Print Page | Close Window

Where to begin?

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Photography
Forum Name: Cameras, Equipment and Settings
Forum Description: What it Takes to Make the Shot
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=41868
Printed Date: August/17/2017 at 12:34


Topic: Where to begin?
Posted By: Marine24
Subject: Where to begin?
Date Posted: July/15/2015 at 16:17
I've been following this sub-forum with a lot of interest.  Most makes absolute no sense to me since my experience has been with point and shoot cameras and now my iPhone.  I've toyed with some underwater photography while scuba diving but found it is easier to spear fish and eat them instead of trying to take the picture.

Folks on this forum have steered me right on optics and expect the same to be true with cameras.

Looking for a mid-range general purpose DSLR camera.  Family shots, landscapes, wildlife, nature, action photos...etc.  Plan to shoot in both jpeg and RAW format.  The latter is when I pick up one of the photo editing/processing SW packages.

Entry level might be more appropriate for my skill level, but looking for something I can grow in to in the event I get the bug.

Budget for the body and lens is around the $650 mark +/-.

I'm interested in the Nikon D5300 or 5500 with the 18-55mm lens and add additional lens as I learn what I'm doing.  Based on reviews I've been reading, both seem to consistently bubble to the top and have features that may be useful as I get more experienced.

Good place to start?  Others you would recommend?



Replies:
Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: July/15/2015 at 16:28
Were I just starting out, I would look at Sony alpha series.  They are not dSLR, but have the complete feature set, take amazing images, and do so with MUCH less weight and bulk.  Additionally, you can mount different lenses and can add a digital viewfinder (some models include this.)

For flexibility, quality, and ease of use, they are very hard to beat.

I have a Canon 5D and almost never take it on trips any more. I grab an Alpha NEX5 and 2 lenses and about 5 memory cards, it all fits into a case about the size of the 5D body.


-------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: July/15/2015 at 16:32




-------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/15/2015 at 16:47
Wow.  That last photo is enough to convince me to check it out.  Wife loves hummingbirds.  The leopard almost made me jump.

I'll have to bone up on the distinctions between a DSLR and mirrorless camera, but do like the size of the latter.

Alpha 6000 looks interesting with a price point around what I was seeing for the Nikon 5500.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/15/2015 at 18:49
RC's recommendation is an excellent one. The Sony Alpha series cameras are outstanding.

One point of correction, though. All of Sony's interchangeable lens cameras are "Alpha series" cameras, which includes BOTH DSLRs and mirrorless or "compact system cameras" ("CSCs").

Both DSLRs and CSCs have interchangeable lens capability, which is the main thing that distinguishes the latter from the upper end "point and shoot" cameras. Unlike most point and shoot cameras, CSCs generally offer all the manual functions and features of a DSLR.

The differences between DSLRs and CSCs:
1. DSLR has a mirror in front of the image sensor that directs the light through a viewfinder prism, providing an optical image of the frame you're about to take a photo of. As a result, the mirror must be rotated out of the way of the sensor before the shutter curtain opens to expose the photo. As a result, they are more mechanically complicated than CSC cameras. The CSC or mirrorless cameras, as its name suggest, doesn't have the mirror or the viewfinder prism. This enables the CSC body to be much more compact and lighter. Minus the need for pivoting a mirror out of the light path to the sensor, it's mechanically simpler and has the potential for faster burst speeds. The fastest CSC burst rates are much faster than the fastest DSLR burst rates. On the negative side, it doesn't divert light through a viewfinder prism, so it must compensate with either an electronic viewfinder or an electronic display, which doesn't provide quite as accurate a representation of the scene you're shooting and isn't quite as useful for framing and focusing the shot in low light...at present.
2. Many CSC sensors are smaller than DSLR sensors (whether APS-C or full frame sizes), which means they don't quite match either the dynamic range or the high ISO noise suppression of DSLR camera sensors. This is especially critical when shooting in low light when you must bump ISO sensitivity up for proper exposure. The DSLRs will provide cleaner, more noise-free images at higher ISO than most CSC sensors are capable of. However, many of Sony's Alpha series CSCs use the exact same APS-C and full frame sensors as the DSLRs, so this distinction doesn't apply to them.
3. At present, DSLRs still have the edge in available lens selection. There's a much wider range of lenses to choose from for DSLR bodies, especially with Nikon and Canon DSLRs.
4. At present, the very best DSLR lenses are slightly superior optically than the best CSC lenses, though some may disagree with that statement. All the lab tests I've seen pretty much confirm this on MTR data. In reality, this seldom ever comes into play in the potential quality of photos each can take, as it's the Indian, not the bow that makes a great photo. A good photographer can take excellent photos with almost any camera/lens.
5. The extreme high end pro DSLR bodies will still likely handle hard use/ are more durable than the high end CSC bodies. That is just my opinion from looking at the current build quality, construction, and materials used in both. The upper level DSLRs are currently rated to a higher number of shutter cycles than the best CSCs.
6. Since you're buying into a system with interchangeable lens cameras, whether DSLR or CSC, and since technologies are almost guaranteed to change more in CSC systems than DSLRs, there is no guarantee that lenses you buy today for a given CSC body will still work with tomorrow's CSC bodies. As long as Nikon and Canon are still making DSLRs, all lenses you currently use for those cameras will still work for future bodies.

No doubt the CSC/mirrorless technology is the future of photography, and all the advantages DSLRs currently have over CSCs will eventually be eliminated with time and changes in technology. CSCs offer a significant advantage in size, weight, and in many cases, burst speed. The best CSCs produce image quality equal to DSLRs. Eventually lens selection, electronic viewfinders, and sensors will catch up and maybe surpass the DSLR world and totally obsolete DSLRs.

If you're just starting out in photography, I agree with RC and also think I would lean toward a good CSC, and of those available, I'd recommend either going with Sony or Olympus and their Micro Four Thirds system. Both combine good sensors and decent lens selection with nice feature sets on the bodies. 


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: July/15/2015 at 20:16
I agree. For a full frame dSLR, maybe, but it is an expensive upgrade.

My Sony has served me well.

