Cameras

[Endicott]

Modern RX100's are very tempting. You could go Micro Four Thirds if you want to keep with interchangeable lenses but want to reduce weight. The saving, especially with the lenses, is quite substantial. You can get a used OM-D E-M10 MKII body for about £250 on ebay (don't even look at a MKIII or IV, they are inferior, I won't bore you now with reasons unless you want to hear about it). I think I saw a body with two decent kit lenses for about 450 recently.

[greenman]

Yeah, my RX-100 III has a popup viewfinder which is perfectly good. I always shoot RAW & JPEG, because why wouldn't you? I play around a lot (probably too much) in Lightroom, so I almost always end up using the RAW file, but every now and then a JPEG will be perfect right out of the camera.

By the way, listen to greenman over me, the lad knows his stuff and the resultant photographs prove it. I only really know about the cameras I own/use.

I shoot jpeg/raw when I'm taking it seriously towards potentially being sold but the raw typically only gets used if its in a situation were I'm raising shadows or playing around with contrast a lot. Again though that's with a D850 mostly at base ISO or a little above were there's a very limited amount of noise, if I was shooting with a 1 inch sensor camera I'd probably still use raw all the time. I tend to like to get my colour temp correct at the time of shooting as well when I can judge it against reality rather than having to try and remember whilst processing it.

I would say these days the biggest decision is probably the kind of camera you want to buy and the handling/lens range, actual performance tends to be good across all brands these days, there's not much out there that is really below par for its class.

How you want to use the images would really be the big factor as well, a bit of a generalisation I would say if your wanting a near "perfect" print were sensor performance won't be a limiting factor at base ISO then...

30x20 inch = Medium Format
24x16 inch = FF
18x12 inch = APSC

Medium format too much of a premium for me given I only sell the odd print that size and a lot of them are stitched panoramics anyway.

[touchingcloth]

I quite happily reproduce my x100 photos at 20"x30", but even when printed relatively small I love the look of edium format, which I think is down to both the shallower depth of field even compared to FF, but also due to the look of a bellows lens where the focal plane isn't necessarily perpendicular to the film.

I'm looking forward to the day when an affordable digital backs for 35mm cameras are a thing. I've got my dad's old Olympus OM1n, and I'd love to use it but I can't afford to shoot film.

[greenman]

I quite happily reproduce my x100 photos at 20"x30", but even when printed relatively small I love the look of edium format, which I think is down to both the shallower depth of field even compared to FF, but also due to the look of a bellows lens where the focal plane isn't necessarily perpendicular to the film.

I'm looking forward to the day when an affordable digital backs for 35mm cameras are a thing. I've got my dad's old Olympus OM1n, and I'd love to use it but I can't afford to shoot film.

That list was really more me talking the reverse, the print sizes at which I don't think you'd see a great deal of advantage from increasing your sensor size with modern digital at base ISO.

I'm guessing the look your describing is that of tilting the lens(and so the plane of focus) relative to the film/sensor? most common on large format camera with bellows but can be done on sharper formats with specialists lenses.

Honestly I very much doubt a decent digital back for old 35mm camera will ever be available, there was another atempt at this recently but it was typically unwieldy and used a very small sensor. The only decent digital back for 35mm I'v seen was Leica's for the R8/R9 and that was actually designed during the cameras lifespans.

[touchingcloth]

Yeah I don't think they'll become widely available either, or at least not until sensor manufacturing reaches the point where 35mm chips aren't horrendously expensive even before a camera has been built around them. A boy can dream, though.

And exactly right on the lool I was talking about. The effect you could get on an SLR using a tilt and shift lens, but they cost a fortune. I've seen lomo types try and mimic the effect by manually holding the lens rather than fixing it into the bayonet socket, but my eyes aren't good enough to use focus peaking at speed, and I'm too anal about getting dust in my camera.

[greenman]

These days I suspect its not just the cost of the FF sensor but rather the issues with having to fit the make to multiple cameras and sync up with the shutter release that would make the price prohibitively high. Previous digital backs have mostly been designed for cameras that were designed to take them, either latter film cameras or medium format cameras that originally had interchangeable film backs.

