Help needed on choosing a camera
Discussion
LuS1fer said:
JontyR said:
Would this do the job ok?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-1100D-Digital-Camera...
Seems to be a good bargain price!
This seems to be cited as a rival and gets better reviews for similar money:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-1100D-Digital-Camera...
Seems to be a good bargain price!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00403MA4M/ref=asc_df_B...
LuS1fer said:
Having looked further again, the Nikon D3200 looks about the ideal starter DSLR at around £335 on Amazon, complete with lens. About £100 cheaper than the replacement D3300.
That will serve you very well for several years to come if you look after it. Superb quality, prints well over A3 size in a glossy magazine - or about the size of half a house on the inter webby... Mr Snap said:
Live-view is vga quality and even when magnified is inferior to what the the human eye should see.
Fascinating discussion. Just to let Mr Snap know, the game has moved on quite a bit. Modern EVFs have OLED displays with more than 2 million dots. They have almost eight times the resolution of VGA outputs! This combined with magnification and peaking make them waaaay easier to manually focus than DSLRs. Also, the lag time is around 29ms. That's 0.029 seconds. It's imperceptible to all but the most eagle eyed.
With EVFs, you can see exactly what the image is going to look like, too. With OVFs, very wide open apertures look different to the image, but to get round this, you have a DOF preview. You just down need this with an EVF.
Honestly Mr Snap, you should try one of the newer ones. They're rather good.
Swordman said:
Fascinating discussion. Just to let Mr Snap know, the game has moved on quite a bit. Modern EVFs have OLED displays with more than 2 million dots. They have almost eight times the resolution of VGA outputs! This combined with magnification and peaking make them waaaay easier to manually focus than DSLRs.
Also, the lag time is around 29ms. That's 0.029 seconds. It's imperceptible to all but the most eagle eyed.
With EVFs, you can see exactly what the image is going to look like, too. With OVFs, very wide open apertures look different to the image, but to get round this, you have a DOF preview. You just down need this with an EVF.
Honestly Mr Snap, you should try one of the newer ones. They're rather good.
Yes, the screens have lots of pixels, I know. Sadly live-view doesn't use them, you're still looking at a low res image albeit on a very high pixel screen. Watching old 405 line programs like Hancock's Half Hour on a plasma screen won't let you see the original image any better than when it was shot in 1960. Also, the lag time is around 29ms. That's 0.029 seconds. It's imperceptible to all but the most eagle eyed.
With EVFs, you can see exactly what the image is going to look like, too. With OVFs, very wide open apertures look different to the image, but to get round this, you have a DOF preview. You just down need this with an EVF.
Honestly Mr Snap, you should try one of the newer ones. They're rather good.
As for having eagle eyes, that's precisely what pro's tend to have, extremely acute visual awareness (not the same as good eyesight). In fact, it's what sets them apart and makes them pro's. Anything that gets in the way of what they're doing is shunned and electronic viewfinders do just that, they get in the way. They're unnecessary technology solving problems which don't, for a pro, exist.
I don't wish to be rude but you clearly have no idea of the working methods of a professional product photographer. As it is, I've never seen a fellow pro use a mirrorless camera. I've seen one or two semi pro's and amateurs use them but I've never ever seen a pro use one except to take holiday snaps. Similarly, if you go to the Calumet or Teamwork Hire you'll find that neither of the biggest pro camera hire outfits in London (therefore Europe) lets out mirrorless cameras. There's a reason for this; they're amateur gear and not as practical or versatile as an optical DSLR.
I seriously can't think of a single field in pro photography where an electronic viewfinder would be considered an asset rather than a liability.
Mr Snap said:
As for having eagle eyes, that's precisely what pro's tend to have, extremely acute visual awareness (not the same as good eyesight). In fact, it's what sets them apart and makes them pro's. Anything that gets in the way of what they're doing is shunned and electronic viewfinders do just that, they get in the way. They're unnecessary technology solving problems which don't, for a pro, exist.
