I misread the title as 'Getting into pornography - how to start, what to get?'
Tbh, slightly sad we don't have a datasheet on that yet.
Tbh, slightly sad we don't have a datasheet on that yet.
Getting into photography - how to start, what to get?
- Thread starter sterling_archer
- Start date
Huxley Badkin
Sparrow
sterling_archer said:
Checked, and the UK shop ships only to the UK, unfortunately. There is an EU portal and Croatia section, but I couldn't find a store. Sorry about that.
Best of luck with the research and your photographic journey - keep us updated.
sterling_archer
Hummingbird
Genghis Khan said:
Oh God.
sterling_archer
Hummingbird
kbell said:
I read numerous times that entry level mirrorless suffer from these problems. I don't think that I should worry about this as a beginner though.
sterling_archer
Hummingbird
Can someone explain what is the deal with viewfinders, i.e. difference between electrical and optical? Also, for what they say something akin to "you will get what you see" and what image does LCD screen actually show?
Huxley Badkin said:
Not an issue if you use this: https://www.forward2me.com/
Costs about 40 pounds for shopping service + DHL shipping to Croatia, but is reliable and fast. I've used them to order stuff of various values and sizes 5 times so far and it's been flawless every time.
Huxley Badkin
Sparrow
sterling_archer said:
Kind of like the difference between watching TV and looking out the window...
An EVF (Electronic View Finder) presents, via a screen, what is essentially a live feed from the sensor. So, what the sensor sees, you see. That's why you get the WYSIWYG effect. Whatever exposure setting you have dialled into the camera will affect the image displayed, and represent the image you'd capture if you pressed the shutter. So, if under-exposed, the display would be dark, and if over-exposed, you'd see a washed-out image. Set the correct exposure, and you'll see a more accurate picture of the scene.
Though, btw, you can usually disable this 'preview' function, for instance if shooting with studio strobes.
An optical viewfinder simply transmits the light directly, same as if you were using, say, binoculars or a periscope. With some of the Fuji cameras, you'll look straight through a little window. A DSLR will bounce the light entering the lens off a mirror and through a prism to show you what you're pointing the camera at. These will usually have overlays to assist with focus and display settings and so on.
Good, detailed explanation of the Fuji system on the X-Pro1 here.
sterling_archer
Hummingbird
Thanks. What is the delay mentioned that occurs in EVFs and is it really a hassle compared to OVF?
Btw, I sent you an PM.
Btw, I sent you an PM.
Psygnosis89
Robin
kbell said:
The LCD's are hard to see in bright sunlight, but as far as actually shooting the OVF found in DSLR are actually far easier to shoot in sunny conditions. It's not something that can be read in an internet post, you have to try both. The 'not seeing the exposure in real time' isn't an issue either beyond your first few weeks of shooting since the light meters in modern DSLR are so accurate and as long as the histogram is pretty much in the right place, if you're shooting RAW then you'll make any minor adjustments needed to the image in post.
I shoot for agencies and if I'm shooting in natural light I'll often just put my D750 into Aperture priority and trust the cameras matrix metering. At most the exposure usually need to be moved about half a stop in Lightroom since the metering in cameras is so good these days.
Huxley Badkin
Sparrow
sterling_archer said:
The delay with EVFs is just down to the few fractions of a second it takes for the sensor to process and send the image to the display, and the refresh rate of the screen itself. Inevitably there's going to be some lag, but it's pretty miniscule.
Obviously, there's no such issue, such as it is, with optical viewfinders but, personally, I don't tend to shoot fast-moving subjects, or sports, or stuff like that, so it's never been a concern for me, and any lag is not really perceivable in everyday use. Certainly hasn't prevented me from shooting street, and events such as music gigs, where there is 'action', and timing can be critical.
sterling_archer said:
This is an example of a detail that is irrelevant at a complete beginner's budget and experience level.
Whatever kit you end up choosing, you'll most likely feel like the grass is greener elsewhere or you'd like to experiment with other types of gear. Sony, Fuji and Olympus all offer great mirrorless options. Same for Canon and Nikon for DSLRs. If you want to do video (especially 4k), then you can start to cut out a few options. Stills only? Dozens of good options.
Whatever you choose, there will be aestethic differences but this is not a negative - it's an investment in training your eye and developing your particular style. You need to get your hands dirty before you can appreciate what look you're going for.
At this point, you should research whatever style of camera you think is attractive and would be excited to shoot with, and wether or not it fits into your budget.
For example, my first "semi-pro/pro" camera was a Canon 60D. It's an excellent piece of equipment, but when you assemble it with a lens, it's a huge brick to lug around and that made me always think twice when I wanted to go out and shoot. As a result, I didn't shoot as much I would have liked.