Really alot of the market has been taken away via the availability of adapters allowing you to use lenses from mounts that don't have a digital body on mirrorless(or something DSLR) systems.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Are full frame sensors ever likely to drop in price? I read something several years ago which suggested they wouldn't. Economies of scale and that.

I was excited to hear about Sony releasing an "entry level" FF camera, but now it's out and is apparently only a few hundred quid cheaper than the A7iii.

I am basically happy with my crop sensored Canon SLR, especially since I got better at editing the RAW snaps. I do occasionally yearn for a 35mm one though, particularly for wide angle shooting.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Are full frame sensors ever likely to drop in price? I read something several years ago which suggested they wouldn't. Economies of scale and that.

I was excited to hear about Sony releasing an "entry level" FF camera, but now it's out and is apparently only a few hundred quid cheaper than the A7iii.

I am basically happy with my crop sensored Canon SLR, especially since I got better at editing the RAW snaps. I do occasionally yearn for a 35mm one though, particularly for wide angle shooting.

Have you considered getting an older full frame model as a second camera? If you just want stills something old but respected like the 5d would still be a decent camera, it looks like ffordes charge about £200 for them now, but I'm sure you could do better than that on ebay etc.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

I had been saving up to get a second hand A7Riii and Canon lens adapter last year. I didn't bother in the end though. What with Covid and the Damocles-like possibility of redundancy, I'm bloody well glad of it, too.

What I did get last year (also second hand) was a shithot Sigma lens. Combined with the better results I've been getting from shooting raw, it really helped bring out the best from the camera. I think, when the time comes that I feel flush enough to shell out for new gear, some better lenses will be the first thing - that's what experienced photographers always say, anyway. I quite like the idea of replacing my crummy old kit lens with that 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma one.

[touchingcloth]

Are full frame sensors ever likely to drop in price? I read something several years ago which suggested they wouldn't. Economies of scale and that.

I was excited to hear about Sony releasing an "entry level" FF camera, but now it's out and is apparently only a few hundred quid cheaper than the A7iii.

I am basically happy with my crop sensored Canon SLR, especially since I got better at editing the RAW snaps. I do occasionally yearn for a 35mm one though, particularly for wide angle shooting.

To my understanding, they won't drop in price until their design changes pretty fundamentally.

The issue is that sensors are useless if they have a single defect anywhere on them, and with full frame being about four times the area of APS-C/four thirds, sensor material need to be scrapped about four times as often. And apparently it's not as simple as being able to stitch four smaller sensors together and end up with a full frame chip whose cost is proportional to its size in a linear rather than exponential way. I might be talking bollocks, but I think that's the way it is likely to be for a good while yet. And like you mention, the economies of scale with them being less popular means there's not as much demand to help drive the costs cheaper.

I'm happy with a crop sensor, too, especially now that noise at high ISOs is way lower on smaller sensors than it was ten years ago. I'd quite enjoy one because I do love the slightly different depth of field you see on FF snaps, but also the difference in the viewfinder. I sometimes hold my dad's only 35mm film camera to my eye and compared to my DSLR it's just bright and expansive.

[touchingcloth]

I had been saving up to get a second hand A7Riii and Canon lens adapter last year. I didn't bother in the end though. What with Covid and the Damocles-like possibility of redundancy, I'm bloody well glad of it, too.

What I did get last year (also second hand) was a shithot Sigma lens. Combined with the better results I've been getting from shooting raw, it really helped bring out the best from the camera. I think, when the time comes that I feel flush enough to shell out for new gear, some better lenses will be the first thing - that's what experienced photographers always say, anyway. I quite like the idea of replacing my crummy old kit lens with that 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma one.

Which Sigma lens did you get?

Better lenses is definitely a good investment. And unless you really crave a new lens with all of the latest tech (some of the Sigma lenses designed for EF-S as opposed to EF Canon mounts are pretty incredible) I would suggest leaning towards second hand ones, and probably those designed for EF/35mm, as you can then transfer to a full frame if you ever do go that way. Second hand 35mm lenses keep their value very well. I shelled out a lot for the second hand L lens I owned, but I sold it five years later for slightly more than I had bought it for, so unlike a full frame digital body I think you can be reasonable sure of being able to sell used lenses quickly and not lose any money if you ever need to free up the cash.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

To my understanding, they won't drop in price until their design changes pretty fundamentally...

