Photography and Cameras

[coriander]

This with a 7D (my shot), trick is also used the lowest ASA/ISO you can to reduce grain.

Aaarghhh.... beautiful! Did you 'cade it or was that a scheduled photo runpast?
edit: nevermind I looked at the rest of your photostream.

 

[UP4014]

Aaarghhh.... beautiful! Did you 'cade it or was that a scheduled photo runpast?

Had the Nissan Maxima rental, the tickets Were sold out even at $5000 USD each for the 150mile run.

 

[coriander]

Had the Nissan Maxima rental, the tickets Were sold out even at $5000 USD each for the 150mile run.

Traffic must've been crazy !
What a year for me to be unable to travel - Big Boy in the US, Heritage (tram) weekend in SFO, La Trochita in Patagonia. Myeloma is such an inconvenience

 

[UP4014]

Traffic must've been crazy !
What a year for me to be unable to travel - Big Boy in the US, Heritage (tram) weekend in SFO, La Trochita in Patagonia. Myeloma is such an inconvenience

I should do a trip report, complete with stories of 18mile tailbacks on I80 out in the middle of nowhere and State Troopers giving up on traffic control.

Back on cameras, while on the above I noted this photo in one of the Union Pacific office cars, note the well dressed gentleman on the left with what looks like a Rollieflex camera, it’s Ronald Reagan.

 

[NM]

Your pick list is not quite right. The 90D is an upgrade of the 80D. I haven't looked at what the difference is but the 70 to 80 upgrade gave very little benefit. The progression from the 2 digit is to single digit in Canon so your High level should be a 6D, 7D or go hard with a 5D.

I understand the model numbering (well, to some extent), and considered the single digit models to be too high-end for my needs and was not able to justify teh price. The 90D seems to be a major upgrade form teh 80D and is now priced almost 2x the 80D. The 90D gets to 4K30p video, has the Digic 8 processor (rather than Digic 6 in 80D), 32.5MP iAPS-C sensor (24.2 in 80D), 11 fps continuous shooting (7 in 80D), UHS-II card support (UHS-I in 80D), ISO 100-25600 (100-16000 in 80D). The raw specs in some areas exceed the 7D. And 90D is 20g lighter than 80D and 200g lighter than 7D.

The 7D is a cropped sensor whilst the newer 6D is the entry level prosumer full frame. This is going to be a factor when you take shots - a cropped sensor makes the focal length longer so you may not be able to use the 70-200 close up. 6D may be an option for you.

I'll take another look at the 6D and see if there are any decent bundle deals going. But I expect it is more than my budget or needs require.

Do your research, look up some camera forums. There's a South African guy on youtube that does a lot of camera reviews in a easy to understand way.

Yep, this forum here is just part of my research. My thorough research often frustrates my family as it can take me a while to make a decision. Definately not an impulse buyer!

 

[smckay]

The 90D is pretty good spec then. Technology always moves on. Weight is a factor too, hanging off a 200mm lens all day can get tiring.

I have a little used 70D & Canon 18-135 for sale if you wanted to go that way. With the 18-135 its a good package.

Just checked the shop in Parramatta I buy from. A 90D & 18-135 is $2,185. Good value, I paid $2K flat for my 7DII body a year ago.

 

[irv]

I have progressed up the Canon food chain from 450D to 70D to now 7DII. I have 2 pro lenses - 24-105 F4 and 70-200 F2.8II. I also have a Sigma 150-600 contemporary lens.
The 70D and 7D take good shots but the lenses make the photo. Expect and do spend a lot of money on lenses as they make your pictures. My kit to replace today; Body $2,000 24-105 $1,600, 70-200 $3,000. Big dollars.
I am a enthusiastic amatuer and won't ever make use of all the features of the 7D so it may be over kill.
One thing to consider is the weight and size. When I went to Antartica this wasn't an issue as getting good shots was the aim.
Your pick list is not quite right. The 90D is an upgrade of the 80D. I haven't looked at what the difference is but the 70 to 80 upgrade gave very little benefit. The progression from the 2 digit is to single digit in Canon so your High level should be a 6D, 7D or go hard with a 5D.
We're about to go on a trip to US and Ireland and I am really considering taking all the gear. Packed it's about 8Kg (without the 600mm) so a considerable heft. So that may be a factor in your choice. I think the mirrorless versions are a bit lighter. My wife has a Sony HX90V and it's pretty good. Long focal length, good resolution and GPS alonh with wireless connectivty.
Reliability? I attend motor racing events and speaking to the guys there they have never had a warranty issues with their stuff (albeit bodies starting at $8,000). I'd imagine Nikon is similar.
Ease of use; you have to read the manual or at least take a course. Canon offer learning courses for little cost so worthwhile. There is a lot of funky stuff you can do with a high end DSLR.
Functionality; going to the single digit Canon brings you 2 card slots, typically SD and Compact Flash (CF). You can save .jpg on one and RAW on the other to save space. The 7D has built in GPS, which the 80/90D don't (I think). You have to buy a satellite dish that sits on the flash foot. However, GPS on the 7D can take a long time to lock on.
The 7D is a cropped sensor whilst the newer 6D is the entry level prosumer full frame. This is going to be a factor when you take shots - a cropped sensor makes the focal length longer so you may not be able to use the 70-200 close up. 6D may be an option for you.
ISO is important. Up to 64,000 makes for nice nighttime pics without flash (animal pics, performances, etc).
On the other hand, the latest smart phones take some very good photos.
Do your research, look up some camera forums. There's a South African guy on youtube that does a lot of camera reviews in a easy to understand way.
The picture attached is with the 7D & 24-105 at night off a ship to show you an example.

