The Photographers' Corner 2013-2020

[explanade]

Yeah I have the adapter but I bought the kit lens even though it's only 24-70.

The adapter adds 2 inches.

 

[bigreader]

Advice and Recommendations needed.

What is a good all round camera for someone who would like to take up photography in retirement. Not a starter camera as such, but one that you would buy for keeps. Does not need to be cheap, more interested in overall functionality and perhaps ease of use too. I like to take photos of wildlife and vistas mainly, perhaps the odd video.

I have owned some good Cameras but not really for the photography usage aspect. I bought them to design mounts for commercial drone applications and sold them after the projects were complete. So currently I only have a small point and shoot. I used to have a few Canon Lenses, but again all have been sold off to fund the next project. So I am really starting from scratch now.

I think I would like a full frame camera as I have never owned one.

Some in order of the latest are:

Sony 6500 - This was a nice camera, but seemed very complicated.
Sony 5000
Ricoh GR
NX-1100
Canon 7D
Some older Canon EOS DSLR Models.

Any Recommendations would be helpful.

This really depends on how you are using the camera and your photographic interests. I travel a lot and wanted a light camera that I could carry with me everywhere. A photographer friend recommended the Fujifilm X100F, a fixed lens mirrorless camera, not full frame but a pretty great sensor. I am still learning this camera, but it has been fantastic: easy to use, always at hand and it gives great results. Maybe it would work for you.


br

 

[Persn]

After quite a lot of research, I bought a Sony RX10 MIV, a fixed lens 24-600 mm (35mm equivalent). At the highest zoom setting I can take good photos of surfers from the shore or birds at quite a distance. It also has a fast auto focus system. I have had the camera for about six months and have been very happy with the quality of photos and features. Cost was about $1700, expensive for a bridge type camera but very reasonable compared to the lenses I would need to make my old Nikon D7000 as versatile as the Sony. It also has 20.1 MP whereas the Nikon had only 16.2 MP. It has video features also but frankly I have not used them.

It is hardly a professional’s camera but it is a great all-around performer and an easy traveler. And the best thing about it is you always have a powerful zoom available without changing lenses.

 

[Ronstar]

After quite a lot of research, I bought a Sony RX10 MIV, a fixed lens 24-600 mm (35mm equivalent). At the highest zoom setting I can take good photos of surfers from the shore or birds at quite a distance. It also has a fast auto focus system. I have had the camera for about six months and have been very happy with the quality of photos and features. Cost was about $1700, expensive for a bridge type camera but very reasonable compared to the lenses I would need to make my old Nikon D7000 as versatile as the Sony. It also has 20.1 MP whereas the Nikon had only 16.2 MP. It has video features also but frankly I have not used them.

It is hardly a professional’s camera but it is a great all-around performer and an easy traveler. And the best thing about it is you always have a powerful zoom available without changing lenses.

Very nice camera! I've had 2 Sony RX100's over the past 5 years. I've been satisfied with them.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I can see that I have a lot of research and reading to do. I think the common denominator is Mirrorless. The Variables are Pixel Count, Interchangeable lenses or not. I am not concerned about weight as much.

Features I would like are (Please let me know if I am missing anything important):

Image stabilization system in body or lens if fixed.
Really Good AF system (I read there are 2 types)
I really would like a full frame (more of a desire as I have never owned one before)
Large screen (Hopefully manageable menus)

Can a Camera's MPs be controlled. What I mean is if it is say 42mp, can it be set below that for certain applications, say 24mps?

 

[Freedom56]

Can a Camera's MPs be controlled. What I mean is if it is say 42mp, can it be set below that for certain applications, say 24mps?

All digital cameras allow you to lower your capture resolution. If you want a great deal on a camera, buy it in November around Black Friday. The best discounts are available at that time. It's also a good idea to buy a camera that has been on the market after the first firmware update. Which means, don't buy the latest just released model. If this is your first real camera (I don't count smartphones as cameras, I feel sorry for people who use them for photography), you may just want to start with a bridge camera like the Sony RX10 or the Lumix FZ1000 to keep it simple.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

If this is your first real camera (I don't count smartphones as cameras, I feel sorry for people who use them for photography), you may just want to start with a bridge camera like the Sony RX10 or the Lumix FZ1000 to keep it simple.

