Beginning into photography

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 8,040
Re: Beginning into photography
1

Hight Fly wrote:

PhotoTeach2 wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Hight Fly wrote:

John Michael Winterbourne wrote:

Joe, I realise that you are trying (with no success) to get into a "mine is better than yours" chat with Albert, but you have a recent very polite but also very firm "thanks for your input so far, but no thanks, I'm going with the D300 for now" from the OP.

So I suggest that, however many "respectfullys" you might add, you drop your evangelical approach because OP isn't going to be persuaded at this stage, and the rest of us have heard it all before.

To the OP - I haven't read all of the lens suggestions, but I gather that the 16-80 is getting some good mentions. If it hasn't already been mentioned the earlier 16-85 Nikkor is another option to think about. Not quite as good as the 16-80, but a lot cheaper. You would save enough to be able to add at least one more lens - I would say the Nikon 35/1.8 as a "fast" lens, and a cheap but decent 70-300 to test the telephoto waters.

P.S. I read what you said to Albert about being willing to learn, so I would recommend that you try to get hold of a copy of Thom Hogan's eBook "The complete guide to the Nikon D300". It's not free, but it's good value. It differs from the Nikon User Guide (which is a free downloadable pdf) in that it tells you why you might want to use a particular setting, and then telling you how - rather than just how to do it, which can be rather daunting to a new DSLR user.

Thanks a lot for all of these recommandations.

Indeed, this idea of testing things really interests me, but I guess that, like everyone, I'd like the best from the beginning. I suppose I have to get to know what is the best for me, what I like the most and all of that before investing that much money into one single lens. It just seemed really polyvalent to me. I thought I could get some really nice wide angles photographs, street photographs and portraits. But if the price is really too high I might get the 16-85 at you advise, a prime and a lens.

I'll check some reviews but if the wide angle part good on the Nikon 16-85? I was thinking to use it for everyday usage and all of that but to get a 50mm 1.8G for portraits and then a telephoto lens.

The 16-85 is very good at 16mm; it has some darkness in the corners wide open but that goes away by f/5.6 or so. It's extremely sharp up to about 75mm above which it gets a bit fuzzy.

There are lots of other Nikon DX zooms, most of them starting at 18mm. I think any of the stabilized ones (they have "VR" in their names) are pretty good and used ones should be quite inexpensive. You could look for an 18-140, which might cover your needs for a while.

I am not that familiar with all the (current) Nikon zooms, but I would tend to recommend one starting @ 16mm (24mm-EFL). I think he would appreciate the wider Wide-Angle.

Indeed, I think it would be better.

Because you laid this camera so much I've done many researches and it seems really good. Now let's say I could negotiate with my friends to get it and sell it (he clearly doesn't use it since a few years, it's in his attic), do you reckon that'd be the best solution?

Well as you perceptually perceived, I would agree that could "help" you buy a "MirrorLess" camera, (the FZ-1000 being the best "value" one).

I'd like to have other opinions on this. (Not just you @PhotoTeach2, because it surely looks like you'd say that's a go haha, which would be totally understandable).

You do realize that most people recommend the camera they own/love. That is natural because they indeed know that camera best -- and feel a need to justify their initial decision to buy a specific camera.

The problem is that the vast majority of "regulars" here own dSLR's, (because of their 60+ years advantage). A few others have accepted m4/3. But ALL own Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras (ILC).

And for some reasons "photographers" have NEVER been eager to accept new technology. They were opposed to "in-camera" exposure metering, (in the 60's), automatic "exposure" (in the 70's), then auto-"focus", (in the 80's), then in-lens VR, (in the 90's), then "digital", (in the 2000's), then smaller-sensor than FF/DX, (in 2010's), and now m4/3 & "bridge" ML w/ IBIS.

I used to be included I all those categories above since I have been in photography since 1959, and owned a photo-lab and studio/retail store for 15 years. I once never would have supported any sensor smaller than FF/DX/APS. And absolutely would never have supported a (dreaded) "fixed" lens. (but have always used/supported "LEAF" shutters since my first camera in '59 for their advantages over Focal-Plane FP shutters -- they are also preferred by most "professionals" as HSS is NOT equal to a higher "native" SS)

Note that I have ruined (only) "ONE" wedding in my career -- and it was due to a "FP" shutter, (in a LEICA camera in 1969 when someone else had used my camera and switched SS to 1/1000s and I did not realize it until the entire wedding was over and I had 16 "36" exposure rolls of BLANK film -- yes, I got fired from that company),

If so, would it be better to put a bit more in an upper-model camera? Or a Mirrorless with lenses? Nevertheless, the DSLR option is the one I feel most comfortable with:

But WHY dSLR ???

It is a 60+yo technology that once was indeed necessary for mounting wider/longer lenses. (but require OVF which indeed look more "natural" in good light -- but are totally irrelevant and NON-WYSIWYG to what the eventual "image" will be)

But ML now allows that with additional options/features that are NOT POSSIBLE w/ SLR/dSLR because of their inherent "mirror" limitations, (including EVF with direct WYSIWYG visual-feedback of exposure/WB from the actual image-sensor)

ML, (and new technology), also allows SMALLER SENSORS (m4/3, 1"-type, 1/2.3", etc.) that are SUPERIOR to former FF/DX. (the D300 limit is ISO-3200 -- the FZ-1000 is ISO 25,600).

And smaller-sensors allow LONGER-TELE lenses and "FIXED" lenses w/ (fast-convenient) "continuous" zoom which are wider/longer/faster than typical "kit" lenses -- they also allow "LEAF" shutters that allow unlimited flash-sync for longer-range SUN-light fill-flash -- (and ability to "darken" backgrounds w/ closer subjects).  Note that "leaf" shutters have always been preferred by professional photographers.

Now I don't ignore that (modern) larger sensors, (inc FF/DX), allows even higher ( >100,000 ) ISO and have (narrow/shallow) DOF advantages for "portrait" photographers, but at much higher-cost.

  • I have to say that the only thing that makes me reluctant with this camera is the "Future-Proof" part. It scares me to invest on a camera if I can't upgrade things on this camera in the future (because it's a bridge).

NO camera is "future-proof", (as the D300 was not).

That is especially true today as both Canon and Nikon has announced a (soon) announcement of ML, (something MANY people have been waiting for to "validate" the future of ML).

They indeed WILL have new (ML) lens-mounts so ALL dSLR lenses will probably have a precipitous drop in (used) resale value, (as "film" cameras have).

If Canon/Nikon can equal/surpass Sony, there is no-question that ML is the future of photography and there is no-limit to their eventual capabilities and additional options & features.

Note that both Panasonic and Olympus can already "store" images BEFORE the actual shutter-release and thus capture the "peak" of action -- AFTER the "peak". (a virtual "time-machine")

That feature is in the FZ-2500, (which followed the FZ-1000), and is available for $900 if you want to also consider that camera -- but I am NOT currently recommending it over the FZ-1000 -- (even though "I" personally now indeed use the 2500 instead of the --best value-- 1000 for $600).

Note that ALL the photos I earlier posted where w/ FZ-1000 and prove my point that it can produce some (SOOC) Straight-Out-Of-Camera images that no other camera can -- if it could I would have it.  (albeit FF could produce some "low-light" images the FZ could not -- at higher cost)

******************

IF you want more opinions for other ML-FZ users, (because "I" am virtually the ONLY one here), I suggest you ask your same question in the "Panasonic Compact Camera Forum".

You might also as a (private) question of "Skyglider", he is also a FZ user, but not as "active" as I am.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow