Beginner About to take it to the next level - which camera?

Well, I had a camera with an eye-level EVF and when using it in low light at Niagra Falls for the firework show, the viewfinder backlighting was too bright even at minimum brightness and made it difficult to use. For sure in bright sunlight an eye-level EVF is fine because there is little incident light falling on the display.

So, perhaps some confusion. Hopefully now clarified..
 
EVF's were poor in the past, I have an old Sony Bridge camera from my father, which takes superb pictures, despite being only 8mega pixel (the first 8meg sensor consumer camera). However it uses an EVF, or its rear lcd screen and the resolution on both is so poor that although you can effectively frame the picture and get a live view of what you will take, manual focussing is near impossible, and the review picture is so poor that you don't know whether or not you have a good in focus shot until you get home. Shame as it has a superb Leica lens.

This is surely why SLR's have survived to date. On my Panasonic GX7 the output to the rear screen or the viewfinder is a much better resolution than you get on a computer screen, and you can zoom in to pictures you have taken to see the smallest detail before leaving the site and perhaps not getting a good picture.

SLR's were needed back then so that you could be sure the picture was reasonably framed and focussed. However we are all now in the business of producing digital images, so surely for most pictures we need to see the digital image we are going to take, not a view live on a mirror?

Personally I think in 10 years time the need for an intermediate fix for the live view issue of the past by using mirror technology from vitually obsolete film cameras will be long gone and new SLR digital cameras will be as near extinct as new film bodies are now, and used and owned only by a few enthusiasts? Once electronic diplays exceed the resolution that can be viewed by eye and any electronic lag is less than the eye can detect why would we need them at all?
 
GeeJay57 said:
With EVFs the camera is by definition held further away from your body (in my case quite a distance unless I have my reading glasses on) so is less stable. Image stabilisation will help of course, but isn't a cure. The reading glasses thing is rarely mentioned in these discussions. I don't need glasses when out and about, so having to put reading glasses on to take photographs would be a pain. Optical viewfinders usually have diopter adjustment for the focussing screen, so for me no glasses needed..
Click to expand...
EVFs have diopter correction, too.
viewfinder.jpg

Image from dpreview.com's review of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 (p.5).
The wheel on the left is the dipoter adjustment dial.
I have very poor vision, I see clearly with glasses and the dipoter set to an extreme (-4) - without glasses I can't see it right no matter how I set it, but I do wear glasses all the time so it doesn't bother me. People with better eyesight than mine (you're probably among them) should be able to set the diopter adjustment accordingly without glasses.

These EVFs have optics. There's no way anyone could look at a screen so close to the eye. If I were more knowledgeable in physics, I could possibly explain how it works, but that may come in a few years time :)

If you're holding the camera far from your eye, how can you look through the EVF? Unless, of course, you mean the LCD screen on the back.
 
Looks to me that the main reason SLR's are still so popular are down to two things;

1 inertia and the need for some people spend a fortune to carry around a huge camera and lens as some sort of display.

2 Poor understanding of how live view works and how much more useful it is when implemented properly than a view directly through the lens vi a mirror with no other information available unles the camera is taken away from the face t look at the rear screen. My EVF has a diopter adjustment under it,so whether you want to wear glasses or not is not an issue. Personally I leave mine on and can use the EVF perfectly.

All the arguments put up against EVF's above were absolutely correct if applied to the available technology of 10 years ago, but now I personally think the situation is reversed. Having tried to use an SLR on Saturday I was struggling with the limited information available and unable to see how the the picture would really look until I had taken it .

I was looking on another forum today were someone was going on about how much better his canon 300mm zoom was compared to his previous panasonic. However due to the crop factor the 300mm on the panasonic is effectively a 600mm lens from film days,whilst only about 450mm on the camera he now has. Not sure why the new camera was actually better then ! Clearly again there is a general misunderstanding of crop factors and effective length of zoom lenses. Indeed on the panasonic site there are those complaining there is no zoom available longer than 300mm, yet that is equivalent as I said to a huge 600mm lens on a 35mm film camera, and how many people could walk around taking hand held shots with one of those.
 
