I have a Nikon D7500 DSLR and a Panasonic compact travel zoom. Both produce very nice images.

I'm starting to prefer the compact travel zoom because they are much easier to have with you, and you are way less conspicuous when you use it vs. a pro-looking DSLR.

If you are out doing landscapes it doesn't matter, but if you around people, public buildings, museums, airports, etc., the DSLR draws unwanted attention.

Here's a good source: Digital Photography Review

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:


I'm starting to prefer the compact travel zoom because they are much easier to have with you, and you are way less conspicuous when you use it vs. a pro-looking DSLR.

If you are out doing landscapes it doesn't matter, but if you around people, public buildings, museums, airports, etc., the DSLR draws unwanted attention.

I'm glad to see your comments here.

My camera history is not as refined as many others who have posted here. I started with a Mamiya-Sekor 500TL back in my youth. It was replaced after many years with a great Olympus OM-2 I bought in Japan in the early-mid '80s. Acquired numerous accessories ranging from the varimagnifinder to motor drives along with numerous lenses. Even picked up an OM-1 for attempts at astrophotography. Had a nice color darkroom at one time too.

Finally succumbed to digital in lieu of 35mm film with a Ricoh RDC-2, followed by a Minolta S414, and a Panasonic FX-01. None of these, of course, offered anything close to the capabilities and refinement of my old 35mm system, but they were very convenient. And in the case of the FX-01, extremely small and shirt pocketable.

Enter the Panasonic LX3 in 2008 with it's compact size, fast f/2.0 24-60mm equivalent lens, decent 10MP sensor, and enthusiast controls. It was and is a "non-threatening" camera suitable for street photograph as well as landscapes. I honestly don't miss a zoom all that much at this stage of the game. And given its size, it can almost always be with me unlike the bulk and weight of a DSLR or mirrorless system. Works for me.

My LX3 "kit" with, among other things, an adapter tube allowing both dust protection for the telescoping lens assembly and the ability to add filters.


And recently added a ClearViewer to contend with LCD washouts in bright sunlight. Something I should have done years ago. Yes, I'm still using this 12+ year old digital camera, proving at least for me, that the latest and greatest isn't necessary to enjoy photography!

A small or compact camera might just be the ticket for the OP.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
My camera history is not as refined as many others who have posted here.

One cannot get much less refined than my camera history: I began with a Kodak Baby Brownie Special in size 127 film (1960); graduated to a Petri 7s 35mm rangefinder (1964); Nikkormat FT SLR (1966); Nikon N70 and FE SLRs (~1985); Kodak DX7630 P&S (2004); Nikon D50 (2006); Nikon D7000 (2013); and Nikon D7100 (2017). It has taken me a long time to get where I am, but I'm happy with it.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
My camera history is not as refined as many others who have posted here.

One cannot get much less refined than my camera history: I began with a Kodak Baby Brownie Special in size 127 film (1960); graduated to a Petri 7s 35mm rangefinder (1964); Nikkormat FT SLR (1966); Nikon N70 and FE SLRs (~1985); Kodak DX7630 P&S (2004); Nikon D50 (2006); Nikon D7000 (2013); and Nikon D7100 (2017). It has taken me a long time to get where I am, but I'm happy with it.

flashguy

I learned photography in the 90s in elementary and middle school using my mother's Nikon EM (early 80s consumer-grade aperture priority-only, manual wind, manual focus SLR) and then got a Nikon N60 (low-end consumer-grade autofocus/autowind SLR) in middle school (late 90s) when I was a yearbook photographer. I bought myself a Nikon D80 in college (early 2000s).

Over the years in my adult life I have bought a succession of higher-end Panasonic Micro Four Thirds mirrorless bodies and a Nikon D800.

I have really enjoyed the Micro Four Thirds system. There is a great ecosystem of well-built, optically excellent lenses. The sensor is still big enough that it doesn't give up TOO much to an APS-C or full fame camera, but its smaller size and the small sensor-to-lens-mount distance means the lenses are TINY compared to the equivalent full frame lenses. My current M43 body and the pro-grade 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100m f/2.8 (24-70 and 70-200 35mm equivalent) lenses together weigh about what the D800 body does all by itself, and don't take up much more space. Add a decent lens to the D800 and I can add a wide angle lens and a macro lens to my M43 kit and still be carrying less weight.

That said, occasionally the extra capability of the D800 is really useful.

I was really tempted by Nikon's new full-frame mirrorless line, with the ability to seamlessly use F-mount lenses, but there were a few things I just wasn't satisfied with about the Z6 and Z7. Updated versions of the Z6 and Z7 are supposed to be announced in the next few weeks and I may not be able to resist.

Mirrorless is the future. Personally, I wasn’t interested in them early on because of past experience with less expensive cameras’ electric view finders. I eventually warmed up to them after seeing how much better they had gotten over the years.

Chimping is where you take a digital image and then review it with your camera’s EVF,screen back or other viewing device. Reviewing the image allows you to see if image is too bright/dark, in/out of focuse, sharp/motion blur, too grainy/clean and/or taken at the appropriate depth of field.

With a mirrorless, you don’t need to chimp because you see the image in the camera’s EVF or screen back as the image will be BEFORE the image is taken, You just use manual controls to get everything right in the EVF/back screen, snap the shot and you got the shot.

Also, with mirrorless, you get a lot of information in the EVF or back screen that you don’t with a DSLR, and you get focusing points covering the entire screen unlike a DSLR.

There are cameras where a DSLR can be used as a mirrorless, but instead of using the cameras optical view finder, you have to view the back screen to view the image since the mirror is locked open.

I was a Nikon shooter, but then went Sony for the mirrorless revolution. Nikon has been having bad financial problems even before COVID, and I’m hoping their offerings rival Sony and Canon. The Z system is nice, but eye focus - human and animal, is crucial to me. I’m sure they will directly compete if they hope to survive.

At what point does a user really take advantage of full frame versus crop sensor?

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:
At what point does a user really take advantage of full frame versus crop sensor?

Ignoring any specifics of individual technologies or sensors in this or that camera, assuming equal technology, sensor size has three main impacts.

1. A larger sensor will work better in low light, in proportion to the ratio of the areas of the larger and smaller sensors. A full frame sensor has about 2.5x the area of an APS-C sensor (meaning that, literally, 2.5x the total amount of light hits the full frame sensor), so all else being equal, the full frame sensor will perform a bit more than one stop better in low light.

2. A larger sensor will have shallower depth of field for shots that look the same taken at the same aperture. This is because the larger sensor requires a larger focal length lens to get the same shot, making DOF shallower. E.g., a full frame sensor is about 1.6 times the width of an APS-C sensor, so a shot that takes a 35mm lens on an APS-C camera takes a 50mm lens on a full frame camera. At the same aperture and distance to subject, the 50mm lens will have shallower DOF. This is also why, back in the film days, many pro portrait photographers used medium- or large-format cameras: razor-thin DOF.

3. If you need a lot of pixels, it's easier to pack them into a larger sensor, although these days crop sensors have plenty of resolution for almost anything.

That's really it in terms of the sensors themselves, although in practice you'll see more than that because full frame cameras tend to be higher-end, more expensive units than crop cameras.

There are also downsides.

Depth of field is a double-edged sword. Sometimes you DON'T want shallow DOF.

Also, a larger sensor means the lens has to project the image over a larger area, which means the lens is larger, heavier, and more expensive. This is true even ignoring the "35mm equivalency" thing. A 35mm APS-C lens can simply be built smaller than a similar 35mm full frame lens, much less the 50mm full frame lens that gives the equivalent perspective.

If you don't shoot in low light, don't care about shallow DOF, and don't need super high resolution, there is little benefit to a full frame sensor other than the fact that it generally comes in a nicer camera body.

There are a few more really fussy details but they are minor.

Here is my progression of DSLRs:
D90 with 18-200 VR
Canon T3 with 18-250 VR
Canon T5i with 18-250 VR
D5600 with 18-200 and a few primes/macros
D7500 with 18-200, primes, macros, and 80-400
D750 with 24-120 VR and all of the above listed lenses

So currently I am shooting the 750 and 7500. While the D7500 is a VERY impressive camera, you cannot beat full frame cameras for low light and dynamic range. Specs on paper can say that an APS-C sensor is better... but that is not really my experience with real world results.

So my advice is if your budget allows, go FF.

If not, I would go with a 5600 or 7500 budget depending. I currently am selling my 5600 on another site, but if you are interested, shoot me a PM.