-------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 06:57

Ted/RC: Appreciate you all taking the time to chime in and provide the information.  I'm following most of it, but need to dig a little more on some of the points.

How big of a deal is the phase vs contrast auto-focus?  One comment I read on CSC cameras is that they aren't as good at taking action shots in AF mode than the DSLR but do see some like the Olympus that have a hybrid phase/contrast setup.



Posted By: SEMO Shooter
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 09:08
I have been using Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras for 4 years.  My first was an E-PL1, and now I am using an E-M5.  I like the M 4/3 platform.  I take most of my pictures while scuba diving.  The M 4/3 camera and waterproof housing is much more compact than a DSLR, and also more affordable.

There are generally not as many choices for M 4/3 lenses, and they are not cheap.  If you consider buying used lenses there are many for DSLR on E-Bay and other websites, but not many used lenses for M 4/3 cameras.

I do think that a DSLR will focus faster, and especially faster, in low light than a M 4/3 camera.  The DSLR lenses are larger allowing more light into the camera which improves focus speed and focus ability in low light. The view finder on the DSLR works better than the electronic view finder on the M 4/3 too.

As for image quality I don't think I am giving up anything with my E-M5.  It produces very good quality pictures.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 09:35
Originally posted by Marine24<br>How big of a deal is the phase vs contrast auto-focus?  One comment I read on CSC cameras is that they aren't as good at taking action shots in AF mode than the DSLR but do see some like the Olympus that have a hybrid phase/contrast setup. <br>[/QUOTE Marine24
How big of a deal is the phase vs contrast auto-focus?  One comment I read on CSC cameras is that they aren't as good at taking action shots in AF mode than the DSLR but do see some like the Olympus that have a hybrid phase/contrast setup.
[/QUOTE wrote:






Contrast detection AF is commonly used on point and shoot and CSC cameras because it's a less expensive system to use and is easier to use in a compact camera body. It uses the sensor itself for lens focusing by comparing adjacent pixels and continuing to a




Contrast detection AF is commonly used on point and shoot and CSC cameras because it's a less expensive system to use and is easier to use in a compact camera body. It uses the sensor itself for lens focusing by comparing adjacent pixels and continuing to adjust focus until those adjacent pixels are at max contrast. The disadvantage: contrast detect cannot tell which direction the focus correction needs to go (front or back focusing), only that the image is either in or out of focus. So, it continues to adjust in both directions until it achieves focus confirmation. Although it can be a more accurate focus method, it's slower because it can tend to "hunt" and is therefore less well suited to action photography. But focus speed with this system is dependent on firmware, so it may not necessarily be slow, only "slower" than phase detection.

Phase detection AF is used in DSLRs. It is a more complex and more expensive system that splits the light onto 2 different AF sensors, compares the two images and adjusts accordingly. It still uses pixel contrast comparisons to determine focus, but phase detection also detects whether the lens is front or back focused, so it "knows" which direction to focus the lens. As a result, it's faster and is better suited to burst shooting. Its disadvantage is that it needs to be calibrated for optimal focus performance, and unless properly calibrated for each lens, it's less accurate. However, once properly calibrated, it's just as accurate as contrast detection.

As you mentioned, some high end point and shoot and CSCs now use a hybrid of both systems. I don't know if it works as well as the phase detection used on a high end DSLR or not or how they determine which method takes priority in which conditions. I don't own a CSC and therefore can't speak to whether they have comparable focus performance as a good DSLR in all situations or not. I believe these hybrid systems have to switch exclusively to contrast detection in low light, but I'm not 100% certain of that.

I'm sure that CSC focus technology will continue to improve over time just like everything else.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 09:43
All good points (and thanks, Rifledude, for the corrections, you are exactly right.)

Cameras are kinda like rifles/scopes: if you are a professional, you really, really need that extra 2-3% performance increase that the best stuff gives you - your life may literally depend on it.  But, if you are a range shooter or a hunter or a casual user, you don't "need" that 2-3% performance gain that the $2-3X gets you.

Need vs want: it is a tough choice sometimes.  In the end, get the one you want, else you will be buying again.


-------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 09:46
At this point, I'll stop; you guys know much more about this stuff than do I.

I just point the glass part at the thing and push the shiny button.


-------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 10:30
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

I just point the glass part at the thing and push the shiny button.


Haha! You're well on your way to mastering the art, brother!


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Skylar McMahon
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 10:31
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

At this point, I'll stop; you guys know much more about this stuff than do I.

I just point the glass part at the thing and push the shiny button.


RC I wouldn't say that. You had a notable suggestion and it carried some weight. Great job. I was going to post, but after Rifledude's elaborate explanation...I don't have anything of value to add to this thread. Only my opinion to the first post.



-------------
Amat Victoria Curam


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 11:02
Appreciate everyone's comments here.  I feel like I'm swimming through mud on this, so your insights are valuable.

RC's analogy with riflescopes is spot on.  While I appreciate the advantages that scopes from the likes of USO, PH and the other alpha glass manufacturers provide, my needs are adequately met by SWFA SS and Swarovski's Z5 line.

The recommendation to look at the CSC cameras is well received.  Size of the camera is an important factor for me.

Any recommendations on lenses to start with?  Not sure if a fixed focal general purpose lens is a good place to start or go with a medium telephoto.  Expect most of my photos will run the gamut from walkaround, landscapes, people...etc.  

Sounds like a medium telephoto may be the right answer, but I'll need to accept that it may not do as good of a job as a fixed focal lens and not be as trim either.



Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 11:53
As for "all purpose" lenses to start with, that all depends on your budget (and you're very constrained at your $650 stated budget for body and lens) and which system you choose. Decent lenses alone will totally consume or exceed your budget. You're going to have to make a lot of compromises at $650, and you won't be able to get a "fast" lens for that. If you are only able to budget $650 max, I would probably just get a high end point and shoot. The system you choose, and specifically the sensor size will determine which lens offers the best zoom range for your stated purpose due to crop factor. Study up on sensor "crop factor" and you will see what I mean.

If you want a lens well suited to both landscape AND portrait, unless you choose a 50mm fixed (or, depending on your sensor crop factor, maybe even 25mm or 35mm) and accept you'll never be able to take wide angle landscape shots, you can't do both with a fixed focal length lens. At the same quality level, a fixed focal length lens has the potential for better image quality than a zoom lens set at the same focal length, but that depends on many factors. In that respect, it's similar to rifle scopes.

Because of the wide ranging focal length requirements for the situations you describe, for a single "do it all" lens, you will be best served with a zoom in the range of 18-24ish on the low end and 70-120ish on the high of the zoom range. If you go longer FL on the long end, you either sacrifice your ability to take wide shots on the low end, you have a slow lens, you sacrifice a lot of optical quality, and you usually get a lot of distortion and vignetting along with the compromise. If you go shorter on the low end, you sacrifice your reach, perspective compression, subject isolation, and working distance on the high end. You can always zoom with your feet, however you can't duplicate the shallow depth of field capability of a longer focal length. Keep in mind, I'm talking about "effective focal length" here. Depending on your chosen sensor's crop factor, you can go shorter. For example, Micro Four Thirds has a 2X crop factor, so if you choose an Olympus CSC and want 24-100mm equivalent zoom range, a 12-50 (assuming that focal length range is offered) would provide that equivalent FOV or cropped equivalent with the MFT sensor...but it still doesn't duplicate the DOF of the longer lens.

If you can narrow your choice down to a specific camera body or system and provide a realistic budget (sorry, but $650 won't get you what you want), we can recommend a lens for all-around use.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 12:19
From the posts yesterday, I quickly realized I was falling victim to buying a Jarrett beanfield rifle and thinking a $150 scope would be fine.  I was initially looking at package pricing when I put together my initial budget but expect many of the items bundled either aren't necessary or leave something to be desired.

The short list includes the Sony A6000 and Olympus OM-D E M1 or M5.  Reviews and recommendations I've read at other sites seems to put these up towards the top consistently.

I like the simplicity of the touch screen on the Olympus and the ergonomics/learning curve seems better with the Olympus as well, but larger sensor on the A6000 has me bouncing between the two.

Budget is now $1200 for the body and general purpose lens.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 13:00
Now you're cooking with grease!

First, keep in mind that the glass is more important than the body. Lenses will last a lot longer than the bodies, and as long as you stick with a given system, you can upgrade your body later should you desire and still keep the same lenses as you progress in the hobby. As long as you have the basic functions and convenient features you want/need on the body, you have the sensor size and resolution you want, and the body has decent build quality, the lens will have more impact on your images than the body does.

So, with that said, given your $1200 budget:

If you choose the Sony system, I'd get the A6000 body (around $550.00) and the Sony E PZ 18-105mm f/4 G lens (around $600.00). The body has an excellent 24 MP APS-C size sensor and some nice features. The lens has a very useful range, reportedly has good image quality, and has a reasonably fast, fixed f/4 max aperture, so you can get some shallow DOF / subject isolation / nice bokeh shots desirable for portraits. You have 105mm (157mm equivalent with 1.5X crop factor) at max zoom for decent telephoto reach. At the same time you have 18mm (27mm equivalent) on the wide end for reasonably wide landscape shots.

If you choose the Oly system, I'd get the OMD E-M5 body (around $500) and the Olympus/Zuiko ED 12-40 f/2.8 ($750 - $800) as my first choice and the Olympus/Zuiko ED 14-150 f/4-5.6 (around $400) as my second choice. The second lens gives you more reach, but it has variable max aperture, so it isn't nearly as fast and as good in low light as the first lens. The 12-40 f/2.8 will give you 24-80 equivalent with the 2x crop factor, which is perfect for landscape, portraits, action, and general use. It has a super fast fixed f/2.8 max aperture, so you can get some really nice subject isolation wide open, allow you to use faster shutter speeds at lower ISO, and provides better light transmission. It will likely also have better optics overall than the 2nd lens. The second lens will obviously give you more reach if you want to also take photos of wildlife, but you will be somewhat hampered by its variable max aperture that gives you 2 stops less light at full zoom. This is why it's less expensive despite its greater zoom range, as its smaller max aperture means a less complicated optical system and doesn't require lenses as large.

Hope this helps. Keep us posted on what you choose and how you like it when you get your new toys in hand.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: stork23raz
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 13:53

everyone needs a 50mm 1.8, its a relativiley cheap($100-200 usually) but very useful lense



-------------
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10:28


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 13:59
Thanks Ted.  Appreciate you help turning this mountain back in to mole hill.

More to follow as I decide on what to actually purchase, but sounds like win win either way.  We'll see what kind of prices there are out there.  Noticed refurbs are also available, which may be worth a shot.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 14:09
Originally posted by stork23raz stork23raz wrote:

everyone needs a 50mm 1.8, its a relativiley cheap($100-200 usually) but very useful lense


How so?  My understanding that a 50mm lens is a good choice as a portrait lens.  Actually was thinking about adding a fast fixed focal length lens such as a 12mm/f2 or 17mm/f1.8 for a walkabout.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 16:51
Originally posted by stork23raz stork23raz wrote:

everyone needs a 50mm 1.8, its a relativiley cheap($100-200 usually) but very useful lense



I agree. Or a 50 f/1.4. They generally offer the best image quality for the least money. You can cover a lot of ground with a 50, but they aren't "do it all" lenses. The fact they are generally so inexpensive is reason enough to have one.

That would be a good second lens.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 16:58
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:


How so?  My understanding that a 50mm lens is a good choice as a portrait lens.  Actually was thinking about adding a fast fixed focal length lens such as a 12mm/f2 or 17mm/f1.8 for a walkabout.


50mm will work o.k. for portraits, especially group portraits, but it is a bit on the short side for portrait photography. 85mm is considered the optimal "classic" portrait focal length, because it has just the right amount of depth of field compression and working distance from your subject when you fill the frame.

12mm & 17mm are way too wide as general purpose "walkabout" lenses, unless you're walking about in the Grand Canyon or you're using a small sensor with a heavy crop factor.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 17:04
Okay, I'm learning.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/16/2015 at 17:18
50mm is roughly equivalent to the FOV and perspective of normal human vision within the size of the image frame.

