Please help me choose a camera
I have been searching for a new camera and the more I research, the more confused I get. I'm not a professional photographer but I have some skills and understanding of the basics. I shoot a lot of still items for my online shop selling mostly antique jewelry. I also like to do portraits and landscape photos. I don't want a large camera, because I'm old and would never lug it around. I would like to be able to set the exposure, the iso, shutter speed, aperture quickly without going into the menu too much. I also would need a good fast lens, as shallow DOP is critical for me. I don't care about video, IQ is upmost. I would like a viewfinder, tilt screen would be good but it's not critical, IQ and shallow DOP is the most important. I sometimes shoot RAW but mostly JEPG. My budget is around 700-800. I was all ready to get the fuji X100 as I was thinking I most likely wouldn't bother to change lenses anyway. Then started to look at the Sony A6000. Also was considering the NEX line and the Fuji mirrorless cameras. Can be an old model of anything, I don't need a lot of bells and whistles, just nice IQ. Can someone just tell me what to do, my head is reeling with confusion. Thanks all!
Please visit my galleries: http://cynthiamalbon.smugmug.com/
0
Comments
Actually looking a little further I would say the Canon G1X or G1X Mark II would tick the most of your boxes. The Mark II has a much better lens for shallow DOF, but the Mark I has an optical viewfinder.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I own a Nikon D800 and a Sony NEX 7. I love them both, but never take the D800 very far from home because it is so heavy. The optical viewfinder of the D800 is a lot easier for me to see what I'm photographing, but the size and weight advantage of the NEX make it the winner for travel.
An electronic viewfinder makes new things possible. The electronic viewfinder can show you what the photograph will look like (so, for example, in a dimly lit situation you can see what will happen with a long shutter time - when an optical viewfinder will just be dark). Histograms and other info can be displayed (or not) in the electronic viewfinder, so there are fun advantages.
The photographic subjects you mentioned are, perhaps, less demanding (equipment/money-wise) than, say, wildlife or sports, etc. I think you could be well served by a Sony A6000 or similar.
jmphotocraft pointed out that portraits with a 35mm equivalent lens will not usually be ideal. So, if you can stretch your budget a bit for a system camera with one or two lenses, you may be happier in the long run. Interchangeable lenses open a door to much greater flexibility to use lenses particularly well-suited to a purpose (though such lenses usually come at increased cost compared to more general-use lenses).
Where to compromise between cost and imaging capability is something each of us must decide on our own. Figuring out what aspects of camera/lens performance are most important to you takes time, and is part of what makes it a hobby to pursue.
The objective you set that (most obviously) raises cost is in your wish to have narrow depth of field. The shallowest depth of field is achieved with larger sensor sizes and lenses that open wider. This is part of the reason I really like the Sony NEX 7 (which I think is being discontinued. the NEX name is going away, that I am sure of. the Sony A6000 is very similar.). The Sony A6000 (and the NEX cameras) have an APS-C size sensor, which is the same size sensor as most consumer dSLRs (same as Nikon D7100, for example. a tiny bit bigger than Canon consumer dSLRs).
In other words, the Sony mirror-less sensor is bigger than micro 4/3, much bigger than Nikon 1 series, much much bigger than point & shoot. Being a bigger sensor, it can achieve shallower depth of field (and wider angle of view with a particular focal length) than those other cameras. (a photographer that wanted deeper depth of field, and greater 'reach' from telephoto lens would not see a larger sensor as an advantage)
I am not aware of another brand of mirror less camera with as large a sensor (there may be one, but there wasn't when I bought my NEX 7).
A "full frame" sensor (as in the Nikon D800) gives you the possibility of even shallower depth of field. Sony has some full frame mirror-less cameras now, which are a bit bigger than the A6000 (and certainly cost more).
