Do we really need the latest and greatest cameras? To find out, DPReview TV host Nigel Danson swapped his Nikon Z7 and pro lenses for an entry-level Canon DSLR with a $100 kit lens, using it for his landscape photography and on a trip to Budapest. How did it measure up to his top-of-the-line gear? Tune in to find out
I am bit hesitant to ask a question, some may find it foolish or naive , yet , do canon 80d and canon m100 with same lens if 22 mm should give same results in daylight landscape photos?slight color deviation notwithstanding, is sharpness, focus, etc equal ?
A link to this video might be part of the perfect response to so many of the, "Which new camera or lens will make my photography, better?"posts. The fundamentals (subject, composition, light, moment) Danson espouses can be applied to any photographic genre. So, too, can the first rule of photography: find amazing light and photograph it. The issues a person who applies this approach to their photography encounters, are more likely to be the product of actual equipment limitations. But if a person isn't paying attention to subject, composition, light and moment, no piece of whizz bang new gear is going to make their photography any better.
i agree. truthfully, today's entry level cameras and kit lenses have more than enough clarity, DR, resolution, noise-control capability and AF performance for everyday shooting. having the latest does not equate to being the greatest. in the end, skill plays a much bigger role and your portfolio will get you farther than your gears.
Agree with what Nigel has to say. Photography is all about composition, lighting & Knowing your camera. Its another matter that for the price tag of D250, one can get a reasonably good APSC MLC as well with better features today !
I would go further: DSLR is no more a "entry". It's more difficult to take a good photograph trough the optical viewfinder unless you know exactly what you are doing. On a MILC you see the result in the optical viewfinder and you safe the bulk of the optical viewfinder. But the problem is that you can not get a MILC comparable to the Nikon D3500 or Canon 250D with this big sensor + large variety of cheap lenses; Sony A6xxx don't have that much and that cheap lens options and MFT like the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II or the Panasonic GX80 have smaller sensors and often more expensive lenses too. The good think is that you can use the Canon 250D kinda like a mirrorless when you ignore the OVF; Nikon has some limitations though.
If you ask me: a starter should get a MFT and safe up for a few primes and telezoom(A recommendation is the very cheap but sharp Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6): The lenses are much smaller and you end up taking the setup much more often.
Canon D250 with 18-55 lists in Amazon at USD USD 550.00 while Canon M50 with 15-45 at Amazon is USD 650.00. Some more exploration may yield comparable prices for other brands too. Nigel perhaps has used D250 just to prove his point that skill comes first and camera second.
For shooting a nice photo you have to have skills and the camera doesn't matter. But when you shoot in order to sell large prints or print for galleries you simply need the latest standard, as much megapixels as possible and sharp sharp sharp lenses, which are most of the time expensive. You need a very sturdy tripod which is expensive as well... The average user doesn't need the latest, greatest and most expensive though :)
And there we have it. DR was good enough years ago. Today it is silly to buy based on it. Plus bracketing yields higher quality than pushing the extremes of one exposure even on the best DR to date.
About time a video like this was made to hush the hate in this forum.
If an APS Rebel is good enough, then the R (or the RP for that matter) are absolutely overkilled for basically any task, so the trend of many reviewers -Jared Polin for example) of claiming "there is no good body to use those L lenses blah blah" is complete nonsense. Otherwise how come there are great pictures already on Flickr taken with those bodies?
Because YouTubers get their views by stirring up stuff. It used to be a creative profession but now it's turned into a sitcom.
@aaron Yang Alright, though I don't see any situations where you could need HDR extreme for sports, wildlife or street. However I guess you are attached to that abstract / garrish look?
Thanks man, I appreciate that. I guess I will just continue doing that since I already do it :) But out of curiosity, which cameras are the only ones capable of this scenario just so I know to get rid of my gear or not. haha
@Aaron Yang - Spot metering and burn out the background, an age old technique and still used today. It is used a lot in "fine art" photography today along with intentional flare and noise.
The entry level dslr's are just plain ugly on stick! Have been truly ugly, plastickey and overengineered for years. Photo/video quality marginally better than my smartphone. I'm getting some kind of full frame when I can afford it. I await the angry responses.
I am venting frustration that it took this long for the big guys to adjust, and tired of dumbed down cheaper models. I get better video from my phone than from any compact camera. I will spring for decent full frame when I can afford it. No, I won't say which brand or sensor size is "superior".
Well Jrt150, there are plenty of more advanced DSLR and mirrorless systems if that's what you're looking for. Meanwhile there are regular posts in the forums asking for camera makers to take away unnecessary (for them) features in exchange for lower prices, thinner manuals, and simpler operation.
Seems like the only way to make everyone happy is to release a wide range of camera bodies to match every budget. And now they're doing that, but yet some still aren't happy? Holy heck.
