Cycling Camera

[j44ke]

This new Nikon seems like it might be perfect. It has a 28mm lens, which is about right I think for landscape and architecture. 24mm is a bit wide and 35mm is not wide enough. Also, the lens is not a zoom, which means the camera can be designed around the single focal length lens, making it flatter and (presumably) increasing overall image quality. The lens is an f2.8, which means it is plenty fast for most light conditions. And it has a Nikon DX sensor, which is the same size as their non-full-frame DSLR sensors and likely also gets the pretty terrific high ISO sensitivity that those sensors have. It may even be the same sensor, but it must have some tweaking to deal with light angles and the small back focus of a smaller camera. The only concerns are weight (metal camera, might be heavy for cycling though fine for everything else) and cost (over $1000 - that's a lot of $$ to drop on the asphalt while trying to stuff it back into a jersey pocket.)

[robin3mj]

I like the fixed focal length on this, but that's a ton of scratch to pay for a camera without a viewfinder and more manual controls (coming from a longtime Canon G10 user.)
I'd kind of hoped this Nikon was more of a rangefinder style, ala Fuji X100.

If you could like with a slightly lesser sensor, then a refurb Olympus Pen Mini and a 14mm (28mm equiv) Panasonic lens would run about half that price. The Canon S1XX and newer Sony also seem to fit the bill. I guess it comes down to what's "good enough" while out and about and whether you want to have something nicer for walking around.

[Matthew Strongin]

You had me going until this...

snip... and cost (over $1000 - that's a lot of $$ to drop on the asphalt while trying to stuff it back into a jersey pocket.)

I used to carry a little Olympus that took decent photos and was drop, water, and crush resistant. Fell out of my hand at 20mph and other than the ding in the case and scratched body there was no issue. That Nikon sounds sweet but I'd never bring it on rides at that price unless it was incredibly durable. Cool camera for off the bike use, though.

[cody.wms]

no integrated viewfinder? ugh. The camera is a lot for something that is not quite in many ways. Not sure who is going to buy this. But I'm sure lots of people will pick it up in yodobashi.

I still think its hard to beat an S90/95 or m4/3rds for on the bike or off. I liked my X100 quite a bit, too, as long as you are ok with one focal length.

[joosttx]

I'll throw in the Sony RX100. Small enough for your jersey pockets, easy to operate with one hand and takes the best pictures.

[cody.wms]

I've carried the bottom camera here on the last couple big rides I've been on:


smallish cameras by Cody Wms, on Flickr

Olympus XA2. Cost about $10 if you get lucky. Film from Freestyle is $2ish a roll. No expensive electronics to get effed up.

[christian]

Bit difficult to get the photos scanned in time for the "weekend rides thread" though...

[j44ke]

Yeah, I know. $$. I am slowly losing my addiction to viewfinders, so I am not sure that's necessarily a miss. I like the Sony too. I've actually gotten a little tired of the Canon point and shoot look. To me, they are fine but not excellent and Canon has no ambition to make them excellent. I have nearly bought one of the Fujis at least every time I visit B&H, but the RAW support in Lightroom appears to suck and so does the proprietary software from Fuji. So...

[lukasz]

No viewfinder is lame but I approve of fixed focal length and metal construction. The TL500 I used until I decided I wanted a micro 4/3 had a similarly sturdy body and even though it was larger and heavier it felt much nicer in the hand than a Canon S series when I showed up at the store with money in hand.

Guess you could always get one of these: 28mm Viewfinder View Finder for Leica Voigtlander Carl Zeiss Lens Camera | eBay (I carry mine when I take my m43 camera).

[christian]

For a cycling-specific camera, it's not clear that an optical viewfinder is at all necessary. I'm either stopped and can compose with a screen, or shooting from pedal level where I can't see the viewfinder regardless.

[joosttx]

For a cycling-specific camera, it's not clear that an optical viewfinder is at all necessary. I'm either stopped and can compose with a screen, or shooting from pedal level where I can't see the viewfinder regardless.

