Beginner which camera

S

Shane feetham

Messages
7
Name
Shane
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all
Just joined the forum and would like abit of information about which camera would be best to get.
Would want a camera that is a good all rounder but more towards wildlife photography.
All I’ve used is the compact cameras mostly Panasonic lumix.
Going to Thailand and Austria this year so would like to get a better camera.
Budget is around £1500.
Cheers
Shane
 
Do you mean £1500 just for the body or with lenses ?
 
For wildlife crop sensor I'd say (for the extra reach).

But the lens is more often than not more important than the body.

2nd hand Nikon D7100 and a 70 - 200 F4 would be a good start.

Plus a std zoom, say the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 if you have enough left.

That will get you going.

Warning, it's addictive.
 
The above advise is ok but a couple of things if going second hand. check the shutter count first the camera might be at the end of its shutter life and get one with at least some warranty.

If it were me I would draw up a shortlist of say 3 or 4 camera and then see if you like handling them.
getting a camera is a lot down to personal choice, get 10 photographer together and you will get 10 different suggestions



https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/
 
Last edited:
Cheers for the reply’s.
Yes it’s £1500 for camera and lens just want something decent that will take good pics.
Cheers
 
Shane feetham said:
Cheers for the reply’s.
Yes it’s £1500 for camera and lens just want something decent that will take good pics.
Cheers
Click to expand...
At the risk of sounding flippant, you’re f***ed then.

I’ve owned dozens of cameras, not one of them can take a decent picture, they’ve all required someone to operate them who has some artistic talent and enough technical know how to create what they visualised.

Sorry that might appear to be unhelpful, but when you’ve spent your money andthe picturesare crap, you,l have a clue where to go next.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
There is no such thing as extra reach to expect from
a crop sensor, Terry!
Click to expand...

There is, in terms of pixel density - commonly referred to as extra 'reach' so as to distinguish from actual focal length.
 
I do agree with Phil V on this one, if you just want decent pictures just take your smart phone with you.
DSLRs have the capacity to take fantastic photos................
However starting from scratch there is a very large learning curve just to get back up to doing what your smartphone can do with a click.
There are one or two gifted photographers who pick up a DSLR and take cracking photos from day one, for most of us it is a long but pleasant journey.
It is a whole different ball game to point and click, but if you have the time before your trip it could be worth it, but don’t be fooled by getting a “better” camera your pictures will be fantastic.
Beg, steal or borrow a DSLR/Mirrorless to see how you get on.
If you don’t want to make the big jump to DSLR have you condsidered a superzoom bridge camera, the Panasonic TZ330 or the Nikon P900, they can tick a lot of boxes, they still have the A S M P and auto modes that the bigger boys have, but save the hassle of taking a bunch of lenses with you.
I am not trying to put you off but you need to put in some time to hone your craft before you go or you will be disappointed.
There are many adverts for nearly new basic DSLRs brought by people who thought buying a better camera would make better pictures............
Good luck with your trip.
 
HoppyUK said:
There is, in terms of pixel density - commonly referred to as extra 'reach' so as to distinguish from actual focal length.
Click to expand...


I heard about that, Richard, but this is a misconception;
confusing, misleading at best.

The only thing that EFFECTIVELY change is the AoV and
nothing else. Sencel density cannot be granted any talent
in the capture whatsoever. :cool:
 
Kodiak Qc said:
I heard about that, Richard, but this is a misconception;
confusing, misleading at best.

The only thing that EFFECTIVELY change is the AoV and
nothing else. Sencel density cannot be granted any talent
in the capture whatsoever. :cool:
Click to expand...

What's this other thread of yours about then?
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...range-sharpness-•-blacks.670089/#post-8044000

What you are clearly demonstrating there is the benefit - the extra 'reach' - afforded by the higher pixel density of your Nikon D850 with a good lens.
 
Shane feetham said:
Hi all
Just joined the forum and would like abit of information about which camera would be best to get.
Would want a camera that is a good all rounder but more towards wildlife photography.
All I’ve used is the compact cameras mostly Panasonic lumix.
Going to Thailand and Austria this year so would like to get a better camera.
Budget is around £1500.
Cheers
Shane
Click to expand...

I think if it were me I'd get a used Nikon D700 and a used Nikon AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 which is a ridiculously good lens.

Although cropped is generally preferred for wildlife I loved the D3's full frame sensor which is also used in the D700. You'll have plenty of money left over for a wide prime lens and plenty of spare batteries and CF cards.
 
HoppyUK said:
What's this other thread of yours about then?
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/d850-•-dynamic-range-sharpness-•-blacks.670089/#post-8044000
What you are clearly demonstrating there is the benefit - the extra 'reach' - afforded by the higher pixel density of your Nikon D850 with a good lens.
Click to expand...

Yes, Richard, I understand and as I said: this is a misconception;
confusing, misleading at best.

I see, recognize and make a big difference between optical reach
and high resolution. This is why I use the D850 exclusively for wild-
life and large publishing works

A TC will extend one's reach on any given long lens by any sencel
count, this is clear, but resolution has the same effect than enlarging
a picture: the larger the more the grain will be visible.