Last edited:
Ady N said:
Have you considered 2nd hand equipment? I recently sold a Nikon D700 and even though the camera was released 6 years ago and is no longer a current model it still holds its head high and can be picked up 2nd hand for around the £600 mark which leaves you plenty left in the budget for something better than a kit lens. It is solidly built and very very good in low light situations. My reason for selling was because I had another camera that was similar in all aspects and I wanted one with high resolution (D810) so now I have 2 cameras that have there own different strengths if that makes sense. If after a few months you don't get on with it I doubt you will lose much financially when you sell on so could be an option for you...................
Click to expand...

Given that your objective is to have photos published in magazines I would imagine IQ is important. Given your budget I would go for a 2nd hand D700 and 2nd hand glass, probably 24-70 f2.8. You will not be disappointed with the IQ and the D700 is built to a pro standard with pro ergonomics. If a magazine wanted to print a double page phot (A3?) what I have suggested will handle it no problem. (as long as you can handle the D700!!)
 
welshwizard645 said:
Ok. So you have £1500 to blow on a camera and lens or two, progressing from compact. Bit like going from a trike to a Yamaha 1200.
Click to expand...

But not nearly as dangerous ;) I have had three ZZR 1100 bikes over the years from the earliest Full Power models, to one of the last models built and at one time the worlds fastest production bike. I am now looking for a Honda C90, the worlds best selling bike, but also probably one of the slowest!
I am not looking to take my biking to the next level, but I am making the most of what I am going to be using.



I do at times think it's strange, when people say I want to take photography to the next level, so I need another Camera! I suppose I probably did the same, but what I now know I should have used better lighting conditions, and put more thought into what I was photographing. Along with a tripod and better composition etc etc. That's probably going some way, to taking photography to the next level.
 
Based on what you have described you want to shoot, I strongly recommend you include headroom in your budged for a decent tripod and a pretty good flashgun. Then put time into really learning how to use it all.

It's all very well blowing your £1500 budget on the best camera and lens for the money but without the knowledge and accessories to make the camera shine you will have a lot harder time and a lot more disappointments.
 
Ken3966 said:
Having tried to use an SLR on Saturday I was struggling with the limited information available and unable to see how the the picture would really look until I had taken it .
Click to expand...

Really? A lack of information in a DSLR? Whenever I use a DSLR it seems to be information overload in the viewfinder. What information do you feel was missing?

The only information missing from mine is how far is the nearest café and how much is it for an espresso.
 
Steve said:
Really? A lack of information in a DSLR? Whenever I use a DSLR it seems to be information overload in the viewfinder. What information do you feel was missing?

The only information missing from mine is how far is the nearest café and how much is it for an espresso.
Click to expand...

perhaps the dslr was not switched on?
 
jonbeeza said:
I do at times think it's strange, when people say I want to take photography to the next level, so I need another Camera! I suppose I probably did the same, but what I now know I should have used better lighting conditions, and put more thought into what I was photographing. Along with a tripod and better composition etc etc. That's probably going some way, to taking photography to the next level.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely what I have been doing over the last 12 months... with a 7 year old mid-spec compact and a tripod. I'm constantly realising the limits of such a camera. Now is the right time to upgrade to better equipment and move up from my current and limited level. Naturally, a time comes at which I would benefit from upgrading my camera, and I consider the not too distant future to be that time. Thank you for your encouragement though, even though it was perceived as a somewhat faithless and mildly contemptuous put-down.
 
Last edited:
Ken3966 said:
Looks to me that the main reason SLR's are still so popular are down to two things;

1 inertia and the need for some people spend a fortune to carry around a huge camera and lens as some sort of display.

