Any Camera People Here?
-
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
@Obsolesce said in Any Camera People Here?:
It comes down to specifically what you require... here's a pretty detailed comparison.
https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/nikon-d3500-vs-sony-a6000
I'm not the camera person, so unfortunately I don't know what all factors went into the decision. But I know she was 100% happy with it.
Thanks @Obsolesce for the info and link, much appreciated. I'm starting to lean towards the Nikon D3500, if for no other reason than it can take alot of photos before it needs a recharge. This is useful as I go away into the bush alot away from mains power.
But this is a huge market, so I won't be surprised if I change my mind.
Yeah I don't know about the pictures thing because my wife took thousands of pictures before needing to charge it. I'm not sure why it is so low.
For example, we got it before our Grand Canyon trip, and we took so many thousands of mostly pictures and some videos during the day before having to charge it at night. That number doesn't make any sense to me.
EDIT: She had multiple batteries (just asked her) and she thought it was worth it being mirrorless vs a DSLR camera.
-
@Obsolesce said in Any Camera People Here?:
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
@Obsolesce said in Any Camera People Here?:
It comes down to specifically what you require... here's a pretty detailed comparison.
https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/nikon-d3500-vs-sony-a6000
I'm not the camera person, so unfortunately I don't know what all factors went into the decision. But I know she was 100% happy with it.
Thanks @Obsolesce for the info and link, much appreciated. I'm starting to lean towards the Nikon D3500, if for no other reason than it can take alot of photos before it needs a recharge. This is useful as I go away into the bush alot away from mains power.
But this is a huge market, so I won't be surprised if I change my mind.
Yeah I don't know about the pictures thing because my wife took thousands of pictures before needing to charge it. I'm not sure why it is so low.
For example, we got it before our Grand Canyon trip, and we took so many thousands of mostly pictures and some videos during the day before having to charge it at night. That number doesn't make any sense to me.
EDIT: She had multiple batteries (just asked her) and she thought it was worth it being mirrorless vs a DSLR camera.
Oh yep. That's my next thing to read up on. What's all this 'mirrorless' stuff about?
-
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
@Obsolesce said in Any Camera People Here?:
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
@Obsolesce said in Any Camera People Here?:
It comes down to specifically what you require... here's a pretty detailed comparison.
https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/nikon-d3500-vs-sony-a6000
I'm not the camera person, so unfortunately I don't know what all factors went into the decision. But I know she was 100% happy with it.
Thanks @Obsolesce for the info and link, much appreciated. I'm starting to lean towards the Nikon D3500, if for no other reason than it can take alot of photos before it needs a recharge. This is useful as I go away into the bush alot away from mains power.
But this is a huge market, so I won't be surprised if I change my mind.
Yeah I don't know about the pictures thing because my wife took thousands of pictures before needing to charge it. I'm not sure why it is so low.
For example, we got it before our Grand Canyon trip, and we took so many thousands of mostly pictures and some videos during the day before having to charge it at night. That number doesn't make any sense to me.
EDIT: She had multiple batteries (just asked her) and she thought it was worth it being mirrorless vs a DSLR camera.
Oh yep. That's my next thing to read up on. What's all this 'mirrorless' stuff about?
That is 100% subjective and depends on the individual.
One thing I know off the bat is that mirrorless cameras are smaller and that could be a pro for one, or con for another. So portability I guess.
Again, I'm not the camera expert so anything after the example above is me simply reading from google. Here's something:
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/dslr-vs-mirrorless-cameras,news-17736.html -
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
@Obsolesce said in Any Camera People Here?:
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
@Obsolesce said in Any Camera People Here?:
It comes down to specifically what you require... here's a pretty detailed comparison.
https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/nikon-d3500-vs-sony-a6000
I'm not the camera person, so unfortunately I don't know what all factors went into the decision. But I know she was 100% happy with it.
Thanks @Obsolesce for the info and link, much appreciated. I'm starting to lean towards the Nikon D3500, if for no other reason than it can take alot of photos before it needs a recharge. This is useful as I go away into the bush alot away from mains power.
But this is a huge market, so I won't be surprised if I change my mind.
Yeah I don't know about the pictures thing because my wife took thousands of pictures before needing to charge it. I'm not sure why it is so low.
For example, we got it before our Grand Canyon trip, and we took so many thousands of mostly pictures and some videos during the day before having to charge it at night. That number doesn't make any sense to me.
EDIT: She had multiple batteries (just asked her) and she thought it was worth it being mirrorless vs a DSLR camera.
Oh yep. That's my next thing to read up on. What's all this 'mirrorless' stuff about?
SLRs have mirrors. Mirrors take time to physically move and create a small vibration that can't be avoided, and are the most likely component for mechanical failure (this is why "shutter count" is a big deal on SLRs.) Mirrorless can be made cheaper, last longer, and is more stable. But require an extra digital screen to compensate to let you see stuff.
