|
old thread is archived and i want to ask dumbass questions about cameras in the only place to talk about photography that doesn't aggressively suck poo poo so here's the old OP in all its glory! What is a “DSLR”, anyway? Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras are the large, blocky cameras professional photographers use. They have many features and benefits a typical point-and-shoot does not, including: They have much larger sensors, which allow for better low-light performance and image quality. They have manual controls that let you fine-tune your exposure, such as using a fast shutter speed to freeze motion, or blur the background of your shot (known as bokeh). They take many different types of lenses that are specially suited for magnified shots, distant action, or dark scenes. Ever notice that split-second delay between when you try to take a photo with a point-and-shoot, and when the picture is actually captured? And because of that split-second delay, you missed the shot? That’s called shutter lag, and DSLRs don’t do that. Here’s a diagram showing how they work:  When you look through the viewfinder, you see light that travelled through the lens, bounced off a mirror, reflected up into another mirror (or a prism), and out the eyepiece to you. When you press the trigger, the first mirror pivots upward. This allows the light to hit the sensor, capturing the photo itself. Once the capture is complete, the pivoting mirror rotates back down. While the mirror is pivoted upward, you won’t be able to see out the viewfinder. No big deal, typical exposures only last a split second. I’ve heard some DSLRs don’t have mirrors, how do they work? Technically, they aren’t DSLRs. They still take interchangeable lenses, have manual controls, and so on. The main difference is that instead of using a mirror to reflect the image to an optical viewfinder, they use the image sensor to power an electronic viewfinder. Many of these mirrorless cameras are small enough to fit in a pocket, can be adapted to work with almost any lens, and result in just as nice of a final image. They are a viable alternative to the traditional DSLR, especially if size or weight are an issue for you. They’re beyond the scope of this guide, so check out the mirrorless thread for more info. Do I really need a DSLR? It all depends on what you want to shoot. Maybe you want a camera for the occasional picture of your cat, your kid, or your friends at the bar. Maybe you just want a “nice camera” and aren’t sure how often you’re going to use it. DSLR photography is a big investment, and you might be wasting your money on a lot of features you don’t really need. Instead, consider getting one of the high-end point and shoots marketed toward DSLR users as a small, lightweight alternative to their bigger kits. Two popular choices in The Dorkroom include Canon’s S-series and the Sony RX100. They aren’t at the level of a DSLR, but they have manual controls, good image quality, and support a file format (known as RAW) that makes it much easier to edit the photos after the fact. Buy one of these first, use it for a few months, and see if a DSLR really makes sense for you. Head over to the point and shoot thread to find out more. So when do you need a DSLR? They’re great for sports and birding, as you can mount long-range lenses and shoot at fast shutter speeds. If you want to photograph tiny things, a DSLR with a dedicated macro lens will yield better results than any point and shoot’s macro mode. If you want to make large prints (larger than 8x10), the bigger sensor and better lens of a DSLR will make for a much nicer final product. If you want to make money off this hobby, you’ve got to go with a DSLR – the gear is built to last, and the average person may not take a professional with a point and shoot seriously. And hey, if you’re going to ignore the advice above and buy a DSLR for cat pics, it will do a great job of that as well. What brand/model should I buy? That’s a hard question to answer because no single camera is going to be the best option for everyone. We’ll get to brand-specific stuff later in the thread, but in general:
What lenses should I buy? Most cameras come with what’s known as a “kit lens”. Kit lenses tend to be cheap, plastic things, though they do a decent job with simple scenes – a flower in the park, your cat on the couch, and so on. They’re bad for low light work or for freezing fast motion, but as a learning tool, they’re good enough to get you started. In addition, you might want to consider picking up a “nifty 50” 50mm lens. Every manufacturer has a cheap 50mm lens which, unlike that kit lens, will be great for portraits, narrow depth-of-field effects, and low light work. Best of all, they’re cheap - $100, give or take. What’s the catch? Unlike a kit lens, a 50mm lens does not zoom in or out. You trade flexibility for superior optics and image quality. If you’re willing to spend a little more, there are a few commonly-suggested lenses to consider. One is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC lens, which is a good replacement for the kit lens. It has a sturdier build, a faster aperture, and overall better image quality. The second is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, which is probably the best 50mm lens on the market from any manufacturer. Finally, if you want to pick up a good long-range zoom lens, the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC has great image quality, but costs half as much as the equivalent “good” zooms from Canon/Nikon/Sony. Check out the general lens thread for more information. When it comes to lenses, what does "mm" mean? It’s the focal length of the lens. Explaining exactly what focal length is involves lots of math and diagrams. Instead, I’ll tell you what it means in terms of your lens. Focal length is a quick, easy way to describe how wide or narrow (zoomed-in) of a shot a lens can produce. Large focal lengths, such as 200mm or 300mm, are good for distant subjects, such as birds in a tree or your kids at soccer practice. Small focal lengths, like 10mm or 20mm, are considered wide-angle shots. They’re good for landscapes and architecture, though some lenses are so wide that they lead to comically distorted images. For an entry-level DSLR, a focal length of 28mm to 35mm is a good approximation of a natural field of vision, and 50mm is nice for portraits. Generally speaking, there are two types of lenses – primes and zooms. Prime lenses have a fixed focal length. That nifty fifty mentioned above has a focal length of 50mm, no matter what you say or do. If you want to zoom in, you have to walk closer to your subject. Zoom lenses have a range of focal lengths. So, if you see an 17-50mm lens, you know the lens will have a focal length of 17mm on the wide end and 50mm on the zoomed-in end. Should I buy a UV filter? No, don't buy a UV filter. Most UV filters do one thing, and only one thing – they degrade your image quality. Others cause strange reflections and ghosting. For example, check out these comparison shots of a single light.  