Jump to content

Camera suggestions


storie

Recommended Posts

"Loads of wide angles to choose from"? On the contrary! A "40-150 mm kit lens" is a short to medium long tele (!) zoom. Rather limiting as a kit lens. 25 mm is 'standard'. 12 mm is equivalent to a 24 mm wide on 35 mm format. Wider lenses exist, but only a few, and these are expensive!)

So are the cameras: the money you will have to put down for above mentioned 16 mp Olympus will also buy a Nikon 24 mp Z6 with full frame sensor. I'd go with that Nikon any day.

Sorry, I shouldn't post while tired, my meaning was not clear.

 

Of course the 40-150 is a mid to long tele (80-300), my point was that it gives good reach for a tiny outlay, weighs next to nothing and performs surprisingly well.

 

I just put together a fantasy 'kit' (used) on mpb.fr, Oly E-M5 body, 12-40mm f2.8, 40-150mm f4-5.6, came to €850, leaving breathing room in the notional 1000 budget (in $, I think) to either upgrade the body to an E-M5ii or add another lens. Or, of course, you could choose a cheaper main lens than the f2.8 zoom.

 

Please, please show me where I can buy a Nikon Z6 for the price of a used Oly E-M5, that would be a steal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought a used Sony A6000 while 'experimenting' with the world of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. It's a more than capable camera and quite honestly will deliver pictures that are just as good as the A7Riv that I eventually splashed out on.

 

Of course, if I pixel peep or push the ISO to crazy levels, then the A7Riv delivers far more detail, but it requires an exceptional lens to do that, and the total cost increases almost exponentially.

 

That little and 'outdated' a6000 will easily beat any modern phone camera or point'n'shoot for versatility and image quality. So you don't have to spend big to get a camera better than what you already have, but the lenses you attach to it are at least as important as the camera body, if not more so.

 

So. "What lens(es) should you get?" is more the question you should be asking, and that's much more difficult to answer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought a used Sony A6000 while 'experimenting' with the world of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. It's a more than capable camera and quite honestly will deliver pictures that are just as good as the A7Riv that I eventually splashed out on.

 

Of course, if I pixel peep or push the ISO to crazy levels, then the A7Riv delivers far more detail, but it requires an exceptional lens to do that, and the total cost increases almost exponentially.

 

That little and 'outdated' a6000 will easily beat any modern phone camera or point'n'shoot for versatility and image quality. So you don't have to spend big to get a camera better than what you already have, but the lenses you attach to it are at least as important as the camera body, if not more so.

 

So. "What lens(es) should you get?" is more the question you should be asking, and that's much more difficult to answer.

 

So how much did you pay for the A6000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good, some excellent, suggestions here.

 

In the end you, yourself, will need to decide if you want to go to a given class of cameras. They all work, and I would only recommend that if you go to the new mirrorless digitals, you wait to concern yourself with backward compatibility, and simply get a wide-to-modest telephoto lens made particularly for the camera you get. Don't complicate things with the minutiae of conversions, etc. Later on, if you still want to, you can exploit older lenses you take a fancy to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how much did you pay for the A6000?

In the US, I'd expect to pay somewhere between $400 and $500 for the body only (used, of course). Sometimes, some can be found for less.

 

So you don't have to spend big to get a camera better than what you already have, but the lenses you attach to it are at least as important as the camera body, if not more so.

Herein lies the crux of the issue - good lenses tend to cost more than the OP's budget allows for. A A6000 with the 16-70/4 should come in just over $1k. Probably not a good choice for the OP though - the camera lacks IBIS. And if Olympus m4/3 cameras excel at one thing - then it is their IBIS capabilities (requires the correct body and lens though).

D200 or D300

If you indeed consider Nikon DSLR, don't go older than the D7x00 series. A D7200 would be ideal, but a D7100 would do (despite the small memory buffer that gets in the way when shooting bursts). A D7000 can be had at bargain prices nowadays - though whether 16MP are sufficient is up for the OP to decide. A 18-140 VR IMHO makes for a good starter lens (definitely the best of the various kit lenses) - it can be augmented later by the inexpensive AF-P 10-20 (make sure to pick a camera body that can deal with AF-P lenses and also has the means to turn their VR off) and AF-P 70-300 VR.

 

Nikon currently has a sale on a refurbished Z50 with two lenses (16-50 and 50-250) - $999. New the same combo is also on sale - $1200. Might be the most forward-looking purchase option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the US, I'd expect to pay somewhere between $400 and $500 for the body only (used, of course). Sometimes, some can be found for less.

 

 

Herein lies the crux of the issue - good lenses tend to cost more than the OP's budget allows for. A A6000 with the 16-70/4 should come in just over $1k. Probably not a good choice for the OP though - the camera lacks IBIS. And if Olympus m4/3 cameras excel at one thing - then it is their IBIS capabilities (requires the correct body and lens though).

 

If you indeed consider Nikon DSLR, don't go older than the D7x00 series. A D7200 would be ideal, but a D7100 would do (despite the small memory buffer that gets in the way when shooting bursts). A D7000 can be had at bargain prices nowadays - though whether 16MP are sufficient is up for the OP to decide. A 18-140 VR IMHO makes for a good starter lens (definitely the best of the various kit lenses) - it can be augmented later by the inexpensive AF-P 10-20 (make sure to pick a camera body that can deal with AF-P lenses and also has the means to turn their VR off) and AF-P 70-300 VR.

 

Nikon currently has a sale on a refurbished Z50 with two lenses (16-50 and 50-250) - $999. New the same combo is also on sale - $1200. Might be the most forward-looking purchase option.

$400 to $500 for the A6000 body used I think the camera is holding it value very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how much did you pay for the A6000?

I can't remember the exact amount, but around £200 with kit 16-50mm lens (not very good, BTW). Plus another £40 for a couple of lens adapters to Nikon and M42.

 

I had some fun 'playing' with it and finding out if I could live with Sony's reputedly 'awful' menu interface. It turned out to be not so awful at all.

 

The camera now almost permanently resides on my film-copying rig, and works extremely well there.

 

However, I agree that a Nikon D7200 with 18-140mm lens probably represents better value for money. But if you can live with a smaller zoom range, Tamron's SP 17-50mm f/2.8 lens has much better image quality and a constant maximum aperture.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very late to this thread but FWIW, I agree with most of the above. Although IHMO mirrorless cameras are the current and future trend, I doubt whether DSLRs are going away anytime soon. I do expect manufacturers to focus their current and future investments on mirrorless systems.

 

As previously stated, you can pick up a better quality semi-professional DSLR - and even lenses - more cheaply than a mirrorless system. For the past 10 years or so, DSLR sensor sizes have been around 20 Mega-pixels and upwards. You don't usually need this size for printing but it gives you plenty of room for cropping.

 

To me, 'landscapes' usually mean relatively wide-angle lenses while 'nature' could mean different things; close-ups of flowers, insects, etc. or wild birds, animals, etc.. Photos of wild birds and animals often require a 'long' telephoto lens.Think 400mm as a minimum, extended to 600mm or more, A useful intermediate zoom (close-ups of birds, animals, and people in closer proximity is 200mm).

 

There are many 'prime lens purists' and - although I have a few prime lenses - my main lenses are zoom lenses: an almost wide-angle to mid-range (24mm -70mm) lens and a 'close-up' ( lens (70mm - 200mm). I also have a 400mm prime 'nature lens 'that I can extend to 600mm.

 

I can take photos of 'flowers & insects' with any of these lenses though I'd probably use a special macro lens.

 

.Bottom line: a set of lenses that enable you to take the kind of photos you aspire to may well cost you more than the camera 'body'. My advice is therefore to shop around for lenses that meet your needs and take this into consideration when buying a camera.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new review for landscape cameras by DPR. They picked the Nikon Z7 II mirrorless as top.

"..the Nikon’s ISO 64 setting, which allows it to capture 2/3EV* more light than most of its peers, gives it an edge in terms of image quality. The additional light gives improved tonal quality in addition to its excellent dynamic range."

 

So, if I add a 6 stop ND filter to my 'less worthy' Sony A7Riv, allowing it to, apparently, capture 6 stops more light; that automatically makes it a better camera??

 

If that nonsense is an example of the reviewer's technical knowledge, then that camera selection isn't worth a pinch of salt!

