Equipment

L

lesttaylor

Messages
14
Name
Les Taylor
Edit My Images
Yes
I am currently using a Nikon 3100 and a newer Sony 6000 both taking reasonable photos. I mainly take landscape for pleasure and local competitions. I am now looking to upgrade to a value of £1200, and looking at Nikon z5 and Sony 7ii. Can anyone advise as it seems a minefield. Do I need to change from the 6000 half frame to full frame?
 
What is it that you are hoping to get from upgrading to full frame?
How do you find your current gear limiting.

Also instead of A7ii I'd suggest a used A7C or A7RII or A7RIII, all of which can be had under £1200. But that is assuming you need to upgrade.

If you are having to ask the question if you need full frame the answer is most likely no.
 
With a correctly exposed image you'll find it hard to distinguish between APSC and full frame.

I've tried em all and as long as the lighting's right your camera should produce superb results.

It's probably not the camera.
 
As I said on your other post about this:

"
With a correctly exposed image you'll find it hard to distinguish between APSC and full frame.

I've tried em all and as long as the lighting's right your camera should produce superb results.

It's probably not the camera."
 
nandbytes said:
What is it that you are hoping to get from upgrading to full frame?
How do you find your current gear limiting.

Also instead of A7ii I'd suggest a used A7C or A7RII or A7RIII, all of which can be had under £1200. But that is assuming you need to upgrade.

If you are having to ask the question if you need full frame the answer is most likely no.
Click to expand...
You are probably right, i need to find out what ( if any ) are the problems and rectify them. I do suspect focus which ill now concentrate on. Thanks
 
lesttaylor said:
You are probably right, i need to find out what ( if any ) are the problems and rectify them. I do suspect focus which ill now concentrate on. Thanks
Click to expand...
Do you use a tripod?

Your disatisfaction may be caused by camera shake.
 
Nothing wrong with either camera, they might be 'old' tech but should be able to produce excellent images, not just decent. I still see award images from D80 and D90 Nikons so changing your camera won't necessarily improve your images.

If it's technique, such as holding or using the wrong settings, that is holding you back a full-frame or higher MP camera will only magnify the issues.

I do not see any mention of lenses. Andrew mentions tripod, using one will help considerably as will some filters (grads, polariser etc.)....
 
lesttaylor said:
Im in a camera club but dont really get feedback on my photos so that I can rectify. No I dont use a tripod but will now try
Click to expand...
If you take part in competitions you will get feedback on your images, but you are subject to the whims of judges
 
lesttaylor said:
No I dont use a tripod but will now try
Click to expand...
Some tips...
  1. A wobbly tripod is no good, so use one that is rigid enough.
  2. Using a tripod without a remote release seldom improves things.
  3. Tripod work often slows you down, which is a good thing in landscape photography.
 
I learned photography on a Nikon 3200 that someone kindly loaned to me and it produced excellent images once I got a little more competent. I bought myself a full frame camera at a later date but only when I realised I was shooting a lot of low light situations and needed the video functionality in the new full frame body. That need, in conjunction with an amazing deal pushed me into a full frame ecosystem but still, I'm pretty sure I could capture 90% of what I shoot just as easily on a crop sensor.

Before you think about spending £1200 on an upgrade, you need to know what problem it is you think needs fixing. If there's a recurring issue with any of your images maybe you could post a few and the smart folks here can help you diagnose it?
 
lesttaylor said:
I am currently using a Nikon 3100 and a newer Sony 6000 both taking reasonable photos. I mainly take landscape for pleasure and local competitions. I am now looking to upgrade to a value of £1200, and looking at Nikon z5 and Sony 7ii. Can anyone advise as it seems a minefield. Do I need to change from the 6000 half frame to full frame?
Click to expand...
All a bit vague, but the drift I'm guessing at is that it isn't the cameras. This especially in the context that it sounds as if your subjects are fairly static and well-lit. I know that shopping for gear can be a kind of drug, and is often a 'hobby' in its own right, but in photographic terms it can easily be a substitute that doesn't address the issue.

You sound dissatisfied but we can't tell why. Post some pictures.

Forget about buying stuff, even a tripod, before you have identified a distinct need. Biting the bullet involves an analysis of what you're doing, where any failings lie and where a sensible balance lies in the finished work (the photographs!) between emotional engagement and technical prowess.
 
Hello,
To reframe the question slightly if you had £1200 to spend on photography what would give you the biggest improvment to your landscape photos?
I would think a week in northern Sweden would be a good use of time and money.
Alternativly consider spending the money on atending workshops of which there are many to choose from at a range of price points. Perhaps even an intermediate or advanced photo editing workshop not just an in the feild photo workshop.
A good tripod has allready been mentioned, a good one, not a cheap one!
A bunch of filters, ND grads and coloured grads. A good polariser, a six and a ten stop ND. At this time of year even a red enhancer might be a good investment.
You don't say what lenses you are using but perhpas look at those as well.
There is a awful lot you could spend your money on other than an new body that would have a bigger improvment on your photos.

On the other hand it's your money. If you want a new camera for the sake of having a new camera, well I think a lot of people here would understand that. Not every purchase has to be justified or rationalised.
 
I’ve no idea whether what I’m about to say is relevant to you @lesttaylor, but if your problem is sharpness it could be camera movement rather than focus.

Lately lots of newb photographers hold their camera like they hold their phone. From a steadiness pov is the absolute worst thing you can do.

Bizarrely some of these people hold onto this as if there’s absolutely no way they could behave otherwise.

For absolute sturdiness most landscape shooters rely on a quality tripod. But for general photography you ought to be able to hold a camera ‘steady enough’ by bracing it correctly.
 
Reduced photo for comments and feedback
 

Attachments

  • Nymph in the woods reduced.jpg
    Nymph in the woods reduced.jpg
    164.9 KB · Views: 48
lesttaylor said:
What are the rules for posting photos on here
Click to expand...
only rules I am aware of are here:
www.talkphotography.co.uk

* Rules

A summary of our site rules here at Talk Photography
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

TL;DR
You mostly post anything and ask for feedback. Best to do it in the "Photo sharing and critique" part of the forum:
www.talkphotography.co.uk

Forum list

The UK's largest free photography community and discussion forum
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

if its not suitable for work or contains nudity etc, please mark it as such and post it in the relevant "Nude and Glamour" section
 
lesttaylor said:
What are the rules for posting photos on here
Click to expand...
If you are looking for feedback then post in one of the photo sharing sections.
if you are posting an example relevant to your post, in a talk section, that's fine.

One other thing, just one thread per subject, or the responses get diluted.
I've merged your double.
 
Last edited:
ilikebowens said:
Hello,
To reframe the question slightly if you had £1200 to spend on photography what would give you the biggest improvment to your landscape photos?
I would think a week in northern Sweden would be a good use of time and money.
Alternativly consider spending the money on atending workshops of which there are many to choose from at a range of price points. Perhaps even an intermediate or advanced photo editing workshop not just an in the feild photo workshop.
A good tripod has allready been mentioned, a good one, not a cheap one!
A bunch of filters, ND grads and coloured grads. A good polariser, a six and a ten stop ND. At this time of year even a red enhancer might be a good investment.
You don't say what lenses you are using but perhpas look at those as well.
There is a awful lot you could spend your money on other than an new body that would have a bigger improvment on your photos.

On the other hand it's your money. If you want a new camera for the sake of having a new camera, well I think a lot of people here would understand that. Not every purchase has to be justified or rationalised.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bother with graduated filters these days, as if you can shoot raw, you can replicate this in Lightroom.

@lesttaylor What lenses are you using? They are arguably as important as the camera body, if not more so.

My usual advice in this situation is if you cannot identify exactly where your current kit is holding you back (e.g. autofocus/cannot fill the frame with your subject etc) it is probably not worth upgrading just yet.
 
For comment and feedback, taken on Nikon
3100 and processed in Lightroom
 

Attachments

  • Grainger street- reduced.jpg
    Grainger street- reduced.jpg
    145.5 KB · Views: 50
Last edited:
Cobra said:
If you are looking for feedback then post in one of the photo sharing sections.
if you are posting an example relevant to your post, in a talk section, that's fine.

One other thing, just one thread per subject, or the responses get diluted.
I've merged your double.
Click to expand...
what is the size limits
 
What do YOU think is wrong with the examples posted.

To me the first one is over sharpened a little and the second one is too blue ( and a slow shutter speed used).

We can't help you if you don't explain what you feel your photos are lacking.
 
Looks as if you struggle with exposure and colour. There's a discipline to both, and in this digital age there's a harness between exposure / colour balance in camera settings, and processing modifications in software. For greatest scope, shoot raw which gives more leeway later.

Camera auto white balance usually works pretty well. Otherwise you've got to set it per shot / session. Exposure-wise I'd say that there's a blown highlight on the nymph's foot / slipper ...
 
There appears to be a big halo around the guy at the front left of the street scene and halos where the roof meets the sky. These could be artefacts of compressing to fit the site, or may be due to post processing.
 
lesttaylor said:
Reduced photo for comments and feedback
Click to expand...
This is closer to my area of expertise:

And these are all the kind of mistakes we all made when we started shooting people w flash.

You’ve put loads of effort into location and styling, but no thought into the lighting - using simply the exposure answer of ‘enough light’ rather than ‘complimentary light’. The subject is fighting the surroundings for attention because she’s all muted colours and you’ve blasted some vibrant green with flash.

Your model would benefit from being short lit, and could have done with some makeup (I appreciate there’s a load of idiots online who reckon that lighting and makeup can be added in post, but realistically it’s quicker and easier to do it prior to the shoot. )

TBF this might entail some investment in lighting rather than camera gear, a couple of Godox AD200’s, an xpro transmitter, a softbox, brolly and a couple of stands would be a great use of most of your budget.

Selling all your gear and investing in the latest camera and a fantastic lens would not change that shot one iota.
 
Phil V said:
This is closer to my area of expertise:

And these are all the kind of mistakes we all made when we started shooting people w flash.

You’ve put loads of effort into location and styling, but no thought into the lighting - using simply the exposure answer of ‘enough light’ rather than ‘complimentary light’. The subject is fighting the surroundings for attention because she’s all muted colours and you’ve blasted some vibrant green with flash.

Your model would benefit from being short lit, and could have done with some makeup (I appreciate there’s a load of idiots online who reckon that lighting and makeup can be added in post, but realistically it’s quicker and easier to do it prior to the shoot. )

TBF this might entail some investment in lighting rather than camera gear, a couple of Godox AD200’s, an xpro transmitter, a softbox, brolly and a couple of stands would be a great use of most of your budget.

Selling all your gear and investing in the latest camera and a fantastic lens would not change that shot one iota.
Click to expand...

Quite!

Like the recent Apple Keynote, "Shot on the iPhone" they say.

They left out the 6 figures they spent on lighting staff/equipment, gimbal, rig, arms etc in the small print.

View: https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I?si=wwRlm_fSlVTGPBS0


Just look at all that lighting equipment. And how the comments are turned off lol

Screenshot 2023-11-08 at 15.36.20.png
 
Last edited:
What about a Panasonic S5 - combined with the kit lens 20-60 it’s great for landscapes ?
 
Raymond Lin said:
Quite!

Like the recent Apple Keynote, "Shot on the iPhone" they say.

They left out the 6 figures they spent on lighting staff/equipment, gimbal, rig, arms etc in the small print.

View: https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I?si=wwRlm_fSlVTGPBS0


Just look at all that lighting equipment. And how the comments are turned off lol

View attachment 406103
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. It was shot on an iPhone the setup and lighting involved is irrelevant.
 
jakeblu said:
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. It was shot on an iPhone the setup and lighting involved is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I picked up the implication that the Apple advertising of showing the footage under absolutely optimum conditions to lead the casual user without knowledge into believing that's what their shots and footage will look like is very similar to the often pervasive attitude in the photography hobby that a camera upgrade will improve someone's photography exponentially when there are so many more factors at play that this is very rarely true.
 
IMO, a tripod, and upgrade in lens will produce better images, however technique is the best way to improve your photos. New gear is only needed if your current is stopping from achieving your results, or inhibiting your ability.
Once you know that you will know what gear you need to buy.

I used a Sony NEX5R and Canon 7Dii for years and never needed to upgrade till Eye AF on mirrorless became alien technology. Now my Sony A6600 and Canon R7 are my go to cameras and they perform well when paired with right glass for the situation.
 
Phil V said:
On the contrary; the setup and lighting are the most relevant piece of information.
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re right, I wasn’t disputing the importance of the lighting etc. I didn’t make my point succinctly enough. The image making was on an iPhone which is the point of the promotion, whilst the lighting was crucial to the quality of the results, it was still captured on an iPhone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top