Use a lens hood instead. A lens hood will protect against the same casual damage a UV filter would, along with protecting your images from lens flare. If the damage to your lens is so severe that a lens hood won’t protect it, that thin UV filter wouldn’t save your lens either. Are there a few, limited circumstances when you’d want to use a UV filter? Sure. Do you need to worry about it now? No. Save your money, ignore the salesman at your local shop, and don’t buy a UV filter. Are all filters bad? No, just the UV ones the local camera shop is pushing on you. Polarizers are great for enhancing blue skies and reflections on water. ND (Neutral Density) filters are useful for long exposure shots, like when you want to take a photo of a waterfall and nail that hazey, dreamy look:  Untitled by Phil 'the link' Whittaker (gizto29), on Flickr Some lenses or camera bodies feature image stabilization / vibration reduction / vibration compensation / steady shot / etc. What’s that? It’s a system to keep your shaky hands from ruining a shot. When using a DSLR, one of the settings you control is shutter speed, which is the length of time of the exposure. If your shutter speed is too slow, you run the risk of moving your hand just enough to blur the shot. How slow is too slow? It varies from lens to lens, but the general formula is 1 / (focal length * crop factor). So, let’s say you’re using a 50mm lens on a Canon DSLR, which has a crop factor of 1.6. 1 / (50 * 1.6) = 1/80, so you should use a shutter speed no slower than 1/80th of a second in order to keep your shot looking sharp. If you had some sort of image stabilization system, you could get away with a slower shutter speed like 1/50th or 1/40th of a second, and still have a sharp image. Most manufacturers build this technology into specific lenses. Sony and Pentax build image stabilization into the camera bodies themselves by mounting the image sensors on tiny actuators. The general consensus is that in-lens systems do a better job, but only certain lenses have it and they carry a price premium. So, choose your poison – a decent job with every lens, or a great job with a few lenses. I keep seeing “crop factor” or “APS-C” mentioned. What’s that? Most DSLRs have sensors that are smaller than a 35mm film exposure:  There are two reasons for smaller sensors, and they both boil down to cost. First, full-frame sensors as big as a 35mm exposure are very expensive, whereas smaller sensors are much more reasonably priced. Second, if you don’t need to project an image onto as large of an area, you can use smaller (cheaper) optics. When compared to a full-frame or film camera, smaller sensors have an “always on” zoom effect. If you were to shoot side-by-side with someone with a film camera, using the same lenses/settings, your DSLR’s shots will seem as though you were standing closer to the subject. Here is a link that demonstrates this effect, or you can just check out this picture: quote:Wild EEPROM posted: This zoom effect makes a crop-sensor camera nice for shooting distant sports or wildlife, but not as good for wide-angle shots like landscapes and architecture. You can find wide-angle lenses for these smaller sensors, but they result in photos with a lot of distortion, causing straight lines to look curved. You can find long-range lenses for full frame cameras, but nice ones are four-figure purchases. Finally, be aware that this zoom effect makes a lot of the classic lens recommendations hard to use in the same way. It used to be that a 50mm lens was a more-or-less ideal focal length for general walkaround use. Nowadays, 50mm on a crop-sensor is a little tight for casual use, but it makes a great portrait lens. Wow, this looks like an expensive hobby. What are some ways I can save money? The best way is to buy used. Unlike most consumer electronics, DSLR equipment is built to last. The body should last several years, with the only necessary maintenance being to the shutter (after 50,000 – 100,000 shots). If you go used, you might be able to pick up the next higher quality DSLR body for the same price as an entry-level used model, and for the typical improvement in ergonomics and image quality, it’s definitely worth it. As for lenses, a well-built lens can last decades. Some people still use manual-focus m42 lenses, and that’s a standard that dates back to the late 40s. KEH is a very good source for used equipment, with fair prices, a very conservative rating system, and good return policies. KEH’s bargain-quality lenses are what the average person would consider to be used, and an excellent-quality lens will look like it’s fresh out of the box. EBay, Craigslist, and local camera shops are also great sources for used equipment, just make sure you look over everything closely. EBay occasionally has lot sales with lots of great lenses for cheap, or a lot of junky lenses with a missed gem buried in the middle – but still for cheap. Craigslist is nice because a lot of people don’t know the value of the gear they’re selling. They clean out their attics, find a 20 year old camera they forgot about, figure it’s junk, and toss it up on Craigslist for $50. You see that the lens alone is worth $100 and snatch it up in a heartbeat, quick and easy. Just be careful though, make sure what you’re buying is compatible with your camera. Ask in this thread if you’re unsure. Still not convinced? Here’s some examples, just glancing around at prices as of February 2013. Realistic Setup for Nikon, New Equipment Nikon D3200 w/ kit lens - $597, B&H Photo Nikon 35mm f/1.8D lens - $200, B&H Photo Total - $797 Realistic Alternative for Nikon, Used Equipment Nikon D3200 w/kit lens, - $529, KEH Nikon 35mm f/1.8D lens - $175, eBay Total - $704 Realistic Alternative for Nikon #2, Used Equipment Nikon D300 w/out lens - $570, B&H Photo Nikon 35mm f/1.8D lens - $175, eBay Total - $767 You can either buy new, buy used and save $100ish, or buy used and get a much nicer (though older) body. Still hesitant about buying used equipment? If you’re feeling brave, you can try importing your gear. Camera equipment does not have a single uniform price around the globe – it is priced differently for different regions. Many people purchase equipment overseas (usually