2 Poor understanding of how live view works and how much more useful it is when implemented properly than a view directly through the lens vi a mirror with no other information available unles the camera is taken away from the face t look at the rear screen. My EVF has a diopter adjustment under it,so whether you want to wear glasses or not is not an issue. Personally I leave mine on and can use the EVF perfectly.

All the arguments put up against EVF's above were absolutely correct if applied to the available technology of 10 years ago, but now I personally think the situation is reversed. Having tried to use an SLR on Saturday I was struggling with the limited information available and unable to see how the the picture would really look until I had taken it .

I was looking on another forum today were someone was going on about how much better his canon 300mm zoom was compared to his previous panasonic. However due to the crop factor the 300mm on the panasonic is effectively a 600mm lens from film days,whilst only about 450mm on the camera he now has. Not sure why the new camera was actually better then ! Clearly again there is a general misunderstanding of crop factors and effective length of zoom lenses. Indeed on the panasonic site there are those complaining there is no zoom available longer than 300mm, yet that is equivalent as I said to a huge 600mm lens on a 35mm film camera, and how many people could walk around taking hand held shots with one of those.
Click to expand...
And, as of now, reliable tracking autofocus. No mirrorless camera can quite match up to high-end DSLRs in that aspect - but that's getting closer and closer.
 
Noc said:
Hello all,
Must be DSLR, and preferably more advanced than the most basic entry level ones.
Camera and lens must be of good, all round quality - build, components, and the images they produce.
Must have a good quality sensor. Also, the sensor size is where I really need some sound help and advice. I do eventually intend to photograph cityscapes, and by my understanding a full-frame sensor would be more suitable. Am I correct in thinking that ultra-wide angle lenses are available for APS-C cameras? And if so, do such lenses substantially compensate for the lack of a full-frame sensor, or are they a waste of time? What's the general consensus on full-frame vs. APS-C sensors?
I would prefer an AF system which is simple enough (or could be simple enough) for a beginner to use, yet has a more advanced capability for when I feel more confident, as I hope to use focus more creatively as I advance over the years.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

Second hand Canon 5D2. Spend the rest on L series lenses. I'd recommend a 24-105L as an extremely versatile lens. On a full frame you'll get the true 24mm wide, and 105mm is good for portraits
 
The 6D is a great camera, especially with a 70-300 L ;-)
 
JennyGW said:
Second hand Canon 5D2. Spend the rest on L series lenses. I'd recommend a 24-105L as an extremely versatile lens. On a full frame you'll get the true 24mm wide, and 105mm is good for portraits
Click to expand...

Not a lens that I'm a fan of. Bulk, weight, f4 and distortion come to mind. Distortion correction is just a click away these days but the purists do sneer when some other manufacturers rely on post capture corrections and I can see how many would like this lens and lenses like it but I've never been a fan of big fat zooms, big fat f4 zooms doubly so. Having said all that someone I know has this lens and this lens only and people pay them to take pictures with it :D f4 is limiting though.
 
woof woof said:
f4 is limiting though.
Click to expand...
A lot less so, when used on a modern 35mm frame camera or if low light isn't part of the equation. But then again, a photographer such as the latter should probably stick to lower-tier gear.
 
woof woof said:
Not a lens that I'm a fan of. Bulk, weight, f4 and distortion come to mind. Distortion correction is just a click away these days but the purists do sneer when some other manufacturers rely on post capture corrections and I can see how many would like this lens and lenses like it but I've never been a fan of big fat zooms, big fat f4 zooms doubly so. Having said all that someone I know has this lens and this lens only and people pay them to take pictures with it :D f4 is limiting though.
Click to expand...

lol .. the 24-105 and 70-200 are L series lenses, have you even read a proper review? they are fantastic lenses. If you want to carry around the 70-200 2..8. which is twice the weight of the 4, best of luck. There is more than one reason to select a lens.

I can't imagine being without the 24-105, it is my most important work-horse lens by miles.
 
woof woof said:
Not a lens that I'm a fan of. Bulk, weight, f4 and distortion come to mind. Distortion correction is just a click away these days but the purists do sneer when some other manufacturers rely on post capture corrections and I can see how many would like this lens and lenses like it but I've never been a fan of big fat zooms, big fat f4 zooms doubly so. Having said all that someone I know has this lens and this lens only and people pay them to take pictures with it :D f4 is limiting though.
Click to expand...

People pay me to make photos with it, too .... and a LOT of other professionals swear by this lens.
 
Ken3966 said:
Looks to me that the main reason SLR's are still so popular are down to two things;

1 inertia and the need for some people spend a fortune to carry around a huge camera and lens as some sort of display.

2 Poor understanding of how live view works and how much more useful it is when implemented properly than a view directly through the lens vi a mirror with no other information available unles the camera is taken away from the face t look at the rear screen. My EVF has a diopter adjustment under it,so whether you want to wear glasses or not is not an issue. Personally I leave mine on and can use the EVF perfectly.

All the arguments put up against EVF's above were absolutely correct if applied to the available technology of 10 years ago, but now I personally think the situation is reversed. Having tried to use an SLR on Saturday I was struggling with the limited information available and unable to see how the the picture would really look until I had taken it .

I was looking on another forum today were someone was going on about how much better his canon 300mm zoom was compared to his previous panasonic. However due to the crop factor the 300mm on the panasonic is effectively a 600mm lens from film days,whilst only about 450mm on the camera he now has. Not sure why the new camera was actually better then ! Clearly again there is a general misunderstanding of crop factors and effective length of zoom lenses. Indeed on the panasonic site there are those complaining there is no zoom available longer than 300mm, yet that is equivalent as I said to a huge 600mm lens on a 35mm film camera, and how many people could walk around taking hand held shots with one of those.
Click to expand...

Comedy post of the week. Thanks for that.

@OP just make sure you do your own due diligence before parting with your hard-earned. People post a lot of rubbish on internet forums based on their own biases and lack of knowledge, so be wary of taking anything at face value. (y)
 
woof woof said:
Not a lens that I'm a fan of. Bulk, weight, f4 and distortion come to mind. Distortion correction is just a click away these days but the purists do sneer when some other manufacturers rely on post capture corrections and I can see how many would like this lens and lenses like it but I've never been a fan of big fat zooms, big fat f4 zooms doubly so. Having said all that someone I know has this lens and this lens only and people pay them to take pictures with it :D f4 is limiting though.
Click to expand...

Interesting, in which was is the f4 limiting, depth of field, or low light?
With the is I can happily shoot hand held at 1/8sec. The range is excellent and it's a third lighter than the 24-70 which is why I chose it. I don't find it distorts but the zoom does creep out when carrying lens down. It's my most used lens and I certainly don't find it limiting.

One could say my50mm f1.4 is limiting as it's depth of field at f1.4 is minimal, but as with everything, it depends on how you use it and what for. Having a selection and picking the right tool for the job allows you captive freedom.
 
For ken, rather than a dslr being a status symbol, it's actually a versatile tool, allowing many different disciplines to be captured.
 
The SLR would have died out years ago if it wasn't fit for purpose. It's a tool that provides a high level of functionality and control for the photographer. If you are bumping into the limits of your current camera, that should help you decide which improved features or functions are important for your next camera.
 
GeeJay57 said:
The SLR would have died out years ago if it wasn't fit for purpose. It's a tool that provides a high level of functionality and control for the photographer. If you are bumping into the limits of your current camera, that should help you decide which improved features or functions are important for your next camera.
Click to expand...
DSLRs would continue to be unaffordable to most of us if the majority weren't being bought as status symbols. But please don't confuse the majority of purchasers with the majority of forum users - I am not saying that most of the forum only have DSLRs as status symbols, the membership here is a small subset of the camera buying/owning population and by definition have come here wanting to learn something. I think this started to become most obvious with the 5Dii - all of a sudden "pro" DSLRs were everywhere, most of them in P mode, never having the lens changed and with owners scratching their heads wondering where the pop-up flash was hidden. And long may this purchase pattern continue - it will keep down the purchase price of the 5Diii, 7D, D800 and other cameras with professional reputations.

