Digital camera recomendations

[novocaine]

.....cropped sensor does not digitally enlarge your image. it simply doesn't have the same field of view is all, so it appears to be "zoomed" more.........

It's more a figure of speech, but if you produce an identical cropped image and a non cropped image (which obviously shows more), and you then increase the size of the cropped image until it is the same size as the non-cropped one, (or decrease the non-cropped one to the size of the cropped), then it's a useful shorthand to say that the "zoomed" image is in fact just cropped and enlarged.

So you can be pedant but I can't? well nar nar to you.

 

[That would work]

Forget full frame sensors. Absolutely not needed unless you want to print a billboard and then look at it at very close quarters.

He's doing wildlife photography, so this advice is wrong.

Tosh.
Explain why a full sensor is better for wildlife photography please.

 

[Racers]

I recommend nikon as the lens mount didn't change when they went to digital (yes I know they have just brought out a new one) this means you have a huge range of second hand pro lenses you can buy cheaply.
I use a lens from 1974 on my camera.

Canon changed their mount when they went digital.

Pete

 

[Chris152]

in the UK, 200mm is more than enough, you aren't shooting lions on the Serengeti, so use field craft instead. we had a talk about it at the photography club a few years back. people think that because a pro uses a 600mm odd lens they must do it to, but they forget that a pro doesn't want to sit and wait for the shot, they want to shoot and get to the next one, each shot is money. as an amatuer, you can take your time, you can sit for hours or slowly creep up on an animal.

107mm
Squirrel without a cause by David Rees, on Flickr

think this was 180mm
flight time by David Rees, on Flickr

theres more if you follow the flickr link.

Presumably that Sony's silent, too - fits well with what you're suggesting? I've not tried one but know I struggle with digital controls, part of being old I guess - I like a dial for each key function esp when the camera's in Manual mode. Which you also don't get with the compact body of the Canon I linked to above, but you do get two manual dials usually. I'd still recommend an slr kit like the one I linked to above with the option to get a used telephoto lens, but happy to accept that might just be me being old-fashioned. Nice pics on the flickr site.

 

[novocaine]

from what use I've had of his kit they are whisper quiet.
they have manual mode and the controls are fairly well laid out. because you aren't raising it to your eye they are easy to use than on something like a "bridge" camera where you can't look at the same time as view.
they do a 300mm lens for it, but it's eyewateringly expensive.

I'm not saying that a DSLR isn't an amazing bit of kit, and I still lug my 60D around with me everywhere, normally with a 55-200 tamron on the front of it. as I said though, I'm a bit old hat.
also, CANON are better than NIKON. yes they changed the lens mount, but that was to allow a larger bayonet and to allow more lens control, which means in lens IS rather than in body, reduced the size of the body on the Canon when Nikon couldn't do it and also meant longer battery life.
because I'm a canon guy, it's a bit like Festool or (insert any other brand of track saw). just kidding with you.

 

[Racers]

I will stick with my crappy 45.7 megapixel 9 frames a second or 30 in live vieu Nikon D850 with my 50mm f1.4 lens from 1974.

Only drawback it that higher than ISO 16000 you get a bit of noise.

ISO 16000

Maisha 22-5-19 Peggy’s skylight Nottingham by Racers, on Flickr

:wink:

Pete

 

[novocaine]

yer what ever Pete.
careful now, wouldn't want light banter to be misconstrued as another excuse for a tirade of male cow excrement to be dumped on us.

Chris, go have a look at Pete's flickr stream, it's got some fantastic shots, can't see a 300mm in there though.

Pete, I'm fine with my 80 quid 50mm 1.8 cheers and in no way am I jealous of your f1.4, nope, definitely not. also
https://www.kentfaith.com/KF06.082_cano ... gKqnvD_BwE

but as my real SLR was a pentax K mount (remember them) on a Practica, I have to use a different mount to fit my aged lens.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I am thinking about a Sony Alpha purely because I have a few Minolta lenses and a rather nice Sigma 105mm macro.

 

[sploo]

My $0.02...