No worries though, because your smartphone takes better photos than any entry level DSLR... even though the DSLRs offer 24mp APS-C sensors with full control over shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and focal length... and all for less money than a flagship phone.
Sometimes modern "amateur" cameras is better for that kind of work than old "professional". Imagine that you walking in the forest with your trusty 5d3 and then you meet someone with 200d/800d/77d/250d. And you thinking "okay, here i am with 1kg body, with almoust zero detalization benefit, with worse dr, without flip screen and without modern liveview, so what the point ???"
A friend of a Facebook friend (i.e someone I barely know) took a 1Dx hiking on the Appalachian Trail. The irony is that a rented Sony a7R and EF to E mount adapter would have given better images and been lighter.
"zero detalization benefit" - BS! "with worse dr" - dr is not image quality. "without flip screen" - yes, Canon has been very greedy and stupidly conservative. "so what the point ???" - Imagine that I'm walking in the forest with my trusty 6D and I know for sure that no 200d/800d/77d/250d could possibly give me the results close to what my 6D can do - clean high definition images in less than ideal lighting conditions without requiring expensive optics to do that (unlike crop cameras).
Entry level cameras are good for entry level would be "photographers". Until you learn the basics and stop relying on your camera to do all the work for you, a high end high mp camera is overkill.
I guess if one is happy using through the lens eyepiece you could even use a Pentax DSLR which have a second control wheel and a full glass prism viewfinder without paying extra. Nice to have so many choices! Good video and excellent picture taking skills! Thanks.
For the current price of the 250d+Kit of 620EUR i can get - a used Sony A7 (<400EUR), - a Canon FD or Minolta MD Adapter - and a set of cheap old manual f2.8 primes (for roughly 50EUR each, e.g. 28+35+50+135mm).
Might be limiting, might be more of a hassel, but I think you will learn photography better (mostly because you need to manual focus) and the IQ of your photos will be top notch (i.e. across the frame sharpness stopped down for landscapes couldn't be any better).
Yes, true, but then again the Rebel is actually very nice to use and more the sort of camera to grow into because the learning curve is less steep. Also the gap in IQ is not so great in real world situations as on paper. The A7 is quite old and moreover if you want the best out of it you need to start buying premium lenses. I see no compelling reasons to buy a second hand old camera and old manual lenses over a modern rebel.
I have both. The A7, with properly updated firmware, is a joy to use, and I don't need or use IBIS. My Rebel SL2/ 200D is a likewise lightweight alternative and both use the same lenses, which are Canon FE. Even easier to use.
merkator ....if you don't get infinity focus with MD lenses on a A7 MILC then there is a problem with the adapter (to thick?) i have run MD lenses on Sony .fuji and canon MILC
Taking an old body and throwing older lenses on with an adapter is the opposite of welcoming for most novices. A novice won't be constrained by a 250D, so why make the experience worse to give them "quality" they can't use? Instead of swapping lenses and trying to nail focus, just give them a kit with AF to learn composition.
Brent ...they will be constrained by the 250D...they have to buy a canon flash...and cannot use cheap ebay triggers .. the 200D is a better stills camera
Good video and undoubtedly good points made. However, the point would have been even better if you had compared with pictures from the Z7. Hard to compare, if you only have one source. Or compare the D3500 to your Z7.
If you have a camera who gives good image quality with nice prints who cares if there is something better? There always will be better. Then why not compare the Z7 vs the Fuji 100MP monster too.
This is absolutely a famous and everlasting question in photography. In fact, with some image-processing techniques such as Photoshop or Lightroom, the importance of initial snap is continuously decreasing. There is no doubt that advanced camera with huge lenses can provide extrordinary image qualities, but the price and the weight are always something stopping one's step, especially amateurs. So I prefer to a light and relatively high-quality-provided camera with skillful competence of image-processing teniques, and that is to say, there is no need prosuiting the most advanced cameras. BUT, statements above are just for most of situations, if you are a professional, and you make a living by taking photos, you have to do everything extrodinary to attract more customers.
You cannot add anything in quality in post production that the camera did not record.
If you would add a bit better lens to the same camera for the same shot, you’d see a difference. If you would use a far better camera with the same lens, you wouldn’t.
"If you would add a bit better lens to the same camera for the same shot, you’d see a difference. If you would use a far better camera with the same lens, you wouldn’t."
In another thread recently, someone claimed that it's 99% the camera, 1% the lens (and, by inference, 0% the photographer). I doubt that the person in question is a good photographer.
I remember once sitting at a restaurant with my newly purchased, and very capable Rebel with the kit lens on it. While sitting there a dude comes into the restaurant and sits down at the tabel next to me with his 5D + a HUGE lens. Immediately i started feeling ashamed of my little entry level system :-/ The next day I went out and bought a more expensive lens, just to polish of my ego :-)
That happened to me . I was at a Lua in Hawaii with my rebel plus 18-55 lens and this guy on the next table spotted a cruise ship lit up in the darkness about a mile away.He grabs his FF with a stonking great lens on it to get his shot and couldn't understand why his Speedlight failed to illuminate the boat.
Weird - I usually feel the complete opposite. For example, at my son's football match I was using my Canon APS-C with EF-S 55-250mm IS lens. A rich mother turned up with her 5D and 70-200 L IS f2.8... and didn't change from a standing position for all her shots... for as long as she could support the crazy weight of her kit. I felt very happy I was getting 400mm reach, while she was stuck with 200 and an aching arm!
Lost on me, I don't care what gear other people use. My own is quite humble and I am happy with it. I can't produce better photos with a much more expensive camera anyway.
Battery life. That's the only big advantage DSLRs still have over mirrorless. Nikon's 3500 offers 1500 cipa and Canon SL3 over 1000 cipa and as we all know, we often get a bit more shots than cipa suggests.
Once the battery/technology/implementation ratio in mirrorless improves, I can't see dslr's having any future.
Sony has in all practicality already killed their dslr line. It will be more difficult for Canikon as they resisted the plunge too long and kept making people invest in their dslr glass. The loss of goodwill in killing their dslr lines would be very hurtful. It's a pit they dug for themselves. Canon has a better standing , since they went the right way with the eos-m idea early on.
a7iii has 700 cipa...in real life probably over 1000
dumb phone has longer battery life than smartphone...and >90% general population will pick smartphone over dumb phone...mirrorless camera are pushing the tech boundary while dslr are being sidelined and development progress is stagnant...the market will always choose technological advancements
> In theory, the on sensor PDAF can often be as fast and as accurate as the PDAF in DSLRs. at least for initial focus acquisition. But tracking action is still a problem for the on-sensor PDAF, and will be by basic physics.
> The main heating in digital cameras (DSLR, mirrorless, point-and-shoot) comes from readout, both at the end of the exposure but more so from using live view. So for long exposure photography, use an optical viewfinder and minimize sensor heating from live view. With a mirrorless camera, it is harder to avoid heating because to see the image, including framing, live view must be used.
Truth be told, OSPDAF is more accurate than separate PDAF modules as there is no alignment issue plus it can (and does) also use CDAF for even better results. Then there is the issue of blackouts in DSLRs with the mirror flapping and AF sensor not seeing anything for a while. That's why (plus mechanical shutter) there are no DSLRs faster than 14-15fps with AF, while A9 has no issue with 20fps. The advantage of separate AF module is having access to full spectrum as OSPDAF is behind IR filter (that's why DSLRs use red AF assist illuminator and MILCs use annoying green) but then you are focused in IR and R and shoot in R-G-B spectrum, so...
For serious long exposure you will buy actively cooled sensor solutions, but off the shelf OVF will give you some advantage.
Another advantage of on-sensor PDAF of course is field coverage. Many more points and full field coverage than in DSLRs. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally, I think long term mirrorless will dominate.
As computational power and readout speeds continue to increase, on-sensor AF solutions will continue to improve until they far surpass separate PDAF modules. It's just an extension of Moore's "law".
Nigel Danson is a nice guy but... Anyone thinking of starting out needs to also think carefully about the lens system they are tying themselves into. Canon do have very nice lenses but really the camera bodies have been a real major let down due to some blatant crippling and lack of tech progress sometimes very trivial updates.
I think it was great and really fundamental ideato talk about: do we need best gear to take a good photographs?, The author perhaps could got just bit deeper exploring the differences between low end and high end kit:
-what focal lenght he was missing? -what other scenarios would meake him to miss more DR for example? -is having a higher megapixel camera advantage for him when he needs to crop? -is flipppy screen really much better than one on Z7? -is the lens sharp enough at the edges for his purpose? -did he miss his 2.8 whatever (faster) lenses etc.
Seems like a nice guy but I was expecting more in depth analysis,rather than:nah ,low end is ok,apart missing EVF...
