1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. NewShoota

    NewShoota

    Messages:
    5
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hello Everybody,

    I'm afraid I'm another noob looking for advice on which camera to go for, I hope you can help me.

    I want to get into hobbyist photography and some family videos too.
    Where the subjects will mainly be members of the family.
    That could include portraits and action/sports photography.

    I have been looking at a few options but am getting lost with the plethora of information out there.
    I think the shortlist is :
    - Nikon D500
    - Canon 7D mk2
    - Panasonic G80/85
    - Sony A6500
    - Panasonic GH5

    Any input to help me make my decision would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks & Regards,

    NewShoota
     
  2. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc

    Messages:
    15,483
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    No
    If any, then that one!

    Of course I'm biased, I'm a long time Nikon user!
     
    NewShoota likes this.
  3. wave01

    wave01

    Messages:
    1,183
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I would add a canon 80d. But also say that iPhone 7 cam do all you want it's a case of what suits you better and what you are used to using
     
    NewShoota likes this.
  4. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    543
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Id go at least one segment down and use my money on good lenses, maybe some accesories like tripod, flash and bag and then deffinitely knowledge.
     
    NewShoota and maarten.dhaese like this.
  5. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    837
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The Nikon D500 is a £2K camera.... other's ar equally expensive offerings, by the quick look I had... A-N-D... that is a heck of a lot of money to invest in something you probably don't know how to use; and without you having the know-how wont take any better photo's for it.
    The two Panasonics & the Sony, are Mirrorless/CSC cameras; which are technically very good, but, more specialist systems, more suited to folk who have done their learning and know what to expect and how to exploit one; for a Learner, they are again, a lot of money for something you probably cant exploit so much, and which have less support for, either by way of lenses and accessories or other user advice.
    Starting out, my advice is one of the entry level Canon or Nikon's, that should be under £500...
    The Nikon entry offerings have a moderately useful 'tutorial' mode in camera, to aid learning, and are a little more compact; Personally I find them a little bit more intuitive to use; but a personal choice.
    They are the leading systems by an enormous stretch; lenses and accessories are far more available, and often more competitively priced, ad there's a lot more user-support for them to help you learn to get the most from one.... AND you'd leave a LOAD f money in the bank, to get out and about and learn to use the thing; and build on the system, with more specialist lenses, or reflectors or flash guns etc, as you find they'd be useful.... But for the portraiture you suggest, I would recommend a tripod as an early addition, along with some spare memory cards and batteries; the just go use, read up, use some more; and learn as you go; then if and when the camera or lenses become the thing holding you back, then you might consider what might better suit your needs, and know both what they are, and what would better suit them; but straight off the stops? It's like pontificating whether you 'need' a Bentley, a Ferrari or a Porsche, before you have learned to drive!
     
    NewShoota likes this.
  6. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    15,230
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I'll differ from some other posters and say that the future is mirrorless so for anyone just starting out today I'd recommend mirrorless rather than starting with a conventional DSLR and then having to learn again/acclimatise with mirrorless at some point in the future.

    Mirrorless cameras are no more difficult to use than conventional DSLR's and whilst they have more bells and whistles than DSLR's like in the viewfinder exposure and focus aids and the like all of these things can be turned off if they frighten or overwhelm the user.... but they shouldn't :D

    I haven't owned any of the cameras listed but I did own a Panasonic G7 which is the model before the G80 and one thing I can say about the G7 is that it's an extremely responsive and fast operating camera and I'm sure that the newer G80 only improves on it. I do have a Panasonic GX80 which I assume is similar to the G80 but has the viewfinder in the corner whereas the G80 is a mini SLR design with the viewfinder smack in the middle. I'd recommend the GX80 as it's a very good camera and it might be worth looking at as there seem to be some very good deals on it from time to time.

    As Mike says the DSLR's have more lenses and other accessories available and sometimes at very competitive prices but I wonder how many lenses and accessories are really needed and of course some DSLR lenses were designed years ago and are relatively rather weak performers compared to some of the more modern mirrorless camera lenses.

