Out and about I see lots of SLRs being used, and lots of mobile phones (although I still don't get why most photos and videos taken are in portrait mode - landscape is surely better). However, what I don't see much of at all any more are compact cameras.

I don't get it... a reasonable compact camera with RAW imaging beats any mobile phone hands down - I don't care about pixel count, I'm talking lens quality and low light capability. I've had a couple of Panasonic compact cameras over the years and I love them - they are the size of a pack of playing cards, easily last all day and I get some really good photos out of them - they are great when you don't want to be carrying an SLR and the other stuff with it.

I've always used UV filters or Starlight filters on camera lenses back since I had film cameras and it was needed to reduce haze and improve images. The habit has continued with digital lenses particularly with the adage "it's cheaper to replace a UV filter than a lens". I hadn't really thought much about it until this week.

On a family holiday last week I went to use my Canon 80D only to find the lens was shattered. On closer inspection it was the UV filter that was shattered and the filter itself was too tight to remove from the 18-135 lens. I removed the grass fragments and was able to use the camera as before (no damage to the lens or camera) and removed the filter this evening with a pair of pliers.

I then went about researching what UV filter to get as a replacement, and the general consensus was that if anything you are better without it, and that digital cameras don't need UV filters. However, I then remembered that the whole reason I was reading this was that I had nearly broken the lens... so I just bought the same UV filter as I used before.

It is definitely worth having the filter to protect the lens... if you are in such an environment when you really think it has a negative effect on your photos you can always remove it.

A few years ago, I was really keen on slide photography but didn't do much with them other than put them into a folder. I have been wanting to digitise them for ages, but kept putting it off, primarily due to the cost of the various provider who offer the service - basically between £100 and £200 for 100-300 photos dependent on quality and provider etc.

Recently though, I was looking through some old family photos (40-50 years old) - in truth these were not great quality slides, have been sitting in a cupboard for decades, but looking at them it's the memory I want to digitise more than the resolution.

Looking online I discovered that a modern DSLR and a macro lens (in my case a Canon 80D and a Sigma 105mm macro) combined with a light box (which I got for less than £40 off Amazon) can give pretty good results... rather than photograph the image via a projector you are photographing the slide itself... the camera resolution is good enough to let you do this, and the light box provides the back lighting.

The results have been really good, especially those which had been taken outside, but I think that's more a reflection of the slide than this technique.

I'm going to start digitising my more recent slides over the coming months and will try to post some results here.

Having previously blamed Nigel Mansell for me choosing Canon over Nikon, I recently had a chance to review the entry level Nikon SLR (D3400). I would love to tell you how it's nowhere near as good as Canon, but that's not true. Conversely I can't tell you that it's miles better than Canon. It has a few things which are better: the entry level lens has surprisingly good optics, the intuitiveness of it (it feels more natural than Canon, which may seem odd given I've used Canon for years), and great resolution (more of that in a moment). For balance it has a few things not so good (there is no sensor cleaning on this updated model, and there's not enough focal points for tracking... perhaps a problem for all entry level cameras).

So I find myself with an entry level camera with a lens that doesn't match the rest of my kit. However, I'm delighted... and it all comes down to the fun of photography and megapixels. Megapixels first... this kit features a 24MP sensor with a 17-55 lens (equivalent to 27-82mm in old money). It's lightweight, compact (especially compared to my Canon 5D), and isn't that much bigger than a bridge camera. . With 24MP I can afford to crop the images a little so by my very approximate calculations I've got a camera that will print at sufficient resolution on A4 when outdoors for the equivalent focal range of 27-200mm. That's plenty for family holidays/days out where I would previously have to compromise between a compact camera with reasonable results and a bulky SLR with great results. I appreciate high pixel count can bring in noise, but the quality of this SLR will still far outperform my older generation cameras (notably a Canon 5D) and a Pentax compact.

It also brings me the fun of photography. A friend taught me a trick some time ago which is to take one camera body and one lens, and photograph what you see. For specialist stuff (air shows, pro portraits, wildlife) you need the higher end lenses and flash kit. Once you have it, there is almost an obligation to take it all with (just in case). For me though, I now have a second system with a quality way beyond my compact camera, and much less quality higher than a compact camera. It fits in with my RAW workflow, so I'm delighted.

Coming back to the Nikon's resolution - at the time of writing, the entry level Nikon has more megapixels than the Canon one, but the same as the next level up from Canon. In terms of spec, the Nikon probably sits between the two Canons, so which should you go for? I am still of the view that they are equivalent enough not to matter. There are other camera systems which are just as good (especially at the entry level) but if you invest in Canon or Nikon now (notably the lenses) then you will have many years of photography enjoyment to look ahead to.

We tend to look at photos and in fact all media via digital devices (laptops, tablets, TV etc). For children though, you can't beat printed photos. My wife and I have had a little cardboard box for each of our children which we put various photos in - some duplicate photos from our wedding or when we were children, photos of the children we had framed for a while, pets, all sorts really. The children love sitting with the photos, asking questions about them, asking who some of the people in the photos are.

They also like watching family videos (which obviously is digital) but for me the real joy they get is from touching and holding the photos. Technology evolution is not a solution to everything.

So get printing!!!