Just a about right. About 15 years after Minolta (later Sony), Olympus and Pentax introduced sensor based stabilization . For the longest time Canon and Nikon ppl poo-pooed the rest with the mantra saying that lens based stabilization is vastly superior to sensor stabilization. It’s good for people to be flexible in their opinions 😋
Honestly, I can't really tell what level of image quality it is capable of from watching this 1080p video. It's just wrong, you can't show what a 24mp camera can do through 2mp footage. This way it just seems to be barely any better than a phone camera. I mean, why not 4K? This "Mark 10" of the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens might be a nice $100 lens after all the remakes and improvements, specially for landscape photography (with high F-numbers on a tripod). I've used the "Mark 7(ish)" and back then it wasn't too bad. But when I look at those images now, on a big UHD screen, I'm terribly disappointed. And I would not recommend it even as a starting point, because it seems more like a waste of time for any degree of serious photography. The first gen. EF-S 55-250mm was/is a lot better optically, than the 18-55mm. But if a tiny little snap is your goal, then why bother with a DSLR at all? The G7X would do fine.
I'd like to say what a pleasant and informative experience Nigel's video just was to watch through.
As with my now-venerable Olympus XZ-2, it's pretty interesting to see how much real awareness has gone into the design and engineering by Canon -- and the relative fineness of the results with the camera in hand.
I much enjoyed Nigel's enthusiasm with photography, and with seeing truth in the value of a camera, even if its maker's approaches might not always be my favorite.
And, I find myself thinking back to OM-1/100mm days; another great and right-size camera setup. There was such latitude in film; I almost never missed a shot with simple TTL metering.
How much then of all the featuritis we seldom escape is due to our need to endlessly compensate for the nature of today's sensors?
What I can do via developing using Capture One on raws, and what you see when DPReview consistently now offers 'to taste' - or otherwise ;) - conversions might answer that question, no?
Entry level DSLRs have become irrelevant. Smartphone is usually better for those who are not going to upgrade from kit lens. And for those who want to build a system and don’t own any legacy glass should invest into mirrorless.
You might have noticed that he made prints. Prints from the smartphone wouldn't have been anywhere near the quality of the prints he made from his APS-C DSLR's shots.
Even if just using the 18-55 kit lens, that's a fair focal length range for landscapes, portraits, and travel and nature. Much better for multi-purpose general photography than a fixed super-wide-angle lens.
bobtheearch: when smartphones add a VF, ability to use various lenses, change ergonomics, bigger sensor, real shutter button, access to settings with real buttons. So probably never will a phone have those capabilities. Selfies? Sure.
I like Canons SL series bodies. I typically use a 5DIV when I do landscape photography. A few years back I only took the first generation SL1 camera and kit lens to Europe. I really liked the light weight and got some excellent photos.
That said, with the coming of smaller and smaller mirrorless cameras, I do think that this series and similar from other manufacturers days are numbered.
Unfortunately, it's still larger, tied to an ancient 9-point AF module through the OVF, and has pitiful video/burst capabilities versus the Sony. Then again, it's the A6400 that should be compared against it.
Some comparison shots would had been nice. It is a bit hard to judge image quality from a video...especially heavily compressed Youtube video. One of the major reasons why I don't quite like video reviews.
How about making phone camera vs entry-level camera vs high-end camera comparison? Same subjects, same capable photographer, maxing out all three cameras. Post comparison shots as JPEG and option for RAW. That would tell the truth about what they can offer. Going even further by post-processing all three photos to match reality, if there is problems.
Isn’t that mostly the point though? For a general application of sharing online or printing a “normal” size and hanging, it’s pretty difficult to tell the difference in cameras and lenses until you get large or get close (pixel peep etc).
I've seen some amazing photos/videos from skilled people working within the constraints of smartphones, vintage equipment etc. and it's easy to get dazzled by what is possible if nobody points out what's not. Like why does he have a Z7 with pro lenses if this camera does all he wants? Why couldn't he have done the same with a smartphone or P&S?
I mean he even goes on to say it in the video, you should only upgrade your gear when it's necessary. Early on he's saying something like this is the minimum you'd use for serious photography and it's just a self fulfilling prophecy, he sets the bar here and the camera clears it. Why is that the minimum? I just felt it was one big sales pitch without establishing why there'd be a floor here.
Given the subject matter of these photos, I seriously doubt A3 prints from a smartphone would have been of equal quality to the those from the DSLR he was using.
Yes, everyone knows this because they've heard it repeated again and again ... it might be worse than Youtube with someone trying to be the first to post this. In case anyone doesn't realize where they are here is the About Us for DPR: "Digital Photography Review's mission is to provide the most authoritative coverage of digital photography gear in the world, including news, articles and expert reviews."
If you want discussions about images and photographer's skills, etc go to the websites that prioritize those things... don't show up on a gear site and complain about gear posts... that is a ridiculous complaint or observation.
But smartphones are what? Capable of precisely the same shots with exactly the same amount of detail? I sort of doubt it, at least right now, but it depends on how much control you require, what sort of output sizes we are looking at, etc, etc. It would be an interesting comparison at any rate.
It's the issue of the medium of consumption of photos. People nowadays show their photos on Whatsapp ,instagram and Facebook primarily and a large number of people view these on a mobile phone.