Definitely not my first. I have owned all those in the list in the OP and more, I just really did not use them full time for pleasure as they were mounted on drones or gimbals.

Most recently, I did have and use the Sony A6500 for a while, but I was not really into photography as a hobby at that time so I ended up selling it. In retrospect I probably should have kept it. But my desire to own a full frame got the better of me.

 

[explanade]

All digital cameras allow you to lower your capture resolution. If you want a great deal on a camera, buy it in November around Black Friday. The best discounts are available at that time. It's also a good idea to buy a camera that has been on the market after the first firmware update. Which means, don't buy the latest just released model. If this is your first real camera (I don't count smartphones as cameras, I feel sorry for people who use them for photography), you may just want to start with a bridge camera like the Sony RX10 or the Lumix FZ1000 to keep it simple.

Yeah you can choose a 16:9 format instead of the 3:2 and you will have lower resolution.

But with full frame cameras, they usually have a cropped APS-C mode as well which are at lower resolution.

 

[ggbutcher]

Recently procured a Nikon Z6 with the 24-70/4 kit lens, and I'm just loving it:

- Full frame 24MP: sweet spot for me regarding resolution versus file size
- Low-light performance: between the sensor and the IBIS stabilization, I can shoot hand-held down to 1/10sec.
- Highlight-weighted matrix metering: On-the-run exposure that doesn't blow the highlights. Does take some post processing to pull up the shadows, but well-worth the effort.

For what it's worth...

 

[RonBoyd]

(I don't count smartphones as cameras, I feel sorry for people who use them for photography)

Oh! How snobbish it that. Of course, they are cameras and they are used in photography even if only because of the #1 rule -- "the only bad picture is the one not taken." In any event, there are many professional photographers (you know, the ones that make a living at it) that make great use of their cell phone cameras.

 

[explanade]

Recently procured a Nikon Z6 with the 24-70/4 kit lens, and I'm just loving it:

- Full frame 24MP: sweet spot for me regarding resolution versus file size
- Low-light performance: between the sensor and the IBIS stabilization, I can shoot hand-held down to 1/10sec.
- Highlight-weighted matrix metering: On-the-run exposure that doesn't blow the highlights. Does take some post processing to pull up the shadows, but well-worth the effort.

For what it's worth...

I have the Z7. I took some hand held shots in cathedrals, probably tried to keep it no slower than 1/25 or so. I haven't processed the shots yet so we'll see if I managed to avoid blur.

 

[Freedom56]

Oh! How snobbish it that. Of course, they are cameras and they are used in photography even if only because of the #1 rule -- "the only bad picture is the one not taken." In any event, there are many professional photographers (you know, the ones that make a living at it) that make great use of their cell phone cameras.

Sorry just my observations from travelling the world and observing people with smartphones. There is a big difference between taking a picture with correct focus and exposure (very few people are doing that) and holding a smartphone on a selfie stick and snapping a picture or taking a video (the vast majority of people are doing that). The former is photography I don't know what to call the latter, maybe Instagram/facebook modelling. I don't know too many professionals using a smartphone as their primary tool for photography. For that matter, you really have to be outstanding these days to make a living as a photographer. It is a profession that is becoming extinct as fewer and fewer people use their services as cameras have become more and more sophisticated. Sorry, but the vast majority of smartphone users don't know how to take photos and videos. They don't even understand basic composition and exposure control. All they want to do is take a selfie photo or video in front of an iconic landmark and move onto the next one. I see that everywhere I go. That isn't photography.

 

[Freedom56]

Definitely not my first. I have owned all those in the list in the OP and more, I just really did not use them full time for pleasure as they were mounted on drones or gimbals.

Most recently, I did have and use the Sony A6500 for a while, but I was not really into photography as a hobby at that time so I ended up selling it. In retrospect I probably should have kept it. But my desire to own a full frame got the better of me.

In that case, the Sony full frame cameras are the best value when you consider the quality and lens choices.