So tell me oh great one; what exactly is the difference between shooting tethered and shooting using live-view?Mr Will said:
So tell me oh great one; what exactly is the difference between shooting tethered and shooting using live-view?
Shooting tethered, you don't need to shoot with live-view (well, you could, but it'd still only be VGA quality on a big screen). You shoot 'tests' and analyse the image itself. The image itself is full quality and you can enlarge it to over 100%, if you want - that's vastly superior to VGA. Not only that, you can analyse colour, histograms append metadata, download to your hard disc as you go and show images on the computer screen to clients (instead of having them chimping over your shoulder). You can even tether by wifi. Sometimes, I even worked tethered with a graphic artist prepping images, in real time, as they're being shot. It's a hoot and the client can literally walk out the door, with a disc of fully prepped images, within minutes of the shoot being completed. So, why would you want to fiddle about, switching in and out of live-view, when you can have a smoother workflow by simply working tethered? It's adding extra faf for no practical benefit. Worse still; if, say, you're doing a set of shots that require greater than usual accuracy - e.g. macro - switching in and out of live-view could inadvertently joggle the camera, which would be disastrous. Having to reshoot a whole set of images because you moved the camera isn't a joke. In that kind of situation, once you're happy with the camera position, you don't want to touch it again. You avoid any actions which might introduce the possibility camera movement.
You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you? You know precisely one way of working and rubbish any others without taking the time to understand them.
So, why would you want to fiddle about, switching in and out of live-view, when you can have a smoother workflow by simply working tethered? It's adding extra faf for no practical benefit. Worse still; if, say, you're doing a set of shots that require greater than usual accuracy - e.g. macro - switching in and out of live-view could inadvertently joggle the camera, which would be disastrous. Having to reshoot a whole set of images because you moved the camera isn't a joke. In that kind of situation, once you're happy with the camera position, you don't want to touch it again. You avoid any actions which might introduce the possibility camera movement.Switching in and out of live-view? Who on earth suggested that. You are in an environment where there is zero advantage to using the optical finder (hence why shooting tethered is an option). There is no extra faff involved.
Yes, I agree tethered is best, assuming you have all the relevant kit. When you don't, live-view comes a close second best. In this scenario, the optical finder comes a distant last. For fast action sports, the reverse would be true.
You are unnecessarily limiting yourself if you do not know how to use the tools you work with to the best of their abilities. Go and do some reading, then try these things for yourself. Maybe you'll like them, maybe you won't, but at least then you'll know the possibilities.
Mr Snap said:
Shooting tethered, you don't need to shoot with live-view (well, you could, but it'd still only be VGA quality on a big screen).
Assuming a static subject, why would you not to take advantage of the more accurate focus that it allows (auto or manual)Mr Snap said:
You shoot 'tests' and analyse the image itself. The image itself is full quality and you can enlarge it to over 100%, if you want - that's vastly superior to VGA. Not only that, you can analyse colour, histograms append metadata,...
Just like the preview on the camera afterwards - it's full quality, can be zoomed to over 100% and has all the histograms and colour data. There is nothing VGA about it!Mr Snap said:
...download to your hard disc as you go and show images on the computer screen to clients (instead of having them chimping over your shoulder). You can even tether by wifi. Sometimes, I even worked tethered with a graphic artist prepping images, in real time, as they're being shot. It's a hoot and the client can literally walk out the door, with a disc of fully prepped images, within minutes of the shoot being completed.
Completely irrelevant to the point in question. This is just downloading on the fly, not tethered shootingMr Snap said:
So, why would you want to fiddle about, switching in and out of live-view, when you can have a smoother workflow by simply working tethered? It's adding extra faf for no practical benefit. Worse still; if, say, you're doing a set of shots that require greater than usual accuracy - e.g. macro - switching in and out of live-view could inadvertently joggle the camera, which would be disastrous. Having to reshoot a whole set of images because you moved the camera isn't a joke. In that kind of situation, once you're happy with the camera position, you don't want to touch it again. You avoid any actions which might introduce the possibility camera movement.
