Maybe you don't need an expensive camera either

[Frank Dernie]

No, quite the opposite. I seem to be having a lot of problems conveying my thoughts without annoying people today. Amir is a strong proponent of using really great gear for wildlife (among other things) photography and has a stellar collection of lenses. He has cost me a lot of money by nudging me toward better equipment. I think you will find that he, and many of us, are kindred spirits.

Apparently I need to insert the joke thingie more often.

I am keen on wildlife photography and due to my treating myself with a new gadget every time I got a new contract ended up with both 500mm f4 and 600mm f4 lenses. I almost never use them though because of their weight. My friends who take pictures at Grands Prix carry one or the other all day, goodness knows how, I only even took them if what I was photographing was near a road!
Eventually I tried a 4/3 camera and found the picture quality better than I expected. Now I have an Olympus micro 4/3 with 300mm f4 and a 1.4 converter that I can easily carry all day and the 600mm f4 has gone. The biggest difference on actual pictures is the difference in depth of field, which is often an advantage with the smaller sensor.

 

[DonH56]

I bought a fairly nice camera (Canon D6) and a couple of decent lenses to go with it (do not remember off-hand; wide angle and normal'ish range Canon L zooms plus a Tokina? 500 mm) a few years ago but they arrived the day we were packing to evac from a wildfire. Literally; the UPS guy drove up while we were loading and said he had a couple more deliveries in our neighborhood then was getting out! It stayed in the box and I hauled it to a friend's house for safekeeping along with a bunch of other stuff. Fire moved away, fortunately, but here five years later I have taken it out of the box but essentially nothing more. Sigh. Work and Life been kickin' my butt the past few years.

I previously had a less-expensive (just to avoid the word "cheap") 200 mm zoom and a couple of converters. The problems I had related to both fundamental issues and my lack of funds at that time (college student). The teleconverters added some distortion, especially at the edges, and the light loss coupled with a not great lens meant wildlife shots at dawn and dusk were almost impossible. That was film, however, so life has gotten much better now. I never saw more than maybe 1600 ~ 2400 ISO film and it was often pretty grainy, plus with film you don't have the option to change ISO mid-shoot and those high-ISO films were pretty worthless once the sun came up (or before it went down) -- everything got blown out with "normal" light.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I bought a fairly nice camera (Canon D6) and a couple of decent lenses to go with it (do not remember off-hand; wide angle and normal'ish range Canon L zooms plus a Tokina? 500 mm) a few years ago but they arrived the day we were packing to evac from a wildfire. Literally; the UPS guy drove up while we were loading and said he had a couple more deliveries in our neighborhood then was getting out! It stayed in the box and I hauled it to a friend's house for safekeeping along with a bunch of other stuff. Fire moved away, fortunately, but here five years later I have taken it out of the box but essentially nothing more. Sigh. Work and Life been kickin' my butt the past few years.

I previously had a less-expensive (just to avoid the word "cheap") 200 mm zoom and a couple of converters. The problems I had related to both fundamental issues and my lack of funds at that time (college student). The teleconverters added some distortion, especially at the edges, and the light loss coupled with a not great lens meant wildlife shots at dawn and dusk were almost impossible. That was film, however, so life has gotten much better now. I never saw more than maybe 1600 ~ 2400 ISO film and it was often pretty grainy, plus with film you don't have the option to change ISO mid-shoot and those high-ISO films were pretty worthless once the sun came up (or before it went down) -- everything got blown out with "normal" light.

Yes, with film I used Kodachrome 64, so 200 iso is "fast" as far as I am concerned, I do have an f1 lens which is pretty well not needed any more!
Never cease to be amazed as to the extent most skills have become unnecessary in photography in the digital age.

 

[stunta]

For most practical purposes, mirrorless cameras have rendered DSLRs obsolete.

I got a used Nikon J1 with kit lens for $200. It takes amazingly sharp pictures especially with 1.8 prime I later got for it. AF speed is amazimg It's very compact. Only complaint I have is lack of viewfinder which makes it challenging on bright sunny days.

