, but you can slap on the Olympus 14-42 and it will work as they are fully compatible. Panasonic also has a newer and very compact 14-42 collapsible lens, but it will take you out of your budget. Despite being a great camera, because it sold so poorly I've seen them new on sale for 80 euros body only. If you dig around you can find them cheap. Again, any version of the GF lineup is a great camera.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Olympus-E-PL...=olympus+e-pl1

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-DM...=panasonic+gf3

  12. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by bolaberlim View Post
    That's not a lot of money, I'd recommend an older model honestly. You can get compacts for that price, but they will not be great performers in low light, in focusing speed or even in fast action. Like These:

    http://www.techradar.com/news/photog...der-200-987655


    But I've had a few cameras that i liked a lot and are worth it: Olympus E-PL1 with 14-42 lens, these are sold for a song these days, new,, refurbished or used. If you can get a later model even better. They are m4/3 sensor cameras, with interchangeable lenses. The focus is not very fast, but faster than a compact, zooming is done by hand, so super fast. It's a 28-84mm equivalent with this lens. The low light performance is so-so, better than a compact but worse than a SLR. The images are gorgeous, jpegs straight out of camera are beautiful. I've had two of these and my wife still has one. My second recommendation is another m4/3 camera, the panasonic GF3. The Gf1 was a great all rounder camera. the GF2 was considered a step back because of ergonomics and the public just straight out hated the GF3, they were a commercial failure. It has all the quality of the GF1, great build, great image quality. But they made it a lot smaller and as such less ergonomic a fiddlier to use. It's 20 steps up from a compact in my opinion, just slightly larger if you don't count the lens, the cheaper 14-42 from panasonic is a bit large, so that is a minus, but you can slap on the Olympus 14-42 and it will work as they are fully compatible. Panasonic also has a newer and very compact 14-42 collapsible lens, but it will take you out of your budget. Despite being a great camera, because it sold so poorly I've seen them new on sale for 80 euros body only. If you dig around you can find them cheap. Again, any version of the GF lineup is a great camera.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Olympus-E-PL...=olympus+e-pl1

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-DM...=panasonic+gf3
    Thank you, that's really useful
    Apeks | Archimede | Breitling | Bulova | Cabot Watch Company | Casio | Daniel Wellington | Davosa | Glycine | G-Shock | Hamilton | Nomos | Omega | Rolex | Seiko | Slow | Swatch | Timex | Vostok

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About Us
We are an independent and wide-ranging forum for watch enthusiasts. From mainspring to microchip, from Europe to Asia, from micro-brand to boutique - we cover it all. Novice or expert, we want you to feel at home. Whether it's asking a simple question or contributing to the fund of horological knowledge, it's all the same hobby. Or, if you like, you can just show us a picture of your new watch. We'll provide the welcoming and courteous environment, the rest is up to you!
Join us