Equipment Advice For An Utter Novice
Discussion
I have recently decided to abandon the yoke of Smart Phones. I have bought a rip off Nokia thing that sends texts and makes calls. I always enjoyed taking photos with my iPhone 15 Pro Max, but would like to replace it with a small digital camera. I don't know anything about this field and hope someone can point me in the right direction.
Apologies for such an appalling and open ended request.
Apologies for such an appalling and open ended request.
I have a Sony RX 100 (early version, Mk III) which is very good, but I find myself taking more pictures on my iPhone (16 Pro, so not dissimilar to yours), using an app called Halide to give me similar control to the compact
No it’s not as good as the later RX100s, but I always have it (the iPhone) with me
No it’s not as good as the later RX100s, but I always have it (the iPhone) with me
It depends on what you find you don't like or find limiting about a phone.
I would think possible limitations of phones you might find are:
1) Very poor for wild life photography - pretty hopeless for birds.
2) Want more control rather than have the phone make all the decisions
3) Find the lack of viewfinder a problem in some lighting conditions
4) Find ultimate picture quality lacking - but you will need quite a good conventional camera to better the best phones.
You need to answer those questions to be able to make any recommendations.
I would think possible limitations of phones you might find are:
1) Very poor for wild life photography - pretty hopeless for birds.
2) Want more control rather than have the phone make all the decisions
3) Find the lack of viewfinder a problem in some lighting conditions
4) Find ultimate picture quality lacking - but you will need quite a good conventional camera to better the best phones.
You need to answer those questions to be able to make any recommendations.
One of the great adages of photographys is that the best camera is the one you have with you. Smartphones are leaps and bounds technically superior to the most of the compact cameras we used to carry around in the film and early digital age. Don't let the idea that it's a smartphone and therefore not capable of serious photography, poison your mind.
However, if you do want to get rid of your smartphone for other reasons, then you'll want to get something which will teach you the art of composition and let you get to grips with focus, depth of field, the exposure triangle, and creative effects you can achieve by manipulating these.
You basically have a few obvious routes to take:
- Interchangeable lens DSLRs - the digital camera that nearly all professional photographers used for decades, but no longer the latest tech. Most manufacturers have discontinued making them, with Pentax being the last one still doing them. Pros are that there are millions of used cameras and lenses out there, some of which can be had relatively cheaply now that there is more supply than demand. You usually get a bright clear viewfinder, but what you see isn't what you get. You have to take the photo first and then review the image to see if the results are what you were hoping for. You can easily control all of the parameters that control image making, and this should enable you to learn the principles quickly. Cons are that they aren't the latest tech, and as you build a collection of lenses, these aren't directly compatible with the newer mirroless cameras without the use of adapters.
- Interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras - Similar to the above, but don't have an optical viewfinder and relies on electronics to relay the image the sensor sees to either a screen on the back of the camera, or a viewfinder. These tend to be more expensive than DSLRs because they use newer technology. Whether you look through the virefinder or at the screen on the back, you're looking at an electronic preview of the final image. So it makes it easier to judge the effect of changes to the photographic parameters as you can see them change in real time as you make adjustments. The cameras tend to be smaller than DSLRs as they don't need space inside for moving mirrors. But the lenses tend to also be bigger and mroe expensive. Also, because a screen is always on when you're using the camera, battery life is not as good as DSLRs.
- Fixed lens campact or bridge cameras - as above, but you can't change the lens and either have a fixed angle of view, or a built-in zoom lens. These can be quite cheap of very expensive, but the lens you get with the camera is the one you'll always be using. This doesn't mean that you can't be just as creative as you can with the other types of cameras, but it does mean that certain genres of photography will not be feasible with this type. Fofr example, I'm not aware of any cameras with fixed lenses that are suitable for shooting sports or wildlife, because the lenses and camera needed for that tend to be at the higher end of the market in terms of cost, size and weight. But there are many excellent cameras of this type suitable for general street, family, travel and more creative types of photography
- Specialty cameras such as rangefinders - these tend to be very expensive and are unlikely to be what you want when you're just starting out in serious photography. They often need more skill to use, but the results can be superb and the experience unique.
Once you have decided what kind of camera you want, you then need to decide on the sensor size you will get. Anything with a sensor about the same size as an orignal 35mm film negative frame is called full frame. Anything bigger than this is called medium format, and you can probably ignore these. And anything with a smaller sensor is called a crop sensor camera. The bigger the sensor, the more expensive the camera, because they have certain advantages including either increased resolution, increased sensitivity, or shallower depth of field, which is something that benefits some kinds of photography. But full-frame cameras require larger lenses, which tend to be heavier and more expensive. Most offer a 3:2 aspect ratio.
The most common crop sensor cameras have a sensor the size of an APS-C film frame and also have a 3:2 aspect ratio. But the area of the sensor is 0.66x that of a full frame camera, so they tend to have lower resolution. But it's easier to get things in focus, and the lenses can be smaller and lighter. But you can use the same lenses that you would on a full-frame camera - but they will appear to be 1.5x more zoomed in than a full-frame camera. Then there's Micro Four Thirds, which as the name suggests has a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's substantially smaller than both full frame and APS-C , but has the advantages of being even smaller and lighter still.