Agreed, most of the shots, at least for me, are taken blind as I am riding. And if I am stopped, I am not stopped for a long time, just point and click. To me the most important things about a "cycling camera" are they fit in your jersey, easy to operate with one hand, durable and take great shots.

[robin3mj]

For a cycling-specific camera, it's not clear that an optical viewfinder is at all necessary. I'm either stopped and can compose with a screen, or shooting from pedal level where I can't see the viewfinder regardless.

Yeah, my point though was that if you are dropping $1,000+ on a large sensor camera, then a lack of a VF and exposure control dials are kind of a big miss at that price point, not necessarily bike related. Though I guess the target audience for this thing is some combo of people who want a great set & forget point and shoot, and people who already have a DSLR system and various lenses who're happy to have a small, snappy 28mm fixed.

I am not the target market, b/c at that price, it's going to be my main camera, not a backup/second.

[christian]

Fair enough. I'm actually in the market for a cycling-specific camera. I'm presently using a Canon SD300 from 2004 as my cycling camera, and frankly, my wife's iPhone 5 takes better photos. A weather-resistant metal-construction, fixed-length, miniature camera would be perfect.

Off the bike, I use a Nikon DSLR.

I also have an old Canon G3 that I can't really decide what to do with. I do love the G-series, but it's not small enough for the bike, and sort of pointless off the bike - new DSLRs are almost as small. I feel bad tossing it out, though.

[cody.wms]

Bit difficult to get the photos scanned in time for the "weekend rides thread" though...

Fair enough. I do have my phone with me which takes decent enough pictures. For me personally, I don't know if I would get enough utility out of a bike camera. If I'm going to do a big ride somewhere new (thinking of some of the short tours I plan on this year), I'll likely take my OM-D with me. But those rides are rare.

[Britishbane]

I have started using an older brother of the Nikon AW100. I am not at all a camera guy, I just wanted something simple that would survive if my sweaty hands dropped the thing during my cycling adventures. It takes underwater photos and is supposedly shock resistant, though I haven't yet tested that feature.

Nikon-Coolpix-AW100-16-MP-Point--Shoot-Digital-Camera-(Camouflage)-01.jpg

[XJBaylor]

I don't really have a great use for the "A", but man do I wish I did. I find it absolutely beautiful. Had they stepped up the manual controls a little I would have considered it, with or without a viewfinder.

[maunahaole]

I recently picked up an Olympus tg-1. It takes nice pics and has a f2 lens, so it has nice low light performance. However, it is BIG and feels like a big lump in the jersey pocket. The olympus replaced a sony tx5 waterproof. The sony has a sliding panel on the front that is an on/off and protects the lens. It is also the size of a deck of cards and fits into a pocket easily. However, I managed to put a small dent into the touchscreen on the back, now preventing me from changing any setting - something is shorting through and locking up the controls. The olympus takes nicer pics than the Sony. The Sony is easier to carry around.

[dhoff]

I still think its hard to beat an S90/95 or m4/3rds for on the bike or off.

+1 for bike riding, this is all I need, but perhaps I am just not that picky.

[lukasz]

For a cycling-specific camera, it's not clear that an optical viewfinder is at all necessary. I'm either stopped and can compose with a screen, or shooting from pedal level where I can't see the viewfinder regardless.

Viewfinders are kind of like tubulars, you know? Nice analog solution. Definitely not necessary and at cross purposes with a small point and shoot.

[adamdoesit]

I can attest that a Canon S90/S95 is an ideal bike camera -- fast enough, wide enough, not really long enough but on a bike surely you can zoom with your legs, compact enough, easily pocketable, and one-hand operable -- until you attempt a low-angle panda, lose control, and nearly save it from smashing into four or five disappointingly plasticky pieces at the end of your arm's length, which you'd hoped would act as a shock absorber, but ended up as more of an optical trebuchet.

I liked my Lumix GF1 better, till I lost it in an even stupider way, but it, like other m4/3 cameras, is not what you'd call pocketable.