A full frame DSLR is a truly wonderful tool, but one of those (whatever the brand) plus a decent long lens is not going to be in the "few hundred" range. If you really wanted to spend the cash then a Canon 5D4 with the EF 100-400L II, plus maybe a 1.4x teleconverter would give you a substantial range of focal lengths, the ability to track fast moving targets, and get images in low light with relatively low noise - but that's going to be in the "few thousand" region.

If you did want an interchangeable lens camera then an APS-C (crop) body would be a significantly lower investment, with the apparent advantage in "reach" (as already discussed in the thread). The crop lenses (EF-S for Canon, and I think DX for Nikon) can also be smaller and lighter as they only need to cover a smaller sensor area. A Canon 80D with the EF-S 55-250mm would give something close to the field of view range as the 100-400 on a full frame body, and would be a significantly cheaper combo.

One other option is one of the bridge/compact cameras. This page (https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/best-bridge-camera) lists a number of models; most of which have a built-in lens with more range than the above DSLR options, and some with absolutely ludicrous amounts of "reach". The downside is that the much smaller sensor size and compromised glass means the image quality won't match the DSLRs, and they will show significant noise in low light situations. They may (depending on the autofocus technology) also not be that great for tracking fast moving subjects.

PS If you've looked up the cost of a Canon 5D4 and a 100-400II lens and thought it was crazy, bare in mind that a "pro" wildlife shooter may well be using a Canon 1DxIII and a 200-400L; they really will make your wallet cry.

 

[Marineboy]

I don’t think anyone’s mentioned Fujifilm. I have the XT-3. Crop sensor, smaller and lighter than equivalent SLRs, instant control of aperture/ISO/shutter speed without having to dive into menus. I have the massively underrated 50-230 XC zoom, equivalent to nearly 350mm at the long end. Worth checking out.

 

[novocaine]

guessing thats due to price Marineboy.
the fuji x range are awesome, but my god are they pricey.

 

[Richard_C]

No argument with what has been said already about dslr etc., but think about the how what and where of using it.

My beginnings were with film cameras, pentax slr mainly, ending up with the MX. I can remember kodachrome 64 arriving and giving you 3 full stops more to play with compared to kodachrome 25. First foray into digital was an awful thing that came free with a dell laptop just after the turn of the millennium. Then a bridge camera then pentax dslr, all the old k mount lenses are still compatible in manual mode. Happy.

But then as I edged towards retirement short trips to Europe and wanting to stick with hand baggage became a factor. Got myself an early Sony Rx100, about £300, late models come in close to £1K which seems far too much, pocket able and good for any on screen viewing. Can fit filters and has full manual control if you want it. Never carried dslr again, even on a 4 week trip to NZ. Still use it at home, rarely, for macro and some copying work.

The Rx100 m2 version serves me well and I don't think buying a newer shinier version would give me better pictures. But now I've got a Huawei p30 phone and the Rx100 rarely goes out. I skip up mountains instead of trudge (well not really but you get the idea)

If you plan to go out specifically to take photos and have patient companions a dslr is great, take your time, wait for the light, carry a tripod. At least its better than full plate and Ansel Adams mule-transported kit. There are times like near an osprey nest in Scotland last year, when all the kit would have been great. But 99% of the time taking pictures is incidental to what I am going for so carrying less suits me fine.

Phones have very clever software which goes some way towards mitigating the small sensors. My P30 has 3 lenses including a 135 equivalent lens, the P30 Pro has a periscope lens that goes to about 210. It doesn't match a proper camera, but you always have it with you.

Maybe carry a gift wrapped brick around with you for a day or two, thinking "would I be happy with this as a camera". Think about how you travel and spend your time (Covid aside), I like being able to go away for a few days with just a small bag. Then decide if its dslr for best quality, good compact as half way house, or what.

The best camera is the one that fits your real world needs. I bet there are drawers full of little used kit all round the country.

 

[DrPhill]

Thanks all, you are being incredibly helpful..... there is a lot of choice out there and lots of things to think about. Some of the technicalities go over my head, but then my wife is not very technical either. She is not going to be stalking rhinos of snapping down microscopes - reliably getting good quality pics is probably the essence (yeah, I know, 'good quality' is a matter of opinion). Much of her interest at the moment seems to be in the post-processing.