So, as a general rule of thumb, every 50mm (equivalent) of focal length = 1X magnification. It doesn't exactly work out that way, because sensors smaller than "full frame" or 35mm equivalent have the visual appearance of increasing the magnification due to the FOV being cropped, but cropping the FOV doesn't increase the depth of field compression you normally expect from greater magnification/focal length.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/17/2015 at 09:05
So how concerned should I be on the megapixel difference between the Sony (24P) and the Olympus M5 (16P)?

I understand that resolution will be better with the higher number, but how does that really translate in to the actual picture?

Is it noticeable when looking at the photo on a computer screen or when you are printing pictures or does it fall in to the subtle differences of alpha glass that only a select few notice, appreciate or need?


Posted By: stork23raz
Date Posted: July/17/2015 at 09:48
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

So how concerned should I be on the megapixel difference between the Sony (24P) and the Olympus M5 (16P)?

I understand that resolution will be better with the higher number, but how does that really translate in to the actual picture?

Is it noticeable when looking at the photo on a computer screen or when you are printing pictures or does it fall in to the subtle differences of alpha glass that only a select few notice, appreciate or need?
 
either will be just fine.  I have a D40, its only 6mp and  it that is fine for all my pictures. Below is a chart that translate megapixels to print size.   What you should be concerned with is the sensor size/quality and how well it handles cranking on the ISO.  My cell phone is a 5mp, and my DSLR is 6mp, but the image quality is not even compareable.


-------------
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10:28


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/17/2015 at 10:46
Thanks Stork23.  Charts helps put things in context.

Is there a spec that would indicates how well the sensor size/quality can handle ISO adjustments?

If I'm reading the specs correctly, the Sony is adjustable from ISO 100-25,600.  The Olympus M5 from ISO 200-25,600.

Expect this will be a learning process for me.  Most of my shots will be taken with the camera set in auto mode.  As I get more experienced, I'll learn how to manipulate ISO, shutter speed, aperture...etc and understand the significance when I purchase another camera if I want to get more serious.

Judging by the number of cameras some folks have, they are purpose driven based on the objective.  (No wonder a camera thread is in a optics/gun forum.  Lot of similarities.)


Posted By: stork23raz
Date Posted: July/17/2015 at 11:05
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

Thanks Stork23.  Charts helps put things in context.

Is there a spec that would indicates how well the sensor size/quality can handle ISO adjustments?

If I'm reading the specs correctly, the Sony is adjustable from ISO 100-25,600.  The Olympus M5 from ISO 200-25,600.

Expect this will be a learning process for me.  Most of my shots will be taken with the camera set in auto mode.  As I get more experienced, I'll learn how to manipulate ISO, shutter speed, aperture...etc and understand the significance when I purchase another camera if I want to get more serious.

Judging by the number of cameras some folks have, they are purpose driven based on the objective.  (No wonder a camera thread is in a optics/gun forum.  Lot of similarities.)

not really a chart, you have to eyeball it, and read reviews
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-A6000/10 - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-A6000/10
if you scroll down to the cameras compared section. you can selection different cameras and at the bottom adjust the iso on them to get a good comparison.
Also i would read the reviews from this website on both the cameras your interested in. It might be a bit of overload, or you can skip the the last page for the overall rating
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-A6000/13 - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-A6000/13
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/13 - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/13
they also have sample images on both at the very very end of the review.


-------------
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10:28


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/17/2015 at 14:52
Mike --
Addressing your questions & comments on your latest posts:

On resolution (megapixels vs sensor size):
Either sensor has way more than enough megapixels. You would have to print HUGE photos before you'd approach the resolution limitations of either sensor.
Although the Sony has more megapixels @ 24 vs. the Olympus @ 16, the Sony has a larger APS-C sensor size (23.5 X 15.6mm) while the Olympus has a Micro Four Thirds size (17.3 X 13mm) sensor. The Sony's APS-C sensor therefore has 39% more surface area. However, although the Sony's sensor has more total megapixels, the Olympus's sensor actually has slightly greater pixel density. In other words, if you use uncropped images from both cameras, the Sony's image has greater resolution, but if you were to take the exact same photo at the same distance with both cameras and then crop the photo from the Sony at the same FOV as the tighter frame Olympus image, the Olympus image would then actually have slightly greater resolution due to its tighter pixel pitch. In actual use and with normal photo print sizes and viewing on computer monitors, you will not be able to discern the resolution difference between the two. Noise suppression and lens quality will have a greater influence on the quality of the images from both cameras than the MP count.

On ISO and noise:
In general, larger sensor sizes can use higher ISO settings before digital noise becomes noticeable than smaller sensors. But, a lot depends on which individual brand and type of sensor the manufacturers are using in each camera being compared too. A Micro Four Thirds sensor won't handle high ISO quite as well as an APS-C sensor, but they will be close in terms of "usable" ISO range. Ignore the available ISO range settings specs. That has nothing to do with how high you can go on ISO and still have usable images. Most cameras will allow you to set the ISO sensitivity way higher than you will ever dream of using if image quality is important. Better suppression of noise is one of the strongest arguments for going with a larger sensor size and a higher end camera. In this case, the two sensors are reasonably close in size to each other and the difference in practical high ISO usability should be pretty close. So, the question you have to ask yourself is "which is more important to me; slightly better low light performance and slightly shallower depth of field capability at the same focal length and aperture or greater effective reach (from the MFT's greater crop factor)?"

On "Most of my shots will be taken with the camera set in auto mode:"
Please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm just trying to give you the best advice, but if you have the slightest thought of using Auto mode, even for a limited amount of time until you learn how to use the manual controls, you're better off buying a good point and shoot camera and saving a significant amount of $ until you know whether or not you'll enjoy photography. You'll get just as good photos from a high end P&S (at reasonably low ISO) as you will a CSC when shooting in Auto mode. The whole reason to spend a lot more on a replaceable lens system camera in the first place is to take advantage of greater creative control over your photos with selective depth of field, shutter speed, focus, color balance, and lens choice.

