General Photography Thread

[rousseau]

No pics to post but..

I'm going on the trip of a lifetime at the end of September and I'm thinking about upgrading my digital camera. Could anyone point me in the right direction for something in the 400 - 600 range? I don't need fireworks, just an all around solid entry-level camera.

I like the info available here. Cheaper cameras mean giving and taking on what you really want verses what you are willing to give up.

Thanks.

I think I may have to spend some time researching when I get a chance. All I know that I *want* at this point is for whatever is taking the pictures I want to not screw it up. Crispness and clarity would also be nice.

My current digital camera is over 10 years old and is likely outclassed by my phone. I've heard I'll get an edge from a modern, entry-level DSLR over the phone, though.

 

[Toni]

No pics to post but..

I'm going on the trip of a lifetime at the end of September and I'm thinking about upgrading my digital camera. Could anyone point me in the right direction for something in the 400 - 600 range? I don't need fireworks, just an all around solid entry-level camera.

I like the info available here. Cheaper cameras mean giving and taking on what you really want verses what you are willing to give up.

I have older models of Nikon and Canon that I've really liked. Easy to use, versatile, convenient. New Nikon cameras now have instant bridging to phone or tablet for instant sharing of photos, which seems like it would be convenient.

One of the things I'm really looking forward to about retirement is being able to spend more time actually learning more about the capabilities of my current cameras and how to make the best use of them ===and hopefully getting into some others.

 

[ruby sparks]

Phones make all of the decisions and make with the post processing. There is no artistic effort with a phone camera.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to that point, but I respectfully disagree.

Unless you only use your SLR on fully manual, then you are getting 'automatic assistance'. Heck, even using a zoom lens is arguably 'cheating' (though I myself don't see that as a problem). It's all on a spectrum. Even Canaletto apparently used a camera obscura when painting.

There is imo plenty of room for creativity. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for me, the key artistic skill is in the seeing and/or composing of the shot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Phones make all of the decisions and make with the post processing. There is no artistic effort with a phone camera.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to that point, but I respectfully disagree.

Unless you only use your SLR on fully manual, then you are getting 'automatic assistance'.

The comparison is only accurate if you are shooting in P mode. Personally, I almost exclusively shoot in M Mode. Granted, there is help in the camera for things like dynamic resolution and white balance. But if you use a camera, it is wholly automatic... and the pic is mostly about where you are, than photography.

There is imo plenty of room for creativity. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for me, the key artistic skill is in the seeing and/or composing of the shot.

I remember not knowing enough about photography back in the day (compared to my woeful level these days) and having a shot composed that was magazine worthy. To the eye, it was brilliant! To a person who knew how to take a picture, it'd win contests. My shot sucked ass and was completely wrong, and quite humbling. Had I had a Galaxy s8+ HDR probably would have come out perfectly. But at that point, who cares. If anyone can take the pic thanks to technology, who cares.

 

[ruby sparks]

The comparison is only accurate if you are shooting in P mode. Personally, I almost exclusively shoot in M Mode. Granted, there is help in the camera for things like dynamic resolution and white balance. But if you use a camera, it is wholly automatic... and the pic is mostly about where you are, than photography.

There is imo plenty of room for creativity. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for me, the key artistic skill is in the seeing and/or composing of the shot.

I remember not knowing enough about photography back in the day (compared to my woeful level these days) and having a shot composed that was magazine worthy. To the eye, it was brilliant! To a person who knew how to take a picture, it'd win contests. My shot sucked ass and was completely wrong, and quite humbling. Had I had a Galaxy s8+ HDR probably would have come out perfectly. But at that point, who cares. If anyone can take the pic thanks to technology, who cares.

I mean, I partly agree with you. For example, shooting only in M-mode does mean that you are exercising more skill and creativity. But as you acknowledge, any camera, in the final analysis, is 'help'.

And yes, there is the phenomenon of '(almost) anyone being able to take that pic' when the camera is giving large amounts of help.

