Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Where there's smoke, there's fire!!  |
Been awhile since I looked at digital cameras, I know some of you guys take your photography pretty serious. What’s the current crop of cameras look like? I’m interested in portrait and landscape. | ||
|
| Muzzle flash aficionado  |
Well, I'm a Nikon guy. My first DSLR was a Nikon D50. I graduated to a D7000 after a while, to get better low-light ability. When the D7000 had issues (salt air damage) I bought a d7100, which is my current camera. There have been several followon cameras in the D7xxx line: D7200 and D7500, and I'm sure they are excellent cameras. Virtually any decent camera will be able to do a good job with portraits and landscapes, providing an appropriate lens is used. I'm sure you will hear from a number of people lauding their own preferences. I would recommend going to a good camera store and actually handling a few and talking with the salespeople. flashguy Texan by choice, not accident of birth | |||
|
Member |
For achieving shallow depth of field (out of focus backgrounds) in portrait photography, a larger sensor is helpful (but not necessary), so I would be inclined to suggest a full-frame camera, but otherwise I am sure you are right. | |||
|
Spiritually Imperfect |
After three decades of making a living with Nikon cameras...I switched over to Sony mirrorless cameras about 1.5 years ago. Specifically, the A7III. The A6xxx series are worth looking at, if you prefer an APS-C sensor. Give them a look-see. | |||
|
| I Am The Walrus |
Agreed with this. I was using mirrored Nikon gear for quite a while and decided I wanted smaller. Went with a Sony A6000. Much smaller and lighter and the camera is more capable than I ever will be. Technology has come a long way. _____________ | |||
|
Told cops where to go for over 29 years… |
Such a huge range of capabilities, styles, and prices. Really can’t even offer much advice without more specifics regarding budget, amount of gear willing to collect/carry, tech/complexity level you are willing to learn, time commitment in use, etc. Landscape - daylight? Sunrise/sunset? Night sky? Portraits- friends, family, business? Natural light or flash? Indoor or outdoor? Photography is my hobby that I am able to make money with so I have been lucky enough to WAYYYY overbuy gear that I would otherwise only dream of. If you are on a budget of $1000 or less (which is very doable) and want a convenient, lightweight kit that will fit in a small to medium shoulder bag there is no point in me extolling the virtues of my “go to” vacation kit of $10000 worth of camera bodies, lenses, flashes, and tripod which completely stuffs the largest allowed carry on bag. What part of "...Shall not be infringed" don't you understand???  | |||
|
eh-TEE-oh-clez |
I'll just go right out and recommend a used Fuji XT-2 and a used XF23mm F1.4. I doubt you could find a better camera and lens combo for around $1000. 23mm on the APS-C gives you a 35mm equivalent "normal" field of view. Works for both portrait and landscapes. The XF23 1.4R is stupid sharp, even wide open. Great for both portrait and landscapes. Just enough bokeh for portrait, also fast enough for low light landscapes. It's got all the pro-level features that you'd want. Dual memory cards, tilt screen, metal weather sealed body. There's an argument to be made somewhere for a full frame sensor, but the tradeoff is going to be price and size/weight. I keep telling myself that I'm willing to make that compromise...but, really, the APS-C sized gear serves me better. | |||
|
| eh-TEE-oh-clez |
Also, a camera/lens is really only about 50% of what goes into a great picture. The other 50% is going to be post processing and editing. To that end, I recommend Adobe Lightroom + Photoshop, at $10 a month subscription. | |||
|
| Where there's smoke, there's fire!! |
I don’t really want to go any higher than $1500. I have no issues hauling gear but would prefer to start off with a do it all lens right off I think, if possible. I’m willing to learn and have plenty of time to do so. Portraits would be family and friends in natural light. Landscape would be daylight and sunset I think. | |||
|
| Member |
