restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Here's one of our favourite creatures, the Kookaburra.
That's my ancient Nikon D70s (6MP) straight out of the camera.
That's my ancient Nikon D70s (6MP) straight out of the camera.
Fabulous!Here's one of our favourite creatures, the Kookaburra.
View attachment 14911
That's my ancient Nikon D70s (6MP) straight out of the camera.
Nice shot! What lens did you use?
Very nice. I also have a 55 - 300 Nikon lens for my D90. I have yet to use it. Nice to know it is capable of shots like that.
The problem with DSLRs no longer is resolution but ease of use. Despite huge number of cameras and lenses I have, I shoot all my review images with my Samsung S8+ camera. Snap a picture, mail it to my computer, done. Ready to share. And it is always with me, ready to do this.
The user interface on DSLRs outside of connectivity is still the same as what we had decades back. Tiny, hard to see displays in the sun in cameras that cost thousands of dollars. Someone (Sony?) needs to shake their tree hard to get them to design something modern. I hate hunting through the stupid menus with cryptic special functions, etc. So much so that I don't even bother with them.
Ones with dual camera setups can already do that today. Algorithms to do it with just one camera have also been developed and are hitting the market just about right now... the results don't even look half bad, though it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they'll probably have their limits. Cameras are about the only area where flagship phones are still distinguishing themselves, so a fair bit of effort has been put into them. Mind you, for the cost of one of them you can probably also get a less fancy phone plus a nice camera (which may last you a whole lot longer), though that's obviously the less compact option...But while I'm content with the improvements I still have issues when I zoom in and I've no way to create a "blurred" background with just my cell :/
Ones with dual camera setups can already do that today. Algorithms to do it with just one camera have also been developed and are hitting the market just about right now... the results don't even look half bad, though it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they'll probably have their limits. Cameras are about the only area where flagship phones are still distinguishing themselves, so a fair bit of effort has been put into them. Mind you, for the cost of one of them you can probably also get a less fancy phone plus a nice camera (which may last you a whole lot longer), though that's obviously the less compact option...
Your headphone image above mostly has two issues: It's somewhat underexposed, and the white balance is off. (Otherwise it appears to be well-lit with fairly little apparent noise.) None of which would be a major problem if you could shoot RAW. Of course anything resembling a decent camera is going to have manual white balance and exposure controls, too. (What color temperature are your lights anyway? You'd preferably use something resembling "daylight" (6500K-ish) rather than "warm white" (2700-3000K), with a decently high CRI (at least 80+, specialty lights are 90+). A very warm tone means very little blue and hence a noisy blue channel.)
Loads of cameras made since 2010 or so will be able to do what you want, photography wise. Pick up one with the kit lens plus a nifty fifty, and you should be pretty much good to go. It just depends on how much modern gimmickry you want or need. There'll be many options if using a cardreader is fine, far fewer if you insist on WiFi. Likewise with touchscreens and GPS.
It's hard to go badly wrong with something as mainstream as a Canon or Nikon. You'll be able to choose from a large array of in-production lenses, flashes and other accessories (including third-party), and they have enough money in R&D to be able to keep up with modern trends and provide some good AF systems. Canon's kit and economy lenses are notorious for being flimsy and easy to break though, and their sensor performance was rather behind the times for a while. In any case remember that you're not just buying a camera, you're potentially buying into a system that you may be stuck with for quite a while. Those who are serious about this stuff tend to have more money in lenses than bodies. Good point about user interfaces though. One of the reasons I went with a Pentax was the UI. (Another was being able to use AA cells, as we had lots of Eneloops floating about. Right now I have their last model that can still do this with an optional cell holder. Not to mention a ton of old and some more current lenses, the least of which I actually use on a regular basis, but I'm more in it for the learning experience anyway.)
Now if you're into enthusiast stuff like recycling old manual lenses, then neither system may be ideal. Neither support focus peaking, though it can be added to slightly older Canons via Magic Lantern (the 200D/SL2 is not even listed yet, but the 100D/SL1 is filed under "in progress"). Both are relying on lens-side IS, rather than in-body stabilization which can work just as well on shorter focal lengths and permits using any old lens as long as you tell the system what it is. Nikons have the longest flange distance of any active system, so adapting Nikon lenses is generally feasible but adapting any other system to Nikon is nigh impossible. Now of course using an APS-C DSLR is not necessarily first choice when it comes to adapting random old lenses, as mirrorless systems with their much shorter flange distances are more flexible in this regard (not to mention these also allow for more compact wideangle lens constructions, which is a major weak spot of crop DSLRs).