Yes, I agree tethered is best, assuming you have all the relevant kit. When you don't, live-view comes a close second best. In this scenario, the optical finder comes a distant last. For fast action sports, the reverse would be true.
You are unnecessarily limiting yourself if you do not know how to use the tools you work with to the best of their abilities. Go and do some reading, then try these things for yourself. Maybe you'll like them, maybe you won't, but at least then you'll know the possibilities.
Mr Will said:
You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you? You know precisely one way of working and rubbish any others without taking the time to understand them.
Because it isn't necessary. For the typical product shot - and especially when you're shooting many similar items in the same set - it's better to do an initial focus manually and then adjust the power of the lighting to encompass the DoF of all the items you intend to shoot. DoF works on a 2:1 basis, so you focus manually one third in to the item, from the front edge, then lock the focus where it is and double check it with a tethered test or post view in camera. If the test is good, you shoot the whole batch of items by simply picking one up and replacing it with the next item on the same spot. No need for live-view, dead-view or any-other-view. Mr Snap said:
Shooting tethered, you don't need to shoot with live-view (well, you could, but it'd still only be VGA quality on a big screen).
Assuming a static subject, why would you not to take advantage of the more accurate focus that it allows (auto or manual)If you've calculated the DoF correctly, every object that falls within those parameters will be in focus and you can shoot 120+ objects in an hour.
If you need to shoot the items from different angles, you can either rotate them on the spot or you do a second set, refocus and shoot everything again from the new angle. This saves time because you're not moving the camera from shot to shot (and risking moving the camera stand or tripod) losing visual cogency from image to image.
Shooting this way also cuts time in post processing because, if you've done it right, the items all occupy the same spot in the frame, so no cropping required. The colour calibration can also be done accurately and consistently to jpeg or TIFF, so there's no need to post process from RAW (although you shoot RAW too, just in case, for belt and braces).
Finally, if you do it right, you can hand your images directly to the client in finished form on the day. No saying, "I'll sort that in post and get back to you" because it's already done. The client is happy because you've done it quickly and efficiently. Better still he doesn't feel cheated over paying you for hours in post - which he's suspicious about because he's not present. You're happy because the shot was quick and efficient and you don't need to spend hours repairing inconsistent images in Photoshop. Because you're quick and efficient, you can charge more per job and then get on with the next job.
Mr Will said:
Mr Snap said:
You shoot 'tests' and analyse the image itself. The image itself is full quality and you can enlarge it to over 100%, if you want - that's vastly superior to VGA. Not only that, you can analyse colour, histograms append metadata,...
Mr Will said:
Just like the preview on the camera afterwards - it's full quality, can be zoomed to over 100% and has all the histograms and colour data. There is nothing VGA about it!
Mr Snap said:
...download to your hard disc as you go and show images on the computer screen to clients (instead of having them chimping over your shoulder). You can even tether by wifi. Sometimes, I even worked tethered with a graphic artist prepping images, in real time, as they're being shot. It's a hoot and the client can literally walk out the door, with a disc of fully prepped images, within minutes of the shoot being completed.
Completely irrelevant to the point in question. This is just downloading on the fly, not tethered shootingDon't take my word for it. Here's what a typical Nikon leaflet says, my bold "Live View shooting gets the most out of the vari-angle LCD monitor. You can shoot while confirming your subject with the large, easy-to-view, 7.5-cm (3-in.) VGA (approx. 921k-dot), wide-viewing-angle (170), 100% frame coverage LCD monitor.
Live-view is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.
It's shooting tethered on the fly. There are a range of options, in wifi you can even have post view on camera while you're tethered and downloading at the same time; or you can even have somebody control the camera while you shoot.