 

[explanade]

Sorry just my observations from travelling the world and observing people with smartphones. There is a big difference between taking a picture with correct focus and exposure (very few people are doing that) and holding a smartphone on a selfie stick and snapping a picture or taking a video (the vast majority of people are doing that). The former is photography I don't know what to call the latter, maybe Instagram/facebook modelling. I don't know too many professionals using a smartphone as their primary tool for photography. For that matter, you really have to be outstanding these days to make a living as a photographer. It is a profession that is becoming extinct as fewer and fewer people use their services as cameras have become more and more sophisticated. Sorry, but the vast majority of smartphone users don't know how to take photos and videos. They don't even understand basic composition and exposure control. All they want to do is take a selfie photo or video in front of an iconic landmark and move onto the next one. I see that everywhere I go. That isn't photography.

I lug my heavy gear around all over the world. The same places I'm taking pictures there are hundreds of others taking pictures with their phones.

I use my iPhone for some pictures too, to complement the ones I take with the DSLR

Of course the DSLR pictures have better dynamic range, resolution, color, etc

But the iPhone ones aren't bad, especially if you're mostly viewing them on a computer screen, which is my case, I haven't done any large prints.

And for most people, phone pictures are "good enough" and show that they were at particular places. They will likely be viewing them on their phone screens not even a large computer monitor.

They're not trying to make art, just a memento of various times in their lives, kind of like the old Kodak Instamatics that people used to buy.

Those snapshot images have just as much impact on their memories as a high resolution tack sharp photo does.

 

[Freedom56]

I lug my heavy gear around all over the world. The same places I'm taking pictures there are hundreds of others taking pictures with their phones.

I use my iPhone for some pictures too, to complement the ones I take with the DSLR

Of course the DSLR pictures have better dynamic range, resolution, color, etc

But the iPhone ones aren't bad, especially if you're mostly viewing them on a computer screen, which is my case, I haven't done any large prints.

And for most people, phone pictures are "good enough" and show that they were at particular places. They will likely be viewing them on their phone screens not even a large computer monitor.

They're not trying to make art, just a memento of various times in their lives, kind of like the old Kodak Instamatics that people used to buy.

Those snapshot images have just as much impact on their memories as a high resolution tack sharp photo does.

I have lightened my camera equipment load considerably by switching to a M43 camera system and leaving my Canon DSLR and lenses behind. Now I can use a lighter and more compact lenses, tripods, gimbals, and smaller camera sling backpacks when I travel. I shoot mostly video and time lapse for display on 4K TVs.

People can do what they want with their smartphones. I sometimes take photos of receipts or rental car damage photos when I pick a car up. It is convenient. If people want photos of their heads in front of a postage stamp size monument, that's okay with me as long as they don't get in the way of my shot. People are free to do what they want. I just don't consider it photography.

We were at a wedding in France earlier this year, I was shocked to see that the wedding photos were being taken by the groom's brother with an Iphone. The family spent a lot of money for this wedding but for whatever reason didn't hire a photographer or videographer. The groom was convinced that an Iphone could do the job. I shot some video of the wedding in 4K with my Lumix camera and lenses. The results were spectacular. So much so that the bride and groom (whom we have know for a long time) contacted us for our video as the photos with the Iphone were less than spectacular. They even created their their digital wedding album from screen captures of the video I took.

There are times when you can use a smartphone to take a picture for convenience. But there are times where they just don't deliver the results.

 

[explanade]

Speaking of time lapses, I've gotten good time lapses from capturing on my iPhone for 3-5 minutes.

Enough to see the clouds move.

 

[Freedom56]

Speaking of time lapses, I've gotten good time lapses from capturing on my iPhone for 3-5 minutes.

Enough to see the clouds move.

Can your Iphone shoot a time-lapse like this one? This was shot with a $300 Panasonic Lumix bridge camera.

 

[Walt34]

And for most people, phone pictures are "good enough" and show that they were at particular places. They will likely be viewing them on their phone screens not even a large computer monitor.

They're not trying to make art, just a memento of various times in their lives, kind of like the old Kodak Instamatics that people used to buy.