I can't speak to the quality of camera or lens, but you absolutely do not want a 35mm equivalent lens for general portrait photography. Ignoring depth of field and bokeh concerns completely, shooting portraits with a lens that wide noticeably distorts faces in an unpleasant way because their nose is a significant fraction of the total distance to the camera closer to the camera than their chin and ears. This makes their face look pointy, their nose big, and their forehead, chin, and ears small. Anyone who has taken a close photo of someone's face with a cell phone camera has probably noticed this effect. 85mm lenses are the standard for portraiture for good reason, and many photographers prefer even longer lenses. Even for full-body and small group shots, most photographers don't go below 50mm. | |||
|
Member |
I’m very happy with my Nikon D7200 and 18-200 lens. But, honestly, my iPhone 11Prohas taken most of my pictures this year. I'm sorry if I hurt you feelings when I called you stupid - I thought you already knew - Unknown ................................... When you have no future, you live in the past. " Sycamore Row" by John Grisham | |||
|
| eh-TEE-oh-clez |
I absolutely get what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. If a person had money for a bunch of fast primes, an 85mm would definitely go in the kit. As well as a 50mm, a 35mm, and a 135mm. But, for a first lens, a one lens, I would go 35mm first. Here is an example of a wedding being shot with just a 35mm: https://petapixel.com/2018/05/...-just-one-35mm-lens/ I think a 35mm would make a fine lens for portraits if you consider the following: 1) Not every portrait needs to be head-shot close. Upper third can be accomplished with a 35mm. 2) You can step away, and crop-in if you need to with a 35mm. However, you can't zoom-out in post if your shot is too tight with an 85mm. 3) What many people consider portraits aren't really portraits--they're more like lifestyle photos. Being a little further away, to get some context when shooting family and friends, isn't necessarily bad. 4) I've used a 35mm and a 50mm to take photos of what most people take photos of...trips, family, friends, pretty landscapes. I, personally, feel that the 35mm gets it done, while the 50mm feels too tight. I can't imagine carrying an 85mm as a one lens, or losing the speed to go with a zoom. | |||
|
| Spiritually Imperfect |
My photo professor in college used to send me out to shoot a specific subject with only one lens. Example: a college basketball game with only a 50mm (or a 35, 85, etc). You can shoot anything with any one lens. Doing so forces you to use your feet. | |||
|
| Member |
I see what you are saying. 1. I personally think upper third is still too close for a 35mm, but I admit it's borderline and not everyone thinks so. 2. Recent generation digital cameras do give a lot of leeway for cropping in closer. I have mixed feelings about that one. Some photographers completely overlook it as an option, which I think is a mistake, but I also think it should be done intentionally with a specific shot in mind. A lot of people take it too far in the other direction, and don't think much about composition and framing and figure as long as they get everything in the picture, they can figure out how to crop it later. I don't think that's a good idea, either. 3. That's certainly true. If "portrait photography" means "general action shots of my family," if the light is bad enough that I want a fast prime, I generally go even wider and reach for a 24mm. 4. For a "walking around" lens, I agree that I wouldn't personally want an 85mm. I could get by with a 50mm but would probably go for a 35mm, too. However, in addition to modern digital cameras giving a lot of leeway for cropping, they also give a lot of leeway for pushing the ISO. I generally go for a 24-70mm f/2.8 (or, if I'm using my Micro Four Thirds camera, the roughly equivalent 12-35mm f/2.8). If I had to pick one lens, it would probably be a 24-70 f/2.8 (or equivalent) if that didn't completely blow my budget. If I really needed a faster lens, it would be a hard decision. I don't know the Fuji lens ecosystem. In the Nikon ecosystem, the recent f/1.4 primes are phenomenal lenses, but fantastically expensive - $1500-2000 per lens. Nikon has a wide selection of optically excellent f/1.8 primes that give up less than a stop of maximum aperture but cost a small fraction of what the f/1.4 primes do (many are in the $200-500 range), so I would probably cheat and pass on the f/1.4 prime and buy two or three f/1.8 primes. As far as the article on shooting the wedding that you linked, the photographer is clearly talented and has a great eye for composition and for significant moments. The photographer also captured many of the close photos from angles that reduced the impact of perspective distortion, which is an impressive achievement in a hectic, high-pressure situation like photographing a wedding. With that said, many of the close photos do suffer from enough perspective distortion that I would be unhappy if I got them from an expensive professional wedding photographer. Admittedly, as a pretty self-critical, analytical amateur photographer, I may be more bothered by that sort of thing than most people would be. | |||