Hong Kong) and have it shipped to them. Depending on import taxes and shipping, it may or may not be a good deal for you. Buyer beware – many manufacturers frown upon these gray-market imports and refuse to service them outside of their intended country, or they’ll void your warranty and charge full price for repairs. One last cost-saving option is to buy third-party lenses. In most cases, the manufacturer’s own lenses will provide the best performance, but carry a price premium as a result. For example, Nikon’s 70-200mm f/2.8 lens (a popular lens for fast action at a modest distance) costs about $2,400, give or take. Tamron and Sigma, two of the most popular third-party lens manufacturers, have their own versions of that lens which cost anywhere from $750 to $1500, depending on their features. The Sigma won’t be as sharp, but it focuses more quickly. The Tamron has better optics than either the Sigma or the Nikon, but focuses much more slowly. For the casual user (and even some professionals), they’re good enough and a whole lot cheaper. I’d rather buy new. Where should I look? B&H Photo and Adorama are your best bets in the US. They are legitimate, well-established businesses with very competitive prices. Amazon is always a good option. Or hey, throw your local camera shop a bone – it’s nice to be able to handle cameras in person and talk to a real person about their functionality. I found a deal that seems too good to be true. Should I take it? Nope, it’s too good to be true because it’s too good to be true. Your best case scenario is that you’re purchasing stolen equipment. Other times, it’s a scam. Some online camera shops will sucker you in with a very cheap deal. When you go to complete the purchase, you’ll be offered accessories (like UV filters) at ridiculous prices. You’ll say no because you read the thread and know that UV filters are bad. All of a sudden, the camera you wanted to buy will be out of stock! You’ll wait and you’ll wait, but it will never come back in stock. Oh, if only you had just taken the guy up on his offer instead of arguing about UV filters for five minutes, you would have gotten the last one. Fun fact – you were never going to get the last one unless you bought the overpriced UV filter. Want to avoid this trap? Stick with B&H, Adorama, or another big company you’ve heard of. Ok, I bought the camera. I took a picture of, um, my cat. Now what? Let’s learn how to use your camera. A proper exposure has three basic elements:
 Sony a850, Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 @ f/8, 1/60s, ISO 320 This tells me that for this subject, in this light, this specific combination of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO is a “proper” exposure. Let’s see what happens if I fiddle with things. I switch my camera to manual mode. I manually select an aperture of f/8, a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second, and an ISO of 320. What to change? All the cool kids on Flickr think that a shallow depth of field is fantastic. Let's see what happens when we open the aperture to its maximum setting of f/1.4, and leave everything else as it is, in order to achieve that shallow depth of field effect.  Sony a850, Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/60s, ISO 320 Oops. By opening up the aperture to let in so much additional light (and changing nothing else), I ended up blowing out the image. What do to about all that extra light? I know that low ISO settings require extra light and my ISO is only at 320. Let's try lowering the ISO to 100.  Sony a850, Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/60s, ISO 100 That’s a little better, but still too light. I know that shorter exposures require more light, so maybe that will fix things?  Sony a850, Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/640s, ISO 100 There we go, a "proper" exposure. Personally, I'm not crazy about it because the depth of field is a little too narrow. The face is in focus, but what about the ears, or the grass in the foreground? This shallow depth of field might be ok if we had a nice, close up shot of the bunny's face, but here, it's a little distracting. This is an important lesson - a "proper" exposure doesn't always result in a good photo. Understanding the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO is critical to photography. So, go practice! Take a photo in Auto mode. See what settings the camera chose for you. Then, set your camera to manual mode, dial in the same settings as the Auto shot, and then fiddle with them until you understand how the aperture, shutter speed and ISO affect the image. Alternately, try out this simulator that lets you see how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO work together. Are there any books I could read to help me learn more? Sure. Understanding Exposure is a popular choice. It does a good job of explaining photography in easy-to-understand language, and goes beyond basic facts to explain why to do things in a certain way. That being said, it is a little basic. Once you’re ready to learn a little more, The Photographer's Handbook by John Hedgecoe and The Complete Guide To Black & White Digital Photography by Michael Freeman are worth a glance. These books aren’t going to tell you much about how to use a DSLR, but they’ll teach you good things about composition and technique. General info about the major brands: Canon If you go by marketshare, Canon is at the top of the DSLR world. There’s a good reason for this – they make great pro-quality equipment and market it well. Take a look at the photographers at a sidelines of sporting events; the majority of them are Canon shooters. At the other end of the spectrum, you have solid consumer-level cameras and lenses that are attractively priced. The 5DmkII’s video capabilities broke new ground when it came to filmmaking, and Canon’s wide selection of lenses are unrivaled in scope. While the other DSLR manufacturers may have the edge in one aspect or another (such as Nikon's better low-light performance or Sony's better color reproduction), it’s hard to look at Canon’s DSLRs and say they’re doing something wrong. In fact, the worst thing about Canon's lineup is their god-awful naming conventions - seriously, just look at this mess. New Canon users should consider picking up a T3i, a 50D, or a 60D. The T3i is an entry level model with a nice articulating screen and good image quality. Given it’s price point and Canon’s market penetration, it should be very easy to find a T3i in a store to handle in person. The 60D is essentially a nicer T3i – it has two control dials (which makes shooting in manual mode much easier), a nicer grip, and a better viewfinder. The 50D is an older model that you should be able to find used without too much trouble. It doesn’t have video capture or an articulating screen, but its build is much sturdier. A good walkaround lens to pair with these cameras is the Canon 35mm f/2 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Canon’s 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS makes for a good entry-level long-range zoom lens. Nikon Nikon is the other major player in the DSLR market. They have a long history of manufacturing top-of-the-line professional gear, as well as competent entry-level models. One of Nikon’s strongest selling points is its high-ISO (low light) performance, which is at the top of its class at any price point. When coupled with Nikon’s excellent autofocus systems, you have a DSLR that will keep up with almost any subject in all but the darkest of conditions. If you expect to do a lot of low-light work, Nikon may be your best option. Nikon’s biggest flaw is that its entry-level DSLR bodies cannot automatically focus some older Nikon lenses. You can still use these lenses on an entry-level Nikon, you just have to focus them manually. When you couple this with the fact that entry-level DSLRs (regardless of manufacturer) tend to have small, dark viewfinders, it becomes very hard to use these older screw-driven lenses effectively. There are modern equivalents to almost anything you would need, but you won’t get as much out of older glass as the equivalent in other mounts would. Good entry-level Nikon cameras include the D5100, D5200, and D90. The D5100 and D5200 cameras are similar, though the D5200 has a much higher megapixel count and improved autofocus features. The D5200 is very new to the market, so you might have better luck finding a good deal on a D5100. The D90 is an older model, but of a higher quality/feature tier than the other two cameras. You’ll gain two control dials (which make manual shooting easier), a better viewfinder, and the ability to autofocus with older Nikon lenses. Nikon’s 35mm f/1.8 is a great walkaround lens, and their 55-200 f/4-5.6 VR is a nice entry-level zoom. Sony DSLR/SLT Sony is a relative newcomer to the DSLR market. Rather than develop a line of DSLRs from scratch, they bought out Minolta's camera division in 2006. They have since evolved their cameras into a hybrid of DSLR and mirrorless technology that they call SLT. Rather than use a traditional mirror/viewfinder design, they use a semi-transparent mirror that constantly reflects light to an autofocus array and the sensor simultaneously. The traditional viewfinder has been replaced by a live-view display. Though pixelated, these viewfinders are much larger and brighter than many pentamirrors/pentaprisms on the market, and overlay useful information such as highlighting what part of the picture is in focus. Plus, the constant light on the autofocus sensor helps Sony cameras track fast moving subjects very well. The downside to this technology is that Sony’s low-light performance is weaker than Canon, Nikon, and Pentax DSLRs. In addition, Sony does not have the market penetration of Canon or Nikon, which makes it harder to find their gear in a store to test out in person, and there will be fewer options when you do find it. The best option for a new Sony shooter is the a57 – it hits the sweet spot of features, price, and usability. If you’d prefer a more traditional DSLR, the a580 and a700 are both widely available on the used market for approximately $500. The a580 has an articulating screen and live view, and is one of the few Sony cameras that performs well in dark situations. The a700 is an older model that lacks a lot of modern features, but is very sturdy and simple to use. The Sony 35mm f/1.8 is one of the best values in Sony’s lineup, and should be either the first or second lens you buy with the system. If you need a zoom lens, both the Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 and the Minolta 70-210mm f/4 “Beercan” deliver great results. Pentax Pentax is the Rodney Dangerfield of DSLRs. They’ve been around for ages and make some really great DSLRs, but their market share doesn’t reflect it. Compare the K-30 to the Nikon 5100. They have the same sensor and comparable price points, but the K-30 is fully weather sealed, has a nicer viewfinder, builds image stabilization into the body, and has two control dials. By any reasonable measure, the K-30 is a better all-around performer than the 5100. But does the K-30 get shelf space at your local Best Buy? Nope. No respect. Part of this may be because Pentax does not have the same upgrade path as the other brands. Canon and Nikon have several full-frame DSLRs and $10,000 lenses to mount on them. Even Sony has a full-frame DSLR and one five-figure lens. Pentax does not. What Pentax does have going for it is the ability to easily use m42 lenses. You know how thrift stores and pawn shops have ancient lenses in display cases for $5, maybe $10? A lot of those are m42 lenses, and they’ll work on modern Pentax bodies. They have also made weather sealing a standard feature in their lineup, which makes them an attractive choice if you know you'll be using your gear in extreme conditions. You can dump a bottle of water on a Pentax DSLR and it will just keep shooting. You can bury a Pentax DSLR, leave it for a day, dig it up the next day, and it will keep shooting. New Pentax users should consider the K-5 or the K-30 with the kit lens, as that helps complete the weather sealing. It’s not the end of the world if you use a non-sealed lens, but keep it in mind if you’re going out in rough conditions. For a zoom lens, pick up a 50-200mm f/4-5.6 lens, which is also conveniently weather-sealed. As for a walkaround prime, the 35mm f/2.4 is a nice performer, or you can bite the bullet and pick up that $5 lens at the pawn shop. And another. And another. Because $5 is basically free when it comes to DSLRs. I want to know more! So ask, that's what the thread is for. This is a good place for general questions, and we aren't brand evangelists here. There are also several threads dedicated to specific topics: edited this because lol everything is either first page or archived CREDITS Source OP by: bob socko A lot of people helped me write the first edition of this guide, and I built off that work for this second edition. In no particular order, I want to thank Dr. Cogwerks, Fiannaiocht, spf3million, mr. mephistopheles, Casull, AIIAZNSL8ER, SoundMonkey, eviL bunnY, ExecuDork, Momonari kun, Pompous Rhombus, ChiTownEddie, Spog, Krakkles, Shmoogy, and kcncuda71 for their feedback and contributions to this effort.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 17:08
|
|
ergonomics and handling are huge
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
i am new to this so i have no idea what technological advances happened since that OP was edited in *adjusts glasses* 2014 so feel free to write some stuff I can edit in to start off: since we're all loving quarantined, i've been going on a lot of solo photo walks, which is great but I'd like to get inspiration. what are some good tutorial blogs and resources for babby's first landscape and cityscape shots?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
well i shot my first person with the 50mm lens I got for my d40 and while it wasn't very ~*artistic*~ I think my composition was ok. DSC_0524.jpg by Werewolf Becky, on Flickri was trying to capture her, the bike, and the building in an interesting way but obviously I have some work to do. i had a really cool set of shots but since my d40 doesn't push the autofocus on this lens they all came out poorly lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
I'm trying to work out if it's worth upgrading my ancient P&S (a Sony Cybershot, if that means anything to anyone), and if a better P&S would suit my needs or if I'd need to get serious DSLR gear. Mostly what I'm after is getting shots of environments for art references - I don't need many features, but my currents P&S chokes on... well, anything less than daylight. I guess my question is whether a decent P&S could deal with shooting in the dark (I don't need action shots, so I'm fine with long exposure times) or is that just something point and shoot cameras inherently can't do well?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
There are a number of large sensor compacts that do well enough. Or get a tripod. In body stabilization helps a lot for shooting still subjects handheld. A micro four thirds set up is probably less than a premium compact, especially if you buy used, and may get you longer handheld shots than an unstabilized full frame camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
lofi posted:I'm trying to work out if it's worth upgrading my ancient P&S (a Sony Cybershot, if that means anything to anyone), and if a better P&S would suit my needs or if I'd need to get serious DSLR gear. I’d say get a Sony RX100. There have been seven main versions over the years, and I recommend getting at least a mark III (that’s when they added a nifty pop-up viewfinder and a faster lens).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
Thanks! Next question, then - where's a good place to find more info on a basic four-thirds setup? I can't see a thread for it.
lofi fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Apr 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
lofi posted:I'm trying to work out if it's worth upgrading my ancient P&S (a Sony Cybershot, if that means anything to anyone), and if a better P&S would suit my needs or if I'd need to get serious DSLR gear. The solution to low light is the biggest sensor and widest aperture you can get at the price point you're willing to spend. Usually that comes with DSLR or mirrorless bodies and removable lenses with a f4 or faster aperture. Most point and shoots don't have large large sensors so even if they have f1.8, 2.8 etc lenses it doesn't make up the difference in sensor size. If a fixed wide-angle would be sufficient, I really like my Fuji XF10. It's got an APS-C (same as most consumer DSLRs and mirrorless cameras under ~$1k) sized sensor and a f2.8 lens so it's about as good as you're going to get without jumping to a APS-C or FF DSLR or mirrorless body, let alone something pocket sized. It's fairly affordable at $450-500 depending on where you look https://amzn.to/2zrgxIO and takes nice photos in either JPG or RAW. Samples from mine:  Congee by charliebravo77, on Flickr XF10 Test by charliebravo77, on Flickr CO/SD/WY 2019 by charliebravo77, on Flickr CO/SD/WY 2019 by charliebravo77, on Flickr CO/SD Snapshots by charliebravo77, on Flickr 80D vs XF10 by charliebravo77, on Flickr 80D vx XF10 by charliebravo77, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
That looks great, but more than I can afford even second-hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
You can get some good bargains if you shop used and locally, but for something worthwhile it will probably be a couple hundred bucks. A lx100 is less than $300 used, an rx100 iii a little more. There are a lot of micro four thirds bodies you could get for ~$200, and probably another $100-$150 on a 20mm or 25mm f1.7 if low light shooting is most important. If it is still subjects for reference, your phone's composite night photography mode is probably better than a small sensor compact. Or anything and a tripod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Ok, I'll try tripod first, cos that's cheapest! Thanks for the advice everyone, I'll get to shopping around!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
What's everyone's opinion of the Nikon D3500 for someone that wants to get into photography? Guacamayo fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Apr 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with it necessarily, but the two previous models (d3400 and d3300) are very similar and you can probably pick up a kit used for a less if you want an entry level crop nikon. Nikon offers just one normal apsc prime lens (the 35mm 1.8) so the system isn't the best for future upgrades. Canon offers a wider 24mm as well and less expensive used fullframe lenses (the older nikon stuff is screw drive which the d3*** models can't do). You could also get a previous gen mirrorless camera with kit or prime lens used for a similar price. Fuji apsc is very well supported.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah, if I were starting out these days (and somehow knew what I do now) and wanted APS-C it'd be really, really hard to not go with Fuji.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Does that mena that there arent many options for lenses with the Nikon d3500? I'm an absolute beginner that wants to learn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Prime lenses tend to be faster (smaller f number) so they can shoot in low light better, give more blurry backgrounds, and are generally better quality optically, but don't zoom in and out. Nikon makes lots of apsc zoom lenses and prime lenses designed for the larger sensor fullframe cameras, but most of these will be more expensive than the camera body and kit lens. But the one normal apsc prime lens they do offer, the 35mm 1.8, is a good lens and might be all you need. The fullframe 50mm 1.8 is also cheap and makes a good portrait lens on the d3***. Lenses will be more zoomed in on an apsc camera than a fullframe one, so it can be harder to get a lens as wide as you want at a reasonable price. If you want to do wide shots (indoors where space is tight, some styles of architectural and landscape shooting) the options are more limited than on other systems. The fuji doesn't make fullframe cameras so there are more lenses made just for the smaller sensor apsc cameras, so they can be smaller and more options are available. The cameras can also be smaller as they don't have a mirror for the optical viewfinder (some have an evf, a screen in place of the optical viewfinder, or just a screen on the back). You get a better deal if you buy used equipment, and you can always get your money back out if you decide it is not for you, or if you want to upgrade to a better camera in the future. There are also many other mirrorless camera systems. Besides fuji the other mature ones (with lots of lenses and cheap used bodies available) are sony and micro four thirds from panasonic or olympus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
If you're particularly price sensitive, a used D3200 is dirt cheap and definitely good enough for learning. Having said that, I myself have been on a Nikon APS-C > Nikon full frame > Fuji journey so might be able to help out. For a beginner who wants to get out of auto mode and start controlling things like background blur, movement blur and grain/noise in an image; the most important thing is to understand the exposure triangle of shutter speed, aperture and ISO. In the Nikon system for example, when you shoot in A mode (aperture priority) you control only the aperture (f-number like f1.8, f8 etc) and the camera sorts the rest out for you. On Nikon this balancing of the three elements is abstracted away from you a bit and is mostly controlled via menus which IMO is not very intuitive. Now compare that way of working to the Fuji system. On an XT1 (cheapest 'flagship' model), the controls for shutter speed and ISO are dials on the body and, on most fuji lenses, the controls for aperture are physically on the lens. I think this is a great way to explore the relationship between the three elements and nothing will progress your skill as a photographer early on quicker than understanding exposure (after that comes composition and artificial lighting but let's park that for now). When I started in photography I was fed the idea by Youtube photog celebs that it was normal and cool to shoot in manual all the time and that only beginners use shutter or aperture priority mode. This is nonsense. Those 'modes' are all tools to get the shot you want. For example, if I am photographing a fast moving object I might only care about freezing that object and not having any motion blur. Therefore it would be totally legit to set my shutter to something very fast like 1/1000 and let the camera determine the right aperture and ISO to expose the scene correctly. Exposing a scene correctly by painstakingly balancing the aperture, shutter speed and ISO takes much longer than setting your primary setting and letting the camera do the rest. Where you do mostly see full manual control incidentally is with landscape photogs. When your scene is fairly static and you can afford to take time to get everything just so then yeah, go for manual. Worth remembering though that a landscape shot is usually taken on a tripod. A low ISO (to preserve detail) and a relatively small aperture like F11 (to get front to back of scene in focus) will require a slow shutter speed to make sure enough light is captured to capture the image. I struggle to handhold below 1/100 second so for that reason a tripod is required. From the example above you can start to see the tradeoffs involved in 'getting the shot'. If you shoot street you ain't going to be doing it with a tripod but you might want to freeze someone as they walk. Well you need about 1/125 shutter speed for that so go for shutter priority and let the camera do the rest. What if you also want a shallow depth of field so only your subject is in focus? OK then set your aperture to f2 and now that you're dictating shutter speed and aperture the camera can set the ISO for you. Equally, a landscape photog might optimise for no noise and a large depth of field so they will need a tripod to make sure the slow shutter speed doesn't introduce shake to the image. Quick note on full frame: there is a good saying that you don't need a full frame camera until you understand why you want one (other than 'bigger sensor is better'). I personally bought in to the full frame hype, upgraded from my D3300 to a D610 aaaaaaaand ... meh. It was heavy as balls which meant I never wanted to carry it anywhere, autofocus lenses (except the 50mm f1.8 and a few others) are eye wateringly expensive and I didn't see the amazing jump in fidelity I was led to believe I would see. I switched to Fuji and never looked back. More than spec sheets I think the most important thing for a camera is mojo. I love to pick up my XT1 whenever I can. I love to take it with me when I leave the house. I love how it feels in my hand. When I use it I feel at one with the controls. Everything is physical and I barely touch the menus. If the best camera is the one you have with you, then buy a camera you love to use. Edit: also something worth knowing if you don't already is that the focal length (for example, 50mm) is relative to a full frame sensor. So, a 35mm on a crop sensor / APSC camera will have an equivalent focal length / field of view of a 50mm camera (to figure this out, multiply the focal length of the lens by 1.5 and this will give you the rough crop equivalent). I was pretty disappointed to find out that my 50mm f1.8 was actually more like a 75mm portrait lens on my D3300. Following this logic, the Nikon 35mm f1.8 will give you the field of view of a 50mm on a full frame camera. NB in the Fuji system this is why you see seemingly weird focal lengths on lenses like 23mm and 56mm. This is because they are equivalent to the 'standard' focal lengths on full frame of 35mm and 85mm. Nigel Tufnel fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 11:38
|
|
|