While photos from a good smartphone won't match the IQ of a DSLR you won't make out a huge difference when viewed on a phone or a medium like Facebook with it's highly compressed photos.
So people don't need big megapixel cameras if their medium is Facebook and instagram.
And smartphone algorithms and AI capabilities make it ridiculously easy to take photos. Cameras are behind in the usability department.
Yes, you cannot match the sharing immediacy of a smartphone, but with my old 6D (2012), with its easy wifi connection a d app (it was not so common back 6/7 years ago) sharing images through the smartphone apps (Camera Connect them Snapseed (if needed) then Whatsapp) it takes a little more time but it is very easy and the pictures, well, to me they are not comparable at all, the look is totally different :) obviously I also use smartphone camera but the 6D look remains unmatched.
Most committed photographers would always process the photo to make sure it looks its best. However more casual photographers will be happy getting good results from a device that is always with them no matter where they are.
My friend went with his old Canon 1100D with 18-55 kit lens to Malaysia for his honeymoon. He used it for the first day but then found that he was getting better results with his Iphone (when viewed on the phone) as the Iphone had punchy colours and contrast without any processing plus it meant one bag less to use. So he stopped carrying the 1100D and kept using just the phone. He has now sold off this 1100D and hasn't replaced it.
it is not necessary but everybody wants to share immediately, when I am on holiday or phototravel I like to share pictures "on the fly" (even the ones I will edit when I'm back home) with friends on WhatsApp, that's the XXI century :)
Yes, fast sharing and small size are the two potential advantages. It struck me that equivalent settings as 18mm f/8-f/9 (seemed to be the most used setting in the video) are provided by smartphone cameras, and what an entry level DSLR can capture at ISO 100, a smartphone can catch as well.
There were a few other pictures taken at different focal lengths, but those are easily provided by a lens extension you can carry in your shirt or jacket pocket - still more compact than the DSLR that you're carrying in addition to the mobile phone that most people have with them at all times anyway. A $600 camera (iirc) is nice, but still needs justifying when smartphones are often cheaper, or I could invest that money into getting an upgrade on the smartphone (getting a $1000-plus model or some accessories).
He did talk at length about the ISO 3200 shot, and I wonder if that could have been mastered with a phone. I agree with Becksvart that a comparison or shoot-out is due.
Print sizes and quality could be mentioned, and also whether a kit zoom is good enough to make an APS-C entry-level DSLR competitive with the latest smartphones.
And I don't know whether this was deliberately chosen, but landscape photography is an area where a smartphone will do comparatively well, so maybe that should be put in perspective.
"the sharing immediacy" "It's nice, but is it really necessary?"
It's neither necessary nor desirable. Most times. Obviously if shooting a local event, I want to post photos while they're still relevant. But an hour or two makes no difference. No way I'd post *anything* without cropping, straightening, culling...
Plus better low light performance and dynamic range. Although Canon finally got a lot better in the last 2-3 years. Then again if you like the ergonomics and UI of the Canon much better than the Nikon you should still buy the Canon. Image quality is still decent even though Nikon offers more for the money.
But this is not new, a good camera does not make a good photo, takes a photo with more resolution and with focused eyes, but not a good photo. The photo is made by the photographer, the machine helps in the technical part, but without a good subject and a good composition you have nothing. I entered Flickr in February and posted a few shots, I just left them there without interacting with anyone (exchanging favorites following etc) I just hung up the shots and answered the comments. There were shots of A6000, Rx100, Rx10, FZ1000, RX100III ... You know which has had more acceptance? one taken with a Panasonic FZ72 sensor 1 / 2.3 " 150 $ ....
As i do say for ages, one can make great pictures with any camera, from a composition point of view, even a plastic lens disposable 35mm Film camera will do. As Chase Jarvis says: The best camera is the one, that's with you - and my tagline forever here...
Nigel forgets only one thing - he's a skilled landscape photographer, the 18-55 STM is gen 2, and is an excellent Kitlens, so is the AF-P Nikon 18-55 Kitlens also with STM AF motor. Take *any* 6 MP DSLR, and create pictures, one doesn't need the latest & greatest. :-)
The Bottom Tagline i do know is: any camera will do, skill is everything, gear comes way later. And nowadays, many people are PS experts, turning ordinary shots, into extraordinary compositions. I do like Nigels pictures since years, he's great.