    Good luck researching and choosing.
    :D
     
    NewShoota and Hogboy like this.
  7. sirch

    sirch Official Forum Numpty 2015

    Messages:
    4,895
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I would urge you to learn a bit about the effects of sensor size on depth-of-field and noise, some on your list have smaller sensors than others and this does make a difference. The other thing I would suggest is actually getting your hands on the cameras just to see if you like the ergonomics.
     
    NewShoota likes this.
  8. an1uk

    an1uk

    Messages:
    237
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Binge watch reviews on YouTube.

    I reckon if starting out these days mirrorless is the way to go, unless you already have lots of DSLR glass. I'd say the last two on your list are worth focusing some attention on. The A6500 probably the best of the two in terms of focusing for action/sports and there's currently cashback.

    I think full frame is a better way to go, but I don't think it's as much an issue as some make out. For some camera systems there are now fast third party lenses that give similar DOF to a full frame sensor on a crop. As for noise, modern crop sensors are far better than full frame sensors from a decade ago. Also the A6500 can help combat this to a certain extent with IBIS allowing for slower shutter speeds. You also have to weigh up the cost of lenses you'd like, which for full frame is often more expensive. A crop sensor camera can be great to start out with and still complement a full frame setup as a more compact option. All depends on budget and priorities.
     
    NewShoota likes this.
  9. Nostromo

    Nostromo

    Messages:
    1,362
    Name:
    Dominic
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If money is not an issue, then any of what you've listed will do. I just can't see the need to spend that much. A second hand Canon 70d (or equivalent Nikon, Sony ect) will quite easily do for your needs.
    I would start by looking at reviews of various different models and decide on what would suit you best. By no means am i saying don't buy a Nikon d500, but more do you really need one.
    The camera and lens is just part of the kit you end up with, there's also a tripod, flash, light stands, bags, spare batteries, memory cards, software, reflectors the list goes on and on. Now you probably won't need a lot of this stuff straight away (some of it at all), but you should keep it in mind. Both of my cameras are 7-8 yrs old and in competent hands would produce great photos. It's not all about the camera (but that's a whole different discussion).
     
    NewShoota likes this.
  10. Faldrax

    Faldrax

    Messages:
    1,033
    Name:
    Jonathan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Welcome to the forum

    From the cameras listed it sounds like you have a decent budget available, but as others have said, you may be better off going for a lower specified camera and saving some of your budget for better quality lenses (depending on what your total budget is, if you're fortunate enough to have the level of disposable income which means you can happily afford to splash out on £2k of camera and then another £2k-£3k on lenses then go for it, but also budget some time and money on learning how to use the shiny new gear!)

    To help us give better advice, could you elaborate a little on the types of photography you are hoping to get into.

    You mention portraits - if this 'casual' portraits of family / friends (EG Natural light when out & about), or are you thinking more of a studio setup - with flash / studio lights, posed subjects, etc?

    'Sports' is likewise quite a broad subject if we know what sort of sports are you hoping to capture folks here can provide more tailored advice.

    PS: Photography is full of abbreviations and specialist terms - most are quite simple once you know them, but if you are unsure of what anything means, just ask, and someone will give an explanation :)
     
    NewShoota and Nostromo like this.
  11. sirch

    sirch Official Forum Numpty 2015

    Messages:
    4,895
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    My actual point being that AFAIK the Panasonics are MFT, nothing wrong with that, I regularly use a MFT camera and really like it but I still think the OP should take the time to understand the impact sensor size has. DoF is one of the few things you can't sort out to some extent in PP.

    But modern MFT sensors, good though they are (mine dates from 2105) are significantly more noisy at high ISO, it's a simple matter of physics, a smaller sensor has smaller photo-sites (pixels) so each collects fewer photons and therefore needs more amplification to produce a given ISO. More amplification=more noise.

    BTW I agree that APS-C is a good compromise as it allows for cheaper lenses than FF but it is still worth knowing why APS-C and what the compromise is.
     