I asked my wife what the most important features of a phone would be and they went something like: "small enough to carry, has a point and shoot mode by default, can do a lot more if I need it". To me that sounds like a small carry-round with decent optics and options?
The comments about the large size of devices with interchangeable lenses were spot on. (Actually sounds to me like my phone camera, but LOML carries a dumb phone by preference).

Does that narrow the field down any? The Lumix recommended earlier looks like a good match for her refined requirements. Can we use that spec/type/price as a reference point and think about what I get/lose for going up/down in price?

Thanks again, and sorry if I have started a heated debate.....

 

[RogerS]

.....
Phone cameras are pretty amazing for what they are. They digitally process the images like crazy and it's impressive what they achieve. ...

My Samsung Galaxy S7 is pants. There are some shots where, for whatever reason, the image processing really gets its' knickers in a twist. Here for instance. There is no moire patterning on the actual object !

 

[heronviewer]

My Canon SX60 is now outdated

https://www.canon.co.uk/cameras/powersh ... fications/

Even better !

 

[Sideways]

While we're all having fun trying to spend your money, what sort of budget have you set yourself Phill ?

 

[Steve Maskery]

Some of the technicalities go over my head, but then my wife is not very technical either.

Neither am I, not to the extext of understanding all the tech stuff in this thread, anyway.

The Lumix recommended earlier looks like a good match for her refined requirements. Can we use that spec/type/price as a reference point and think about what I get/lose for going up/down in price?

The reason I like my Lumix is that I can have them entirely silly person-proof if I want (Intelligent Auto, Autofocus etc), through various modes right through to Manual Focus and totally Manual exposure, ISO etc
I have 4 different lenses and a couple of add-ons. I use the Kit Lenses 95% of the time. Occasionally the big zoom lens (up to 200mm) comes out, and I've recently bought another one for close work, shallow depth of field. I forget the spec. Shows how un-photech I am.
Of course I am biased, because I am a happy customer, but I really do think they are an excellent introduction to "proper" photography.
It's a pity you are so far away, you would be welcome to come over and have a play.

 

[DrPhill]

If it looks like a good match for the requirements thenI would not baulk at, say, around 300gbp. I could go higher but would need strong justification. I would go lower if I did not lose anything that I thought was significant - for example, I don't think that video capabilities are going to be that important so 4k at 30fps is well over-spec. Similarly any form of output other than a wireless connection (wifi/bluetooth) is not likely to be used that much . Special effects may not be that interesting as SWMBO does post processing on her iPad.

Ability to produce images with little compression may be useful.

I guess primary concerns are ease of use (point and click mode) with decent optics that can go a bit further as she begins to experiment. Optical zoom might be good, as well as ability to take photos close to subject. Ability to trigger camera from an iPad might be fun, and a tripod mounting thingy would be useful.

 

[Sideways]

I will stick with my crappy 45.7 megapixel 9 frames a second or 30 in live vieu Nikon D850 with my 50mm f1.4 lens from 1974.

Only drawback it that higher than ISO 16000 you get a bit of noise.

:wink:

Pete

Here's the thing. I'm looking at your 45mpix image crushed down to about 640px square on a mobile phone screen. We've thrown 99% of your image data away !
I'm 2 generations behind you with a D800 that can take better photos than I'll ever compose and often reach for a 300mm stabilised Nikon PF lens that is very modern and makes me smile every time I look through it.
These are expensive toys if you're not using them to earn your living I enjoy using them, but they are not necessary.

Lumix are good, Fuji are great too, Sony make kick ass cameras with less than perfect usability and tend to reinvent every few years leaving buyers of older models with no way forward.
Olympus have made some cracking cameras and lenses over the years if you are shopping secondhand but I think they exited the market.
Many of us cursed Nikon for years for not making a mirrorless but now their Z series are knocking it out of the park. Electronic viewfinders are finally getting good enough that they are making SLRs obsolete. Mirrorless is the way forward as long as you don't need your camera to work in the arctic

 

[Racers]

I still have my D800 and my D300 and my D200 and my D50...

That 300mm PF looks a good lens.

Pete