 

*And ISO 64 is only 1/3rd EV less sensitive than the usual 100 base ISO of most cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"..the Nikon’s ISO 64 setting, which allows it to capture 2/3EV* more light than most of its peers, gives it an edge in terms of image quality. The additional light gives improved tonal quality in addition to its excellent dynamic range."

 

So, if I add a 6 stop ND filter to my 'less worthy' Sony A7Riv, allowing it to, apparently, capture 6 stops more light; that automatically makes it a better camera??

 

If that nonsense is an example of the reviewer's technical knowledge, then that camera selection isn't worth a pinch of salt!

 

*And ISO 64 is only 1/3rd EV less sensitive than the usual 100 base ISO of most cameras.

Joe, I believe it is 2/3 stops. 100-80-64-50 1/3 less would be ISO 80. ISO stops - Bing images

 

Adding a ND filter reduces the amount of light the camera captures. Plus, I think the point about ISO64, is that circuits require less amplification the lower the ISO. This reduces distortion of the signals. Hence, their claim for better tonal capture. That's why photographers are recommended to use the lowest ISO available for the camera for the cleanest capture. So ISO 64 theoretically would do better than the standard ISO 100 in other cameras. Of course, the proof is in the pudding. I have no idea if this Nikon is as great as they say it is.

 

DPR does a pretty good job reviewing cameras. I've been following them for years. Of course, nothing's perfect. Everyone has an opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storie,

without reading all the comments, I can say my experience with the Olympus OMD EM! (1st gen) mirrorless has been fun. Although it's not a simple camera by any means, it Makes great images and with the Olympus mirrorless system, the lens choices are quite numerous- as you may use lenses from either Olympus or Panasonic/Lumix. SO there are many many lenses to choose and use. The top-end Olympus glass is superb, if not expensive, and Panasonic has more than a couple lenses that are really nice.

 

A mirrorless (and any other camera too) may be gotten used at a decent price, which might gain you some $$ to put into a good lens to get you going. The Olympus Pro 12/40mm lens is fabulous, for example. A good less expensive prime is the Lumix 20mm f1.7 Aspherical II.

 

Just some thoughts to add to the considerable pile of accumulated info here. Apologies if any of this is redundant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has mentioned my camera yet, and so much of an equipment choice depends on what you see around you, and want to photograph. Some people enjoy leaving the house with a bag of lenses and adapters, filters etc., but I'd rather learn one thing very well - Not yet, but fun trying.

I went very simple and what some might consider limited, a Fuji X100T mirrorless. Fixed 23mm lens, lots of Jpg sims etc - I shoot only Raw though.

Unless your photography requires various lenses, I'd give it a look.

  • Like 3

Why do I say things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, I believe it is 2/3 stops. 100-80-64-50 1/3 less would be ISO 80. ISO stops - Bing images.

Yes, correct. I had a 'brain fart' and was thinking of the usual ISO options below base, which usually only offer 64 and 50. With 80 ISO barely being discernably different from 100 in terms of practical use.

 

However, the statement that 64 ISO 'allows it to capture more light' is just nonsense. As you say, a lower ISO or adding an ND filter actually captures less light. And when followed by vague references to an undefined improvement in 'tonal quality', it makes even less sense.

 

Many cameras offer ISO options lower than the base ISO of the sensor, but these usually result in a slightly lower image quality, rather than greater.

Plus, I think the point about ISO64, is that circuits require less amplification the lower the ISO. This reduces distortion of the signals.

It's less about distortion and more about noise - all sensor signals are deliberately 'distorted' by the addition of a tone curve anyway.

 

Whether the theoretical lower S/N ratio of a 64 base ISO sensor is visually detectable versus a sensor with a base ISO of 100 is totally debatable. Especially since the ISO organisation can't be bothered to exactly and tightly specify how a digital sensor's ISO should be measured!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the statement that 64 ISO 'allows it to capture more light' is just nonsense. As you say, a lower ISO or adding an ND filter actually captures less light. And when followed by vague references to an undefined improvement in 'tonal quality', it makes even less sense.

You're brain is still farting, cowboy.

 

Lower ISO means more, not less, light is needed to record an image.

 

Whether lower ISO results in better quality depends, and on what and how was correctly described by Alan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're brain is still farting, cowboy.

 

Lower ISO means more, not less, light is needed to record an image.

 

Whether lower ISO results in better quality depends, and on what and how was correctly described by Alan.