I think most people discount the PS effect too much.... so much nowadays is digital art, marginalizing photographic skill more than ever before. no matter what us photoenthusaists think about that in the end doesn't matter, the opinion of the 99.9% is more impt.... sad
I'm no "pro" myself, just an amateur, who loves photography. But instead of shelling out 100s, or even 1000s of cash, just for gear, that might be collecting just dust over the weeks and months later, because it doesn't became the hobby, passion as expected for somebody...i would advise a beginner, for starters into photography, take any Film SLR (yes, analogue film - not a DSLR) with a 35, 40 or 50mm prime Lens to learn about Photography. Not being used with film the first time, so Users just train their eye for compositions.
That fun can being had for as low as about 20 bucks, nowadays, with Lens included. It's "Fullframe", 36x24mm, and a better, cheaper approach, than spending too much for gear, this way. Or get a way old, really cheap 6 MP DSLR.
A Beginner does have all time of the world, to learn their stuff, especially when being into their youth age. That does train the eye more, than wasting 1000s of frames onto their sd card, even if it would cost literally nothing.
I am also 100% amateur, for sure a splash in film srl era can be useful, another advice I give is, along with kit lens, to buy a niftyfifty (i.e. any Canon EF 50 f1.8 is good) to start to train the eye with a prime lens. I found this very helpful for me when I was at the beginning.
Even the older 18-55 IS II is not bad, considering that you stop it down to f8. At that aperture the difference in sharpness between an L zoom lens is pretty small. You will only notice a bigger diference in chromatic aberrations, which you can correct in post most of the times very easily. The only very annoying thing about that lenses is the rotating front element, which is a big no if you use square ND filters.
Amazing to see that a good photographer can take a basic tool and use it well. Entertaining in a way and inspirational for beginners, surely. Suggestion to DPR team: make similar videos on all genres, to make it even more inspirational for beginners in all fields. Like portraits with a 55-200/4,5-5,6 lens on a entry level body. Or indoor sports with the same setup. Because shooting a tree doesn't really require 5000 $ worth of gear, does it.
I have no idea idea why people think portrait photography requires 135/1.4. Generic 50-200 will make more than satisfying results providing a competent photographer is using it. Same for indoor sports - sure you would get more keepers and better ones too, but even d3500 or similar with geberic tele or even kit will do fine. Source - I'm an average photographer at best and even I have no problems using such equipment in said circumstances.
Back in the day the budget portrait lens was 135mm f/3.5 and it did fine. As a bonus you got perfectly round out of focus highlights at such aperture. Slow lenses also play nicely with DSLR autofocusing system which is more susceptible to misfocus at 1.4 at some exact place you want to be sharp.
I agree about portraits (there's a literal ton of equipment that could be used very effectively for those that costs little) but disagree about indoor sports, unless you work in very well-lit arenas or are satisfied with mediocre results. Even pros with top of the line equipment have trouble with such situations, sometimes.
But a $100 tripod would worked just as well. These cameras and lenses are not heavy, and the shooting conditions seemed exceptionally mild. I question if he even needed a tripod at all.
Having own several 100.00 tripods I would never shoot with anything but a good CF tripod and my RRS head ever again. Just not worth the aggravation of use and the poor stability they provide.
Chris and Jordan already did a video review of the SL3 quite recently, so where is the need for another one? And does this new reviewer also believe that an SL2 might be a better camera purchase? I own an SL2 and like it very much, as a back-up to my Sony's.
This wasn't intended to be a review of the SL3, but a fun thought exercise about the importance we tend to place on premium gear. In fact, Nigel could have used any number of DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, or Pentax. The SL3 happened to be one that was easy to arrange in time for his shoot.
In case it's helpful, our written review of the SL3 ran through the main differences between the SL2 and SL3. (The last section on the page I linked.)
Thanks for explaining. The loss of the depth-of-field preview button is exasperating; I guess they were trying to reduce costs. At any rate, the SL2 is still available.
Try shooting 20 looks in 3 hours and 3 wedding albums for 3 different couples from morning till afternoon then come back then tell me eye AF ain't important.
It's easy to say when your livelihood don't depend on it and your workload is low.
@Grapejam perhaps you should branch out style wise away from ultra shallow DOF shots , the only area where eye-AF is of any real advantage . If you are shooting away from the eyelash DOF level normal AF works just dandy . I will take better ergonomics and usability over features
Take a look through the gear used by the worlds best wedding or any kind of photography for that matter very very few will be relying on eye-AF or even have gear that has the feature . If you are doing three weddings between breakfast and dinner on the same day you must be doing a turkey shoot with no real effort involved in it . And yes I have done hundreds of weddings over the years with everything from MF film cameras to high end DSLR
The delusion about "needing" X feature is strongest by far among the Sony crowd . Used as a my toy is better than your toy justification, it is actually quite comical. If you like a feature and it works for you that is great but it is nonsense to claim that it is vital
There is no getting away from it I am afraid if you are pumping out three weddings a day you are not doing any of them justice. Endless shot after shot taken the same ultra shallow DOF way is about as clichéd as it gets
"There is no getting away from it I am afraid if you are pumping out three weddings a day you are not doing any of them justice. Endless shot after shot taken the same ultra shallow DOF way is about as clichéd as it gets"
So I'm not doing my clients justice by giving them what they ask?