    Phil V likes this.
  12. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    543
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    In my opinion noise, DR and ISO perfomance is irrelevant for a beginner. The dof thing may be of interest but i would say minor. Such things just stir up the waters and make what really matters harder. With any camera the basics can be learned and theyll easilly do what OP wants them to. The more advanced can wait.
     
    an1uk likes this.
  13. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    15,230
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It could be argued that the difference between the best MFT and best APS-C bodies for both DoF and noise is diddly squat and not worth worrying about.
     
    an1uk likes this.
  14. Faldrax

    Faldrax

    Messages:
    1,033
    Name:
    Jonathan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Surely it depends on what they want to take photographs of?
    If they are particularly interested in getting decent shots of, for example, a son / daughter who does indoor sports, gymnastics or dance, then a camera with good high ISO may be needed - otherwise they may end up just being disappointed with results, and not move on to a more 'advanced' camera.
     
  15. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    543
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Well how about knowlegde in post processing? Wouldn't you gain more in knowing how to handle it in the software than in just getting the next better camera?
     
  16. Faldrax

    Faldrax

    Messages:
    1,033
    Name:
    Jonathan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You can certainly improve things by shooting RAW and with good PP, but a beginner will often start using in-camera JPeg - and only 'progress' to RAW when they have a greater degree of confidence in both the camera and their own ability.
    For many situations, most cameras with a m43 or larger sensor will be fine, but until we know what the OP actually wants to shoot, we are just guessing.
     
  17. NewShoota

    NewShoota

    Messages:
    5
    Edit My Images:
    No
    WOW !

    Thanks ALL for your responses guys.

    A little more information as requested:

    I will be doing "casual" portaits i.e. family and friends, no studio work at this early stage.
    The sports I intend to shoot are Athletics & Soccer.
    This includes Photos & Video.

    As a noob I'm learnig very quickly the amount of information and cost to this hobby can be quite vast.
    I could possbily stretch to £3000 for all the kit, which I presume/read could contain the following:
    - Camera
    - Short Zoom Lens
    - Longer Zoon Lens (70-200)
    - Flash (do I really neeed one if I don't intend to do much if any low light work?)
    - Tripod
    - Spare Batrery/ies
    - Memory Card/s
    &
    - Bag
    - Fast Prime
    (thanks soeren)

    Thanks again for taking the time to reply and I look forward to the advice on its way.

    Gratefully,

    NewShoota
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  18. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    543
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    A bag, a fast prime e.g. 85mm f1,8 and yes youll need a flash, not to encounter low light but bad quality of light like backlight, flat light etc.
     
    LC2, an1uk and NewShoota like this.
  19. an1uk

    an1uk

    Messages:
    237
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    There are some really good budget flashes that mean you don't need to splash out on the brand named ones like Godox. They also often have more features than the branded flashes such as allowing for off camera flash with a transmitter.
     
    NewShoota likes this.
  20. juggler

    juggler

    Messages:
    3,852
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It's been said already.. you really don't need to spend that much to get good results. Save some money for PCs, monitors, monitor calibration systems, backup systems, software, training and prints.
    Field sports are particularly challenging and could justify spending more but I still don't think you should spend that much until you understand what the money will do for you.

    And while I'm here..

    I only use a tripod for portraits when I'm doing something exotic. That happens quite often, but I'm unusual :)

    there are two main ways of using flash..
    1. On-camera: Adding a spot of fill to improve a portrait or lighting a scene on the fly in a room which is basically too dark for usable shots
    2. Off-camera: Constructing a lighting scheme to augment or replace whatever ambient light is already there, if any.

    Don't buy one until you really understand what you can and can't do without. Then you're much more likely to get the right sort of flash for your style.
     