Yep, I think that's pretty much what the article I read all those years ago said. Kind of annoying, but what are you gonna do?

Which Sigma lens did you get?

The 150-600mm Contemporary one. Not the fastest lens around and it weighs a blinking ton (I wrecked my arms carrying it around the zoo, without a monopod) but it's been fantastic for all manner of stuff: wildlife, sports, perving, lunar snaps, landscapes - one of the best bits of advice I ever heard was (counterintuitively) to use a long lens for landscapes and really pick out the points of interest.

I'm happy with a crop sensor, too, especially now that noise at high ISOs is way lower on smaller sensors than it was ten years ago. I'd quite enjoy one because I do love the slightly different depth of field you see on FF snaps, but also the difference in the viewfinder. I sometimes hold my dad's only 35mm film camera to my eye and compared to my DSLR it's just bright and expansive.

Noise and the viewfinder are my two other complaints with my camera. Manual focussing is basically impossible and I try to never go above 1600 ISO, if I can help it. That said (and sorry to keep prattling on about it) shooting raw has really mitigated the noise problem to a large extent. I think someone already said this upthread, but it has a much more attractive, film grain-like quality, as opposed to the ugly look of jpeg noise.

The other new camera body I had been considering was a Canon 90d. Still crop, but apparently handles the higher ISOs better and has a flashier viewfinder, with more focus points markers.

[touchingcloth]

A long lens is good for landscapes thanks to compressing depth as well, so you can do things like have the moon appear large alongside your subject.

I think manual focussing on a DSLR is nearly impossible on a crop body, as even if you swapped the focus screen for one designed for manual focus I don't think digital bodies with TTL focus work with the old style ones which do that split focus ring thing where the image halves line up when things are in focus, which means you're left trying to check for sharpness in a tiny, dim viewfinder. Easier on FF, but for a glasses-wearer like me I don't think I'd ever get on well with manually checking for sharpness.

What's your current Canon body? I have a 60D and ISO 1600 is my cutoff with that one, so we probably have the same sensor if not body (it's the 7D mkI and something like 650D's sensor). The 90D looks pretty pricey, and if better high ISO performance is a concern then it might be worth looking second hand. My Fuji is a 2014 model and is very usable up to 6400 (and supports 12,800 and 25,600, but I don't touch them), so you could look for a similar vintage canon and check out the ISO performance on a site like DPReview, as crop bodies more than a couple of years old start losing value very quickly. The fixed lens on my Fuji is f/2, though, so depending on whether you would primarily be using your Sigma ISO 6400 shooting handheld might not buy you too much.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

A long lens is good for landscapes thanks to compressing depth as well, so you can do things like have the moon appear large alongside your subject.

Yep. I witnessed a spectacular example of this just the other day: the sun was hovering above the horizon - all huge and orange - and a thin layer of haze meant you could look directly at it without being blinded. It would have made an amazing photo if I had the Megalens with me, but all I had was my phone, which could never do the scene justice.

What%u2019s your current Canon body? I have a 60D and ISO 1600 is my cutoff with that one, so we probably have the same sensor if not body (it%u2019s the 7D mkI and something like 650D%u2019s sensor). The 90D looks pretty pricey, and if better high ISO performance is a concern then it might be worth looking second hand.

I have a 650D, so that sounds right.

I just had a look at the 90d and you're not wrong, it is a pretty penny. There are a number of other features that drew me to it, particularly for sports video/photography, but it'll be a while before I think seriously about getting one. It's only about a year old and I don't know if a follow up model is likely - not least because Canon already made a 100d, which, thanks to their bizarre naming scheme, is their cheapest dslr.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I think manual focussing on a DSLR is nearly impossible on a crop body, as even if you swapped the focus screen for one designed for manual focus I don't think digital bodies with TTL focus work with the old style ones which do that split focus ring thing where the image halves line up when things are in focus, which means you're left trying to check for sharpness in a tiny, dim viewfinder. Easier on FF, but for a glasses-wearer like me I don't think I'd ever get on well with manually checking for sharpness.