I use Nikon for my SLR, and Panasonic for my mirrorless. Mirrorless is way better for casual users, and for many pros. unless you are a pro, you likely don't want a mirror.
-
@Obsolesce said in Any Camera People Here?:
One thing I know off the bat is that mirrorless cameras are smaller and that could be a pro for one, or con for another. So portability I guess.
Mirrorless CAN be smaller, but we only talk about mirrorless in the context of SLR-form factor. All non-SLR are mirrorless and always have been, even 100 years ago. SLR is the only body type capable of using a mirror, so mirror-less only exists in that context. So while you are correct that mirrorless can be smaller, they aren't discussed when they are smaller (or larger.)
-
@travisdh1 Yes but that wont go with his budget hence my recommendation.
-
@jmoore said in Any Camera People Here?:
@travisdh1 Yes but that wont go with his budget hence my recommendation.
Are you responding to my response to @scottalanmiller's DSLR comment? Then that wasn't even in relation to OP.
-
I'm looking down the DSLR track. I find with my smartphone that it's too small to handle when I take photos.
I remembered I have an old SLR, I bought a Pentax MZ50 (I think that's the model) years ago, with an extra zoom lense and barely used it. Anyway, I find that so easy to hold. So I'm thinking a small device may not be the best fit for me????
A guy I work with recently bought a Sony A6000, I'm going to see that next week & see what I think.
Anyone know if the lenses for my SLR, Sigma brand will fit on Nikons???
-
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
Anyone know if the lenses for my SLR, Sigma brand will fit on Nikons???
Yes, that's their point. Sigma, Tamrom, etc. are third party lens makers for the big boys (Nikon, Cannon, Pentax, etc.) But all those camera bodies have unique mounts, so it has to be a Sigma for Nikon, Sigma for Cannon, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Any Camera People Here?:
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
Anyone know if the lenses for my SLR, Sigma brand will fit on Nikons???
Yes, that's their point. Sigma, Tamrom, etc. are third party lens makers for the big boys (Nikon, Cannon, Pentax, etc.) But all those camera bodies have unique mounts, so it has to be a Sigma for Nikon, Sigma for Cannon, etc.
Good to know, thanks Scott.
-
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
A guy I work with recently bought a Sony A6000, I'm going to see that next week & see what I think.
That's what my wife bought a few years ago and was 100% satisfied. But it's not a dslr, it's a mirror less camera. If you are only looking at dslr, the Sony a6000 isn't for you.
-
@MarigabyFrias and I both use Panasonic Lumix for our SLR form factor mirrorless cameras. High quality at a very reasonable price. Works great. It's not my Nikon, but it is also half the price.
-
The performance of a camera sensor depends on it's size. Larger sensor means better images but it also means larger lenses and a heavier camera. That's the law of physics.
If you are satisfied with the images from your smartphone, you are basically satisfied with the smallest sensors and hence the lowest quality. You are not really the target group for a more advanced camera.
You have a few different classes of cameras.
-
Small sensor point-and-shoot
These cameras have literally disappeared from the market and is now what a smartphone is used for. A more capable camera is bigger and also more advanced. A lot more advanced than a smartphone. -
Small Sensor
The step up from the smartphone is a small sensor fixed lens camera. Usually comes with a superzoom that covers everything from a wide to a very long focal length. -
Crop sensor
Next step up is large sensor cameras that has a significantly larger sensor compared to a smartphone but not as big as an analog 35mm film camera. Sensor sizes are for instance APS (also called crop sensor, DX) and M43. These usually have interchangeable lenses. -
Full frame sensor
Next step up from that are full frame cameras which are the same size as 35mm SLRs, 24x36mm.
Also with interchangeable lenses. -
Medium format sensor
And then you have medium format cameras that are even bigger and are for high end professional work.
Interchangeable is a must here.
-
-
But you can also go the other way and say you want a camera to use as a photographer. Not maybe for the optical performance but for the photographic experience.
Then you might want "basic" features such as interchangeable lenses, manual focus, a viewfinder, manual exposure - things that point-and-shoot cameras/smartphones don't provide.
A $500 budget is not a lot but will put you in the lower range of crop sensor cameras.
Here you can look at some cameras and how they differ in size.
Check especially out how they look from above as that will reveal the depth differences.
https://camerasize.com/compare/ -
@Pete-S said in Any Camera People Here?:
A $500 budget is not a lot but will put you in the lower range of crop sensor cameras.
If you can just do away with the interchangeable lens, you can get pretty good for closer to $400.
-
Also, lens mounts are a huge weight to add to a camera. Built in lenses weigh a lot less by necessity.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Any Camera People Here?:
Also, lens mounts are a huge weight to add to a camera. Built in lenses weigh a lot less by necessity.