You are right, it is a dear hobby, I just added up the replacement cost of my kit, around $6k. The issue is once you choose "your brand" to a certain extent you lock yourself in as the replacement cost is well above the sunken cost. I only have one only APC lens now, the Canon 10-22. I have considered full frame but will stick to APC. The 90D however sounds interesting

 

[Cossie]

These were in Finland this year, the blurry guy taking the photo was using this.








I never thought I would buy something like a 1 DX, but I was passing Parks Cameras in London last year and they had a second hand one in the window.

It was one of 18 that was used to make Ilse of Dogs, only the body had been used, everything else was still wrapped and unopened.

The camera shop had bought all 18, the bodies were powered externally and used the network connection.

Just recently I bought a 100- 400 lens, the salesman said I should buy the Sigma 150 - 600 mentioned up thread, but I wanted to stay with a Canon lens

If I was interested in just travel photography, I'd be looking at mirrorless, but for rallying my main consideration is fast, constant focusing, but boy is all that gear heavy.

I had bought my original 5D mk2 and 2.8 lenses off a friend and was happy with that body, but some say it's very slow in focusing on quickly moving objects, that's why I was tempted to 'upgrade'. I don't profess to be a great photographer and will never use all of these cameras features, but I can afford it, so why not. I just wish I could have a "green" vest like the guys in the photos.

 

[smckay]

The Canon 100-400 will beat a Sigma all day. The base one I have is not real crisp or fast. The Pro one maybe.
This shot was just this morning. 3 Black coughatoos landed in the back yard so I banged away.
This is at 600mm, 2500ISO and F6.3. I think the Canon white lens at 400 would be a bit sharper.

 

[VPS]

The Canon 100-400 will beat a Sigma all day. The base one I have is not real crisp or fast. The Pro one maybe.
This shot was just this morning. 3 Black coughatoos landed in the back yard so I banged away.
This is at 600mm, 2500ISO and F6.3. I think the Canon white lens at 400 would be a bit sharper.

Superb photo

 

[irv]

I have been taking sport photos all year of my grandsons football using a Tamron70-200 G2 2.8, fantastic lens, clear and sharp, The bloke pushing the shutter, maybe not that good

 

[smckay]

Superb photo

Thanks. I enjoy wildlife and cars. Strange combination but there you go.

 

[jb747]

Let’s start with something that has not been said here....

I have two friends who are professional photographers. They would take better pictures with a brick (the building sort) than most people with a Nikon D850. If the equipment you have cannot do the job you want it to do, then it’s time for new equipment. But, the nut behind it has to be using it to its full potential, otherwise it’s just an exercise in gear collecting.

I say that as a bit of gear collector, owning D850, D800, and D7100 bodies, and enough lenses to sink a ship.

The best thing you can do, before buying anything, is to go and do a photography course. Meet-up has plenty, and they range from basics to very advanced portrait work. Then buy a camera.

 

[NM]

Let’s start with something that has not been said here....

I have two friends who are professional photographers. They would take better pictures with a brick (the building sort) than most people with a Nikon D850. If the equipment you have cannot do the job you want it to do, then it’s time for new equipment. But, the nut behind it has to be using it to its full potential, otherwise it’s just an exercise in gear collecting.

Well, right now I don't even have a house brick ... just an iPhone and a 17 year old Fuji 3MP Point-And-Shoot.

I say that as a bit of gear collector, owning D850, D800, and D7100 bodies, and enough lenses to sink a ship.

And this is why I don;t want to under-shoot and find in 6 months that I regret spending a little more originally ... and of course don't want to over-shoot and waste money on something that is not going to provide benefits over something less expensive.

The best thing you can do, before buying anything, is to go and do a photography course. Meet-up has plenty, and they range from basics to very advanced portrait work. Then buy a camera.

This is always a bit of chicken and egg strategy. I have a reasonable understanding of the theory and technology (light levels, exposure, aperture, f/stops, focal length, depth of field, ISO and how they impact each other and the result etc.). So a taking a course and being able to experiment and learn with my own newly purchased camera may be of greater benefit that using someone else's camera or pure photography theory. Hence my pre-purchase research is covering quite a range of inputs, including this thread, other on-line forums, trusted professionals etc.