A familiar scenario in this Phoblographer post. My student job was selling hi-fi and tv equipment, and it's always been easier to sell someone an expensive "professional"/"technical" model than one that'smore basic but meets their needs just as well. It's even built-in to the pricing strategy on the shelf.
 
Alastair said:
DSLRs would continue to be unaffordable to most of us if the majority weren't being bought as status symbols. But please don't confuse the majority of purchasers with the majority of forum users - I am not saying that most of the forum only have DSLRs as status symbols, the membership here is a small subset of the camera buying/owning population and by definition have come here wanting to learn something. I think this started to become most obvious with the 5Dii - all of a sudden "pro" DSLRs were everywhere, most of them in P mode, never having the lens changed and with owners scratching their heads wondering where the pop-up flash was hidden. And long may this purchase pattern continue - it will keep down the purchase price of the 5Diii, 7D, D800 and other cameras with professional reputations.

A familiar scenario in this Phoblographer post. My student job was selling hi-fi and tv equipment, and it's always been easier to sell someone an expensive "professional"/"technical" model than one that'smore basic but meets their needs just as well. It's even built-in to the pricing strategy on the shelf.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't see anything in my post that mentions the issue of status or cost of a DSLR...
 
Sorry for the confusion Glenn, I didn't mean to quote you.
 
No worries, I was just puzzled..

I don't disagree with your point that without selling many many DSLRs, perhaps to people that aren't capable of exploiting the camera's potential, the DSLR would be much more expensive than it is. I also agree that many people by a DSLR because they think it will instantly give them 'pro' results and make them appear to have 'the right gear'..

I would mind a quid for every time someone has said to me, "that's a great photo, you must have a really good camera". Whereas we all know photographers that could take great photographs using any camera. Heck, I saw a TV programme where David Hockney used a Polaroid to create some amazing images..

That said I prefer to use an SLR rather than a Polaroid...
 
Polaroids are fun.. and you can shoot them with an SLR.. ;)
 
Thank you everybody for your replies, they have been very valuable to me, and helped kick start a starting point, instilled confidence, and lent encouragement.

I compiled a list of all the suggestions, and after eliminating some from the start, I narrowed it down to a shortlist of 4 - all APS-C, and a mixture of DSLR and mirrorless. These were:

Canon 70D
Nikon D7100
Fujifilm XT-1
Pentax K-3

I researched the hell out of all 4, locating independent reviews, customer reviews, forum threads, etc etc. I made and printed comparison tables, made notes on each, and researched every term I didn't understand. As a consequence I learnt a lot in the process. After several weeks of intense research, which I found exhausting, I made a final decision to buy a Pentax K-3. On paper it seemed to outshine the rest in most areas, especially in terms of build quality - something I've always respected - and from what I can gather Pentax seem renowned for fantastic image quality and excellent colours.

So, the task of researching lenses. As I am a beginner, I simply want to explore the basics, so obviously I'm not concerned with anything too fancy. That'll come in time, and right now it'll be completely unnecessary. But, I need something to attach to the body, and I didn't relish the idea of a cheaper than cheap kit lens. So I've decided on the Pentax DA 18-135 f3.5-5.6. It's described as an 'upgraded' kit lens, and appears superior to the DA 18-55. Again, I researched many articles and user reviews before making my decision. I noticed one can become weighed down with endless research, number crunching, and far too many pictures of brick walls being compared with other brick walls. One suddenly realises that enough research has been conducted, and at that point I felt as if it would be better to make a decision, stick with it, and have faith in the learning curve which will come with real world photography. As many people here claim, it's not the kit, but the photographer behind it.

So there I have it. A Pentax K-3 with a DA 18-135 f3.5-5.6 lens.