It's not really any better on FF for the same reasons, although I've only tried with AF lenses set to manual, which have awful focusing rings which also doesn't help. You can confirm things are in focus by lining it up with one of the focusing points and pressing as if you were going to initiate AF though as it will beep and light up if it's in focus but it's nowhere near as good as an old focusing screen.

[touchingcloth]

Yep. I witnessed a spectacular example of this just the other day: the sun was hovering above the horizon - all huge and orange - and a thin layer of haze meant you could look directly at it without being blinded. It would have made an amazing photo if I had the Megalens with me, but all I had was my phone, which could never do the scene justice.
I have a 650D, so that sounds right.

I just had a look at the 90d and you're not wrong, it is a pretty penny. There are a number of other features that drew me to it, particularly for sports video/photography, but it'll be a while before I think seriously about getting one. It's only about a year old and I don't know if a follow up model is likely - not least because Canon already made a 100d, which, thanks to their bizarre naming scheme, is their cheapest dslr.

The main thing which drew me to the 60 rather than 650 (or the x50 line in general) was the top screen to show ISO and whatnot without needing to look on the LCD or through the viewfinder, and the tilting screen. Neither thing is particularly useful to the way I shoot these days, so given that the XD/X0D features tend to trickle down to the X50D line I'd probably get more benefit from a newer sensor in a body from a lower line than the 60D but with decent noise performance at ISO 6400+. There are only so many focus points and only so high a burst rate I need.

And Canon's naming system is nuts, especially in Europe. I wish we had the Rebel/Kiss thing of other markets.

[touchingcloth]

It's not really any better on FF for the same reasons, although I've only tried with AF lenses set to manual, which have awful focusing rings which also doesn't help. You can confirm things are in focus by lining it up with one of the focusing points and pressing as if you were going to initiate AF though as it will beep and light up if it's in focus but it's nowhere near as good as an old focusing screen.

Focus read outs on lenses are good, but only really for street photographers.

Auto focus is way better than I would ever be even with old skool screens, as my eyes and hands are crap, and if you know how to deal with auto focus and its limitations then it's a fucking modern miracle. My Fuji has a hybrid finder which I use in optical mode most of the time but can bring up a small focus checking window (peaking highlights) if I need to to manual, which is usually if I am trying to hit an area smaller than my focus point. I don't really shoot anything where I need to hit a fast moving and small target, and I kind of assume that people who do do that (sports, events) use auto focus, have a good panning technique, but also fire off a lot of shots and hope for the best. There's a reason why banks of sports photographers all use top of the line DSLRs on tripods, and when you hear them it's a bank of constant rapid-fire shutter action.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Yeah, I think that comes from Leica type stuff too doesn't it? I wouldn't actually mind having a crack at a bit of ""f8 And Be There" manual 'steet' technique, to the point I've considered getting a roll of film for my film slr.

As you say, it's better than I am, but the biggest advantage is speed. I'm not good enough to be quick, so with say my film camera (no AF, but can do auto exposure) my shots were limited to still targets (especially if I'm also balancing the iris to get a better shutter speed).

I imagine the majority of sports photographers are using burst mode a lot of the time and newer models certainly can cram more shots in. They probably have a lot more light than we think they do, given a lot of it is lit for television* too.

*as a side note something that stunned me is how small the camera part of those big studio television cameras are that you see in sport etc. You never really see where the lens ends and the camera begins but the camera part is not that much bigger than a dslr.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

I imagine the majority of sports photographers are using burst mode a lot

That how I do things. Shooting cricket, I've had to get used to using both eyes at once - one looking through the viewfinder and the other watching the wider scene - in order to follow the ball. My hit rate is getting better, but it's still very much a case of holding the shutter button down and hoping for the best.

[Sebastian Cobb]

That how I do things. Shooting cricket, I've had to get used to using both eyes at once - one looking through the viewfinder and the other watching the wider scene - in order to follow the ball. My hit rate is getting better, but it's still very much a case of holding the shutter button down and hoping for the best.