The 50 will let you get super out of focus backgrounds at wide open compared to the kit zoom. If that is the style you like for some of your images, then it would be a good choice.I guess the question is will I just buy the friggin Nifty Fifty lens now or try an work with the standard 18-55 MM standard lens... knowing me I'll likely just buy the new friggin lens and learn with that
The 50 will let you get super out of focus backgrounds at wide open compared to the kit zoom. If that is the style you like for some of your images, then it would be a good choice.
Ones with dual camera setups can already do that today. Algorithms to do it with just one camera have also been developed and are hitting the market just about right now... the results don't even look half bad, though it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they'll probably have their limits. Cameras are about the only area where flagship phones are still distinguishing themselves, so a fair bit of effort has been put into them. Mind you, for the cost of one of them you can probably also get a less fancy phone plus a nice camera (which may last you a whole lot longer), though that's obviously the less compact option...
Your headphone image above mostly has two issues: It's somewhat underexposed, and the white balance is off. (Otherwise it appears to be well-lit with fairly little apparent noise.) None of which would be a major problem if you could shoot RAW. Of course anything resembling a decent camera is going to have manual white balance and exposure controls, too. (What color temperature are your lights anyway? You'd preferably use something resembling "daylight" (6500K-ish) rather than "warm white" (2700-3000K), with a decently high CRI (at least 80+, specialty lights are 90+). A very warm tone means very little blue and hence a noisy blue channel.)
Loads of cameras made since 2010 or so will be able to do what you want, photography wise. Pick up one with the kit lens plus a nifty fifty, and you should be pretty much good to go. It just depends on how much modern gimmickry you want or need. There'll be many options if using a cardreader is fine, far fewer if you insist on WiFi. Likewise with touchscreens and GPS.
It's hard to go badly wrong with something as mainstream as a Canon or Nikon. You'll be able to choose from a large array of in-production lenses, flashes and other accessories (including third-party), and they have enough money in R&D to be able to keep up with modern trends and provide some good AF systems. Canon's kit and economy lenses are notorious for being flimsy and easy to break though, and their sensor performance was rather behind the times for a while. In any case remember that you're not just buying a camera, you're potentially buying into a system that you may be stuck with for quite a while. Those who are serious about this stuff tend to have more money in lenses than bodies. Good point about user interfaces though. One of the reasons I went with a Pentax was the UI. (Another was being able to use AA cells, as we had lots of Eneloops floating about. Right now I have their last model that can still do this with an optional cell holder. Not to mention a ton of old and some more current lenses, the least of which I actually use on a regular basis, but I'm more in it for the learning experience anyway.)
Now if you're into enthusiast stuff like recycling old manual lenses, then neither system may be ideal. Neither support focus peaking, though it can be added to slightly older Canons via Magic Lantern (the 200D/SL2 is not even listed yet, but the 100D/SL1 is filed under "in progress"). Both are relying on lens-side IS, rather than in-body stabilization which can work just as well on shorter focal lengths and permits using any old lens as long as you tell the system what it is. Nikons have the longest flange distance of any active system, so adapting Nikon lenses is generally feasible but adapting any other system to Nikon is nigh impossible. Now of course using an APS-C DSLR is not necessarily first choice when it comes to adapting random old lenses, as mirrorless systems with their much shorter flange distances are more flexible in this regard (not to mention these also allow for more compact wideangle lens constructions, which is a major weak spot of crop DSLRs).
The 50 will let you get super out of focus backgrounds at wide open compared to the kit zoom. If that is the style you like for some of your images, then it would be a good choice.
Interesting, that made me shake my E-M1 but it did not rattle. I have a Sigma 60mm f2.8 lens which uses a linear motor to focus and it rattles when switched off, off the camera and in power save modes. I assume the focussing group just has a coil like a loudspeaker but no axial restraint. It is a super good value lens IME.
Beautiful work!I became interested in photography last year so I bought my first DSLR - cheap D3300 with 18-55 kit lens. At first I wasn't getting expected results so I started reading, learning and trying again... instead of just blaming the camera and buying a better body. In meantime I obtained a stand, 50 mm prime, few filters... I also realized how much RAW adjustments can help things... and 1.5 years later I'm mostly happy with the results. Here are some of my images taken by D3300 + kit or 50 mm prime (cheap Yongnuo one) - Images.
The sensor itself is great, dynamic range too, I'm only limited by the quality of my lenses but better ones will come as I start needing them. Now, I don't shoot anything moving fast so I can easily get away with lesser number of focus points and direct commands on this body... Guess I don't need an expensive camera either. Sure, for some usages better equipment is needed but I know some people around me spending on expensive FF bodies without mastering the bases and expecting the camera to do everything for them... of course they just finished disappointed again.
Talking about cheapest Nikon DSLRs, worth noting is that they skimped on the mic input on the latter D3400 and 3500... I didn't care for that at first but now I'm using the camera for making YT reviews too, and not having a mic input would make it almost useless because the built-in one is really bad.