    Phil V, an1uk and NewShoota like this.
  21. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,118
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No
    If going for a nikon then go full frame (FX) there is a wide choice of lenses for that.


    http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

    note some cameras come with kit lenses to get you started

    or you could go for a "Grey" import. That is one sold but not through a main dealer and usually cheaper.

    http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/

    is one such company many here have bought from including myself

    http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-d500-body-4415-p.asp

    Nikon D500 new £1369 against main dealer price of £1728 (£359 cheaper for the same camera ) Not a full frame camera though
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
    NewShoota likes this.
  22. an1uk

    an1uk

    Messages:
    237
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You can't really go wrong with a Godox TT685 for just under £100 (C, S, or N depending on camera brand). It gives TTL and HSS. Then from there you if you need to trigger wireless you can expand to get the X1 wireless trigger, or even go for the more powerful strobes. All the stuff works together and is reasonably priced.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
    NewShoota likes this.
  23. juggler

    juggler

    Messages:
    3,852
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I still think newbies are best advised to stay well away from flash. Learning to get good results with flash is way harder than learning to operate a camera - trying to do both at once is likely to lead to extreme frustration.
     
    Phil V, an1uk and NewShoota like this.
  24. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,118
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
    NewShoota likes this.
  25. NewShoota

    NewShoota

    Messages:
    5
    Edit My Images:
    No
    ...and which lenses would you recommend?
    From what I've read "The Glass" is the most important part of this jigsaw.
    Can 3 lenses be had for £1500 ? leaving around £300 for accessories?

    It's all starting to add up FAST :(

    Had a quick scan on prices of bodies and Lenses:


    Nikon D500 + Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8E = £1700 + £1650 = £3350 (thanks realspeed)
    vs
    Panasonic G80 + Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 II + Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 II = £600 + £830 + £879 = £2309

    What do we think?

    Thanks,

    NewShoota
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  26. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,118
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Ye initially is a bit expensive but once bought should last a lifetime. In http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/ they price lenses as well as cameras

    I would suggest this a 24-70mm lens I have the G non VR ( Vibration Reduction) as the other came out after i bought mine.
    Don't go buying several lenses to start with that 24-70 will cover 95% of what you will be taking anyway and see how you get on with that.

    http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/standard-zoom-lens-63-c.asp
    and save a bit more money
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
    NewShoota likes this.
  27. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    543
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Here is where you reboot :)
     
  28. NewShoota

    NewShoota

    Messages:
    5
    Edit My Images:
    No
    What does this mean?
     
  29. Nostromo

    Nostromo

    Messages:
    1,362
    Name:
    Dominic
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Take a look at some of the second hand sites. Not ebay, but mpb photographic is a good place to look. I think I've only bought two items new, one lens and a yongnuo flash.
     
  30. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,118
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No
    You lost me as well
    you can open up another page to see those links
     
  31. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,118
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No
  32. Nostromo

    Nostromo

    Messages:
    1,362
    Name:
    Dominic
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I think he means, take stock of all that's been said and then review your options.
    Well that's how i read it, i could well be wrong though. I'm not normally very good reading people.
     
    Phil V and NewShoota like this.
  33. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,118
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Everyone has their favorite make of camera and lens , Although I am a Nikon fan no way would I deride rival makes. What I would say is check out the range of lenses available for camera one is interested in. I have given what I would seriously consider getting if buying for the first time and where from. But it is up to the individual to decide.

    NewShoota Look foreward on seeing your decision and photos you take, enjoy Photography
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
    NewShoota likes this.
  34. Hertsman

    Hertsman

    Messages:
    2,401
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It would be very very easy to spend a lot of money very quickly, even more quickly become Mr All The Gear And No Idea.....

    Get something like a D300S or Canon equivalent, an 18/70 ish and just learn how get the best from the combination.

    All to easy for expereinced folks to give advice,whilts forgetting you cant even walk yet, let alone run....

    Slow down, and enjoy the learning curve....

    If you dropped all tha cash and spent a day shooting, only to get home and open the pics up on a PC - how sick would you feel if they were all total rubbish ? All that cash does not make one a Photograper.

    My tuppence......
     