So, anyway, how shallow you really care about is a question for you to think about (look at your favorite photos, and think about what focal length/distance/aperture were in use, and on what sensor). I looked at your photos (very nice!) to see what camera you used, but I am not familiar with the model I saw (only checked one or two images). If you have been generally happy, then there is no need to go full frame, but could pick up some improvement with APS-C.
What I can tell you is that the NEX 7 is a great camera image-wise. From a usability perspective it takes some 'warming-up to', but I have been really pleased with it (and it definitely gives you the control you asked for. setting aperture/shutter/iso easily done without menu). I have taken it on two vacations to Europe (along with a couple lenses) and find it so liberating to have everything so light and small (in fact, my previous trips were without a camera, because I was not willing to carry a dSLR and was not interested in lower image quality).
I generally shoot raw, but sometimes use some of the built-in 'scene' modes (anti-blur is really cool in low light, panorama is fun, etc.) which only output JPEG (the quality of which I have been very happy with).
If you bought an A6000 this year, and added a nice wide angle next year (for landscapes), and maybe something really special the year after for portraits - does that mean you are over budget? :-)
I could see you being very happy with the A6000 (I'm quite sure it is similar to NEX 7 in all important respects. it probably has improved ISO performance, and otherwise similar functionality.).
You would have the option to acquire a particularly refined portrait lens (if that is where you most want shallow depth of field), or a lens for the jewelry work, etc. That adds cost, but at least you would be spending money on the areas where you value improvement.
I have no familiarity with the Fuji (and little with brands other than mentioned above), so that is why I didn't comment on that.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
I wasn't aware of the Canon G1X Mark II. I have a Canon S95 right now and I've never really been happy with it. So I wasn't even looking at the Canons. But that one looks very promising and is in the running for sure. Thanks so much for responding and for all the helpful info. I really appreciate it!
Thank you Bruce for such a thoughtful and comprehensive reply. So much great information to absorb. Right now I have a Canon S95 which I have never really been very happy with. I bought it when it was first released and I never thought the price merited the quality of the photos. it's small and has nice manual controls but that's about it. I haven't had an SLR since the dawn of the digital age. Do you thnk a small DSLR like the Nikon3200 would give me a shallower DOP over the Sony NEX? I know the sensor is the same size but I didn't know if there was a advantage with a DSLR vs a mirrorless using comperable lenses. Anyways thanks again Bruce, I really appreciate your imput.
Not knowing how long ago you bought your camera, all I can say about image quality is that sensors are getting better all the time (less noise, at progressively higher ISO. Better and more accurate saturation, and more pixels for improved sharpness when the lens is holding up its end). Shooting raw will help you wring more quality from every image (though every raw image needs processing, so that is the compromise)
A Nikon D3200 and a Sony NEX would give you identical depth of field. There may be less expensive "fast" (wide aperture) lenses for the Nikon, and/or more choices of lenses with auto focus (just because the Nikon F mount has been around for 50 years or so). So that might mean you could get a bit shallower depth at lower total cost. For example, I have a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 that is great for portraits. I'm not sure there is anything like it for Sony E mount, but even so the Nikon 85 1.4 is $1,600, so the more aggressively you chase a capability (shallow depth, in this case) the more you will spend. There is a 85 f1.8 that is considerably lower cost.
Actually, you should probably compare 50mm lenses, which would be much much cheaper (because on an APS-C sensor, it will have the same angle of view as a 75mm, so gets close to portrait length, and high-quality 50mm are available at low cost). A pro might not like me drawing equivalence between 50 on APS-C and 75 on full frame, (it isn't exactly the same result for depth of field) but I think for your purposes it is perfectly acceptable.
And, while I think of it, it is possible to have too shallow a DOF. Using a portrait lens at f/1.4 is usually too shallow - on a full frame camera it gives such narrow DOF that you can't have both eyes in focus unless the person is directly facing you (and even then the slightest camera movement puts the focus in the wrong place - and even with an optical viewfinder you don't get an accurate indication of just how shallow it is - a topic for another day). Bottom line, don't think you must chase absolute minimum DOF.