Do more modern cameras just fold the mirror up once? I've never really used mine but I'm sure it used to jog the mirror up and down, but it doesn't take video, I'd imagine cameras that take video just leave the sensor wide open for a better frame rate, since you can see fuck all anyway.

[touchingcloth]

Do more modern cameras just fold the mirror up once? I've never really used mine but I'm sure it used to jog the mirror up and down, but it doesn't take video, I'd imagine cameras that take video just leave the sensor wide open for a better frame rate, since you can see fuck all anyway.

Most DSLRs have selectable shutter modes so that you can flip the mirror up on one shutter press and then fire the actual shutter on the second (for silent shooting), or to not flip the mirror down between shutter flips (for faster bursts), but they tend to be buried away in the menus.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Most DSLRs have selectable shutter modes so that you can flip the mirror up on one shutter press and then fire the actual shutter on the second (for silent shooting), or to not flip the mirror down between shutter flips (for faster bursts), but they tend to be buried away in the menus.

I'd forgotten about getting the mirror up first! I think both my (quite old) cameras will do that. And I think the reasoning for that is for shoving them on precision devices like microscopes and telescopes where 'mirror slap' can affect things. My mate bob worked in a lab and had to utilise that.

I'm not actually sure why you'd ever actually want the mirror to drop between shots in continuous shooting though.

[touchingcloth]

I guess it gives you a very brief glimpse at the view between shots, not much use for focussing but you could use it for tracking a subject. Feels like you'd be better if just keeping a constant panning speed and trading off the drop in frame rate thanks to the mirror for the extra shots you could manage in the same period.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Exactly, I think it's just a legacy feature from when burst mode was essentially: while(button_down){takePhoto()}.

[touchingcloth]

I feel like even early DSLRs are insanely well-featured compared to film cameras. My dad's Olympus is a model which has a connection to attach a battery powered motor drive for burst mode, and he spent a LOT on it when it was new. My shitty 450D was the first non-point-and-shoot camera I owned, and it does way more than the Olympus could ever dream of. I'd be interested to know if that motor drive worked by flipping the mirror between shots or keeping it up.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I feel like even early DSLRs are insanely well-featured compared to film cameras. My dad's Olympus is a model which has a connection to attach a battery powered motor drive for burst mode, and he spent a LOT on it when it was new. My shitty 450D was the first non-point-and-shoot camera I owned, and it does way more than the Olympus could ever dream of. I'd be interested to know if that motor drive worked by flipping the mirror between shots or keeping it up.

I dunno, Canon's late EOS and early EOSD bodies share model numbers and behave in more-or-less the same way save for the buttons and screen on the back.

But I think it's a case that because in the analogue era the film and glass were really the most important parts, the bells and whistles of the body were less important and speed was limited by mechanics anyway to an extent.

And a lot of the stuff that became impressive/new features on a top-line film camera were things that digital cameras had to do in even basic point and shooters to get a good photo.

[touchingcloth]

That's true, very soon after buying my 450D I was tempted to buy a 1992 EOS5, as they had an eye tracking autofocus which sounded cool as fuck. Glad I didn't, though, as I'd have never used it.

[Non Stop Dancer]

Is everyone here familiar with the concept of back button focusing? It's one of those little tricks that suddenly makes getting certain shots much easier, especially coupled with burst mode.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I wasn't aware of it! What controls the exposure lock in this configuration? I quite like to use spot metering with aperture priority so often focus+meter with the centre dot then recompose with the lock on.

[touchingcloth]

I wasn't aware of it! What controls the exposure lock in this configuration? I quite like to use spot metering with aperture priority so often focus+meter with the centre dot then recompose with the lock on.

It depends on the camera. On both my Canon and Fuji I have it set so that the back button is essentially the same as a half shutter press, i.e. it focuses then locks exposure, and I can recompose with both those things set and then press the shutter to actually take the picture.

The main benefit to me is that a half shutter press moves to the aperture you've set, so the view can become dimmer and make recomposing harder.