|
| Told cops where to go for over 29 years… |
OK then - here is what I would recommend that hits everything, is within your budget and is top of class, current gear. - Canon EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless APS-C camera with EF-M 18-150mm lens and Electronic viewfinder $1049 via www.Cpricewatch.com ($1349 from any other legitimate source) Cpricewatch (CPW) is a gentleman by the name of Gordon Chiu who arrange "group buys" with a variety of Authorized Canon Dealers. Canon, like Sig has a "MAP" policy and nearly everyone has the same price, specials, rebates on Canon gear. Gordon is able to get significant discounts on certain models. The M6 Mark II is a compact mirrorless camera with impressive features. 32mp sensor and all the bells and whistles to include 4K video etc. Av, Tv, Auto, Manual, Program, and custom modes means it can be as simple as a point and shoot or go full manual and get creative. The camera body retail is $850, another $200 for the removeable electronic viewfinder, and $500 retail for the EF-M 18-150mm lens (28-240mm equivalent) so the package in pieces would be $1550, kit price $1350 everywhere, CPW $1050 that's a 22% discount and no tax, shipping included. If you go CPW you will provide contact info and then within hours get an email with a customized link to the actual dealer (most likely a Canadian brick and mortar camera store). Click the link, checkout on their website and in about a week you will have your camera. No tax, shipping included. It is all brand new and full Canon warranty (not grey market, Canada/US are same market for Canon) The EF-M 18-150mm lens is as good of a "Do it all" lens as any. Reasonable wide on the wide end and good reach on the long end. Like any zoom with that range it isn't going to be the fastest (f/3.5-6.3) but for landscapes and general purpose, no problems. Good sharp lens and gorgeous Canon colors. As for portraits, like Maladat pointed out, 35mm is the "wrong" lens. Portraits are best taken with 50mm-85mm (or up) for perspective. Problem with a 85mm lens on a APS-C camera is the equiv focal length ends up around 136mm so will need some room to distance yourself, especially if you are wanting torso or full body portraits. My pick for a portrait lens would be the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 in EF-M mount ($450 from BH Photo). It will give good portraits and less room needed for framing with the 90mm equiv focal length. Canon doesn't offer a prime in this range in the EF-M mount, however their EF 50mm f/1.4 ($400) with adapter ($40-Amazon) would work equally as well but with a larger size and weight. M6 Mark II Kit - $1050 Sigma 56mm f/1.4 - $450 TOTAL - $1500 Exactly what you asked for, great camera with one "do it all" lens and an additional high quality portrait lens, without going over your budget. The first add on I would suggest is the EF-M 22mm f/2 lens. Super small, fast 35mm equiv with amazing image quality makes for a very compact walkaround setup with the M6. At $250 new ($125-$150 used when you can find them) it is about the best bang for the buck you will ever find on a camera lens. With the 22mm lens, take the electronic viewfinder off and you have a compact camera you can fit in your coat pocket. LOTS of options for additional lenses/future growth. The EF-M mount has a number of small, lightweight lenses in both primes and zooms (highly recommend the 22mm f/2 prime and 11-22mm zoom for ultra wide). Additionally, with a $40 EF-EF-M adapter, you can use ANY Canon EF-S (crop) or EF (Full frame) lens. Complete disclosure - I am a Canon fanboi. Currently have EOS R camera (about to be put up for sale) because as of next week I will have upgraded to the new EOS R5 and R6 cameras. I am also heavily invested in the new RF lenses, as well as Canon "L" lenses. I personally own the EOS M6 Mark II as well. It is my "small" take everywhere kit/system. In addition to the 18-150mm lens I have the EF-M 22mm, 11-22mm, 15-45mm lenses. I don't have the Sigma 56mm as I am not a portrait shooter. I bought the M6 kit via CPW (as I did my EOS R5/R6, R, and previously owned 5D Mark IV along with a few high end lenses). I can absolutely vouch for CPW as legit and Gordon has saved me LOTS of money.This message has been edited. Last edited by: 911Boss, What part of "...Shall not be infringed" don't you understand??? | |||