When compared with my other hobby, the costs are not frightening. 30 wireless microphones and other audio equipment used for musical theatre shows represent a significant financial investment. And I am able to depreciate the capital cost of a camera kit for tax purposes, so that helps with the financial hurdle.

 

[jb747]

The difference between a middle of the range SLR, and the likes of a D850 is not a small amount. Very few people need 40+ megapixel cameras.

The sort of course I was thinking of actually deals with the art of photography, more than the nuts and bolts.

 

[NM]

The difference between a middle of the range SLR, and the likes of a D850 is not a small amount. Very few people need 40+ megapixel cameras.

Yes, indeed. I am not one for always needing the latest and greatest of technology. But when I do buy new technology I generally aim for the higher-end of what is currently available and then expect to hang onto it for an extended period of time. I like to extract maximum life out of my investments, hence my cars are 12 and 14 years old, well maintained and in still in good condition with a few more years of service planned - and I have owned them both from new. And until 2 years ago, our home TV was a Toshiba CRT 36" full HD - old school, weighs more than me, but 16 years on its picture is still perfect, but the lack of digital signal inputs and small screen size eventually led to its replacemern. But it lives on as a great game console monitor for the kids. Took me until 2 years ago to finally convince myself that an upgrade was needed and after plenty of research ended up with LG OLED. Went with the 55" OLED rather than larger screen of different technology. Still happy with my decision. I have owned 3 TVs in 35 years, while others seems to go through 3 TVs in 3 years.

Hence I am really looking at the mid-range camera models. I want to get the best value over the 5-10 years I expect to use it. It has become obvious that the main manufacturers of cameras continue to leap-frog each other in the cycles of technology upgrades. So I would prefer to be at the start of a cycle with something that will deliver my needs/wants for many years, rather than finding a bargain on a 3-year old model and find I am dissatisfied with my decision in a few years time. It seems that today's mid-range cameras have similar capability to the high-end cameras of 3-5 years ago, and I expect that rate of progress will continue for a while yet.

As for the need for 40+ megapixel cameras, who was it that famously said "640K ought to be enough for anyone" in reference to memory in a personal computer? And he was considered visionary! My first computer had 48KB of memory, and I spent almost $1000 to upgrade it to 64KB. Mind you, I wish I still owned it today as it would probably be worth a small fortune in working order with a copy of Space Invaders game on cassette tape.

I am still fairly early in my camera research phase, with the main consideration point at the moment being DSLR verses mirror-less and type of lenses rather than makes and models. It is interesting to see people's view on the pros/cons of the DSLR vs Mirror-less debate, extracting fact from fiction and applying that to what I really need/want as my situation is likely quite different to other people. While I toggle between the two I know my research is incomplete. I'll know I am ready for a decision when my mind is settled on the right technology for me.

The sort of course I was thinking of actually deals with the art of photography, more than the nuts and bolts.

Yes, I understand the point and agree. I have already learned a great deal about photography in my current research process. And I have a lot more to learn, as do the other family members who will be sharing the view finder of whichever camera I eventually select. So will probably be looking for a group booking for such a course . My decision needs to cater for their needs and capability as much as for my own.

 

[jb747]

One point to remember is weight. I love my DSLRs, and have looked at, but did not like, mirrorless. As I see it, their only advantage is weight. I’m carrying the D800 around Europe at the moment, and it’s quite a lump. My wife has elected to use only her iPhone, and it’s amazing what she’s managing to get. And it fits nicely in her pocket.

I don’t know that the pixels argument is quite the same as Bill Gates and the 640 comment. It really depends on what you want to do with the images, and how large a print you intend making. And you’ll need to get into the proper commercial photographer printing (not the Officeworks) to see any advantage on your wall.

 

[smckay]

NM, for me, if I were in your position, would look at a mirrorless set up. This is latest tech so could be expected to be still 'current' in 10 years. Probably a bit high end in some models but you'll grow into it.
I don't use any post-production on my shots and prefer to get them right on the camera. I think this attitude may work for your needs. Go for a better sensor, processor, ISO range and your shots will be good. The percentage of keepers rises with quality.
I am a Canon fan-boi so I just looked at the EOS R. The body on Canons website is $2,500 so a bit higher than your choices now. However the lenses are ball park and they are promoted as faster and clearer than L series.
Otherwise if bulk is a concern there are lots of point and shoot options in mirrorless.

 

[irv]

Phone technology has moved on, however whenever I look at a moving photo on a phone compared to a DSLR, they are cough. Flying out to the USA on Thursday, taking the whole kit, with the lens selection will adjust to each day.

 

[tgh]

To each his own, my early adopter digital dslr keepers are now just pics among the thousands of others.
The camera's and the glass are all packed away.. somewhere.. and probably worth nothing anyway….
I now shoot for web and computer resolution with a long zoom travel camera , leaving the aficionado's to lug their glass in search of crystal clear perfection with not a single soft pixel.
I do endorse the need to develop an eye for a pic, not easily acquired but worth seeking
I take very few these days as I mostly know what I am shooting and what I might get.