Mr Will said:
Mr Snap said:
So, why would you want to fiddle about, switching in and out of live-view, when you can have a smoother workflow by simply working tethered? It's adding extra faf for no practical benefit. Worse still; if, say, you're doing a set of shots that require greater than usual accuracy - e.g. macro - switching in and out of live-view could inadvertently joggle the camera, which would be disastrous. Having to reshoot a whole set of images because you moved the camera isn't a joke. In that kind of situation, once you're happy with the camera position, you don't want to touch it again. You avoid any actions which might introduce the possibility camera movement.
Mr Will said:
Yes, I agree tethered is best, assuming you have all the relevant kit. When you don't, live-view comes a close second best. In this scenario, the optical finder comes a distant last. For fast action sports, the reverse would be true.
Exactly, tethered shooting is best and not by a little bit, the advantages of tethered are huge. I do have the appropriate kit and I don't think that recommending inferior kit to the OP will help him. Good DSLR's are available at sensible prices and are far more versatile than mirrorless cameras. What's the point of recommending something less useful and which adds unnecessary complexity? Mr Will said:
You are unnecessarily limiting yourself if you do not know how to use the tools you work with to the best of their abilities. Go and do some reading, then try these things for yourself. Maybe you'll like them, maybe you won't, but at least then you'll know the possibilities.
I'm not limiting myself, I'm trying to give the OP my best advice based on over thirty years experience of shooting products and running courses in shooting products for professional photographers. I adapt my methods to the situation - I can do that because I have a decent repertoire of skills based on lots of experience. An amateur like the OP doesn't. He needs a simple, straightforward, process that he can rely on. I didn't even suggest he should work tethered, it arose from your insistence that live-view is the answer to everything. My original point was that you only need to do a quick manual focus and then use DoF to bring things into full focus. It's dead easy if you understand DoF. You derailed it by insisting live-view was better at 'critical focus'. Well, yes it is but you don't need to use it a quick visual in manual focus is more than good enough. So banging on about live-view only served to complicate a simple process. Unless he's shooting something out of the ordinary, all the OP needs to do is have a quick shufty through the viewfinder and to focus visually. With a DSLR he doesn't need to anything about live-view. Then, when you started banging on about live-view, I explained that if focus was super-super-critical then tethering or checking the post view was a better than live-view (because it is, you admitted it), but you still kept banging on about the superiority of live-view....
Anyway, the OP asked about a good camera for product photography. If he'd asked about a camera that was good for family snaps and few 'lifestyle' type product photographs, I might have said 'go mirrorless'. But he didn't, so I pointed him towards a cheap DSLR as it's the best, simplest, tool for the job. You recommend using an overcomplicated workflow using a system which you admit isn't ideal. My main concern is that without a bit more technical input, the OP will still struggle to get the images he wants: You can buy a piano, but that doesn't mean you'll know how to play it...
As for more reading. Which of my books or magazine articles do you suggest I read?
Edited by Mr Snap on Friday 23 May 14:39
LuS1fer said:
This is about as fascinating as watching a sunset in a blindfold.
I suspect the OP has probably killed himself by now and I'm not sure anyone cares about all this tech crap on a thread like this.
TBF it is off topic however as a user of both types of cameras I am finding it interesting I suspect the OP has probably killed himself by now and I'm not sure anyone cares about all this tech crap on a thread like this.
FIGHT
LuS1fer said:
This is about as fascinating as watching a sunset in a blindfold.
I suspect the OP has probably killed himself by now and I'm not sure anyone cares about all this tech crap on a thread like this.
I agree. Sorry for going on so, I didn't really want to be drawn in to this in the first place. I suspect the OP has probably killed himself by now and I'm not sure anyone cares about all this tech crap on a thread like this.
Mr Snap said:
Good DSLR's ........... are far more versatile than mirrorless cameras.
You made that statement somewhere on the previous page and I asked you in what ways.The primary reason you offered was:
"Good question: It's hard to explain but take the Cartier-Bresson thing, for example. As I'm sure you know, HC-B's technique derived from the Leica rangefinder and, if you've ever used one, you'll understand how the design helps you to 'frame' rapidly unfolding action using the rangefinder. The way it's constructed allows you to see what's happening in front of you comfortably; you use your right eye to look through the viewer, to frame precisely but, at the same time, you use your other eye to gauge what's going on outside the frame"
That's hardly "far more versatile".