At your experience level, I would say just commit to buying something and starting out - from there you'll see how a thousand roads will open up. (Get used gear, it will depreciate less.)
Most importantly: get a camera that makes you excited to go shoot.
That inevitable tug of wanting to photograph more and more is what will make you develop your skill, eye, style - and get you to a point where minute details are actually relevant to what you are trying to achieve.
PS: I've read the post again and realize it may come off as abrasive but it's definitely not the intention - just trying to tell you something I wish someone had told me when I was starting out and losing my hair over making a "wrong" choice in equipment.
sterling_archer
Hummingbird
Ringo, it didn't sound abrasive at all, exact opposite, it is very like something a guy in the local computer shop said to me this afternoon.
To explain further, website of local computer shop has small selection of cameras, but pretty much all of these were discussed here, in this thread or in some way on dpreview. So I decided to go there and check the cameras in person. Someone also gave me that advice on previous page.
Here are cameras I looked at and my impressions:
Nikon D3400
Among the cheapest of the selection. It has lightweight body and plastic that feels a bit cheap, but sturdy. It comes with default kit lens 18-55. Guy in the shop recommended me this one to be my first camera.
He said that people tend to buy into medium budget cameras for their first one and if they are bored, they realize they have spent too much money. If they progress in their skills and decide to buy better camera, next upgrade offers not too much of an improvement since minority buys thousands of dollars camera as their next one. Most will buy just one class higher camera and that seems to be pretty much same as their previous camera, but just with some minor improvements.
His advice is to buy D3400 or Canon 1300D and hone my skills on it. When I outgrow it, invest into something much better that would be base of my future lens investments. He is an amateur and he uses Nikon.
Fuji X-A10
I really liked this one. Huxley is probably laughing now. It is a bit pricier than D3400, but it offers unique feel compared to DSLRs. Sturdy metal body, much heavier than D3400 and with XC kit lens. Despite being a simple box, it has good ergonomics. Guy in the store says it is a very good option, despite him and his friends not having experience with Fuji.
Canon EOS 1300D
Pretty much same deal as Nikon D3400. Physically I think it is a bit larger than Nikon and little heavier. Also it seems to be of better quality. This is a second option according to guy in the shop.
Nikon D5600
I saw on website D5300 and wanted to see it in person, since I read reviews that say it is a very good beginner camera. Unfortunately they have only its upgrade in the store which is a D5600. But being virtually the same in size I checked it out. Sturdy, good looking and distinctly different than D3400. I think the same thing is with D5300, they really can't be much different.
Canon EOS M100
Unfortunately not available in store, only online. Too bad.
To explain further, website of local computer shop has small selection of cameras, but pretty much all of these were discussed here, in this thread or in some way on dpreview. So I decided to go there and check the cameras in person. Someone also gave me that advice on previous page.
Here are cameras I looked at and my impressions:
Nikon D3400
Among the cheapest of the selection. It has lightweight body and plastic that feels a bit cheap, but sturdy. It comes with default kit lens 18-55. Guy in the shop recommended me this one to be my first camera.
He said that people tend to buy into medium budget cameras for their first one and if they are bored, they realize they have spent too much money. If they progress in their skills and decide to buy better camera, next upgrade offers not too much of an improvement since minority buys thousands of dollars camera as their next one. Most will buy just one class higher camera and that seems to be pretty much same as their previous camera, but just with some minor improvements.
His advice is to buy D3400 or Canon 1300D and hone my skills on it. When I outgrow it, invest into something much better that would be base of my future lens investments. He is an amateur and he uses Nikon.
Fuji X-A10
I really liked this one. Huxley is probably laughing now. It is a bit pricier than D3400, but it offers unique feel compared to DSLRs. Sturdy metal body, much heavier than D3400 and with XC kit lens. Despite being a simple box, it has good ergonomics. Guy in the store says it is a very good option, despite him and his friends not having experience with Fuji.
Canon EOS 1300D
Pretty much same deal as Nikon D3400. Physically I think it is a bit larger than Nikon and little heavier. Also it seems to be of better quality. This is a second option according to guy in the shop.
Nikon D5600
I saw on website D5300 and wanted to see it in person, since I read reviews that say it is a very good beginner camera. Unfortunately they have only its upgrade in the store which is a D5600. But being virtually the same in size I checked it out. Sturdy, good looking and distinctly different than D3400. I think the same thing is with D5300, they really can't be much different.
Canon EOS M100
Unfortunately not available in store, only online. Too bad.