That said, I tend to think that the cameras nowadays are offering mostly 'non-artistic' help. Though even that's not true, what with the vast range of in-camera and post-production effects available. All of which are in essence 'cheats' in a way, of course. Cheating has always been around. I mentioned Canaletto. I also read that back in the days of celluloid, many of the top photographers, who were getting paid enough to justify it, shot rolls and rolls just to get one good pic.

Anyhows, the sort of photography that I enjoy and admire the most is more about 'seeing (and composing) the shot', which, thankfully, as far as I know, technology has not yet really invaded. I'm not so much into technical perfection. When I'm out and about with a camera, the pleasure is mostly in my head and the way looking for shots enhances the ways I see the world. I would argue that a phone camera is still a valid tool for this.

A typical example might be:



or



or at a pinch...







I do see your point though. And if you can operate in M-mode then that is admirable and more personally creative. I sometimes (with my SLR) try to get back into M-mode but I seem to have forgotten all the things I once half knew.

 

[rousseau]

A good guitarist can make any guitar sound good. A bad guitarist..

The idea that the settings you use on the camera are a major component of the artistry process, and not the external composition of your photos is strange to me. A good camera is a better tool, but the picture comes from the photographer themselves. I've known professional photographers with fantastic equipment who take terrible photos, and with no experience I've taken a large number of classic photos with just point and click on auto.

I mean, yea, a mastery of settings is going to lend itself to better photos, but I think that over-states photography as a technical skill, and under-states it as a humanistic one.

 

[ruby sparks]

View attachment 16732

I'm just wondering. This is an excellent pic. Open question to all readers: are there, or is there any good reason why there aren't, phone cameras that have all or many of the creative user-settings that 'traditional' cameras have, such as extended shutter speeds, ISO choices, aperture settings (or the digital equivalent) to control depth of field, or focus control to experiment with intentional blur (as in my 'red' pic above, taken with an SLR on manual focus)? Maybe such things already exist and I am behind the curve.

Unless I'm mistaken, I seem to recall a professional photographer friend of mine having, a few years ago, some kind of app (and a set of lens adaptors such as phands mentioned) which effectively allowed him to use his phone camera a lot like an SLR.

Another fab feature would be an ability to save pics in RAW format, since, if you're going to play with/improve them after, RAW is so much better at preserving image quality while you're tampering.

 

[phands]

Phones make all of the decisions and make with the post processing. There is no artistic effort with a phone camera.

That's just no longer true. My Galaxy Note 8 has full manual control, and some of my pictures, I think, are very artistic.

 

[phands]

Looks the banning of Phone Cameras has made the thread less attractive.

 

[OLDMAN]

Um...are you going to have dinosaurs on your dinosaur tour...?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Curious: just how good are camera phones getting these days? What phone should a former serious SLR enthusiast be looking at?

In the simple realm a high end phone rivals a low end DSLR. Consider, however, that despite this I generally hike with a low-end DSLR despite having my phone with me. While the sensor isn't much better than the phone the rest of it is--I have a 24:1 optical zoom range on the lens and thus can do much better on a small, distant target than I possibly could with the phone. Also, I have much better exposure control--something that can be quite useful if I wish to combine multiple shots into a single image. (For example, to make a panorama of the horizon, something that can be impressive if done from a mountain peak.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Phones make all of the decisions and make with the post processing. There is no artistic effort with a phone camera.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to that point, but I respectfully disagree.

Unless you only use your SLR on fully manual, then you are getting 'automatic assistance'. Heck, even using a zoom lens is arguably 'cheating' (though I myself don't see that as a problem). It's all on a spectrum. Even Canaletto apparently used a camera obscura when painting.

There is imo plenty of room for creativity. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for me, the key artistic skill is in the seeing and/or composing of the shot.

With good modern gear you have assistance even in full manual mode--it's still calculating the exposure and will tell you how far off it believes you are.

I don't see it as "cheating" to use automatics. However, automatics do not always do the job, especially when it comes to exposure. Even in P mode, however, I frequently don't go with the automatic answer, but rather do things like aim for their feet, push the button to the halfway point, and then recompose the shot properly, but with the exposure ignoring the sky that's now in the picture. I want to expose for the person, not the sky.