The Fuji x100s costs a lot more but has the retro feel and better ergonomics especially with the after market thumb grip.

And then I have the Sony A7r with a Leica M mount adapter. Manual focus with focus assist and resolution far too good to take photos of myself Oh but the character of a Leica lens with the sheer clarity of a Sony sensor at high resolution has got me some of the best travel photos in my collection.

Unless one is into specialties like sports or wildlife, mirrorless is the way to go. Smaller form factor is just one of the advantages.

 

[CuteStudio]

I used to have a bulky camera that lived on a shelf in a cupboard, I mean seriously - does anyone want to drag a camera and lenses around? Then I got an Olympus Tough which meant that I actually had the camera with me and took a whole lot more photos.

Then I decided I needed some better shots of my cats and so I bought a Canon sx700 with a 30x optical zoom, pin sharp at any zoom and more camera than I'll ever need, although I notice the later 720 has a boggling 40x optical zoom...

I've taken some pretty sharp pictures of the Moon and Jupiter and 4 of it's moons with the sx700, but the biggest benefit was time. From grabbing the camera to getting a good shot it takes less than 1.5 seconds which cannot be matched by an SLR (or anything with a lens cap!) and has been extremely useful in getting shots that would have otherwise been impossible.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I am not prepared to take any camera without a viewfinder seriously, tried it and it is hopeless for me.
If I am going to have to accept the quality I get when I hold it out in front of me I use my phone.

 

[restorer-john]

I have a Canon 5D with the three usual F4 EF series 1 zooms - too big, heavy and obvious.

I love my original 1987 F4 70-210 EF series 1. If only it had IS...

The way the lens slides in and out on those linear roller bearings is pure class.

 

[Wombat]

I love my original 1987 F4 70-210 EF series 1. If only it had IS...

The way the lens slides in and out on those linear roller bearings is pure class.

Help is to be found in the Seniors section of your camera store.

https://www.adorama.com/alc/best-handheld-gimbal-stabilizers-for-mirrorless-and-dslr-cameras

 

[restorer-john]

Help is to be found in the Seniors section of your camera store.

My DSLR collection is a Senior's Home for cameras.

My favourite camera is a 2005/6 Nikon D70s (I have three of them) and my Canon 40D (three of those too). I think I have about 20 DSLRs with the newest being an Canon EOS 60D, so that is around 7-8 years old.

I can't resist the older ones for peanuts.

My system is simple, they are all charged, left on (they never go flat in standby it seems) and each one has a different lens on it. (zooms, primes, telephotos, macro etc).

One thing I have discovered, the older Japanese Nikon Li-Ion batteries never seem to die. 13 years on, still going strong.

 

[Wombat]

My DSLR collection is a Senior's Home for cameras.

My favourite camera is a 2005/6 Nikon D70s (I have three of them) and my Canon 40D (three of those too). I think I have about 20 DSLRs with the newest being an Canon EOS 60D, so that is around 7-8 years old.

I can't resist the older ones for peanuts.

My system is simple, they are all charged, left on (they never go flat in standby it seems) and each one has a different lens on it. (zooms, primes, telephotos, macro etc).

One thing I have discovered, the older Japanese Nikon Li-Ion batteries never seem to die. 13 years on, still going strong.

Do you leave them all on A or P to avoid the different menus?

 

[mi-fu]

There is one distinction between cameras and audio equipment though: For audio, very likely, there is a fairly attainable threshold of the highest quality difference we can tell, but for digital cameras, the chase for pixels can be quite unlimited.

In fact, how many pixels are "enough" is largely related to the resolution of the monitor. I remember that years ago, I heard a friend said that an image of 1024x768 was "more than enough." I think, by today's standard, 1024x768s probably are considered slightly better thumbnails?