    NewShoota and soeren like this.
  35. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    543
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thats about right, pretty much my intended message. Reboot as in rebooting your computer.
    I came to me as I found there was some information overload :D
     
    NewShoota likes this.
  36. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,118
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No


    I would say good advice but for one thing, eventually like me you want to upgrade and doing so loose a lot of money selling second hand. Been there done it and lost a pile of cash. This reasoning I have seen time and time again and basically correct but not thought fully through. With any upmarket camera you can still start at the beginning by letting the camera do all the work in Auto mode . However progressing does not mean having to go out and get an upmarket replacement, the camera functions wanted are already there.

    Each function in turn can be taken step by step such as shutter priority Aperture priority- Manual -etc.
    Everyone has their own ideas of course but i am talking from experience having fallen into that trap starting with the D70s- D200- -D300 now D800. Whose advice the OP takes is up to them
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  37. Nostromo

    Nostromo

    Messages:
    1,362
    Name:
    Dominic
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I would also look at the Fuji and Olympus mirrorless cameras. Although i have no experience of these, they do seem to have a good reputation. At this stage I wouldn't rule out any manufacturer or system.
    There are some very experienced people on here (much more than me) who will do all they can to help you decide what is best for you. There are also those who will tell you, you must get this or that to make you a better photographer.
    My only real advise to you is do your research, as i said in an earlier post, There's so much more to photography than equipment. Yes having the latest all singing all dancing cameras help you get the shot, but they don't make the shot.
    Take some time to read some of the other thread on this site.
     
    NewShoota likes this.
  38. GTG

    GTG

    Messages:
    545
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Get a Nikon d7500 and 2 good zoom lenses or a few good prime lenses. Fast big memory cards, spare batteries, a manual like expert guide to d7500 or whatever. Tripod, monopod, cases, bags and filters for the lenses.
     
  39. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    837
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Right, well, returning to the KISS 'basics' aproach;I'm not exactly an early learner; I have the Nikon D3200, of aprox 5yr old vintage, their then current entry level DSLR. It came with the 'kit' 18-55 lens, and I added the similar 'kit' 55-300 for some cheap 'zoom' early on. For family/social type photo, this is more than 'adequate', and mst of my photo's are taken with the 18-55 that came with the camera; the long zoom is rarely used, and when it is, often doesn't get stretched much past about the 150 setting, I would probably do very well, with a simple single 18-140 super-zoom 'one lens' outfit. And I don't have an accessory flash for the electric-picture-maker.

    Very tempting, especially if you have the luxury of a less constrictive budget, to buy all the gear with no idea.. but, that wont necessarily 'help' in the learning. And more gear you have the more likely you are to spend more time faffing with the gadgets, looking AT the camera than through it NOT taking pictures, and with so much to faff with, giving yourself far more chance to eff things up, than get better shots... you have been warned.

    A pretty typical newby trait, is the long zoom; making the subject big in the frame, it offers an instant and What-You-See-IS-What-You-Get, 'effect' making the subject prominent in the picture, eliminating 'clutter' and distraction around the subject by not including it in the frame, drawing the viewers attention instantly 'in' on the subject and giving it visual 'impact' ; BUT its a one-trick-dog, and impact doesn't make a photo 'interesting'; exclusing setting and context often makes for a lot of boring, and after the initial 'impact' there is little to engage the viewer further. Meanwhile; the extra zoom, will make scanning the scene and getting or keeping your subject in the frame more tricky, and getting and keeping focus and avoiding 'blur' from camera shake or subject motion will be that much harder, exacerbated, by the added zoom begging a higher shutter-speed, whilst at the same time, usually limiting the lens to smaller apertures, competing with shutter speed to get a good exposure. Net result will tend to be, that you don't actually get any more 'better' photo's for your efforts; you may get some that show promise or seem pretty stunning at first glance, but, you are making problems for yourself you don't need to have, trying to achieve something that probably isn't the best you could do anyway. Then what many learn fro that is often perverse; they blame the equipment and convince themselves they 'need' even better equipment to take better photo's; they start fretting about settings, to help combat blurry shots, or worrying about focus scenes o the speed of their lens' focus mechanism, rather than learning the basics... like how to hold a camera steady!