Elderly said:
Mr Snap said:
Good DSLR's ........... are far more versatile than mirrorless cameras.
You made that statement somewhere on the previous page and I asked you in what ways.The primary reason you offered was:
"Good question: It's hard to explain but take the Cartier-Bresson thing, for example. As I'm sure you know, HC-B's technique derived from the Leica rangefinder and, if you've ever used one, you'll understand how the design helps you to 'frame' rapidly unfolding action using the rangefinder. The way it's constructed allows you to see what's happening in front of you comfortably; you use your right eye to look through the viewer, to frame precisely but, at the same time, you use your other eye to gauge what's going on outside the frame"
That's hardly "far more versatile".
There are certain situations where the combination of optical viewfinder and phase detect autofocus is still superior and a DSLR gives you that choice. Mirrorless you are effectively limited to live-view and (mostly) contrast detection, both of which a DSLR can do if required.
To ignore the size and weight issue is a mistake though. For a lot of people it can make the camera more enjoyable to use and when you are shooting for pleasure that enjoyment is worth more than the last degree of technical prowess.
Different tools for different jobs.
Elderly said:
Mr Snap said:
Good DSLR's ........... are far more versatile than mirrorless cameras.
You made that statement somewhere on the previous page and I asked you in what ways.The primary reason you offered was:
"Good question: It's hard to explain but take the Cartier-Bresson thing, for example. As I'm sure you know, HC-B's technique derived from the Leica rangefinder and, if you've ever used one, you'll understand how the design helps you to 'frame' rapidly unfolding action using the rangefinder. The way it's constructed allows you to see what's happening in front of you comfortably; you use your right eye to look through the viewer, to frame precisely but, at the same time, you use your other eye to gauge what's going on outside the frame"
That's hardly "far more versatile".
Yes it is if you take in all the other uses you can put a DSLR to. It's not the ideal 'decisive moment' camera but, if you know how, it'll do a good job. If I had to do 'decisive moment' stuff on a full time basis, not shooting anything else, then I'd go for a Leica or might consider one of Fuji's hybrid viewfinders (but, to be honest, I find the heads up info distracting and I've not checked whether you can turn it off). In the meantime, as a pro doing lots of different types of jobs, I can use a DSLR for about 95% of my work, with occasional forays into MF digital and film (yes, really, film is more useful to me than a mirrorless camera)
As I pointed out above, if pro's were flocking to use mirrorless cameras, they'd hire them out at Calumet and Teamwork. They don't. It's all DSLR's, MF digital and a few Fuji hybrids. There's a reason for this, mirrorless cameras handle practically everything worse than a DSLR.
I don't want to slag off mirrorless cameras or their owners. They've obviously come to a decision based on their needs and what they want from a camera but that decision doesn't reflect the general consensus of pro photographers. It merely points to the fact that the people who like mirrorless cameras probably have very different priorities.
So, it's back to best tool for the job. In the old days, I used to love my Rollieflex but I hardly ever used it. I used my Hasselblad instead because it was more versatile. I could swap film backs, I could shoot Polaroid tests, there were no parallax problems and I could swap lenses without breaking a sweat. I could do all of my two and a quarter square work on it. There was one thing the Rollieflex did that satisfied me better - candid portrait out of the studio in natural lights (but not close-ups). But the pictures weren't any better. The only reason I preferred it was because it didn't make a noise like a bomb going off. Liking the Rolleiflex didn't make it better or more versatile.
Edited by Mr Snap on Friday 23 May 18:06
Elderly said:
Mr Snap said:
I used my Hasselblad instead because it was more versatile.
Still OT sorry OP.I got rid of my Hasselblad because this was FAR more versatile
Now I'm going to have to turn the whole place upside down.
I hold you responsible
I may be gone for some time...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff