I wanted to say thanks to all the people who have contributed to this thread - it makes for an interesting read!
I'm a total newb at photography. I purchased the SONY RX100 Mk III a few months back and have been loving it. It's a fantastic point and shoot although I am soon looking to splash out on something more high-end and this thread is a goldmine!
I have the RX100 III and absolutely love it. My wife uses it a lot and I use it as a throw in the pocket sort of camera when I don't want to bother with something bigger.
Honestly, unless you're ready to invest a significant amount of money into lenses, you're not going to get much by upgrading to a low-mid range mirrorless or dSLR with kit lens, at least in terms of image quality. Performance (af, buffer, etc) and ergonomics are a different story, but the RX100III punches way above it's class and easily matches the 18-55mm 4-5.6 or so kit lenses that come with DSLRs when it comes to the quality of photos that it produces.
So if you wan't something better, be prepared to buy a nice constant 2.8 zoom and/or some fast primes.
yes they seem to obscure a bit with the circular prisma being so close to the center. but as for accuracy - when you used them, did you have the camera correct your lens focus? seems with the aftermarket focus screens often a little calibration is required.
i'm just curious at this point. still in gadget purchasing mode, so to speak. they are really really expensive and the dollar<->euro situation doesn't help. no second body either. compact equipment allowed only.
I suppose it could be some camera-calibration related issue, but most DSLRs do not offer calibration for the focus screen itself, do they?
Anyway, my issue wasn't really consistently off focus in one direction, it was that with fast lenses/narrow DOF, where really nailing your focus is important, these focus screens only really act as a loose guide, especially as many DSLRs will only show you DOF of 2.8 at max in the viewfinder, even when using a 1.4 lens. To hit focus with say, a 85/1.4 or 50/1.4, you have to be extremely precise. So, unless you're willing to stop down to F5.6 or so to ensure you have wide enough DOF that minor errors do not matter, it's not really worth it.
Again, an EVF and peaking generally works better here, as most mirrorless cameras can show the true DOF of the lens wide open, but also are more helpful previewing stopped down because they do not darken the viewfinder like traditional DOF preview on a DSLR.
If you're using small apertures or wide angle lenses where the DOF is inherently wide, then you can simply zone focus and skip the custom screen.
Essentially, in my experience at least, where they should be most helpful, they are unreliable, and where they work best, they are redundant. YMMV.
I have the RX100 III and absolutely love it. My wife uses it a lot and I use it as a throw in the pocket sort of camera when I don't want to bother with something bigger.
Honestly, unless you're ready to invest a significant amount of money into lenses, you're not going to get much by upgrading to a low-mid range mirrorless or dSLR with kit lens, at least in terms of image quality. Performance (af, buffer, etc) and ergonomics are a different story, but the RX100III punches way above it's class and easily matches the 18-55mm 4-5.6 or so kit lenses that come with DSLRs when it comes to the quality of photos that it produces.
So if you wan't something better, be prepared to buy a nice constant 2.8 zoom and/or some fast primes.
Which DSLR would you recommend? Apologies for such a vague question!
I definitely purchased the RX100 since I love taking photographs in sketchy areas, so it's the perfect camera to take a picture and quickly hide the camera so I don't get mugged when I'm travelling ;D
Now that I'm a little more into taking my own pictures (for fun) I am really curious as to what are the most commonly used for hobbyists.
I tend to focus more on architecture rather than people but I really don't know where to start, I just have that urge to take it up a notch.
Personally, I would only recommend a DSLR if you're a professional wedding, sports or nature photographer and need exceptionally good tracking AF. If that is the case, look into a Canon 5DIII, Nikon D810, or if you need the crop for wildlife, Canon 7D II or Nikon D7200. A used Canon 7D or Nikon D7100 /D7000 would be a decent buy as well.
For most people, a solid mirrorless camera is going to offer more functionality and better image quality than they have the skills to harness. In actuality, the most important bit is not in the camera itself, but the grey matter directly behind it. Check a few of my posts back and you'll find a lot of good mirrorless cameras in the mid-high end range (most around the cost of a low-mid range DSLR).
For architecture, pretty much any halfway decent camera body with a halfway decent ultra-wide lens should do the trick. If you need very specialized glass like a tilt-shift lens, you may be better off going with a DSLR too, as only the Canon/Nikon system has a wide selection of that type of lens. At that point you should look into a decent tripod as well. However, its worth mentioning that both Canon and Nikon's T/S lenses can be adapted to all the mirrorless mounts, and as they are manual focus anyway, you don't lose any functionality (thought the equiv focal length/angle of view may change depending on format).
If cost is an issue for someone that is just a hobbyist and looking for a DSLR, I'd recommend a Canon 6D ($1400) or a Nikon D610 ($1500) or D750 ($2300).
LOL FF DSLRs for hobbyists looking for something cheap. Those prices don't include a lens btw, expect to pay $500 or more to get a quality FF DSLR lens worth putting on those bodies. So realistically you're looking at $2k min, add another 1K for an additional lens or two. At the end of the day glass is what is really important, and good FF glass is bigger, heavier and more expensive than smaller formats in virtually every case (except for Leica M glass, then it's just more expensive... way way more expensive).
All that for what exactly? So you can shoot a black cat in a coal mine at ISO 51200?
Funny story, when I was in SF at GDC. Some guy came into one of the local camera stores and couldn't figure out how to use his camera so he was talking to the salesman, his exposure was off (it seemed like he accidentally messed with the exposure compensation)... He then proceeded to preorder the 50MP Canon 5Ds.... You can't become a good photographer by throwing money at the problem.
Unless you really understand the differences between FF, ASP-C and M43rds (even 1 inch like the RX100 series), simply going for the larger format because the benchmark sites tell you it is "better" is really a fool's errand. Most of the advantages with larger formats are applicable only in very, very specific situations.
Of course, however, I only suggested those cameras if you had very specific needs, again, if you're a professional wedding, sports or wildlife photographer. Hell, I'll expand that recommendation to people who pretend to be one of those and happen to have too much disposable income. Before anyone gets offended, I fall into the latter category myself, generally this type of person would be an "advanced enthusiast".
FF is getting cheaper now, and it's nice that we're seeing some bodies under $2K, but a FF system is still quite a ways off from what your average person would consider affordable, nor is the size, weight, and cost generally worth it for the esoteric differences.
Lets try a different angle. Why exactly would you recommend a FF camera system to a hobbyist or beginner?
I probably should have clarified, I would be willing to spend the cash, cost isn't the issue, I would rather do some research and find something which is right for me. As much as I am a hobbyist, I foresee myself using it enough over the years to justify the purchase, especially since I travel a lot.
Something slightly older would make most sense to me, I am not looking for cutting edge, as I won't even know the differences.
With the RX100, I love it, but I definitely feel like I am ready to take the next step up and that I am reaching the limit of what I can use it for, as it doesn't offer the same amount of control that a DSLR would offer.
I wouldn't recommend a FF for a beginner, as they probably won't know the difference's between FF or APS-C or even care. Someone who is a hobbyist who really gets into photography I might recommend a FF. Less noise, especially at high ISO has me never wanting to use anything except FF. Do you need good glass (expensive) to really take advantage of FF? Yes, but for me I think it's worth it.
I'm thinking about getting a camera. For taking really nice reference images, but also for a bit of fun trying my hand at photography. I am particularly interested in HDR photography and low-light situations (I love the night, and would love to be able to capture it in some form). I was looking at getting a pre-owned Nikon D3200 from gumtree for around £250. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this? Any recommendations?
At a glance, seems a bit cheaper, has built-in HDR (don't know if this is actually that useful?) and a pretty damn high ISO. These sound like things I would be interested in. Certainly worth looking into, thanks.
Beware, with these low end Nikon models, you won't be able to use the older Nikon screw-drive lenses with AF as those cheap bodies don't have focus motors. This means a lot of very nice, relatively cheap lenses that you can find on the used market will only work in manual focus mode. If you want a Nikon body with AF motor, you have to get a D7000 or better.
Also built in-hdr is useless on most cameras unless you like the overdone processing. For HDR, you need a tripod and a good auto exposure bracketing mode. You can HDR merge and process the files yourself and have a lot more control over the process.
Ah so I would have to manually focus every shot? That doesn't sound ideal for quickly taking reference pics. Yeah, my thinking was that maybe a built-in composition was going to remove a lot of control and possibly yield sub-par results. Good to have that confirmed.
How does the RX100 compare? I'm not really sure of what different types of camera are capable of/what the main differences are. I see EQ preaching that most people don't need a dslr. I was looking into this nikon largely because it had some decent sounding specs, good reviews and a price I could afford. I can understand the annoyance of seeing people spending a lot of money trying to make up for a lack of skill. But for a cheap and cheerful starter, would these nikons be ok? Or should I look into a different type of camera altogether?
One of those Nikons is a perfectly acceptable starter kit. There is nothing inherently wrong with DSLRs, mirrorless cameras simply (in most cases) offer the same functionality in a smaller size/weight package. Sometimes they are cheaper too (but not generally when you compare to second hand entry level DSLRs like the D3200).
Those Nikons have plenty of lenses that will focus on them, they are called AF-S lenses, the problem is generally that these are the newer designs and they are more expensive. If you're on a tighter budget, there is a lot of excellent vintage Nikon D AF glass that you can buy on eBay or other second hand sites.
For instance, the Nikon 60mm 2.8 macro AF-S version sells new for $530 while the Nikon 60mm 2.8 sells used on eBay for about $250. The biggest difference is the new AF-S version has a built in motor, so it focuses fast/quieter and works on the low end Nikon bodies.
For taking reference photos, controlling the light is really more important than the specs of your camera. Sure, you want a nice sharp lens, and you may want a macro lens (a macro lens will let you get close, and macro lenses usually have very good, even sharpness across the frame, good for texture ref), but the most important thing will be shooting on an overcast day to avoid directional lighting. You also might want to experiment with polarizer filters to remove specular highlights.
RX100 III vs a D3200 or D5100: With the the 18-55mm kit lens on the Nikons, the RX100 will perform roughly as well. With a nice sharp prime lens, the Nikons will have a clear advantage in sharpness, low light performance, and ability to isolate subjects/narrow depth of field. Narrow DOF isn't a good thing for reference photos, but you can always stop down to get wider DOF.
Wow, thanks for taking the time to write that EQ. Seems like the interchangeable lenses would allow me to expand as my needs/budget require. Also I really enjoy stuff like that, I can imagine myself researching lenses in the future and getting my nerd on :poly124:
I wouldn't recommend a FF for a beginner, as they probably won't know the difference's between FF or APS-C or even care. Someone who is a hobbyist who really gets into photography I might recommend a FF. Less noise, especially at high ISO has me never wanting to use anything except FF. Do you need good glass (expensive) to really take advantage of FF? Yes, but for me I think it's worth it.
don't stop looking, there's always medium format out there, beating FF! bigger fish and all the leica s type is pretty sweet actually, even if a bit on the bulky side.
Okay so I've got a paying art job now, I feel like I can justify buying my first camera. I'm looking at buying a nikon 5200. Any recommendations on lenses? Nothing too expensive, I'm moving out soon so I want to save for that mainly. I can always upgrade later. Looking at doing texture/reference shots and general/low light photography for now. From what I was reading maybe the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 might be good? Also, recommendations for books etc so I can learn the basics of photography (theory, practical and hardware) would be great!
I ended up picking up a D7000 for a good price, and a 50mm f/1.8 too. The camera is coming with some tubes as well, so that should help with some macro stuff. Going to order some filters too!
hi i would go and try them out see how they feel, if it feels right then you long way to it being right. the 600d is a good camera and wil keep you going for many years. good luck DSLR Camera Price 2015
Replies
I have the RX100 III and absolutely love it. My wife uses it a lot and I use it as a throw in the pocket sort of camera when I don't want to bother with something bigger.
Honestly, unless you're ready to invest a significant amount of money into lenses, you're not going to get much by upgrading to a low-mid range mirrorless or dSLR with kit lens, at least in terms of image quality. Performance (af, buffer, etc) and ergonomics are a different story, but the RX100III punches way above it's class and easily matches the 18-55mm 4-5.6 or so kit lenses that come with DSLRs when it comes to the quality of photos that it produces.
So if you wan't something better, be prepared to buy a nice constant 2.8 zoom and/or some fast primes.
I suppose it could be some camera-calibration related issue, but most DSLRs do not offer calibration for the focus screen itself, do they?
Anyway, my issue wasn't really consistently off focus in one direction, it was that with fast lenses/narrow DOF, where really nailing your focus is important, these focus screens only really act as a loose guide, especially as many DSLRs will only show you DOF of 2.8 at max in the viewfinder, even when using a 1.4 lens. To hit focus with say, a 85/1.4 or 50/1.4, you have to be extremely precise. So, unless you're willing to stop down to F5.6 or so to ensure you have wide enough DOF that minor errors do not matter, it's not really worth it.
Again, an EVF and peaking generally works better here, as most mirrorless cameras can show the true DOF of the lens wide open, but also are more helpful previewing stopped down because they do not darken the viewfinder like traditional DOF preview on a DSLR.
If you're using small apertures or wide angle lenses where the DOF is inherently wide, then you can simply zone focus and skip the custom screen.
Essentially, in my experience at least, where they should be most helpful, they are unreliable, and where they work best, they are redundant. YMMV.
Which DSLR would you recommend? Apologies for such a vague question!
I definitely purchased the RX100 since I love taking photographs in sketchy areas, so it's the perfect camera to take a picture and quickly hide the camera so I don't get mugged when I'm travelling ;D
Now that I'm a little more into taking my own pictures (for fun) I am really curious as to what are the most commonly used for hobbyists.
I tend to focus more on architecture rather than people but I really don't know where to start, I just have that urge to take it up a notch.
Any suggestions would be great!
For most people, a solid mirrorless camera is going to offer more functionality and better image quality than they have the skills to harness. In actuality, the most important bit is not in the camera itself, but the grey matter directly behind it. Check a few of my posts back and you'll find a lot of good mirrorless cameras in the mid-high end range (most around the cost of a low-mid range DSLR).
For architecture, pretty much any halfway decent camera body with a halfway decent ultra-wide lens should do the trick. If you need very specialized glass like a tilt-shift lens, you may be better off going with a DSLR too, as only the Canon/Nikon system has a wide selection of that type of lens. At that point you should look into a decent tripod as well. However, its worth mentioning that both Canon and Nikon's T/S lenses can be adapted to all the mirrorless mounts, and as they are manual focus anyway, you don't lose any functionality (thought the equiv focal length/angle of view may change depending on format).
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Cinema-MagFilter-Samsung-Galaxy/dp/B0093YA7D4"]Amazon.com : Photography & Cinema 42mm CPL MagFilter Samsung Galaxy Camera Sony RX-100 camera : Camera Lens Filter Sets : Camera & Photo[/ame]
LOL FF DSLRs for hobbyists looking for something cheap. Those prices don't include a lens btw, expect to pay $500 or more to get a quality FF DSLR lens worth putting on those bodies. So realistically you're looking at $2k min, add another 1K for an additional lens or two. At the end of the day glass is what is really important, and good FF glass is bigger, heavier and more expensive than smaller formats in virtually every case (except for Leica M glass, then it's just more expensive... way way more expensive).
All that for what exactly? So you can shoot a black cat in a coal mine at ISO 51200?
Funny story, when I was in SF at GDC. Some guy came into one of the local camera stores and couldn't figure out how to use his camera so he was talking to the salesman, his exposure was off (it seemed like he accidentally messed with the exposure compensation)... He then proceeded to preorder the 50MP Canon 5Ds.... You can't become a good photographer by throwing money at the problem.
Unless you really understand the differences between FF, ASP-C and M43rds (even 1 inch like the RX100 series), simply going for the larger format because the benchmark sites tell you it is "better" is really a fool's errand. Most of the advantages with larger formats are applicable only in very, very specific situations.
FF is getting cheaper now, and it's nice that we're seeing some bodies under $2K, but a FF system is still quite a ways off from what your average person would consider affordable, nor is the size, weight, and cost generally worth it for the esoteric differences.
Lets try a different angle. Why exactly would you recommend a FF camera system to a hobbyist or beginner?
Thanks for the response peeps!
I probably should have clarified, I would be willing to spend the cash, cost isn't the issue, I would rather do some research and find something which is right for me. As much as I am a hobbyist, I foresee myself using it enough over the years to justify the purchase, especially since I travel a lot.
Something slightly older would make most sense to me, I am not looking for cutting edge, as I won't even know the differences.
With the RX100, I love it, but I definitely feel like I am ready to take the next step up and that I am reaching the limit of what I can use it for, as it doesn't offer the same amount of control that a DSLR would offer.
This isn't the best comparison but just to get some ideas to where to search from it can help:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D5100
I ended up selling it for a RX100 though :P
I will say that the Nikon 35mm lens is AMAZING. Way better than the shitty kit lens.
Also built in-hdr is useless on most cameras unless you like the overdone processing. For HDR, you need a tripod and a good auto exposure bracketing mode. You can HDR merge and process the files yourself and have a lot more control over the process.
How does the RX100 compare? I'm not really sure of what different types of camera are capable of/what the main differences are. I see EQ preaching that most people don't need a dslr. I was looking into this nikon largely because it had some decent sounding specs, good reviews and a price I could afford. I can understand the annoyance of seeing people spending a lot of money trying to make up for a lack of skill. But for a cheap and cheerful starter, would these nikons be ok? Or should I look into a different type of camera altogether?
Those Nikons have plenty of lenses that will focus on them, they are called AF-S lenses, the problem is generally that these are the newer designs and they are more expensive. If you're on a tighter budget, there is a lot of excellent vintage Nikon D AF glass that you can buy on eBay or other second hand sites.
For instance, the Nikon 60mm 2.8 macro AF-S version sells new for $530 while the Nikon 60mm 2.8 sells used on eBay for about $250. The biggest difference is the new AF-S version has a built in motor, so it focuses fast/quieter and works on the low end Nikon bodies.
For taking reference photos, controlling the light is really more important than the specs of your camera. Sure, you want a nice sharp lens, and you may want a macro lens (a macro lens will let you get close, and macro lenses usually have very good, even sharpness across the frame, good for texture ref), but the most important thing will be shooting on an overcast day to avoid directional lighting. You also might want to experiment with polarizer filters to remove specular highlights.
RX100 III vs a D3200 or D5100: With the the 18-55mm kit lens on the Nikons, the RX100 will perform roughly as well. With a nice sharp prime lens, the Nikons will have a clear advantage in sharpness, low light performance, and ability to isolate subjects/narrow depth of field. Narrow DOF isn't a good thing for reference photos, but you can always stop down to get wider DOF.
don't stop looking, there's always medium format out there, beating FF! bigger fish and all
what these need is pancake lenses, then we're talking.
Sony A7s II
[ame]
DSLR Camera Price 2015