    Starting small, Keeping-It-Simple-Silly; without SO much to faff with and distract; off the stops you will get photo's; and for the large part, they probably wont be too bad; likely not to be as stunning as you'd hope, but yo will get a good crop of half decent pictures; and without so much 'zoom' they will lkely contain a lot mre context and detail, and whet they lack in 'impact' make up for with the sort of 'interest' that can hold a viewers attention longer. When you start running into issues like 'blur' then a little learning will go along way, and picking up on good holding technique, good panning technique, will do a lot more than fretting about f-stops; and if/when you step up to more sophisticated 'gear', those corner-stones of 'technique' you have hopefully learned along the way to get the best from the humbler starter equipment, should stand you in great stead to use with the better gear and actually get the results you hope for from it, rather than frustration, over whelmed by the plethora of gadgets ad trying to pick the one you think will do the job for you, rather than recognizing you have to do the job, and know how to do it first.

    Mention has been made of sensor size.. this is something you may like to read up on, but I WOULD say don't obsess about! All the cameras in your short-list AFAIK are what's known as APS-C or 'crop-sensor' cameras, that have a silcone chip behind the lens that reads the 'image' from the lens that are aprox 16x24mm square, as opposed to one that is 24x36mm for a 'full-frame' camera, or aout 12x16mm for MFT.. and smaller still on most bridge and compact cameras.... topic can get quite heavy quite fast, but, the smaller the sensor, the greater the 'crop-factor'. Looking at a smaller area of the image projected by the lens, the more 'apparent' zoom a lens will seem to have; this makes it convenient to get a lot of effective zoom, with a relatively short lens, but does tend to make it harder to get as much 'wide' that beg often incredibly 'short' focal length lenses. Meanwhile, the 'Depth of Field' how much front to back focus you get in the depth of a scene,, tends to be greater the shorter the focal length of lens; so smaller sensor cameras have a bit of swings and round-abouts there; they tend to make 'focus' less critical, as the greate DoF means ore infront and behind your subject will tend to be in acceptable focus, but at the same time, f you want 'shallow' focus effects, where backgrounds go blurry, this can be harder to achieve; and leads many to assume they 'must' have to use fast aperture, f1.8 primes, to achieve them, which is a little errant; and again, chasing gear over idea... but still. For you and where you are at, it really shouldn't be particularly important or worth worrying about. And again, certainly not something I would say was worth the plathora of elevated 'faff' that accompanies a full frame camera, to stick even more o your plate to get to grips with up-front.

    I stand by comments about Micro-Four-Thirds / Mirrorless; technically they can be fantastic cameras; but they aren't the man-stream (yet), they do have many compromises associated with them, and the added crop factor of MFT, and the lesser availability of wide lenses because of it, and that DoF issue does tend to make them less appropriate both for a complete newby and for portrait photo's where shallow focus effects ar likely more desirable.

    Question of post-process, and RAW.... yeah... again, DON'T bite off more than you can chew! Again, read up a bit if you want, but it is likely mounting the mash on your plate! Remember digital cameras don't take 'pictures'; they 'paint by numbers' - backwards! What the camera captures is a table of values, that describe a scene, from which a display device ca then 'paint by numbers' forwards to make a picture. The different file formats, and there are dozens, like JPG or TIFF or BMP, are all just coding schemes; instructions that go with the paint-by-numbers 'picture' to tell the painter which tube of paint to fill in the boxes with. (put Very VERY simply!) JPG is the most common 'standard' and the format that is most convenient for looking at and sharing pictures between display devices. RAW.. is a little more involved, and there are a number of RAW 'formats' that are usually specific to individual makes of Camera. Basic principle is that RAW files don't try and make such a ready to paint Paint-By-Numbers board, that is easily filled in to make a picture; instead they record more closely the actual light-radig values off the camera sensor, and lave it up to an intermediary process to turn that into a file that can then be displayed n screen. Files tend to be bigger and more cumbersome to mess with, usually beg some post-processing to make a display image file you can 'share' or display easily.