So, strictly speaking, depth of field is a physical result of sensor size, focal length, aperture, and distance to subject (focal length only matters because we care about size of subject in the frame, but that is a discussion for physicists).
Having said that, the degree to which you are pleased with the shallowness of the DOF will depend in part on the quality of bokeh (the nature of the out of focus areas). Whether or not the out of focus areas please you is a characteristic of the lens (how many aperture blades, whether they are rounded, and some design choices made in the glass).
If you decide to investigate, you can search flickr for photos made with particular lenses to get a sense for what they are capable of (once you have two or three candidates). It is a subject in which you could spend many hours and much discussion.
Without trying to research that seriously, you could just look to see what lenses are available for the one or two camera brands that interest you. Look for availability of fast lenses. This will generally be fixed focal length. The fastest zooms I know are f2.8 (which might be fast enough, and will certainly be better than zooms that have variable max apertures like f/3.5-5.6, though the f/2.8 will be bigger and heavier and more expensive - so a prime might be your best way to keep cost down and maximize shallow depth).
In general, though, my advice would be don't try too hard to get the perfect lens (and camera) - it will be expensive, or you will have spent too much time searching at any rate. Try to get a sense for what will be a good choice, then go for it. In time you may discover ways you wish it would perform better - and then you will be in a position to shop for something even better (and maybe sell your old gear). As much as I wish it had gone faster for me, I don't think this process can be rushed, because it takes time for the photographer to learn what matters most to them (rather than what they heard from others was important). The only way to speed the process is to shoot lots of images.
I hope this was more helpful than confusing. Keep us posted on your searching.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
Sure thing. The G1X II is a completely different animal than the S95. I had an S100, the Canon S-series is easily the 2nd best shirt-pocket camera after the Sony RX100 series, but I know what you're saying. At the end of the day the sensor is tiny. The sensor in the G1X II is nearly APS-C, and the lens is really well specified.
Another thought would be the X100 with the 50mm teleconverter as an option for portraits, but the G1X II would still be more flexible while still fitting in a large coat pocket, cargo pocket, or purse. I'm thinking that's a major priority, yes? To do any better than these two you're going to have to accept a larger camera like a DSLR or mirrorless like the XE-1 or NEX/a6000.
I'd forget about FF at your budget. You'd be looking at an original 5D, an old and large camera. Besides, the DOF difference between APS-C and FF is pretty well over-hyped. I have a 5D3 as well.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Fuji, Samsung, Canon M, Leica T.
Check out the Samsung 16-50 f/2.0-2.8... not exactly in the budget, or pocketable, but dang!
The Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 is a great kit lens.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Is this Fuji lens the one that comes in the X-T1 kit?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1025329-REG/fujifilm_x_t1_mirrorless_digital_camera.html
Although off the top of my head I can't remember the whole point of the X-T1, other than it has a tilt-screen and a dial for ISO. I'd just get an X-E2 if I wanted interchangeable lenses.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
XC 16-50mm Lens,
XC 50-230mm Lens,
16 GB SD Card and Camera Bag,
XM-1 Hand Grip,
X-Trans CMOS Sensor,
EXR PROCESSOR II
I know it's not supposed to be the greatest of cameras but I think it will suit my needs for now. The image quality is rated pretty high and that's the most important thing to me. It also has the tilt screen, which I want, the large sensor and it's pretty compact. and the price was right. I plan on selling the 50-230mm Lens and getting the XF 60mm ƒ/2.4 Macro at some point. I can always upgrade to a better body later. I only thing I'm nervous about is I don't think the LCD screen has a live view which I really loved in my S95. I want to be able to see what the shot will look like on the screen before I shoot when changing the aperture or exposure. I thought all cameras would have this feature but when I watched the Fuji video on you tube nothing happened on the LCD screen when he made changes to the settings. I hope I'm wrong on this.
