[AChao]

Hi all,

Was wondering if any of you had a better small camera than the Sony RX 100 I for taking pictures of golf holes?  I have a Canon 5D III, but often times I find that is too big to carry with me -- especially when I walk.  I've had a Sony RX 100 I for a few years, but was wondering if any of you could recommend something better?  I've heard the Sony RX 100 2, 3, and 4 are all slightly better with maybe the 2 being worth upgrading to.

Thanks!

[Tommy Williamsen]

I just purchased a Panasonic LUMIX ZS50 and while I have taken only a handful of pictures I am pretty satisfied. It fits in my pocket and has a strong zoom.  Sample picture.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

See my recent post on Askernish. All shot with a Sony RX-100. I'm not sure that there is a better point and shoot compact available on the market. The newer models are much more expensive while delivering very marginal enhancements in my judgement.


As usual "caveat emptor".



I believe that Jon Cavalier is using a Leica but I find his colors to be bizarre.


I am really impressed with the RX-100 from Sony. Please advise when you find it's better!

[Wayne_Freedman]

The best camera is the one in your hand. Generally, you will not get great stuff with a pocket camera, but there are exceptions.


My big rig is a Nikon D800 with the 2.8 Trinity and prime lenses. They set  a high bar, especially the 14-24 lens.


So...a pocket camera? I have had good luck with the small Canon S-100 because of its 24mm equivalent lens.
I had better luck with  the Fuji X30, which has a 28-112 equivalent lens.
Both shoot RAW, though the Fuji's film emulations are so good that I rarely used it.

Two weeks ago, I upgraded my walk-around bag cam to a Fuji X-E2. This one has an APSC sensor and offers the ability to change lenses. For $1100 bucks it comes with a very good 'kit' lens (28-87mm equivalent) that rivals my Nikons for build quality. And, I am about to spring for a 14mm that should be spectacular. 


Further, the X-E2 is pretty much a manual camera. I can change shutter speeds and apertures on the body of the camera.
Images with it are exceptionally clean, even with low iso's.


So, why not the Sony? Pictures are good, no doubt, but the menu system is buried, deep, and counterintuitive. You will appreciate the Fuji X-E2 or its brothers, the the X-T10 or XT1 if you like 'dialing it in.'


Bottom line, however, you can have the best camera in the world if you don't have the eye plus a deft but invisible hand in Lightroom or Photoshop. Aim straight horizons, elevation or ground perspectives, full bright flags against dark, diffused backgrounds, respect for the architecture of the hole. and no effin' HDR's. Pictures of golf holes should look real.
 

[AChao]

Thanks for replies ... I might look into the Fuji ... I can take care of the other stuff and have a big 50 mp camera ... just need one for the times where I'm not reasonably able to bring the large camera.  Played Whistling Straits last year and took pictures with the Sony ... pics were pretty good, but I'm hoping there's better.  Would love to hear from any one who has a Sony RX 100 2, 3, or 4 and how it compares to the 1.  Or if there is a better option ...

[Dane Hawker]

Iphone 6

[AChao]

Thanks Dane.  I was hoping to get something that I could use for a big print.  As beautiful as the Iphone 6 pictures look on the phone, they don't seem to stack-up when enlarged to 20x30 or bigger ...

[Jeff Taylor]

The Sony is probably the way to go. The reviews are good and the technology is cutting edge. I have the RX1 and it's sensor is the same one used in the a99. Fixed lens but its flawless.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

How does one get a smartphone pic to this site?


Can it be done directly as I understand some websites are capable of having this done?

[Charlie_Bell]

Wanting a compact camera and expecting to make good poster-sized prints  (20x30) is probably too much to ask.

[Jeff Taylor]

Wanting a compact camera and expecting to make good poster-sized prints  (20x30) is probably too much to ask.

Not so and getting more realistic each year. My RX1 can fit in my overcoat pocket and it has a full frame sensor. It's not cheap but that is where we are heading.

[Joe Bausch]

FWIW:  I am stilling shooting with my RX 100.  If you liked those Hay Harbor and FI pics, then you might like that camera.   

[Dan Moore]

I'm currently waiting for Fuji to come out with their next generation sensor for their mirrorless camera line which is rumored to be early next year.  Currently I only shoot with my 5D which means I rarely shoot while playing and would like a smaller walk around option.  Here is a shot I took Monday at Cog Hill Course #2 which was designed by David McIntosh in the 1920's. 