Volk
Kingfisher
sterling_archer said:
If you are buying new, the Nikon D3400 is right on point. The only advantage from the D5600 is the flippy screen. The sensor in that 3400 is great and their two prime lenses (the 35 and the 50) are super cheap and they've got great quality.
In my opinion, if you decide to go for DSLR, go for that Nikon. For mirrorless buy a Fuji. (An Xpro1 used is also a very very good idea tho, and that camera will get you in love with photography)
sterling_archer
Hummingbird
I will probably buy D3400 because of advice guy in shop gave me and advice I heard here. For a good price I will get good beginner camera. I will probably not invest too much in it regarding lenses (one or two), because somewhere in future my second camera will be a real platform for investments. 50 lens is a portrait one, isn't it?
Anyone know good photography youtube channels worthy subscribing to?
Anyone know good photography youtube channels worthy subscribing to?
You might want to sign up for a free account on a photo website like viewbug.
https://www.viewbug.com/contests/sensual-and-artistic-photo-contest/gallery
look at one of the photos you like, there are many contest to choose from, I prefer the nudes. Click on the photo and it will tell you the lens, iso, aperature and shutterspeed used. It'll help you learn.
You can also go to the search bar and search for cameras used, search for a very basic camera like the Nikon d60, which is like $60 camera to buy and you'll see all the photos taken with that camera and you'll also see the camera doesn't matter as much as you think. It's all about the lenses, lighting, and knowing what you're doing.
Deviant art is another good one
https://davidsamson.deviantart.com/gallery/
https://model-space.deviantart.com/
https://www.viewbug.com/contests/sensual-and-artistic-photo-contest/gallery
look at one of the photos you like, there are many contest to choose from, I prefer the nudes. Click on the photo and it will tell you the lens, iso, aperature and shutterspeed used. It'll help you learn.
You can also go to the search bar and search for cameras used, search for a very basic camera like the Nikon d60, which is like $60 camera to buy and you'll see all the photos taken with that camera and you'll also see the camera doesn't matter as much as you think. It's all about the lenses, lighting, and knowing what you're doing.
Deviant art is another good one
https://davidsamson.deviantart.com/gallery/
https://model-space.deviantart.com/
sterling_archer
Hummingbird
Tnx Linux, will check it out.
Huxley Badkin
Sparrow
sterling_archer said:
That depends. More specifically, it depends on the size of the sensor in the camera. On full-frame, 35mm equivalent, 50mm is commonly called a 'standard' lens. Meaning it's generally considered to capture the sort of field-of-view that you see with your own eyes. It's a great 'do anything' focal length, and typically the first prime that one is advised to acquire.
Things change if the camera has an APS-C sensor - also known as a 'crop sensor'. This is smaller than 'full frame' so for, er... reasons, the field of view of a lens (or equivalent focal length), when mounted on an APS-C body will be different than when fitted to a full-frame.
Simple formula to work out the difference is to multiply the focal length by 1.5 [or, add half].
So, a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera will be roughly equivalent to a 75mm lens on full frame. Funnily enough, as a moderate telephoto, that does become a decent portrait lens. However, it may not be as wide as you might like for more general use.
Therefore, if you want a 'standard' lens for an APS-C [which is what my Fujis are] you'd get something like a 35mm lens. 35 multiplied by 1.5 is about 50mm. Incidentally, my favourite portrait lenses are the 56mm (about 84mm equiv.) and the 60mm (90mm equiv.).
Chances are, if you're buying an entry level camera, it'll be APS-C. Make sure you find out, though.
To get some idea of what APS-C focal lengths and fields of view look like, there's a useful gadget on Fuji's site which will show you what the same scene looks like shot with different lenses. Worth a play.
My personal picks:
Matt Kloskowski. Cool guy, mainly shoots landscape, and has a good library of Lightroom tutorials.
Thomas Heaton. Landscape guy again. British. Shows you what you've got to do to get great Nature shots: get up in the dark, get out there before sunrise, be prepared to fail but have patience and persist. A major inspiration.
B&H Photo. American camera store, hosts really interesting guest speakers. Great back catalogue of long-form lectures on a wide variety of subjects. I especially remember watching some excellent content regarding composition.
The Art of Photography. I like this dude's style. Tutorials, tips, and philosophy of photography.
Jessica Kobeissi. Slightly goofy, but kind of a cool chick. [WB, btw.
] What's interesting about her is she shoots professionally using available light. Demonstrates that you can get great results with just a camera, and without complex lighting setups. Found her vids after searching for portrait retouching basics.Those are some good places to start, imo.