My plan is to take pictures of still objects from fairly close up, mostly scale models and the occasional cat or human. I found a reasonably good price for a Sony A77 and a 35mm f/1.8 lens. One of my friends is really ride-or-die for Fuji and is recommending a X-T1 and the Fujinon 23mm f/2 lens, on the grounds that the Fuji film gimmicks will give better color results. If I decide to start shooting things that aren't staged lumps of plastic, the Fuji definitely seems like less of a pain to haul around. Are either of these options terrible choices, and if I'm pretty comfortable doing post-processing work, is the Fuji genuinely going to make a difference as far as color reproduction goes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:My plan is to take pictures of still objects from fairly close up, mostly scale models and the occasional cat or human. Fuji is known for nice jpgs in camera, if you like that style then go for it, if you want to post process any camera that shoots RAW is great once you learn how to use it. If you want to to shoot small scale models consider a macro lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
If you are going to be shooting jpegs I wouldn't buy an old sony. Buying an A-mount camera is a strange choice unless it is an obscenely good deal or you already have a bunch of A-mount lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
I can't speak to the Sony, but Fuji is definitely not a terrible choice. The film simulations are actually pretty good and aren't gimmicky, or at least I don't think they are. I generally shoot .jpg+Raw when I am using my Fuji and I find most of the time, the only post processing I do is cropping the .jpg, with the Raw just collecting digital dust on my hard drive. Of course if the film simulation preset options aren't to your taste, then you're back to post work. When I do post-processing on the Fuji RAW (.raf files) i use Lightroom and have never had an issue but lots of people who use Fuji, use Capture One, because they feel it plays better with .raf files. If software choice is a concern for you, this guy goes through the different software options for Fuji (XT-3 but would be still be .raf files) and you can decide if that would be a deal breaker for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPtPxH4IpsM
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
I’m a Fuji fanboy but i don’t think the 23 f2 is the lens you want for macro. You could attach it to an extension tube but you probably want to plump for a Fuji macro lens like the 80mm. 23mm f2 is a great lens no doubt but not sure it’s ideal for this application.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:My plan is to take pictures of still objects from fairly close up, mostly scale models and the occasional cat or human. What scale of models? A macro lens would be best if it's 15mm scale or smaller. The close focus on the 23mm is something like 8", but it just depends on how much background you want, too. I've had Fuji for a while now and shot on Sony stuff and I would recommend the Fuji, their cheaper glass is a lot better in general than Sony stuff and you really don't need to post process at all which makes turnaround a lot faster. That last bit might not matter as much, but it was nice for shooting events, and also the colors do look really nice, especially for rich colors like red or purple or dark greens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
I have a similar use-case to lofi's above -- I found this XF10 new for $400 USD (including shipping) here: https://excellentphoto.ca/products/fujifilm-xf-10-digital-camera-with-18-5mm-wide-angle-lens-black Is this a reasonable buy? Website looks reputable but I have no idea. I'm located in the U.S. for what it's worth. The other camera I'm potentially looking at is the X100(s). Similar price used, and from my understanding, you're mostly trading off bulk for a much more serious camera. I primarily want something to take references with, so I'm not sure how deep into real camera work I'm going to go, and either way I think both are better cameras than my current ability so I probably shouldn't worry about it too much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
GenJoe posted:I have a similar use-case to lofi's above -- I found this XF10 new for $400 USD (including shipping) here: https://excellentphoto.ca/products/fujifilm-xf-10-digital-camera-with-18-5mm-wide-angle-lens-black Probably the big thing to consider is the focal lengths of the two fixed lenses. The XF10 has a 28mm equivalent lens whereas the X100 series has a 35mm lens. So the XF10 will offer a wider field of view basically. Depending on what you're photographing that may or may not be desirable. Somewhere around 40mm is commonly cited as a human field of view so they're both 'wide' in that sense. 35mm is a classic focal length and is pretty adaptable to different scenarios. 28mm is pretty wide and is used a lot in street photography to give context to subjects. What are you going to photograph? I had an X100 and I would say it's too big to pocket if that's a consideration (you mention bulk). If you like the 28mm FOV then you could also try a Ricoh GR ii. X100 is set up where you control ISO, shutter speed and aperture with dials whereas the XF10 has a more traditional PASM setup as you may be used to from DSLRs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 11:30
|
|
|
The x70 is the more fully featured but older 28mm from Fuji. That, GR/GR ii, and Coolpix A are a little older but better/more capable than the xf10 in a number of ways. I had a number of entry level camera system (and an a7) but wound up just using the GR ii for everything and sold them. Even though it had been a good solution for me, your money may go further elsewhere if you don't want a pocketable camera. I got the GR iii refurbished for $600, but I think even used they are a little more than that. A fixed lens compact can be limiting, especially one with a fixed screen. The rx100 series might be better for you, image quality might not be as good as some of the fixed lens options, but it is more than good enough for most uses, and has an evf, flip screen, capable autofocus, zoom lens, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Not having a viewfinder is definitely something I'm a little worried about. Reviews online are a mixed bag -- some say they don't mind it at all, and other's say it's tricky for daytime shots or telling what exactly is in focus. Landscapes are going to be my primary focus. I like the pocketability aspect for sure but I'm not married to it, and I don't think I want to go higher than the ~400 price point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