No camera is intelligent enough to know your creative intent and "get it right" the first time. You don't learn much of anything except maybe composition that is helpful in advancing your photographic knowledge by shooting in Auto. Auto is your camera's "best guess" at how to handle the light in the scene and what kind of shot you're going for. You're looking at getting a nice camera, with a nice lens, and getting the best possible image quality. Shooting in Auto with such a camera is a lot like buying a Ferrari and detuning the engine to get 50% of its original horsepower. Your cell phone can take decent photos in Auto; you don't need to spend $1200 just to get a higher MP version of compromised photos. The sooner you forget "Auto" mode even exists and learn the basics of exposure, the better off you and your photos will be. Learning the basics of how to use the 3 main controls (aperture, shutter speed, and ISO) to get the exposure you want isn't that difficult, and there's plenty of instructional materials you can read and watch online to help you. Once you do a little experimentation, your knowledge of photography expands exponentially. The quest is part of the fun. If you get confused, several of us here will be happy to help you learn how to use Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and Manual modes. The quicker you are able to dispense with the "auto" crutch, the more satisfied you will be with your significant investment. Don't let the tons of menu options on your camera and the thick owner's manual that came with it overwhelm you. You will seldom use half the features on your camera, and a high % of those features actually suck anyway. Keep it simple, shoot in RAW, read up on the "exposure triangle," and don't let your camera think for you. When you take total control over your photos, you will end up enjoying the hobby much more.

Here is some good reading material on sensors, crop factors, resolution, etc. A lot of reading, but some good info:

https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence - https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence

http://www.mdavid.com.au/photography/resolution.shtml - http://www.mdavid.com.au/photography/resolution.shtml

http://www.competitor .com/alc/0012046/article/Does-sensor-size-matter-YES - http://www.competitor .com/alc/0012046/article/Does-sensor-size-matter-YES


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/17/2015 at 16:03
Ted:  Appreciate the candor and point is well taken.  I made it to a local Camera store to actually get a feel of the Olympus M1, M5 and Sony A6000.  I'm down to the M1 and M5.  While I prefer the M1, not sure it is worth the 2X in price.  Seriously looking at used/refurb gear to help with the price point; knowing, like guns, buyer beware.

Lenses include: (Appreciate the recommendations)

- Olympus M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8
- Olympus M.Zuiko 60 mm F/2.8 ED
- Olympus M Zuiko ED 40-150mm f2.8 (This one may have to wait for awhile)

I know I have a lot of reading and experimentation ahead of me, but looking forward to it.  After the hands on, it isn't as hard as I was making it out and since it is digital, I can erase my mistakes or watch the viewfinder as I manipulate the various settings to see the affect.  Expect during post processing I can clean up a lot of my errors.

Any experience with these folks?

http://northrup.photo/product/stunning-digital-photography/ - http://northrup.photo/product/stunning-digital-photography/

The book seems like a good beginners guide and they also have a book on Lightroom 6.  Their videos seem pretty good and break things down so a knuckle dragger like me can understand.


Posted By: stork23raz
Date Posted: July/17/2015 at 17:07
dont bother with auto, just jump right in. Do some reading, watch few videos. Set that thing to A or P in the beginning play with that. Adjust your iso up more as as lighting gets lower. P is great for shooting on the fly. I mainly use S for either really LONG exposure or the opposite a very short exposure(subject is generally moving) M is your setting up and fully composing every detail of that shot and it can require some time. Its and art and science alot like firearms shooting.  Remember to shoot in RAW, it gives you the most adjust-ability in editing
There are a ton of books and videos out there some its really advanced and hard to understand.
For editing software I use Lightroom mostly and I personally enjoy this guys videos and I can kinda follow him to learn.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AnthonyMorganti/featured%20 - https://www.youtube.com/user/AnthonyMorganti/featured
this guy has some good how to videos for beginners on using your camera, composition and editing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENHKjb8ltAM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENHKjb8ltAM



-------------
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10:28


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/17/2015 at 17:13
Mike --
The M1 is a more "pro-quality" body, with a bit more robust build quality. It also has no anti-aliasing or optical low pass filter (OLPF) in front of the sensor, so it has a bit better sharpness than the M5, but at the expense of introducing a phenomena called "moire" in some images on rare occasions. I won't get into trying to explain moire at this time, because it's something that's difficult to put into words. Suffice it to say, there are advantages and disadvantages to having vs. not having an OLPF. The M1 also has a faster buffer, so you can shoot in burst mode for longer duration before you have to pause to wait for your camera's processor buffer to clear before you can shoot another burst. This is only an issue if you plan to do a lot of fast action photography.

Those are all 3 good lenses to have. For your first lens, I would either get the 12-40 f/2.8 or (if your budget allows), the 40-150 f/2.8. Both are very nice lenses that cover a lot of ground, and both give you the advantage of fast f/2.8 aperture at all focal lengths. The 40-150 will give you a lot more reach (300mm equivalent at full zoom), so it's much more useful if you prefer to spend more time shooting subjects requiring more working distance, such as wildlife. The 12-40 is a better lens for landscape or other shots where you need a wider angle of view. Both cover useful focal lengths for portraits. The 12-40 also helps preserve the small size and weight advantage of the Micro Four Thirds system, whereas the 40-150 is fairly large and heavy compared to other CSC lenses, even though it's still much smaller than equivalent focal length lenses for APS-C and full frame sensor cameras. It boils down to what's more important to you -- wide angle capability or zoom reach, how important keeping weight and size to a minimum is to you, and how much you're willing to spend.

The 60mm f/2.8 is also a great lens, and you may wish to get it later, in addition to a couple other "primes" (fixed FL). It's a nice focal length for portraits and is a useful medium telephoto length on the MFT sensor. However, it wouldn't be an ideal "all-purpose" "walk-around" lens because FOV is too narrow for many landscape and "street" photography shots you'll encounter, and there will be times when your working distance will be too tight to use it. If you get either of the other 2 lenses, you will have the 60mm focal length covered anyway.