The captured image by a FF or crop sensor is exactly the same at
the same resolution and sencel density except that the crop sensor
captures, as the name says, an already cropped image.
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
Yes, Richard, I understand and as I said: this is a misconception;
confusing, misleading at best.

I see, recognize and make a big difference between optical reach
and high resolution. This is why I use the D850 exclusively for wild-
life and large publishing works

A TC will extend one's reach on any given long lens by any sencel
count, this is clear, but resolution has the same effect than enlarging
a picture: the larger the more the grain will be visible.

The captured image by a FF or crop sensor is exactly the same at
the same resolution and senile density except that the crop sensor
captures, as the name says, an already cropped image.
Click to expand...

"The captured image by a FF or crop sensor is exactly the same at the same resolution and senile density..." Yes, and if that was the case then of course it would be true - except that it is not the case, and APS-C cameras always have higher pixel density than full-frame (of the same generation) and can therefore record greater detail from the same lens.

This is what's referred to as the extra 'reach' from crop format cameras. It's not the same as longer focal length or a teleconverter, but it can, to an extent, deliver a similar result.
 
HoppyUK said:
... APS-C cameras always have higher pixel density than full-frame (of the same generation) and can therefore record greater detail from the same lens.

This is what's referred to as the extra 'reach' from crop format cameras. It's not the same as longer focal length or a teleconverter, but it can, to an extent, deliver a similar result.
Click to expand...

APS-C does not always have a higher pixel density than FF, but often.

But different FF cameras also have different pixel densities

The two latest Sony FF cameras are the A7riii (42.4 Mp) and A9 (24 Mp) - so the A7riii has a significantly higher pixel density - yet people (generally) don't claim the A7riii has more 'reach' than the A9.

I suspect the 'difference' is more than just a higher pixel density - it's the fact that the VF on an APS-C camera shows the 'cropped' image - so when you put the camera to your eye, it appears to be more 'zoomed in' - it looks like you have more 'reach', so it 'must' be true :)
 
Hear is my usual advice. set a budget and then get a short list of cameras from different manufacturers and then try them out. Make sure it feels right for you do you like the menu system. Do Not settle for I will get used to it.
 
@Shane feetham One important thing to consider is actually carrying the camera about.

A DSLR and lenses can get quite bulky, and generally you need a padded bag / backpack to carry it in to protect while travelling - which can restrict your ability to take other things with you when on a more general holiday / travels.

You may well find one of the higher end 'bridge' cameras (such as the Sony RX10 - you can get a Mk iii inside budget, the latest mk iv is a bit over) a more compact option, that's easier to carry if on an extended trip.
 
Faldrax said:
...

I suspect the 'difference' is more than just a higher pixel density - it's the fact that the VF on an APS-C camera shows the 'cropped' image - so when you put the camera to your eye, it appears to be more 'zoomed in' - it looks like you have more 'reach', so it 'must' be true :)
Click to expand...

It’s certainly a more accurate ‘truth’ than ‘wide angle lenses don’t really work on crop cameras, which is often spouted in forums. :)
 
Faldrax said:
APS-C does not always have a higher pixel density than FF, but often.
Click to expand...

Same generation cameras, they do - pretty much without exception.

But different FF cameras also have different pixel densities

The two latest Sony FF cameras are the A7riii (42.4 Mp) and A9 (24 Mp) - so the A7riii has a significantly higher pixel density - yet people (generally) don't claim the A7riii has more 'reach' than the A9.
Click to expand...

I would say they do, absolutely. That's a key advantage of high megapixel cameras like that - basically two formats in one. And you often hear people talking about the 'extra cropping potential' available.

I suspect the 'difference' is more than just a higher pixel density - it's the fact that the VF on an APS-C camera shows the 'cropped' image - so when you put the camera to your eye, it appears to be more 'zoomed in' - it looks like you have more 'reach', so it 'must' be true :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that's certainly a factor too ;) But the truth of higher pixel density remains. Take Kodiak's heavily cropped bird image linked in the post above, shot on a Nikon D850 with 46mp. Would that have looked as good taken on a D700 with 12mp? No, and the difference is pixel density.

I suspect what we're discussing here is really just the terminology, and the rather vague short-hand word 'reach' - but there is underlying science behind it too.
 
HoppyUK said:
...Same generation cameras, they do - pretty much without exception...
Click to expand...

Here's an exception for you (I started with an A200, and now use an A900, which is why I know about this one)

Sony A200, released 2008, APS-C, 10.8 Mp, pixel density 2.74 MP/cm^2
Sony A900, released 2008, FF, 25.72 Mp, pixel density 2.86 MP/cm^2

Same generation, FF has a higher pixel density.

HoppyUK said:
..And you often hear people talking about the 'extra cropping potential' available...
Click to expand...

Yes, but not 'extra reach'.

As you say, it's all down to terminology.

What is wanted is lots of big pixels - but my budgets not up to a full Phase One XF 100 MP system (and it would be rather overkill as a beginner setup for the OP), so I make do with what I've got for now :)
 
Thanks for all the comments .
Even though some went straight over my head.
Will have to pop down to my camera shop and have a look at a few
Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top