 

Yes, high minded on point responses such as this one will certainly encourage the OP to join the discussions more frequently..........

Why do I say things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, high minded on point responses such as this one will certainly encourage the OP to join the discussions more frequently..........

Pointing out that this was still part of his self-confessed brain fart and that the correct info was given already by Alan, who this brain fart was in response to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, correct. I had a 'brain fart' and was thinking of the usual ISO options below base, which usually only offer 64 and 50. With 80 ISO barely being discernably different from 100 in terms of practical use.

 

However, the statement that 64 ISO 'allows it to capture more light' is just nonsense. As you say, a lower ISO or adding an ND filter actually captures less light. And when followed by vague references to an undefined improvement in 'tonal quality', it makes even less sense.

 

Many cameras offer ISO options lower than the base ISO of the sensor, but these usually result in a slightly lower image quality, rather than greater.

 

It's less about distortion and more about noise - all sensor signals are deliberately 'distorted' by the addition of a tone curve anyway.

 

Whether the theoretical lower S/N ratio of a 64 base ISO sensor is visually detectable versus a sensor with a base ISO of 100 is totally debatable. Especially since the ISO organisation can't be bothered to exactly and tightly specify how a digital sensor's ISO should be measured!

I agree. The proof is in the pudding. You'd have to compare 100 ISO in one camera against this camera at 64. It would seem to me that 100 ISO in a medium format sensor is cleaner than 64 in a 35mm FF or other smaller sensor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're starting to get in to the realms of photon noise, as opposed to electronic noise, then yes, Joe's ND filter does actually have the same result as a lower ISO, allowing a longer shutter speed and thus more photons to be captured.

 

Totally irrelevant to the original topic, but, hey, it's photo.net ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're starting to get in to the realms of photon noise, as opposed to electronic noise, then yes, Joe's ND filter does actually have the same result as a lower ISO, allowing a longer shutter speed and thus more photons to be captured.

 

Totally irrelevant to the original topic, but, hey, it's photo.net ;)

Still wrong, though, because you will not capture less light, unless you use that filter or the lower ISO to get an underexposed image.

 

And then there is that noise thing. Add a ND filter to increase exposure time on an already amplified signal will definitely add more noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lower sensor ISO generally equates to smaller photosites, which in turn mean less sensitivity to light. Not an ability to 'gather more light'. It's directly comparable to adding an ND filter to a more sensitive sensor.

 

Also, the base ISO speed designation is based, among other things, on the best Signal-to-Noise ratio that can be attained from a sensor. Therefore a sensor that has its lowest S/N ratio at 100 ISO is actually better than one which is rated at 64 ISO for a similar S/N ratio. Therefore DPReview's conclusion makes no sense technically.

 

There are many older digital cameras, and those with tiny sensors, that have a rated base ISO of 64 or lower, but nobody would claim that those cameras are better than a more modern camera, or one with a larger sensor and with a higher base ISO - simply because they need 'more light'.

 

For example: I have a Nikon Coolpix P6000 from around 2008. It too has a base ISO of 64, but nobody would ever claim that its image quality was better than a 100 ISO rated camera with a sensor from 2021.

 

Electronic sensors are not like film, where grain-noise decreases almost in directly inverse proportion to ISO, and a lower ISO almost always means better image quality. And even there, T-grain technology beats older cubic-grain technology at a similar speed rating.

 

This in no way reflects on the image quality of Nikon's Z7 camera. Just on the half-baked write up that DP Review has given it.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody equated lower base ISO to an ability to gather more light.

Your windmills, Rodeo.

 

Base ISO means less amplification than when capturing at higher ISO, using the same (!) photosites.

At base ISO, you have to collect more photons to get your image, instead of adding noise while amplifying the too low/dim signal.

 

So you're still wrong, Rodeo. Your spin is off mark, meaningless.

Edited by q.g._de_bakker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody equated lower base ISO to an ability to gather more light.

Your windmills, Rodeo.

Except for that DPReview article linked to by Alan.

You might take the time to read it before going into your default insult mode.

Base ISO means less amplification than when capturing at higher ISO, using the same (!) photosites.

Nobody is disputing that, and I never was comparing base ISO to a higher setting on the same camera. What was being discussed was the merit of a lower base ISO versus a higher base ISO across different cameras and sensors.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...