I have no experience with the Northrup materials, but that does look like a nice resource.

When you do get your camera gear, be sure to please participate in our monthly photo contests. It can be a lot of fun, and when you have to meet a pre-assigned theme each month, it forces you to have to get creative as opposed to just taking snapshots. As a result, you get outside your comfort zone and learn a bit more about your camera and photography in a shorter amount of time.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/18/2015 at 13:31

I like that 40-150 lens as well, but talk about a budget buster.  That by itself is $1200-1500. 

Good advice on the 60mm.  I keep forgetting about the crop factor and might just add a pancake style lens to the mix for something that is a good walk around type lens.



Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/18/2015 at 23:53
I forgot to mention that that particular 60mm also has macro capability, so if you think you might enjoy taking super closeup photos of small objects, that's reason enough to consider getting it later. Macro is a whole separate world of photography that's fun and offers endless subject opportunities.

If you're looking for an all-around travel lens as your first lens, then I believe the 12-40 f/2.8 is your best bet. That provides 24-80 equivalent, coupled with a fast max aperture. I'd venture to say that unless you're really interested in super telephoto, that zoom range would cover 75% of your photography needs.

-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/19/2015 at 07:35
Thanks Ted.  I guess what I was thinking was a lower profile lens but sounds like going with a fixed 17mm or such might make it easier to carry around, but comes at a cost of not being as useful for a wide range of picture scenarios.


Posted By: tejas
Date Posted: July/19/2015 at 10:10
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

I've been following this sub-forum with a lot of interest.  Most makes absolute no sense to me since my experience has been with point and shoot cameras and now my iPhone.  I've toyed with some underwater photography while scuba diving but found it is easier to spear fish and eat them instead of trying to take the picture.

Folks on this forum have steered me right on optics and expect the same to be true with cameras.

Looking for a mid-range general purpose DSLR camera.  Family shots, landscapes, wildlife, nature, action photos...etc.  Plan to shoot in both jpeg and RAW format.  The latter is when I pick up one of the photo editing/processing SW packages.

Entry level might be more appropriate for my skill level, but looking for something I can grow in to in the event I get the bug.

Budget for the body and lens is around the $650 mark +/-.

I'm interested in the Nikon D5300 or 5500 with the 18-55mm lens and add additional lens as I learn what I'm doing.  Based on reviews I've been reading, both seem to consistently bubble to the top and have features that may be useful as I get more experienced.

Good place to start?  Others you would recommend?




Heres something different to kick around. Look at buying some quality preowned gear, particularly the camera body itself. Like most technology, the DSLR bodies lose they're  value as they age. As an example, my D200 can shoot an image just as good as my D7000. The photographer is more important than the camera, and the glass is more important than the body. The point is, bodies lose there value quickly but lenses don't. The controls and menus aren't that differentness than on a newer body. To understand the theory behind what your doing you should practice with the camera in manual. That will enable you to learn the relationship between aperature and shutter speed, exposure and depth of field.

Hopefully Im not breaking the rules by posting these links. I'd start with something like this. The lens i recommended is great for all around use but has limitations. You can add a fast prime later.

https://www.keh.com/282970/nikon-d200-digital-camera-body-10-2-m-p

https://www.keh.com/209390/nikon-18-200mm-f-3-5-5-6-g-aspherical-ed-if-dx-af-s-vr-autofocus-lens-for-aps-c-sensor-dslrs-72


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/19/2015 at 10:29
A fixed 17mm (34mm equivalent on the MFT sensor bodies) would be a decent all-around "walk-about" lens if you're just interested in scenic and street photography. It's not the best choice for portraits because it doesn't quite give you enough working distance. Any focal length shorter than about 50mm equivalent gets you too close to your portrait subject to fill the frame and therefore distorts normal human perspective, exaggerating facial features like noses, which isn't flattering to your subject. It's fine for when you're taking portraits where you want a large portion of the scene around the subject included in the frame, but not close-up portraits. For close-up portraits, you need the depth compression that longer focal lengths provide. Also, remember that the shorter your focal length, the deeper the depth of field, so wider lenses cannot get the subject isolation that are desirable in portraits that longer focal lengths combined with large apertures give you. Sometimes, taking closeup portraits of people or animals with a wide angle lens provides a cool or comical look, but for most portrait photography, using at least 50mm is best, with 70-85mm considered ideal.

-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/19/2015 at 11:25
Tejas is correct; it's better to invest in good glass than to get the nicest body and try to save money on the lenses. It's kind of the same as buying a $2500 rifle and putting a $100 scope on it. The body is indeed less important than the lens. Where I disagree with him slightly is I personally would rather have less zoom range to get a faster, fixed max aperture, because it gives better subject isolation and better low light performance by allowing you to use lower ISO value. Anytime you see a lens with something like "f3.5 - 5.6" in the specs, this means that the max aperture changes as you zoom. As you increase zoom, you lose a stop of light; your max aperture goes to the larger f-number as you approach max zoom.

Whenever you see a single f-number in the specs such as "f/2.8," this means you have that aperture available at all focal lengths, i.e. It's a faster lens, and usually a better lens optically. This doesn't mean that variable aperture lenses are no good. Some are quite good, in fact. They just won't give you quite the speed and shallow DOF that is desirable for some shots (I.e. portraits) where you want greater creative control over DOF.

-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: tejas
Date Posted: July/19/2015 at 14:08
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Tejas is correct; it's better to invest in good glass than to get the nicest body and try to save money on the lenses. It's kind of the same as buying a $2500 rifle and putting a $100 scope on it. The body is indeed less important than the lens. Where I disagree with him slightly is I personally would rather have less zoom range to get a faster, fixed max aperture, because it gives better subject isolation and better low light performance by allowing you to use lower ISO value. Anytime you see a lens with something like "f3.5 - 5.6" in the specs, this means that the max aperture changes as you zoom. As you increase zoom, you lose a stop of light; your max aperture goes to the larger f-number as you approach max zoom.