But I don't think those lenses are what you wanted, they're slow. And you never mentioned wanting a telephoto. If you're not sure you want it you should return it or sell it immediately, it won't have any significant value used.
On a budget if I wanted interchangeable lenses I probably would have gone with this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/888039-REG/Fujifilm_16276467_X_E1_Digital_Camera_Kit.html
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I would've asked more details about the subject mix ... and minimum acceptable file size.
Whilst landscape and portraits aren't of any real interest to me, I've seen absolutely stunning macro shots that've been taken with gear such as Canon 300D. Even a very basic DSLR + 50mm standard lens + extension tubes would probably have been suitable for jewelry photos.
Other later models - like a 40D (say) would've been well within budget and given possibilities for a decent (used) flash too ... for the 'macro / close-up' work.
pp
Flickr
Oh boy, I'm having buyers remorse and I've kind of had it since I clicked on "submit order" :cry. My plan is on selling the telephoto. I should be able to get $300 for it. That will bring the cost of the camera and lens down to $400. I thought hard about the x-e1 but I really wanted the tilt screen. I photograph a lot of vintage clothing which I lay out and I always have to stand on a step stool to shoot it from overhead. It's a pain, this way I'll be able to hold the camera up high and see the screen to compose the shot. From what I researched, the IQ on the x-m1 is equal to the x-e1. But if I am the least dissatisfied with the camera, I will return it.
Presumably you've tried taking pics with it (the clothing) on some sort of rig so it hangs?
Holding the cam high to compose a shot of stuff on the floor is one thing, but also getting the sensor plane parallel to the floor is quite another ... I'd have thought?
pp
Flickr
The X-M1 body will be quite fine, assuming what I said about the blank dial is true. It's the slow lenses that I think may disappoint you. It looks like they don't sell the X-M1 with the 18-55 as a kit, which is too bad.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yes, I often lay the clothing on the floor or on a large table. I do this so I can arrange the clothing to show detail which I can accomplish on a hanger. If the sensor isn't perfectly parallel to the surface it's not a big deal for me. I just crop or sometimes transform them in Photoshop if there really off. I shoot them for my ETSY site and ebay listings so most often there good enough for that purpose.
https://www.etsy.com/shop/gradyladies
I was looking at some comparisons between the two kit lenses and there wasn't much difference when shot at 2.8. Yes, a faster lens would be nice but I think it might do until I save up for another lens to add. I also thought about selling both the lenses and getting the faster XF 18-55mm, but I dont know how easy it would be to offload the XC 15-50. I do see them go for average $150.00. on ebay. They seem to sell OK. That would bring my cost for the body to $150. I could pick up the XF lens for $350, bringing the total for camera and faster lens up to $500. If it all worked out that is......
Congrats on making a purchase. Don't second-guess yourself too much. You are getting good advice about what to do with lenses, so I'm not going to try to improve on any of that (i can't anyway, not being familiar with the Fuji brand).
I will just point out that I _think_ the 18-55 lens you are discussing is an f/2.8-4 (ie., variable max aperture). That means its max aperture when zoomed to the telephoto end of its range is f/4.
Not sure if I mentioned (in one of my long-winded posts) that a zoom lens with constant max aperture (say, f/2.8 throughout the zoom range) is expensive.
If very shallow depth of field is one of your primary objectives (and maybe it isn't. not trying to make you think it should be.), you may be better served with a different lens. Or maybe you will put a constant max aperture zoom (or fast prime) on your wish list for next year or the year after.
Time spent shooting will tease out the features and specifications that you most want to improve with your next purchase.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
http://www.statista.com/statistics/236748/brand-equity-of-digital-camera-brands-in-the-united-states/
I use a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro for "fast" close up photos
nice IQ but the 60D (relatively inexpensive at $450) is a DSLR and larger than the mirrorless models