If photographers have managed without some features for decades, then of course they aren't vital or necessary. Doesn't mean they aren't useful, though.
I'm not a pro or anything but isn't 3 wedding in one day a lot? Could probably afford any camera with that much work, so who even cares if eye AF is not so important.
I think this is more to help the average photographer understand that gear isn't as important as they might think. A lot of beginners think they need FF or their pictures won't be good.
"Could probably afford any camera with that much work"
Depend on where you live, not everyone lives in first world country so a camera is a huge investment let alone lenses.
"so who even cares if eye AF is not so important."
It makes the process a whole lot easier and less stressful, and speed up your workflow significantly so you can accept more jobs (I'm talking pre wedding albums).
Entry-level crop-sensor DSLRs are perfectly capable of shallow DOF or focusing on a person's eye. But yeah, if you do it all day, every day, you'd obviously benefit from a FF sensor and a more automated focus tool. But then you're a serious Pro, and this video wasn't made for you.
@GrapeJam Three weddings a day ... you must have been evil in a former life to get such bad karma? ;-) Back in the day, one wedding was more than enough for me. However anyone who shoots professionally at this level isn't going to be considering an entry level DSLR. The market is more for the wedding attendees getting in the way of doing your job.
In my book, every additional feature (Eye-AF, edge to edge AF coverage, IBIS, etc.) should be enhancing your photography. If you're depending on it, you're doing something wrong.
I use an A7III, but my previous body was a D70s. I can perfectly workaround its limitations and take the photos that I want, but the extra features allows me to do the same faster or take better pictures with less equipment and effort.
For professional photographers, these features allows them to do their job faster with the same or higher quality, and again it fits the definition above.
No. The Honeywell Pentax was the American import, the non-American imports read Asahi Pentax on the pentaprism. Shutter speed topped out at 1/500th second albeit, 1/1000th second was available in the camera, hidden by the fact that it wasn't marked on the shutter speed dial. The lens was F/2 Super Takumar.
No no! We need 20 EV dynamic range for good pictures! And I must be able to lift a -6EV exposed shot if I want a good picture! And of course everyone needs 85mm f1.2/1.4 lenses for good portraits.
The painful truth is that we don't always buy high end cameras because we need them. We often buy them because we want them, or because they have some capability we want, or better ergonomics, or better controls, or better build quality and weather sealing. We buy high end gear for their performance at the extremes, not because they take "better photos" under most conditions. The results are really determined by the skill of the person holding the camera.
This video does a nice job of stating the obvious. A good photographer with modest gear can get excellent results, much better than a mediocre photographer with the world's best gear.
"This video does a nice job of stating the obvious. A good photographer with modest gear can get excellent results, much better than a mediocre photographer with the world's best gear."
Obvious to most good photographers - probably not to many mediocre ones. So this probably needs re-asserting from time to time.
Agreed jonby... many beginners and novices truly think better gear will make them better. For some, it is way easier to buy than to work on your skills. However, I also agree with Marty 4650. I buy a nicer camera because I like the way it feels in my hands. I like using it. I have my preferences and they make me happy. I take photography seriously, so it is worth it for me. Still, I don`t have that high end of gear.
Yes I agree with Marty too. If you use equipment a lot, you want it to make things easier / nicer / more enjoyable. And Marty is right that we pay more for equipment which will work in the more unusual situations. But a good photographer can make good work with the most humble of kit. A few years ago, using a kit lens for landscape did mean that you took a hit on image quality, but many of the more recent ones are really very decent for stopped-down work.
Easily forgotten, but personal insect repellent should be one of the items in the camera bag. Timely reminder that any modern camera is not the limiting factor in taking photos. Blaming the camera should be last on the list of solutions.
Canon's diminutive Rebel SL3 (also known as the EOS 250D and EOS Kiss X10) is currently the smallest DSLR on the market, but it comes with a proven sensor, an updated processor, and more. We've taken our review copy to New Orleans and back, and put it in front of our studio test scene – see how it stacks up.
Canon has introduced the EOS Rebel SL3, its smallest and lightest DSLR ever. It uses the same 24MP APS-C CMOS sensor as its predecessor but adds a DIGIC 8 processor, eye-detection when using Dual Pixel AF, improved battery life and 4K video capture with a significant crop.
The Panasonic Lumix DC-G100 (G110 in some regions) is a mirrorless camera designed for vlogging. Its 20MP Four Thirds sensor is paired with clever tracking audio technology, but we have our reservations.