GenJoe posted:Not having a viewfinder is definitely something I'm a little worried about. Reviews online are a mixed bag -- some say they don't mind it at all, and other's say it's tricky for daytime shots or telling what exactly is in focus. Landscapes are going to be my primary focus. I like the pocketability aspect for sure but I'm not married to it, and I don't think I want to go higher than the ~400 price point. I have the XF10 (see about halfway up the page) and really like it now that I've learned its limitations and quirks. Super bright daytime shots do make the screen a little problematic but you can enable manual focusing with focus peaking and really solve a lot of problems. I've had mine for about a year so if you have specific questions I would be happy to answer them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
A fixed lens compact is definitely a camera for a pretty niche group of people, I definitely wouldn't have settled on it as my only camera if I hadn't learned on something else. If it doesn't need to fit in your pants pocket there are many used interchangeable lens cameras still in your budget, many of which fit just fine in a jacket pocket. The fuji x-t10 or x-e2 and 18-55mm are in your price range, although a little over budget if your buying used from a retailer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:A fixed lens compact is definitely a camera for a pretty niche group of people, I definitely wouldn't have settled on it as my only camera if I hadn't learned on something else. XE-2 and the 27mm pancake lens is a pretty small package and you get an interchangeable lens camera instead of a fixed one. Love that 27mm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
The 27mm is ~40mm fullframe equivalent would be pretty cramped as your only lens, but maybe enough for when you need a compact setup when paired with the 18-55mm for other occasions. The fuji 18mm (~28mm equivalent like the xf10) is not as small, but probably still jacket pocketable, but doesn't have the great reputation of the 27mm. Panasonic also offers pancake lenses in 28mm and 40mm equivalent focal lengths for micro four thirds. Micro four thirds also offers a number of pancake kit zooms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
Thanks for all of the recommendations, people. I did end up going with the XF10, mainly out of budget reasons -- later models of the RX100 and GR were in the 5-600 dollar range, and same with the interchangeable Fuji's. I do really like the pocketability of this thing, and the lack of EVF and tilt aren't bothering me yet. Above all I just want to take this out and shoot a bunch. I think this is a great camera for that.    
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Nice. I’ve definitely considered the XF10 before. Ended up going with a used RX1003, bit if I ever want a compact camera with a prime lens that’ll be on my short list.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
Hey, was looking for a little advice. I like to photo journal while I play golf and want to make the move from phone to camera. Its mainly landscape and nature shots around the courses, a few shots per hole so if like to be able to pick up and shoot so no lens swapping but also something rugged that won't flake if it cops a little sprinkle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
Dimebag posted:Hey, was looking for a little advice. I like to photo journal while I play golf and want to make the move from phone to camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Why do you feel you want a camera over your phone? What phone are you currently using? I have a Pixel 3XL but it's starting to show its age. I'm not unhappy with the phone at all but I've had shots where I want a little more zoom or I see something but I cant get a good focus on the phone was thinking a camera may help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Most reasonably priced, reasonably sized options aren't weather sealed, but you can get a covering for something else. The g1x III is weather sealed and reasonably small, but you could do better for the money even if you got a good deal on one used. If you don't want an interchangeable lens camera you should also consider upgrading your phone, many higher end ones have multi camera setups now, and comparable image quality to even premium compacts with zoom lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Thanks. I'll take a look when I upgrade phones in a month or so and see if that works well enough.
Dimebag fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jul 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
I've been digging through threads trying to figure out state of the art of compact cameras, so I'm going to Just Post and see if someone can point me in the right direction. More than a decade ago, I had a Nikon D60 and a couple lenses. I really loved it, took it on a bunch of travel, and ended up keeping the 35mm/1.8 FX lens on it most of the time. Years passed, phone cameras got better by leaps and bounds, and I stopped traveling as much, and I sold off all the lenses for like 80% of what I paid for them, and the body for dirt cheap because it was 10MP. I'm looking for a compact fixed-lens camera that has a substantially better sensor than high-end phone cameras, but I'd also like to spend less than $1000. $1k is more than I spent on my photography hobby last time around, thanks to how dirt cheap Nikon crop-sensor stuff was back then. I'm looking for something that I'll keep on me to take good pictures of kids & family for myself, and also something that I can pack along on bike rides to whip out and take pictures of interesting moments. I took a look around at the type of device that I think I'm looking for, and I'm floored by how much point & shoot cameras cost nowadays. I'm A-OK with a fixed lens, but not opposed to a high-quality zoom lens either. Shortlist of things that I'm looking at, and the eye-watering prices:
Am I missing something? Should I be looking for a mirrorless body + pancake lens instead? Should I track down one of the most compact DSLR bodies and stick a prime on there? My D60 was pretty dang small in the first place, I'd hope that more modern Nikon stuff is smaller. Based on a look around, I think the Fuji X100 is exactly what I'm dreaming of, but that price is really hard for me to swallow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Camera phone are still better than compacts, compacts are generally only really recommended if you want a bit more reach without packing a mirrorless/DSLR. The multi lens configs and computational HDR/Night/Portrait modes that they packing so much R&D into beating each other with between Apple/Google on the flagship/higher end phones etc is really making phones the go to for general whip it out type photographs. TL;DR Cameras is the current distinguishing feature for higher end smartphones, take advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 18:25
|
|