Maybe you don't need an expensive camera either

[restorer-john]

Here's one of our favourite creatures, the Kookaburra.

That's my ancient Nikon D70s (6MP) straight out of the camera.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Beautiful bird and a beautiful photo.

 

[The Dragon]

Nice shot! What lens did you use?

 

[mi-fu]

This was taken by a small Nikon point & shoot.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Here's one of our favourite creatures, the Kookaburra.

View attachment 14911

That's my ancient Nikon D70s (6MP) straight out of the camera.

Fabulous!
I did some tests right in the early days of digital and felt that my new, then, 3.3 megapixel Canon d30 produced 10x8 prints which matched film prints using the same lens (on an EOS 1n) and enlarged (by me) using my Nikon 50mm f2.8 enlarging lens.
I have long felt that it is a bit sad we see so few prints these days but for those wishing to enjoy detail in huge blowups of their pictures a monitor is fine.
For web posting pretty well any camera/lens combo has enough resolution IMO, though resolution is not the only appealing aspect when looking at a picture, flare irritates me far more than blur, for example.

 

[restorer-john]

Nice shot! What lens did you use?

A Nikon 55-300mm VR. (image stabilized), handheld.

 

[The Dragon]

A Nikon 55-300mm VR. (image stabilized), handheld.

View attachment 14918

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.

 

[Wombat]

I purchased a Canon G5 when it was released(2003?). My first digital camera. Simple no-nonsense 5Mp digital camera. It is still my go-to camera for day-to-day casual use. Built like a tank. The original battery is good.

These can be picked up for $50 or less.

I have a Canon 5D with the usual three F4 zooms - too big and heavy.
Three Fuji X series. I love their size and Fuji lens quality. They are same size as my Canon A1 35mm camera(I felt cheated when Canon went to the not compatible EOS system) and can use my Canon FD lenses(via adapter) on them because of the great manual focus features.

Amateur opinion.

 

[welder]

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.

Its very capable although plastic lens I had it and swapped for af-p dx 70-300 vr. New af motor type is amazing. Its focus instantly.
And image quality is amazing compared to other cheap telezooms

 

[mshenay]

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.

Well I'm having some issues with just simply using my Cell. I side Loaded the Google Pixel app onto my LG V20 and noticed it made an improvement,

For Example

https://imgur.com/a/r6ZoTbq

Another with actual headphones

https://imgur.com/a/t7QNH73

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 :/

I was advised to first try an improve my lighting first and I think I have/did, I'm running like 4 lights on the Table I'm using. Which is fairly large and has a nice solid white wall behind it. But I've got 2 lamps each with a 2500 lumen 150W bulb on either side, another 2500 lumen bulb in front and yet another on top. In terms of brightness it's so much my eye's hurt after shooting pics and coming out of the BRIGHT ROOM

How ever the Canon SL2 actually seems to be exactly what I've been looking for! NewEgg has it RIGHT at $499 after tax, with a lenses and NOT international which is where I want to end up.

Though my option consideration was the Nikon D3500, which seems to have really nice ergonomics over the previous models... decisions decisions

 

[AnalogSteph]

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).

 

[mshenay]

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).

Good point about the noisy Blue Channel, I've got some very prominent blue lights I also shoot with in a smaller room but I've yet to use them in that space. Might be something to experiment with, I'm also having this issue

https://imgur.com/a/10q1s2q

Which I'm thinking maybe has something to do with the reflective surfaces, as the table is kinda shiny and the white wall behind is well... white

An I actually did wind up getting a 200D SL2, it was quite literally everything I needed or wanted! 24 Mp, 60FPS @1080 Capable with a touch screen display and I think I might even have WiFi. Which is a lesser issue as I'll likely still manually transfer images to and from my SDXC Card which I'm already using in my current CamCorder thing. I think it also have a Mic Port too but I'm already Mic ing entirely separate of my video and I may continue to do that.

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

 

[amirm]

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.

 

[mshenay]

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.

Oooh that sounds very tempting!!!!! I'll have to see how I like the stock lens an go from there

 

[mshenay]

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 have to say I'm kinda in love with this 50mm 1.8 Lens!!!! An the Kit Lens is good for video too!!!! I'll upload stuff here later, but your also welcome to follow my Instagram as everything's getting uploaded there first

 

[pwjazz]

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.

I have and enjoy that lens, though I don't find myself wanting the 120mm effective focal length except for very specific portrait work.

 

[Aibo]

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 basics 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.

 

[mshenay]

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.

Beautiful work!

I need to start shooting in Raw and making adjustments, but I'm focusing more on analog lighting now so I can get a better shot up front and edit less. Eventually I'll need to do both to maximize my results

An I thought of getting the entry level Nikkons but yes the lack of Mic was a no go, so thankfully my SL2 has both touch screen, 24MPs and mic input!!!

 

[SchwarzeWolke]

Well, for me it boils down to the question of how big the picture should be you want to print. I have printed one around 90cmx60cm and would call APS-C the minimum sensor size for this size of print.
And this one really on the edge of the performance of my NEX-6:

Looking at it in a browser doesn't show the problems, looking at it in full resolution does.

 

[mshenay]

I see what you mean, and I've heard a lot of good things about the Nex Camera's.

For better or worse digital is the medium I'm in so... I'm thinking Megapixels are important as displays aren't getting smaller