Whenever you see a single f-number in the specs such as "f/2.8," this means you have that aperture available at all focal lengths, i.e. It's a faster lens, and usually a better lens optically. This doesn't mean that variable aperture lenses are no good. Some are quite good, in fact. They just won't give you quite the speed and shallow DOF that is desirable for some shots (I.e. portraits) where you want greater creative control over DOF.



You're right about the fixed aperture of course, I knew he was on a budget though. With the the exception of the 50mm F1.4 and the F1.8, generally, the smaller the f stop the bigger the price. The 18-200 is a versatile and sharp lens that can be had for a great price. If you have to use it to shoot low light sports for instance, you'll have to go to 1600 or so ISO, and your photos will be less than stellar. If you shop around you might find an old 80-200 F2.8. They are built like tanks and weigh about five pounds. The auto focus is slow but accurate, you can sometimes find these for 300ish.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/20/2015 at 14:45

Tejas/Rifledude:  Appreciate the recommendations.  I've been trying to get my head wrapped around the fixed and variable f-number.  I could see that the small fixed f-number in the zooms meant the size and price were greater, but agree that the primary consideration is the quality of the lens.

Actually been bouncing around the idea of dropping down to an Olympus M5 or M10 and sticking with the Olympus M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 to get the price down, but the M5 package deals I'm seeing don't typically include that lens.  Those that do are only about $300 less than the Olympus M1 with that same lens.

I understand the wider field of view and limitations of getting close portrait shots using a 17mm or similar prime lens, but can't those limitations be address during post processing by cropping in close if you want a tight head shot?

Not sure how noisy it would get or other consequences, but it will be fun to learn.

For now I'm going to stick with the 12-40mm lens and figure out where the gaps are. Outside of smaller form factor, the 17mm pancake lens is already covered by the 12-40mm.

Local camera shop will also rent equipment.  If lenses are included in that offer, I'll give a few different lenses.

Heading to Lake Powell in UT next week, so just need to go with the gut and dive in or you all will be seeing iPhone pics of my trip.




Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/20/2015 at 15:16
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:


I understand the wider field of view and limitations of getting close portrait shots using a 17mm or similar prime lense, but can't those limitations be address during post processing by cropping in close if you want a tight head shot?



No, because it isn't just a field of view consideration involved. There's also the issue of depth of field perspective. No matter what you do, a shot taken with a wide angle lens will never look like a shot taken with either a "normal" (around 50mm effective focal length) or a telephoto lens. When you get close to a subject with a wide angle lens, it distorts the subject considerably because the distance between objects and surfaces closer to the lens and those further from the lens is exaggerated. this can make a person's nose or head look proportionally too large in relation to their face or body (or whatever is closest to the lens), depending on your shot angle. In addition, wide angle lenses also typically have significant barrel distortion. Therefore, if you take a reasonably close-up portrait of someone or if your subject is very far from the center of the frame, their features can be significantly distorted much like one of those comical carnival mirrors. The barrel distortion gives a cool creative effect that can be very dramatic to some scenes, but is typically very undesirable for portraits of people.

The longer your lens focal length, the more it compresses depth of field perspective, the same as viewing objects further away with any other optic or with your eyes. Objects in the foreground and beyond the foreground thus appear to be closer together. Additionally, lens distortion tends to be less prominent to non-existent in the focal lengths normally used for dedicated portrait photography (50mm and greater). The greater perspective compression is more flattering to your subject because it doesn't distort their features, and the subject appears more like you typically see the person with normal human vision.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/20/2015 at 15:50
Dang.  Didn't think it was that simple.  Explains why my Aunt didn't much care for the close up I cropped of her from a wide angle group photo.

I get the strange feeling that if I decide to get in to this hobby further, I'm going to have more lenses and camera bodies than I do scopes and holsters.

Thanks for the encouragement and help.  Order is in for the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Camera, along with the M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, couple of extra batteries and a couple SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 32GB SD cards.




Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/20/2015 at 17:45
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

DOrder is in for the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Camera, along with the M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, couple of extra batteries and a couple SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 32GB SD cards.




I think you made a good choice.

Excellent choice on your SD card too.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/20/2015 at 17:58
Thanks Ted.  The build should look very familiar.

Olympus doesn't waste any time.  Received an offer to purchase a M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 R for $99 off their website.  Sounds like an interesting kit lens even with the limitations on the variable f-number.

The M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f2.8 PRO that you recommended is still on the radar, but I'll need a few more bake sales and car washes before I can buy that one.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: July/20/2015 at 19:56
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

Thanks Ted.  The build should look very familiar.

Olympus doesn't waste any time.  Received an offer to purchase a M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 R for $99 off their website.  Sounds like an interesting kit lens even with the limitations on the variable f-number.

The M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f2.8 PRO that you recommended is still on the radar, but I'll need a few more bake sales and car washes before I can buy that one.

Haha! Roger that on the bake sales!

You'll soon discover if you haven't already that this photography thing can get just as expensive as guns and optics. It's fun though, and that's the name of the game.

Please don't misunderstand on the variable max aperture thing. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have variable aperture on a lens, depending on how you plan to use it. If you typically lean toward deep DOF shots like landscapes and you shoot a lot on tripod, having that extra stop or 2 of light might not mean much when measured against the significant $ premium to get it, and you can still get good subject isolation with f/5.6 at long focal lengths, especially if you're much closer to the subject than the background detail. I thought it was best for you to have f/2.8 in your "all-purpose" lens if the budget allows so that as you progress in your photography skills, you have fast aperture available and can therefore "grow with the lens." It just gives you more options creatively.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/20/2015 at 21:58
I'm tracking with you. It will be nice to have the zoom capability but understand the limitation of freezing action. Hard to argue at $99 as a gap filler until I can pick up something better.


Posted By: tejas
Date Posted: July/20/2015 at 23:16
If you use a wide angle lens to shoot individual portraits, face shots, you will have to get right in your subjects face. Might be okay with your wife or kids to invade they're space but strangers won't like it. Even worse, Nobody will like the result. You will make they're nose appear huge, if it's athe center of your photo.