|
| Where there's smoke, there's fire!! |
Thank you so much for the advice and recommendations, I really appreciate it. | |||
|
Member |
All the major brands have good offerings in the full frame digital camera market, and it is up to you which horse you want to hitch your wagon to. I’m a Sony guy, and GeForce a long time, they’ve been the top in the full frame mirrorless market. Their eye focus blew away the competition for a while, but Canon is about there with them now with Nikon bringing up the rear. The Sony a7III was/is one of THE best cameras ever, and the a7IV, when it gets released, should put it back up there when it does. Since the a7III has been out a while, I’m sure you can find some great deals on them. If you or others don’t know, Sony markets their Alpha(a) line of cameras. The a7 line is for anybody, up to and including professionals. The a9 line is marketed at professional photographers, especially sports related imaging. The a7R line has a sensor with a lot of megapixels while the a7 and a9 have less. The a7S line is for low light and video. So, the most current models of all of the above are the a7III, a7RIV, a9II and the a7SIII. All of them are excellent cameras. Back to eye focus, it is a game changer, and what’s even better is Sony’s animal eye focus. Eyes not being in focus makes for bad photography, and Sony, and now Canon, have some of the best in technology when it comes to this. Nikon is getting there...just not there yet. Still, Nikon new Z line of cameras is their entry into the full frame mirrorless market. In the near future, they will release their Z7II and Z6II which may have fixed the shortcomings. Again, their eye focus works...just not as good. Canon is the monster on the block in sales. Their top dog, EOS R5 full frame mirrorless is pretty much on par if not betters Sony, but they were dealing with overheating issues during video usage. Firmware update may have remedied or help the problem. Retired Texas Lawman | |||
|
Make America Great Again |
As above, I was a professional photographer for years, starting out with medium-format Bronica gear (hence my user name), followed by Nikon Digital SLRs. About a year ago I swapped my Nikon gear for a Bronica system I'd sold to a friend in Nashville about 18 years ago, and then replaced the Nikon with a pair of Sony Alpha 7s and all necessary lenses and flash units. In short, I wish I'd gone Sony Alpha many years ago! Whether you go mirrored as I did, or mirrorless like "VictimNoMore", I don't believe you'll be unhappy with your choice! One more comment on the Sony... if you go mirrored, you can also use practically ANY of the Minolta AF line of lenses and they work perfectly! Most of my lenses are Minolta, with one lowly Sigma tossed in for a backup. _____________________________ Bill R. North Alabama | |||
|
| As Extraordinary as Everyone Else  |
I have been using Nikon equipment since the 70’s and although I’m not a professional photographer I have had some of my pictures published including National Geographic Magazine. Interestingly my sister asked me this same question yesterday and I recommended the Nikon 3500 with a good 18-55 VR lens. You can pay more but unless you’re a pro this camera will provide you with more capabilities than the shooter. Here’s a good independent review.. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3500.htm ------------------ Eddie Our Founding Fathers were men who understood that the right thing is not necessarily the written thing. -kkina | |||
|
| Muzzle flash aficionado |
I am using a D7100 and the 18-200VR2 lens for all my photography. Prior to the D7100 was a D7000 and a D50 (same lens). The D7200 and D7100 are not much different. My D7100 and zoom lens can do just about anything I want to do. I don't even carry a tripod with me, and don't have a separate flash--the built-in one is virtually never used, as I do everything with existing light. I understand that refurbished D7200 cameras are available from Nikon for a good price. The 18-200 lens is a little pricey, but a good choice. B&H has Nikon-refurbished equipment: Nikon D7200 DSLR Camera (Body Only) for $694.00 and Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Lens for $459.95. That totals $1153.95, well within your budget, and is a very competent and flexible package. flashguyThis message has been edited. Last edited by: flashguy, Texan by choice, not accident of birth | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024