Therefore, for cameras, I think it is good to invest for the future. Now for a 5k monitor, the minimum resolution required to cover the whole screen is around 15M pixels. But for a 8k monitor, which will become the mainstream in a year or two, will require around 33M pixels. And if you are the type of photographers who do quite a bit of cropping and retouching, probably you will want quite a bit more than that.

Sometimes, when I looked at the old photos taken by my first digital camera - Olympus 4040, a 4M pixels camera, I would regret so much that I didn't buy a higher resolution camera at the time. Those pictures now look so tiny!

Lesson learnt. I now use the highest pixels camera whenever I can (if weight is allowed)!

 

[Grave]

I do not know much about cameras, but $500 is not what I would call cheap, and I would expect any camera that expensive to be really good. . .

 

[Grave]

There is one distinction between cameras and audio equipment though: For audio, very likely, there is a fairly attainable threshold of the highest quality difference we can tell, but for digital cameras, the chase for pixels can be quite unlimited.

In fact, how many pixels are "enough" is largely related to the resolution of the monitor. I remember that years ago, I heard a friend said that an image of 1024x768 was "more than enough." I think, by today's standard, 1024x768s probably are considered slightly better thumbnails?

Therefore, for cameras, I think it is good to invest for the future. Now for a 5k monitor, the minimum resolution required to cover the whole screen is around 15M pixels. But for a 8k monitor, which will become the mainstream in a year or two, will require around 33M pixels. And if you are the type of photographers who do quite a bit of cropping and retouching, probably you will want quite a bit more than that.

Sometimes, when I looked at the old photos taken by my first digital camera - Olympus 4040, a 4M pixels camera, I would regret so much that I didn't buy a higher resolution camera at the time. Those pictures now look so tiny!

Lesson learnt. I now use the highest pixels camera whenever I can (if weight is allowed)!

Well 5K monitors are useless for video and video games, I have never even heard of them being used. That is a stupidly high resolution.

1080p or higher looks good to me.

 

[mi-fu]

Well 5K monitors are useless for video and video games, I have never even heard of them being used. That is a stupidly high resolution.

1080p or higher looks good to me.

I think for gaming, that is true.

But I'm sooo used to 4k video (Netflix and Amazon) now that I find regular TV broadcast very grainy! On the other hand, I think 8k broadcast is coming to Japan very soon. I'm pretty sure the 2020 Tokyo Olympic will be broadcasted in 8k too.

 

[Wombat]

Photography forums are similar to audio forums in many ways. Lots of GAS and differing personal opinions.
I doubt that many participants need the hi-end gear they own. Most would never print larger than A4 or A3(consumer printer sizes). The consumer printers are not keeping up with increases in camera pixel count.

On pixels.
'Pixel peeping' seems to be a preoccupation of amateurs more than Pros.

Real world resolution: https://imagescience.com.au/knowledge/resolution-for-really-sharp-prints

Pixel density vs screen size: https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display/pixel-density/

I guess if one looks at pics on and close to a large TV screen the pixels may show but that is not normal viewing.

PS. 4K resolution is similar to 35mm film.

 

[SIY]

I have gotten many compliments on the photos used in my articles. Here's the secret: my wife does them because she's actually skilled. Her equipment is good, not insane, and she's a strong believer in laws of diminishing returns when it comes to equipment.

So that's the secret to great photography: marry well.

 

[Wombat]

A good photographer will get great photos with a box brownie.

 

[welder]

A good photographer will get great photos with a box brownie.

Exactly, but better sensor (with higher DR, better high ISO performance) or better body (more steady-accesible buttons/switches) will profit in certain situation (concerts, wedding photo in dark medieval churches)

I don't recall any modern sensor that performs truly badly so any cam should do the amateur trick.

 

[amirm]

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.

 

[welder]

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.

Sure. For each their own For Your purpose its doing job. But I LOVE to tinker in postprocess in Lightroom so operating mainly on RAWs

And sometimes working in churches as hobby so big and bright lenses are needed