More than one relative has commented that they can always tell my photos from other's at family events. That's because I use a DSLR, the appropriate lens, additional lighting if needed, and know the difference between an f-stop and ISO.

Given their light weight, small size, and purpose secondary to the phone, the images taken by cell phone cameras are truly impressive given their limitations. But those limitations are severe. And the disdain is rightfully reserved not for the equipment, but for those who don't even know there is a difference.

That said, there is no quarrel that "the best camera is the one you have with you".

 

[explanade]

Can your Iphone shoot a time-lapse like this one? This was shot with a $300 Panasonic Lumix bridge camera.

No but when I'm going from point to point, trying to cover a lot of ground, I can get a capture in 3-5 minutes, no tripod, no post-processing.

I have also captured for 20-40 minutes sometimes but these are often places full of people so they walk in front of your camera and so on when I'm trying to capture a distant landscape.


Hey I enjoy my big camera photos too. But I only carry it around on my trips, rarely on a day to day basis at home.

 

[NW-Bound]

I have no illusion that a fancy camera would turn me into a protégé of Ansel Adams.

Thought about getting a DSLR a few times, then decided that a pocket camera was all I needed to take travel snapshots, when I wanted something better than could be taken with a smartphone. Even with this little camera, the limitation that shows up in the results is more mine than its.

 

[Freedom56]

But those limitations are severe. And the disdain is rightfully reserved not for the equipment, but for those who don't even know there is a difference.

I will also add that the vast majority of people taking pictures and video with smartphones shoot in portrait mode (9 x 16) whereas all monitors and TVs display in 16 x 9. Then they wonder why their photos or videos look strange with those big black bars on the left and right side when they display them on a monitor or TV.

These two articles discuss what smartphones have done to photography.

https://sleeklens.com/are-camera-phones-ruining-photography/

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/dec/13/death-of-photography-camera-phones

 

[Ronstar]

Can your Iphone shoot a time-lapse like this one? This was shot with a $300 Panasonic Lumix bridge camera.

I've never shot a time-lapse, and didn't know that an iPhone could do a time lapse until I just looked. I'll try a timelapse this weekend with an iPhone and Sony RX100 and see what happens. I'm 100% sure neither will be as good as yours.

 

[easysurfer]

I have no illusion that a fancy camera would turn me into a protégé of Ansel Adams.

Thought about getting a DSLR a few times, then decided that a pocket camera was all I needed to take travel snapshots, when I wanted something better than could be taken with a smartphone. Even with this little camera, the limitation that shows up in the results is more mine than its.

As the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you.

 

[explanade]

I have no illusion that a fancy camera would turn me into a protégé of Ansel Adams.

Thought about getting a DSLR a few times, then decided that a pocket camera was all I needed to take travel snapshots, when I wanted something better than could be taken with a smartphone. Even with this little camera, the limitation that shows up in the results is more mine than its.

Yeah but you have a lot of ceiling to improve and try out types of things you may not have considered before.

High end cameras are one of the things that a lot of engineers gravitate to, as one of their first toys if they already have a fancy car or aren't too interested in cars.

 

[Freedom56]

I've never shot a time-lapse, and didn't know that an iPhone could do a time lapse until I just looked. I'll try a timelapse this weekend with an iPhone and Sony RX100 and see what happens. I'm 100% sure neither will be as good as yours.

You already take superb still photos so that's 90% of the effort. Just use an intervalometer (if you don't already have one built into your camera) and shoot 30 pictures for every second of your time lapse at intervals that exceed your exposure time by at least 1/2 second. Just sit back and relax while the camera does the work and take in the scenery. Take the shot at multiple angles. If your camera does not generate time lapse videos directly from the photos, use software such as Lightroom to generate the time lapse video. Edit your video clips together and add a background track and then magic happens.
I started with sunrises and sunsets with objects in the foreground. Then I did many time lapse videos of the milky way which can be incredible with a nice foreground object (like your photo). Now I use time lapse clips in my video projects for effect or create entire videos using time lapse.

I decided that during my early retirement I would focus on my interests, photography, video, and music along with travel. One advantage we have living around Los Angeles is that we are in one of the world's largest movie set with plenty of support for my hobbies.