Thanks again to all who helped me in a constructive way and answered the questions I was asking, as well as those who digressed and started their own debates - they too taught me something and indirectly helped me to refine my criteria.
 
Last edited:
Well done Noc - sounds like you've done everything you can to make sure you end up with the right bit of kit... but... have you actually picked up the K3 (or another Pentax DSLR)? For what it's worth, if I were in your position I'd have chosen precisely the same end result but the most important thing is that you feel comfortable using it.

For me, the Pentax interface just works and felt right, but we're all different. Although I don't have a K3 (I could only justify a K5 when I bought mine in Jan), I've been through a very steep learning curve with mine and it stood up to the task very well. They are exceptionally well made cameras for the price point (I bought my body s/h for £300) and they have a very eclectic range of lenses. But they aren't perfect by any stretch - P-TTL can be a bit temperamental, tethering is at best difficult (at worst impossible), autofocus is weak, there are no/very few fast long primes or long telephoto zooms if that's what you want.

But there are some brilliant plusses: the Limited and DA* range of lenses are renowned (I only have one DA* zoom which is a bit like having a big range of primes), build quality is superb, waterproofing absolutely works and it's a very small, light DSLR. I also have the cheaper kit zoom which isn't as good as the wider zoom you've bought but still does a remarkably respectable job for the price (just lacking in crispness sometimes).

It's a super camera and and as long as you're happy using it, you'll have a great time taking pictures with it, I'm sure. To complement your kit lens, you could in the future look at a couple of fast primes within that range. The Pentax 50 f/1.8 isn't brilliant (ok as a beginner lens - I own it) although the 35 f/2.4 is a very good (and cheap) lens - despite appearing a touch slow on paper. Sigma make a good 50mm instead of the Pentax. Alternatively, you have a range of Limited primes if you fancy treating yourself. A 90 or 100mm macro might be a nice add-on at some point. There's also the FA* 85mm f/1.4 but that's about a grand :)

Enjoy!
 
Ido Scharf said:
A lot less so, when used on a modern 35mm frame camera or if low light isn't part of the equation. But then again, a photographer such as the latter should probably stick to lower-tier gear.
Click to expand...

Tut tut. If's and buts... and a vague hint of snideness?
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
lol .. the 24-105 and 70-200 are L series lenses, have you even read a proper review? they are fantastic lenses. If you want to carry around the 70-200 2..8. which is twice the weight of the 4, best of luck. There is more than one reason to select a lens.

I can't imagine being without the 24-105, it is my most important work-horse lens by miles.
Click to expand...

I seem to have ruffled some fan boy feathers. I not generally a fan of zooms and mostly use primes and I personally find big fat f4 zooms about as appealing as piles. Others feel differently.

Yes, I've read reviews. Have you? The distortion pass you by? I've been out with someone using this lens and I've even briefly shot with it, it isn't for me.
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
People pay me to make photos with it, too .... and a LOT of other professionals swear by this lens.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. It's a do it all work horse but I have the luxury of being a complete and utter amateur and I can therefore choose what I shoot, what I shoot with and how. Tasked to go and get the shot this lens makes a lot of sense when you're being paid but as an amateur I'd much rather use a 50mm f1.4.

I'm not a fan of big fat and heavy in ya face gear and this lens on a 5D is just too much bulk and weight with too much attention factor. I much prefer a smaller and more discrete gear package.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yes they do. It's a do it all work horse but I have the luxury of being a complete and utter amateur and I can therefore choose what I shoot, what I shoot with and how. Tasked to go and get the shot this lens makes a lot of sense when you're being paid but as an amateur I'd much rather use a 50mm f1.4.

I'm not a fan of big fat and heavy in ya face gear and this lens on a 5D is just too much bulk and weight with too much attention factor. I much prefer a smaller and more discrete gear package.
Click to expand...

You really need to improve your attitude. Many are hear to help and advise. We all choose what we want to shoot with. If you want to restrict yourself to a 50mm, best of luck, that's your choice, you don't need to be a complete arse about it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top