That being said, I've never actually even seen a general, how could I photograph one?

 

[bilby]

Phones make all of the decisions and make with the post processing. There is no artistic effort with a phone camera.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to that point, but I respectfully disagree.

Unless you only use your SLR on fully manual, then you are getting 'automatic assistance'. Heck, even using a zoom lens is arguably 'cheating' (though I myself don't see that as a problem). It's all on a spectrum. Even Canaletto apparently used a camera obscura when painting.

There is imo plenty of room for creativity. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for me, the key artistic skill is in the seeing and/or composing of the shot.

With good modern gear you have assistance even in full manual mode--it's still calculating the exposure and will tell you how far off it believes you are.

I don't see it as "cheating" to use automatics. However, automatics do not always do the job, especially when it comes to exposure. Even in P mode, however, I frequently don't go with the automatic answer, but rather do things like aim for their feet, push the button to the halfway point, and then recompose the shot properly, but with the exposure ignoring the sky that's now in the picture. I want to expose for the person, not the sky.

That being said, I've never actually even seen a general, how could I photograph one?

I imagine that a photograph containing two Colonels or three Lieutenant Colonels would also qualify. Admirals and airforce officers of Air Vice-Marshal rank or above may be permitted, but not if taken using a phone camera.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, that.

 

[RavenSky]

No pics to post but..

I'm going on the trip of a lifetime at the end of September and I'm thinking about upgrading my digital camera. Could anyone point me in the right direction for something in the 400 - 600 range? I don't need fireworks, just an all around solid entry-level camera.

I like the info available here. Cheaper cameras mean giving and taking on what you really want verses what you are willing to give up.

Thanks.

I think I may have to spend some time researching when I get a chance. All I know that I *want* at this point is for whatever is taking the pictures I want to not screw it up. Crispness and clarity would also be nice.

My current digital camera is over 10 years old and is likely outclassed by my phone. I've heard I'll get an edge from a modern, entry-level DSLR over the phone, though.

You might want to look at some of the mirrorless cameras, too. They are much lighter for travel, while the focus is virtually as good.

 

[RavenSky]

Looks the banning of Phone Cameras has made the thread less attractive.

Dude, seriously...

It is near impossible for any OP to control the direction a thread takes, but if Jimmy wants this thread to be about and for camera photography, do you really need to be a jerk about it? Why not just start another thread specifically for smartphone photography?

I thought your photos were great, btw.

 

[rousseau]

The Canon EOS Rebel T6 seems to be widely recommended for entry-level photographers.

I wonder if there is any good reason I shouldn't just go pick one of them up?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Canon EOS Rebel T6 seems to be widely recommended for entry-level photographers.

I wonder if there is any good reason I shouldn't just go pick one of them up?

Well, I'm mad at them for not honoring a hidden warranty situation because they discontinued all repairs for the camera in question.

 

[rousseau]

Thanks.

I think I may have to spend some time researching when I get a chance. All I know that I *want* at this point is for whatever is taking the pictures I want to not screw it up. Crispness and clarity would also be nice.

My current digital camera is over 10 years old and is likely outclassed by my phone. I've heard I'll get an edge from a modern, entry-level DSLR over the phone, though.

You might want to look at some of the mirrorless cameras, too. They are much lighter for travel, while the focus is virtually as good.

I ended up hearing this from a few people and decided to take the advice to heart. Went with the Sony RX100 II. For travel it should make things a lot easier.

 

[rousseau]

Looks the banning of Phone Cameras has made the thread less attractive.

Dude, seriously...

It is near impossible for any OP to control the direction a thread takes, but if Jimmy wants this thread to be about and for camera photography, do you really need to be a jerk about it? Why not just start another thread specifically for smartphone photography?

I thought your photos were great, btw.

In fairness, on a forum where 75% of the activity has become 4 posters bickering about repetitive political issues, you might not want to make topics too narrow.