As a side note, I know that plenty of pros use and swear by canon... but my experience is that the Nikons are much more user friendly and if you plan on shooting JPEG, the Canons colors are less than natural.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
My camera history is not as refined as many others who have posted here.

One cannot get much less refined than my camera history: I began with a Kodak Baby Brownie Special in size 127 film (1960); graduated to a Petri 7s 35mm rangefinder (1964); Nikkormat FT SLR (1966); Nikon N70 and FE SLRs (~1985); Kodak DX7630 P&S (2004); Nikon D50 (2006); Nikon D7000 (2013); and Nikon D7100 (2017). It has taken me a long time to get where I am, but I'm happy with it.

LOL I didn't want to cite the old Brownie, 620 film bellows job, etc. I started out with way way way back when. Funny I still have them and they sit on a shelf here.
(Quick cellphone shot of them)

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
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.

I disagree, in a way. The camera and lens is about 10% of what makes a great photo. (Assuming the camera and lens are capable of taking the kind of photos you want. A 28mm lens won't lend itself to most sports photography, for example. But it is possible.) Post processing and editing are another 10%.

Talent and experience with how to take a great photo in the first place are 80% of it. The best camera can't give you a good eye, and the best processing and editing can't make a bad image good.

So take lots of photos. There is no excuse not to with digital. And then look at your photos and see what works and what doesn't. Look at other people's photos, including the really good pros. Practice. The best have talent, but even those of us without much talent can learn to take a good a photo by practicing and self examination.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Talent and experience with how to take a great photo in the first place are 80% of it. The best camera can't give you a good eye, and the best processing and editing can't make a bad image good.

So take lots of photos. There is no excuse not to with digital. And then look at your photos and see what works and what doesn't. Look at other people's photos, including the really good pros. Practice. The best have talent, but even those of us without much talent can learn to take a good a photo by practicing and self examination.

Spot on, jhe.

Take lots of pictures, yes.

But be intentional with your experimentation.

Lots of pictures, for the sake of taking lots of pictures, just leads to a pile of pictures that never get looked at or needless hours of culling.

Joe McNally is a pretty big-deal magazine photographer with a lot of work published in National Geographic and other high-profile magazines.

He's written a number of really great books on photography. None of them are "how to take pictures" or even "how to be a photographer" books, but there's a lot of advice on both those subjects, plus interesting stories from his life as a photographer, plus a ton of his published photos with breakdowns of how he got the shot. Every one of his books that I have read I have thoroughly enjoyed, learned from, and gone back to reread multiple times.

He's a big proponent of the take a lot of photos (but with intention, as Aeteocles rightly points out) school, both for practice and because you can't always predict the exact perfect moment.

In one of his books he talks about being an enthusiastic adopter of digital cameras, and how even in the film days he shot hundreds of thousands of frames a year - which he could only do because someone else was paying for the film and developing. One of his famous shots is of the bulb in the warning light on top of the antenna at the top of the Empire State Building being changed. He describes shooting fourteen 36-frame rolls of film in 10 minutes while hanging off the antenna in a safety harness.

He loves digital cameras for the freedom from carrying around literal piles of film and waiting for it to be developed, and loves their availability to amateurs because they let amateurs shoot as much as the pros.

I have known several successful, in-demand wedding photographers, every one of whom takes literally thousands of photos in the few hours of the wedding and reception. It's a dynamic environment and you can't control everyone's positions and expressions, and can't see everyone at the same time and react quickly enough, so you take a hell of a lot of pictures with the best framing and composition you can manage and throw away all the ones where people have their eyes closed or just sneezed or whatever. The average was something like taking 3000 pictures and sending about 300 back to the client.



Also, I completely agree with the sentiment that the equipment is not what makes a great picture, but I look at it from a little bit different angle. You can take a great picture with any equipment, even terrible equipment. What better equipment does is extend the range of conditions in which you can take a great picture.

Just because you can take -A- great picture with any equipment doesn't mean you can take EVERY great picture with any equipment. There might be a great picture that you want to take, but can't (or at least not as well) because of the limitations of your equipment.

Bald 1
I was just thinking ( about three days ago )
What if they made a digital brownie camera ?

My ex m.i.l. had five
photo albums of pictures that she took with a brownie camera,
over a period of 40 years ,

she got really really good with it.

when I asked her how she got so good,
she said that they were poor and couldn't almost afford film , so she had to remember
,so as not to waste film