The best portrait lens I know of, though I don't own one...yet, is the Nikon 105 mm micro f2.8 VR. The G series, not the older F although it's a great lens too. I have a Tokina 100mm F2.8 micro. It's a great lens as well and a good bit less expensive than the Nikon. The micro (Nikon marketing) series of lenses were made to be able to focus at very close distances-inches, for close ups of bugs, flowers, and so forth. They are ultra sharp at all distances though and make good all around lenses.


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: July/21/2015 at 17:51
I saw three pictures of the same girl using  a 35mm, 75mm and 170mm lens and cropped accordingly.  I see what you and Ted mean.  You'd swear it was a before and after shot of someone who had lost weight, but they were all taken in the same session.

Need to tell my wife I don't need to go on a diet after all.  Just need to start using the appropriate lens.


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: July/22/2015 at 07:36
If it were only that simple.... Smile

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: August/05/2015 at 09:52
I've been able to get a few hundred shots with the Olympus E-M1 with the M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 and M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II lenses.

I've been shooting primary in aperture mode for shots where I want the blurred background and shutter mode when I was shooting while on a moving boat.

These are from Lake Powell, UT

Here is an interesting one that I should have switched to aperture mode

https://goo.gl/photos/tqKZfPJ7fceQsah29 - https://goo.gl/photos/tqKZfPJ7fceQsah29

Shot this one and was surprised to see the plane in the background.  Obviously cropped:

https://goo.gl/photos/ehvWvx1Hfu5zBYyRA - https://goo.gl/photos/ehvWvx1Hfu5zBYyRA

Telephoto shot after rain and the waterfalls that followed.  I did some cropping and adjustments in Picasa.

https://goo.gl/photos/kCY4bBchq5tPhwcx6 - https://goo.gl/photos/kCY4bBchq5tPhwcx6

I'm still learning what settings to use when, but open to comments/recommendations.





Posted By: sucker76
Date Posted: August/06/2015 at 01:26
Very nice pictures.  I especially like the bird and plane shot.

I found this thread too late to comment about the camera choice.  I am most familiar with Nikon and APS-C sensors. 

My first digital body was a Nikon D40.  I still have it and it still takes great photos with 6MP.  My only lens at the time was the 18-55mm kit lens.  I talked with a pro photographer a few years ago and said I wanted to get a newer camera.  At the time the D7000 was brand new and I was lusting after it but a tight budget kept me away.  He asked why?  I answered to take better pictures.  A better camera must equal better pictures.  The photographer told me to save money on the new body and spend it on the lens.  In other words, my lowly 6MP D40 with an expensive lens would arguably take better pictures than my 24MP D7100 with a cheapo kit lens. 

Have fun with it and experiment with settings.  Deleting a bad picture is a lot easier and cheaper than developing a bad picture.  


Posted By: Marine24
Date Posted: August/06/2015 at 06:49
Appreciate the advice on the lenses and know what you mean about deleting photos.  I have it set up to take multiple frames when I press the button.  On our trip to Lake Powell, I probably took over 600 pictures with a lot of oops's in the mix.  Expect the keepers will end up being around a couple dozen but SD cards are cheap.

I was a little concerned with the Olympus being able to handle fast action shots but did just fine photographing a water skier and caught the bird.


Posted By: sucker76
Date Posted: August/06/2015 at 20:16
I take pictures for a krewe at Mardi Gras in Galveston and take roughly 1200 pictures over 3 days.  I end up scraping about 200 for various reasons.  Lighting and white balance still give me trouble.  The drunk photobomb too.


Posted By: Thehunterman
Date Posted: October/19/2016 at 15:02
Did anyone tried using GoPro? Seems like it can replace many others, don't you think?


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: October/19/2016 at 15:38
As a replacement for all the things a camera does, unfortunately no.


-------------
Fish to Live, Live to Hunt


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: October/19/2016 at 16:04
Originally posted by mike650 mike650 wrote:

As a replacement for all the things a camera does, unfortunately no.


Exactly.

Go Pros are nice, but they don't even remotely approach the capabilities of a good CSC or DSLR.

-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: October/20/2016 at 06:17
But point and shoot is so mindlessly easy....

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: bemsg4c0l
Date Posted: November/30/2016 at 12:03
You warning.


Posted By: Skylar McMahon
Date Posted: November/30/2016 at 12:14
Originally posted by bemsg4c0l bemsg4c0l wrote:

You warning.


This is your only warning. Follow the rules that you aggreed to when opting to join Optics talk.

Originally posted by Chris Farris Chris Farris wrote:

3.  Do not advertise other retailers selling the same or similar products as SWFA, this includes posting links to other retailers for products sold by SWFA.  SWFA does not provide this forum as a vehicle to redirect customers to our competition.



-------------
Amat Victoria Curam


Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: November/30/2016 at 15:49
Singapore, go figure.

-------------
Doug


Posted By: Urimaginaryfrnd
Date Posted: December/02/2016 at 22:20
I wish I had seen digital coming before I put 50K into film cameras darkroom and studio equipment. 

-------------

"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do".
Bobby Paul Doherty
Texas Ranger


Posted By: Skylar McMahon
Date Posted: July/27/2017 at 12:35
Originally posted by Urimaginaryfrnd Urimaginaryfrnd wrote:

I wish I had seen digital coming before I put 50K into film cameras darkroom and studio equipment. 

Should you ever get the bug to buy again, I would suggest going mirrorless. That is the wave of the future and Sony is spearheading that with their latest Alpha. 


-------------
Amat Victoria Curam


Posted By: Skylar McMahon
Date Posted: July/27/2017 at 12:36
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

Appreciate the advice on the lenses and know what you mean about deleting photos.  I have it set up to take multiple frames when I press the button.  On our trip to Lake Powell, I probably took over 600 pictures with a lot of oops's in the mix.  Expect the keepers will end up being around a couple dozen but SD cards are cheap.

I was a little concerned with the Olympus being able to handle fast action shots but did just fine photographing a water skier and caught the bird.

How's things going? Still enjoying that new camera? If so, I would like to encourage you to try our monthly contest. Seeing your participation would be welcome competition. 


-------------
Amat Victoria Curam



Print Page | Close Window