    Personally I don't have the reverence for RAW so many endow it with; what changes you can make to an image captured in RAW over one captured in JPEG aren't actually all that enormous; and you certainly cant salvage a duffer that was out of focus or completely hoolied on exposure, or is blury because of the wrong shutter speed or poor hand-holding! It IS a step into the world of habitual post-processing though, and the futility of spending large chunks of your life trying to polish turds, expecting to make a silk-purse out of a sows-ear after the event, rather than putting n the diligence and discipline 'up-front' to get it clean in camera, from making sure the shots composed as you want it; making sure it IS i focus, and using suitable shutter speeds to avoid blurr etc. WHICH again, for where you are at is heaping up the plate with mashed potato; giving you a lot more to contend with than you need, giving you eve more to try and 'learn' and leading you down avenues of obsession to make life likely harder, rather than better.

    As aid, I am far from a beginner; I have had a basic entry level DSLR for five years; I see little reason, let alone compulsion to 'upgrade' that kit; whilst my daughter has had an even more humble model for just over 3 years and just finished both her GCSE and A-Level photography courses with it, tackling more demanding 'academic' exercises with the thing; Sorry but I do NOT subscribe into consumer indoctrination that I HAVE to have bigger better faster more, because the marketing men say so, or that whatever I buy today, will be 'obsolete' and 'redundant' in a years time, because they have put a mouse trap with maw gzomos on it on the market! Crikey, I still shoot FILM for gawds sake! Bottom line... IT MAKES A PICTURE!... photo's I took thirty odd years ago aren't any 'worse' because I didn't have took and twist ruddy preview screen on the back! And I have to say; scanned at a pretty high detail level, even with an almost twenty year old scanner, I get digital versions of them, that are almost as many Mega-Pixies as current direct-digital cameras, and greater colour depth! So, even a fifty year old camera, and a twenty year old bit of computer imaging device can STILL delver the goods by way of a PICTURE, I can look at and enjoy, i which the interest and enjoyment ISN'T to be found in how many buttons there were on the camera, or what sliders I twiddled in lght-room, BUT whether I poted the ruddy thing at something 'interesting' to start with!

    It Is so easy i photography to loose sight of the woods for all the trees; and especially more so the more enthusiastic you are about it; getting 'all the toys'; and feeling compelled to play with them, just because you have bought them, or they are available for you to buy... but KISS... there is no need to go over the top; to obsess about minutia, and worry about ALL this technology that is available today, even less to kid yourself that you HAVE to have it, and that you 'must' future proof your purchase, as things change so fast, and disappear up the f-stop of 'gadgetry' forgetting that what matters is TAKING PICTURES.

    The entry lvel DSLR's from Nkon & Cannon are bang o the money for where you are at, as far as getting started, and giving yourself most opportunity of learning the craft, and getting the most out of whatever 'gear' you happen to have available; be that a disposeable film camera or a professional studio Medium format camera, and everything in between or to ether side.

    Ambition is great; eagerness is great; BUT, don't mountain up your plate with mash, and overwhelm yourself with gear; KISS.. keep it humble; expect failure; don't put expectations on either yourself or your kit above your ability, to disappoint yourself with failure and frustration; a humble entry level DSLR and a kt lens, is MORE than eough to get going and start getting to grips with, without giving yourself so much extra to faff, distract, and get n the way of your learning, making more problems than any of it can ever solve.

    JUST grab a camera, and start making pictures, and remember, its the pictures that matter NOT what you used to make them. And it s better photographers that take better pictures, NOT better cameras. Buy as LITTLE as you need; THAT is the best 'future-proofing' you can have; spare cash in the bank; and worry more about giving yourself the best chance to gain the SKILL to take better pictures, as the gadgets will never do it for you. I'll say it again "Keep-It-Simple-Silly"
     
    sphexx, NewShoota and soeren like this.
  40. juggler

    juggler

    Messages:
    3,852
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    A crop sensor may well be a better choice for football matches. Still think the D500 is overkill for a newb, though.
     

Share This Page