|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 13, 2019 17:19:23 GMT -5
My wife is looking for new hobbies and asked a question about photography, which she used to enjoy when the kids were young. Nothing serious, just taking pictures out and about the neighborhood and surrounding valley. She asked me about it and of course, I've never had a visual art bone in my body. But I know some folks that do.
So any recommendations for good digital SLR type rigs for a non-professional hobbyist? Not real pricey, but versatile and quality.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 13, 2019 17:50:34 GMT -5
My wife is looking for new hobbies and asked a question about photography, which she used to enjoy when the kids were young. Nothing serious, just taking pictures out and about the neighborhood and surrounding valley. She asked me about it and of course, I've never had a visual art bone in my body. But I know some folks that do. So any recommendations for good digital SLR type rigs for a non-professional hobbyist? Not real pricey, but versatile and quality. Heh. Define "pricey," and "hobby." I can't be too much help since it's been several years since I was active in photography. But I do know that Nikon and Cannon and others are putting out cameras with resolution and ISO speeds undreamed of just a few years back, at prices that are amazingly reasonable for what you get. I would suggest if you go one of those routes you buy a matching onboard flash (Speedlight in Nikon's case) to add just the little pop of fill light you need to make a photo pop off the screen/page. That said, a lot of my old photo buddies at National Geographic are now moving into solid-state (non-reflex, where there's no mirror involved - more like the point-and-shoots of a few years ago), with fabulous results. A good SLR (like my Nikon D-7000), basic zoom shooting lens, and a Speedlight, would probably run in the neighborhood of $1,200 - $1,500. Not exactly cheap when compared to cameras aimed more at the entry level. But with such a kit you could pretty much eliminate equipment as an excuse for not making prize-winning pictures. Btw, for comparison sake, a full professional Nikon body, minus lens and flash, would run in the vicinity of $5K. All THAT said, there are plenty of lower-priced cameras that can deliver impressive results. it all depends on your level of commitment. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 13, 2019 18:36:50 GMT -5
Thank you, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 13, 2019 18:55:09 GMT -5
Peter, these days, digital SLRs are almost all better than the photographers who use them. The available gear is generally excellent. An entry-level SLR would probably suit your wife fine. I haven't priced those in a while but a camera and a couple of entry-level lenses might add up to $800 or so. I use Canon and recommend it, in part because there are a lot of lenses available for Canon cameras and they're cheaper than Nikon lenses. Canon is what Sekhmet uses as well.
Don't assume you want an SLR, though. It's what I use but a lot of good photographers are starting to use mirrorless cameras instead. I've never used one. They're reportedly smaller and lighter with excellent picture quality.
Here we have a good camera store where the staff will listen to your needs and give you a candid appraisal of what might meet those. I've heard them talk a guy out of a really expensive camera when his needs didn't justify one. If there's any store like that around, patronize it. You'll pay a little more than on the internet but you have a much better chance of getting something that meets your needs.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 13, 2019 18:57:38 GMT -5
PS: I use a Canon 80D body, which is a mid-level camera. It's great. The body was about $1,200. But that's what I want after doing this stuff for a decade. Entry-level would be cheaper and perfectly adequate.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 13, 2019 19:21:09 GMT -5
All the pictures shot on my Portugal trip were iphone XR cell phone photos.
I'm just sayin.
I use editing functions in the iphone to crop and add some mild effects. Then I download them and use Corel Paintshop for further editing. Mostly light-fill. It's great fun.
The most important piece of equipment in photography is . . . , your brain.
Second most important piece of equipment is . . . , your eye.
Third is the camera.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 13, 2019 19:23:02 GMT -5
Thank you sirs.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 13, 2019 19:32:15 GMT -5
Certainly a nice digital SLR will give you great flexibility. And a quality zoom lens is a wonderful add. But the bulkiness means photography is a deliberate somewhat cumbersome thing. There are trade offs.
The world is a spontaneous selfie kinda place. Yes, most of the cell phone shots/videos people take are amateurish and downright bad. . . . , But that's not the fault of the equipment. (See comment above about the 3 most important things).
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 13, 2019 19:47:55 GMT -5
I should have acknowledged that I was repeating some of what Chesapeake said.
Marshall's advice is good. Most people don't need more than a current phone camera, patience and care.
Howard knows this stuff. Too bad he's missing.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 13, 2019 21:16:21 GMT -5
Echoing what Marshall said: a photography guru once told me, "It's not the camera, it's the eye behind the lens." She was so right.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,902
|
Post by Dub on Oct 13, 2019 22:23:10 GMT -5
My wife is looking for new hobbies … Has she given any thought to singing in a dynamite music duo?
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 14, 2019 7:41:59 GMT -5
And another thing: - Now days post processing is almost as important as the photograph itself. By that I mean editing software. Photoshop, Lightroom, Corel Paintshop (which I use), etc, do wonders to enhance and highlight a shot. These things used to be darkroom alchemy magic. Now they're up front and available to everyone. Photo Shop and Lightroom are subscription software programs. Prsonally I'm adverse to long term open ended drains on my wallet. Me, I'd rather size up my wallet and whats available and own my copy of software free and clear. But that's me.
But software will bring your (her) photography to the next level. It's a very important component.
PS - there are also some very nice compact all-in-one digital cameras that bridge the gap size-wise between a formal DLSR and a cell phone. They have zoom lens capability and nice features and fit in your pocket for easy transport.
Are you confused enough already?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 14, 2019 8:17:25 GMT -5
And another thing: - Now days post processing is almost as important as the photograph itself. By that I mean editing software. Photoshop, Lightroom, Corel Paintshop (which I use), etc, do wonders to enhance and highlight a shot. These things used to be darkroom alchemy magic. Now they're up front and available to everyone. Photo Shop and Lightroom are subscription software programs. Prsonally I'm adverse to long term open ended drains on my wallet. Me, I'd rather size up my wallet and whats available and own my copy of software free and clear. But that's me. But software will bring your (her) photography to the next level. It's a very important component. PS - there are also some very nice compact all-in-one digital cameras that bridge the gap size-wise between a formal DLSR and a cell phone. They have zoom lens capability and nice features and fit in your pocket for easy transport. Are you confused enough already? Not at all. She's already told me she wants a camera for Christmas. She'll get a camera for Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 14, 2019 8:56:36 GMT -5
The Canon EOS Rebel T7i is the most recent update in the Canon entry-level DSLR line. Street price is about $700. That's just for the body. This is a high quality entry level camera.
A lens will cost extra. Canon makes excellent lenses. So do Tamron and Sigma but at a somewhat lower price. What lens she'll need could be debated until the end of time. There is a lot of variety available and a huge range of prices. If she's a casual photographer the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM ($125) is a great choice. It doesn't zoom but it's inexpensive and has been praised by most reviewers. It's a terrific little lens.
Fortunately, there is a wide range of quality lenses available. Unfortunately, may of them will cost more than the camera itself. You can sometimes find the Rebel T7i bundled with a 17-55mm "kit" lens for $800. B&H Photo offers one. The kit lens is inexpensive and it's a zoom lens although it doesn't zoom very far. It's not a bad lens. I've used mine quite a bit. If you want more "reach" from a zoom lens you'll probably end up paying $500 - $800 for okay quality lenses although Sigma has a couple that are less expensive. I'm not familiar with them so I don't know about their quality. By and large, though, Sigmas quality is pretty good.
Of course all of these things are available on Amazon. Much of the time you'll see the camera, lens, and a bunch of accessories bundled together. I would advise against the bundled products. By and large the accessories are poorly made and not worth buying.
Good luck with your search.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 14, 2019 9:04:49 GMT -5
That's awesome, Lar. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 14, 2019 10:08:19 GMT -5
By the way, I've bought my last two lenses used via Amazon. They're fine and they were considerably less expensive. You can get camera bodies that way, too.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 14, 2019 10:12:22 GMT -5
Stumbled across this gem the other day:
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 14, 2019 11:11:35 GMT -5
It just occurred to me that so far this thread has discussed DSLR cameras and Marshall has put in his 2 cents about his phone camera but we haven't really compared the two. Both have their merits but, at least in my mind, there are significant differences that should be considered.
I can't fault Marshall's devotion to his phone camera. He takes great photos and I can't argue with his results. Phone cameras have come a long way and they are easily as good as the point and shoot cameras that used to be very common. Here are some differences from a DSLR that you should be aware of.
Lens By default a phone camera lens has some limitations. The first is size. There is a correlation between lens size, sensor size, and quality. I don't have the technical specs for my phone but I suspect the sensor is much smaller than the one on my DSLRs and I know the lens is smaller. That may or may not be an issue depending upon whether or not you can tell the difference. Most people can't, unless they try to print the photos in larger sizes. If you never intend to do that, the lens and sensor sizes really doesn't matter that much.
File type To me this is a big deal. Camera phones create photo files in jpg format. There's nothing wrong with that. The file size is manageable and most good editing software does a nice job of helping the photos look their best.
DSLR cameras have the ability to save photos in a format called "camera RAW". The difference is that jpg photos are saved based on the camera settings. And the files are compressed. RAW files store all of the data the camera captures in an un-compressed format. The files are much larger. Because the files contain all of the data, photo editing software has more control over the finished product. This can be especially important when it comes to color correction and exposure. Jpg files can be color corrected and lightness/darkness and contrast can be adjusted but only to an extent. RAW files offer more latitude in those adjustments because all of the data is there. And it really does enable the user to adjust the exposure. I much prefer editing my photos in RAW format and then saving them as jpg files.
The differences I've described between jpg and RAW files are more or less the tip of the iceberg. For photographers who never intend to do more than very light editing, jpg is just fine. When I first started out with digital photography that was all I needed. It didn't take long, though, before I got more involved in the technical aspects of photography. I found that I wanted to be able to adjust for poor lighting conditions and I wanted more creative control over my photos. The ability to take good shots in low light conditions or to control depth-of-field and a bunch of other things, can do a lot to make photos better. That's really the advantage a DSLR offers - control. Not everyone needs or wants that, though. In that case, much as it pains me to say it, the phone camera is a very good alternative.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 14, 2019 11:16:11 GMT -5
It just occurred to me that so far this thread has discussed DSLR cameras and Marshall has put in his 2 cents about his phone camera but we haven't really compared the two. Both have their merits but, at least in my mind, there are significant differences that should be considered. I can't fault Marshall's devotion to his phone camera. He takes great photos and I can't argue with his results. Phone cameras have come a long way and they are easily as good as the point and shoot cameras that used to be very common. Here are some differences from a DSLR that you should be aware of. Lens By default a phone camera lens has some limitations. The first is size. There is a correlation between lens size, sensor size, and quality. I don't have the technical specs for my phone but I suspect the sensor is much smaller than the one on my DSLRs and I know the lens is smaller. That may or may not be an issue depending upon whether or not you can tell the difference. Most people can't, unless they try to print the photos in larger sizes. If you never intend to do that, the lens and sensor sizes really doesn't matter that much. File type To me this is a big deal. Camera phones create photo files in jpg format. There's nothing wrong with that. The file size is manageable and most good editing software does a nice job of helping the photos look their best. DSLR cameras have the ability to save photos in a format called "camera RAW". The difference is that jpg photos are saved based on the camera settings. And the files are compressed. RAW files store all of the data the camera captures in an un-compressed format. The files are much larger. Because the files contain all of the data, photo editing software has more control over the finished product. This can be especially important when it comes to color correction and exposure. Jpg files can be color corrected and lightness/darkness and contrast can be adjusted but only to an extent. RAW files offer more latitude in those adjustments because all of the data is there. And it really does enable the user to adjust the exposure. I much prefer editing my photos in RAW format and then saving them as jpg files. The differences I've described between jpg and RAW files are more or less the tip of the iceberg. For photographers who never intend to do more than very light editing, jpg is just fine. When I first started out with digital photography that was all I needed. It didn't take long, though, before I got more involved in the technical aspects of photography. I found that I wanted to be able to adjust for poor lighting conditions and I wanted more creative control over my photos. The ability to take good shots in low light conditions or to control depth-of-field and a bunch of other things, can do a lot to make photos better. That's really the advantage a DSLR offers - control. Not everyone needs or wants that, though. In that case, much as it pains me to say it, the phone camera is a very good alternative. I'm sure it is. My wife's already got one.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 14, 2019 11:50:58 GMT -5
It boils down to what do you want to do with photography. The sad truth is for those that love photography, is you end up having multiple cameras and lenses and equipment. (Sort of like guitars). I've got a nice Sony DSLR. Fantastic camera. And I have a terrific high quality zoom lens for it. Does great things. But it's heavy and cumbersome.
I've got a nice Sony Sure-Shot camera. Compact and easy to carry. Quite versatile. But it's something else to carry. More and more I forego the extra stuff and use my cell phone. I did buy a system, Moment, for attaching lenses to the phone. I have a telephoto, and polarizing and neutral density filters. In the end, I hardly used the attachments on the trip. Too much finagling with things. Mostly I just used the naked phone.
I have noticed that the latest iphone has 3 lenses; regular; wide angle; and telephoto. So they are committed to the photographic part of the phone.
Yes Larry is right, a nice DSLR will save files in RAW status. That gives you the maximum capability for editing. The files are enormous in size. About 10 times as large as a jpg. You're going to be investing in multiple terabite backup drives to store that data. It's the way to go for professional artistic photography. Short of that desired goal, it becomes difficult to manage.
Fun to play with though.
|
|