Not really. If you disassembled a camera you'll notice that the lens mount weighs almost nothing.
But build-in-lenses are usually put on smaller sensors and that will make the optics a lot smaller and lighter.
-
@Pete-S said in Any Camera People Here?:
@scottalanmiller said in Any Camera People Here?:
Also, lens mounts are a huge weight to add to a camera. Built in lenses weigh a lot less by necessity.
Not really. If you disassembled a camera you'll notice that the lens mount weighs almost nothing.
But build-in-lenses are usually put on smaller sensors and that will make the optics a lot smaller and lighter.
It also used to be that interchangeable where rectilinear and only had small aberrations which required the optical design to use more lens elements and as such become heavier and more expensive, while built-in lenses could take shortcuts and be designed with fewer lens elements but then required image processing in the camera to minimize any flaws in the design. Now that technique is used in interchangeable lenses as well to make for smaller and lighter cameras.
-
@Pete-S said in Any Camera People Here?:
@Pete-S said in Any Camera People Here?:
@scottalanmiller said in Any Camera People Here?:
Also, lens mounts are a huge weight to add to a camera. Built in lenses weigh a lot less by necessity.
Not really. If you disassembled a camera you'll notice that the lens mount weighs almost nothing.
But build-in-lenses are usually put on smaller sensors and that will make the optics a lot smaller and lighter.
It also used to be that interchangeable where rectilinear and only had small aberrations which required the optical design to use more lens elements and as such become heavier and more expensive, while built-in lenses could take shortcuts and be designed with fewer lens elements but then required image processing in the camera to minimize any flaws in the design. Now that technique is used in interchangeable lenses as well to make for smaller and lighter cameras.
Thanks for the input @Pete-S I greatly appreciate the time spent replying.
I do have an old Pentax SLR camera with 2 lenses, in that I am lucky as I can see and touch the size and weight of the camera.
I think the DSLR is a better fit for me. I find smaller objects harder to hold and struggle more often than not while trying to maintain a grip on the device, there's a non photographic requirement right there.
I don't mind swapping lenses, it's part of the enjoyment of the process I reckon.
My requirements have changed since my initial post, as I have read & learnt more.
I'm now looking for something that is easy to use as a beginner, but something that I won't grow out of too quickly.
I've started looking at the Nikon D5600 & Canon 250D.
-
@siringo said in Any Camera People Here?:
@Pete-S said in Any Camera People Here?:
@Pete-S said in Any Camera People Here?:
@scottalanmiller said in Any Camera People Here?:
Also, lens mounts are a huge weight to add to a camera. Built in lenses weigh a lot less by necessity.
Not really. If you disassembled a camera you'll notice that the lens mount weighs almost nothing.
But build-in-lenses are usually put on smaller sensors and that will make the optics a lot smaller and lighter.
It also used to be that interchangeable where rectilinear and only had small aberrations which required the optical design to use more lens elements and as such become heavier and more expensive, while built-in lenses could take shortcuts and be designed with fewer lens elements but then required image processing in the camera to minimize any flaws in the design. Now that technique is used in interchangeable lenses as well to make for smaller and lighter cameras.
Thanks for the input @Pete-S I greatly appreciate the time spent replying.
I do have an old Pentax SLR camera with 2 lenses, in that I am lucky as I can see and touch the size and weight of the camera.
I think the DSLR is a better fit for me. I find smaller objects harder to hold and struggle more often than not while trying to maintain a grip on the device, there's a non photographic requirement right there.
I don't mind swapping lenses, it's part of the enjoyment of the process I reckon.
My requirements have changed since my initial post, as I have read & learnt more.
I'm now looking for something that is easy to use as a beginner, but something that I won't grow out of too quickly.
I've started looking at the Nikon D5600 & Canon 250D.
Nikon versus Canon is like Ford versus Chevy or Coke versus Pepsi.
I personally think Nikon is easier to use. They also have better sensor technology and have had for quite some time now. So you can shoot in lower light.Picking a camera is difficult.
I would step up to the D7000-series of dSLRs. They are more advanced but actually easier to use because they have more dedicated buttons for functions you need. Also easier to hold and have a top LCD which makes it easier to see your most used settings. It still has an all-automatic point-and-shoot mode, like the lower end cameras (D3000 series and D5000 series).
If budget is any consideration, get a used one. I have friends who could easily afford but never buy new cameras, just older models. Image quality has plateaued and a used D7200 for instance is as good as the newer D7500. It has wifi as well so you can transfer images easily.
PS. Nikon has a huge range of lenses you can use, new and old classic lenses. The D7200 can use almost all of them, actually more than the D7500 can. So you have 40 years of lens production to choose from.