The Olympus PEN E-PL10 is the latest in the company's entry-level mirrorless line-up. It's a beginner-friendly camera that does many things well, but ultimately doesn't stand out amongst its competition.
The Nikon Coolpix P950 is a powerful superzoom compact camera, built around a 24-2000mm equivalent zoom lens. Successor to the popular P900, the P950 adds an improved EVF, Raw capture and 4K video. So is it worth $800?
The Fujifilm X-T4 brings image stabilization, faster shooting and a bigger battery to the X-T series. It's not without its shortcomings but we found it to be an excellent stills and video shooter.
With its unusual form factor can the Tourbox aid the editing process? Will its price and variety of tactile controls appeal to photo and video editors who would like to streamline their workflow?
What’s the best camera for under $2000? These capable cameras costing less than $2000 should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $2000 and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
We've updated our 'best cameras over $2000' buying guide, and the Sony a7R IV is now our favorite mirrorless camera in the $2000-4000 price range. It sits alongside the Nikon D850, which is our choice for those who prefer DSLRs.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
The Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Di III RXD provides a wide zoom range in compact, weather-sealed design. Find out why it's Chris and Jordan's new favorite travel lens.
Kodak Portra 800 is a wonderful and versatile color film. And any rumors of it being discontinued, we're pleased to report, are simply untrue. That's a good thing, because it's capable of producing lovely results in all sorts of conditions.
Boering has left the World Press Photo without much of an explanation from either him or the organization, but he tells DPReview the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing the WPP to change the way it makes money.
The Sony ZV-1 and Panasonic Lumix DC-G100 are the first cameras we've seen that are overtly designed with vlogging in mind – and the changes they represent could have implications for the future of all cameras.
Olympus is showing final images of its under-development 150-400mm F4.5, which it says will arrive this winter. An unspecified macro and 8-25mm F4 Pro have also been added to the lens roadmap, and the E-M1X's AF gains bird detection.
Fujifilm is one of just two producers of tape media (the other being Sony) and it is hard at work on a breakthrough that will allow single tape storage drives to offer 400TB capacities in the coming years.
The National Parks Service says it's investigating the incident, which took place just two days after the park opened following a shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Professional full frame lenses are usually large and have fast apertures. In this episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan argue that there's a need for slow professional lenses – inspired by some of their favorite Micro Four Thirds lenses.
NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) photographs the sun every 0.75 seconds. In its first decade in space, the SDO has captured more than 425 million images of the sun. NASA has compiled these images into an amazing time lapse, come check it out.
The lens is available for Leica M, Sony FE, Nikon Z and L-mount camera systems, and now holds the title as the world's widest rectilinear lens for full-frame camera systems.
Tamron's new 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 is a versatile zoom lens for Sony E-mount. Well-suited for travel photography, it's compact, lightweight, and fast/quiet to focus.
Fujifilm's latest lens is a sharp, reasonably compact and well-built wide-angle for the company's GFX medium-format cameras. We took it out and about in the warm Seattle summer with the company's 50 and 100 Megapixel camera bodies to see what it can do.
Although the channel is still growing, it currently has nine videos that offer concise overviews of just a few of the cameras Japan Camera Hunter founder Bellamy Hunt has sitting around his Japanese storefront.
ON1 has launched ON1 360, the latest version of ON1 Photo RAW 2020 with ON1's new Photo Mobile application for iOS, iPadOS and Android mobile devices. The new solution syncs raw processing between your mobile device and computer.
Switching screw-on filters between lenses of different thread sizes is much quicker with the Revoring adjustable step-up ring. It uses a sprung iris that expands to fit a range of filter thread sizes, so a single filter can be used on multiple lenses
Kodak's discontinued Aerochrome film gets a digital remake in the form of a new Lightroom preset pack from film emulation specialists Really Nice Images.
We've updated our Best cameras under $2000 buying guide, and the Fujifilm X-T4 is our top pick for those seeking a camera that excels and both stills and video shooting.
The Canon EF-M 11-22mm F4-5.6 is by no means a new lens, but it's one we've been shooting with over the years, and appreciate for its compact form, solid build and useful wide-angle range.
Mauritius is a remote island off the southeastern coast of the African continent that's never had Google Street View. So, an island resident, Reuben Pillay, decided to use his own DJI Phantom 4 Pro drone to create more than 220 high-resolution 360-degree images of the island.
Pye Jirsa explains how blowing out the highlights in an image — usually a no-no in the world of photography — can result in a 'perfectly imperfect' photo that feels more authentic and natural.
A recent copyright infringement lawsuit against Newsweek, as well as Facebook's subsequent statement about its sublicensing terms, prompted the judge to reopen the case against Mashable.
Comments