[Gib_Papazian]

Regardless of which camera, taking a really good picture while you’re playing golf is largely a matter of dumb luck. Getting a shot of any exterior location exactly right requires patience and timing, something impossible when batting a balling ball down the fairway. You might occasionally be standing on a tee in the early morning or late afternoon and just happen to catch optimum light, but even then, it takes some time to compose a shot with the right glass, shutter and f-stop combination.

It is all well and good to snap away with direct sun overhead given enough MP’s, but the best you’re going to get - even with a lot of post manipulation - is a really good picture. It is like the difference between a 3-handicap and a scratch or plus-2, just like there is huge gap between a Doak 8 and Doak 10. The 3-handicap is a really fine player, better than 98% of the golfers out there - but a pure scratch can kick his ass 9 out of ten times . . . . . . .

My thought is if you’re out there to take pictures, then shoot pictures and leave your bats in the trunk. It requires a lot of concentration to get the last 3% absolutely perfect, something that cannot be accomplished with a portable camera in one hand and a sand-wedge in the other. Professional photography is a different animal than trying to be a good amateur.       

[Joe Bausch]

Gib, what further advice can you give the amateur photographer on this site that desires to capture their experience for others?  You are clearly very educated in this area.

[Jeff Taylor]

"Regardless of which camera, taking a really good picture while you’re playing golf is largely a matter of dumb luck."

This assumes that nobody plans for this activity. A golfer would be scorned for such an approach. Photo journalists would have never existed. In decent light and when not shooting in program mode, an f stop of 8 gives you plenty of depth of field to get nice landscapes while on the golf course. Some of the best shots I have achieved were between holes and had no impact on pace of play. After all, some views from the cart path (dare I say) are better than from the fairway. Good light happens regularly at certain times of the day. Know this and settle for the rest. Not every shot has to be a work of art in order for others to see what you have encountered.

"My thought is if you’re out there to take pictures, then shoot pictures and leave your bats in the trunk."

My thought is that if you can't divide your time so as to get two things done, then leave both tools in the trunk.

As for Mr. Bausch's specific question, research always pays off. Plan your photographs like you would your golf shots. Don't be afraid of the happy accident, but practice makes perfect. There is no difference between a good farmland landscape and a golf course landscape. The principles are the same. Who can be a good golfer without preparation, without knowing what their tools can actually do? The same goes for the camera. Not knowing how depth of field, shutter speed, and ISO interact is the same as not knowing how far you hit your pitching wedge into an uphill green into the wind.

Assuming that time management cannot be achieved is a defeatist attitude.

[Gib_Papazian]

Photo journalists would never have existed? We’re not discussing off-the-cuff, cinema verite, run & gun documentary street shooting. I’m focused on how to get a FANTASTIC picture - which requires a bit more than setting your aperture to f8 and cranking the shutter speed up or down to get a correct exposure. Besides, one of the biggest challenges shooting photos while playing golf is avoiding cluttering the frame with the group in front.

Yeah, some people like to have players in frame to give it realism, but personally I HATE landscape shots with people in them - unless a person or persons are integral to the theme or compositional aesthetic. It is a waste of time to pollute an otherwise beautiful image with some clown waddling down the fairway in a garish shirt and ill-fitting shorts.

If you’re of those guys who lean heavily on Lightroom, Aperture or Photoshop, I’m not the one to ask for advice. My goal - be it shooting stills or theatrical films - is to get it right in camera to minimize the amount of post manipulation. You can move around the data if the sun or clouds are not cooperating, but there is no substitute for patience and a willingness to wait until the right moment to grab it - right when that shaft of light comes through the rainclouds right on the flagstick.

Happy accidents are just that - accidents. Can you compose a painting on the fly? Or is it necessary to take a seat and carefully consider what goes in the frame? One thing I always try to do is start from the outer edge and work my way towards the focal point. Yeah, you can always crop it here or there, but I find the crispest shots have been thought through with a fixed lens and a lot of walking around.

As for camera choices, I shoot with a 5D Mark III and L glass, but believe it or not, have taken some award winners with a 60D. Really sharp lenses and shooting raw are more important than anything . . . . . . .  and try to shoot exterior digital between f8 and f16. I know some guys like going all the way to f22, but that is a bit far down the foot candle scale to catch the sweet spot. Just my opinion, but I avoid it. And make sure not to buy cheapo filters, you get what you pay for, believe me.



 
 

[Jeff Taylor]

I don't think we are that far apart in our approach. It seemed to me that the context of the conversation was what and how to shoot while playing. Under those circumstances, I am comfortable with my comments. After all, lens choice is irrelevant when discussing the pros and cons of the Sony RX100. As for groups in front, couldn't agree more. I hate it and always try to avoid it.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Gib,


I agree with your assessment on golf photography while playing. Not an optimal way to capture the golf course.


Bottom line is we just cannot control the light and our pictures while captured  at play are subject to the whims of light, weather, etc.


However, I think that my upgrade in camera to the Sony RX-100 has made a pretty dramatic improvement in my golf photos. I'm a believer that a better camera can make a difference.


I have no idea what the "great white whale" camera is right now.

[Stewart Abramson]

Consider the Lumix LX 100. It has a 4/3 sensor (significantly larger than the Sony's 1") and nice Leica 24-75mm lens. I need a built in view finder which the Lumix LX 100 has and the Sony doesn't.

[Ronald Montesano]

Joe Bausch and Jon Cavalier are the biathlon champions of golf and shoot from my vantage point. All the contributions to this thread thus far have firmly established themselves in one of two camps: shooting to capture the memories of your round and shooting more or less professionally to capture an award-winning image (and let's face it, there is no more coveted prize than Sven's annual GCA Photo of the Year competition.)


In order to capture memories of your round, you need to zig-zag in military fashion from one side of the hole to the other. If you're in a cart, so easy. If not, you need to analyze where your partners hit their shots and move to the dead zones (and often the high sides) to get those shots. You're not as mesmerized by immortality as you are by complete coverage. Shoo the hell out of the card, get upwards of 500 images and you'll have your memories.


As far as the award-winning shot, I can't tell you how to do that. I'm experimenting with a wide lens this year. I've shot courses as diverse as Tunica National, Butterfield Trails, and the Bandons (including Crossings) in the past two weeks, with no real traffic-stoppers. Photography flattens undulations, so forget about capturing them. The ability to contrast the vertical and the horizontal often catches the eye, but color wins the day (as evidenced by last year's winning image.)


Remember, too, that the eligible voters in a contest don't always get it right. Much as I esteem everyone on this discussion board for their opinions on golf course architecture, we're all gorillas when it comes to what we like in a photograph: http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/7b/06/68/7b0668a619c04b1168db8db673846a13.jpg

[Jeff Taylor]

" I'm experimenting with a wide lens this year."

Please share what lens(s) you are experimenting with and what techniques you are using.
Thanks.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Gents, without the proper light you can frame all day to your heart's content with as expensive a camera as you want, to avail. Essentially, you want to shoot a beautiful landscape that happens to include a hole or fairway in it.
Nothing should stand between the viewer and the hole, especially the photographer.
Show what you see.
Avoid a heavy hand in processing.


My personal guidelines:


Golden hour light with shadows
Flag against dark background
Elevation (15-20 feet) or low to the ground
Remain true to the architecture
Level horizon
Sunsets are cheating
No people
No HDR
No over saturation




Wide angle lenses work best at a 35mm equivalent of 18-21mm.
One last note of advice. Underexpose a half stop to a full stop to make certain you catch nuances in the sky.
You can always burn a little, later. It's easier to bring an image up than to pull it down, and even more so when you shoot RAW.

[AChao]

This turned into a more interesting thread that I originally intended!

Assuming you know how to take pictures and you just want a better sensor, what camera have you guys used that might work well?  I'm debating on getting a Sony RX 100 IV, but wonder if it is better than the I (which I have). 

Looking to take pictures that you can blow-up to 20x30 at largest.  Often times with people in it.

(I have a 50 mp camera for pictures that are 40x60 and larger, but sometimes I just want a smaller camera because it is too difficult to bring the large camera and enjoy the golf.)

[Tim_Cronin]

Wayne left one one little thing.


No carts in the photograph!


Happy shooting!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()