You'll find professionals using all sorts of cameras. But for me, the biggest bang for your buck would come from either an APS-C or full frame DSLR. You'll get great image quality, infinite flexibility, and have a huge variety of lenses you can try without breaking the bank. Personally I shoot with Nikon film SLRs, Nikon DSLRs (I have 5 of them, both APS-C and full-frame) and about 25 different lenses, but I also own and use a Sony mirrorless full-frame camera and have two very high quality lenses for that. I much prefer the experience of shooting with the Nikon DSLRs, but the Sony mirrorless system is more compact and better for travelling. And the two lenses I own (12-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8) basically cover every eventuality I travel. I don't tend to shoot landscapes or protraits or wildlife or sports, so I don't feel I need anything longer. But as it's also very high reolution, I have the option to crop my photos which makes them equivalent to a longer lens on a lower-resolution camera if I need that. Having said all that, about a third of all the photos I take are with my iPhone 12 Pro. And despite its limitations, I can take some very good photos with it.
Without knowing the kinds of things you might want to shoot, it's very hard to give specific recommendations. You can spend anywhere from £200 to £20,000, on a camera and one lens, so knowing what you want to photograph is essential before we can give you more guidance.
However, if you do want to get rid of your smartphone for other reasons, then you'll want to get something which will teach you the art of composition and let you get to grips with focus, depth of field, the exposure triangle, and creative effects you can achieve by manipulating these.
You basically have a few obvious routes to take:
- Interchangeable lens DSLRs - the digital camera that nearly all professional photographers used for decades, but no longer the latest tech. Most manufacturers have discontinued making them, with Pentax being the last one still doing them. Pros are that there are millions of used cameras and lenses out there, some of which can be had relatively cheaply now that there is more supply than demand. You usually get a bright clear viewfinder, but what you see isn't what you get. You have to take the photo first and then review the image to see if the results are what you were hoping for. You can easily control all of the parameters that control image making, and this should enable you to learn the principles quickly. Cons are that they aren't the latest tech, and as you build a collection of lenses, these aren't directly compatible with the newer mirroless cameras without the use of adapters.
- Interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras - Similar to the above, but don't have an optical viewfinder and relies on electronics to relay the image the sensor sees to either a screen on the back of the camera, or a viewfinder. These tend to be more expensive than DSLRs because they use newer technology. Whether you look through the virefinder or at the screen on the back, you're looking at an electronic preview of the final image. So it makes it easier to judge the effect of changes to the photographic parameters as you can see them change in real time as you make adjustments. The cameras tend to be smaller than DSLRs as they don't need space inside for moving mirrors. But the lenses tend to also be bigger and mroe expensive. Also, because a screen is always on when you're using the camera, battery life is not as good as DSLRs.
- Fixed lens campact or bridge cameras - as above, but you can't change the lens and either have a fixed angle of view, or a built-in zoom lens. These can be quite cheap of very expensive, but the lens you get with the camera is the one you'll always be using. This doesn't mean that you can't be just as creative as you can with the other types of cameras, but it does mean that certain genres of photography will not be feasible with this type. Fofr example, I'm not aware of any cameras with fixed lenses that are suitable for shooting sports or wildlife, because the lenses and camera needed for that tend to be at the higher end of the market in terms of cost, size and weight. But there are many excellent cameras of this type suitable for general street, family, travel and more creative types of photography
- Specialty cameras such as rangefinders - these tend to be very expensive and are unlikely to be what you want when you're just starting out in serious photography. They often need more skill to use, but the results can be superb and the experience unique.
Once you have decided what kind of camera you want, you then need to decide on the sensor size you will get. Anything with a sensor about the same size as an orignal 35mm film negative frame is called full frame. Anything bigger than this is called medium format, and you can probably ignore these. And anything with a smaller sensor is called a crop sensor camera. The bigger the sensor, the more expensive the camera, because they have certain advantages including either increased resolution, increased sensitivity, or shallower depth of field, which is something that benefits some kinds of photography. But full-frame cameras require larger lenses, which tend to be heavier and more expensive. Most offer a 3:2 aspect ratio.
The most common crop sensor cameras have a sensor the size of an APS-C film frame and also have a 3:2 aspect ratio. But the area of the sensor is 0.66x that of a full frame camera, so they tend to have lower resolution. But it's easier to get things in focus, and the lenses can be smaller and lighter. But you can use the same lenses that you would on a full-frame camera - but they will appear to be 1.5x more zoomed in than a full-frame camera. Then there's Micro Four Thirds, which as the name suggests has a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's substantially smaller than both full frame and APS-C , but has the advantages of being even smaller and lighter still.
You'll find professionals using all sorts of cameras. But for me, the biggest bang for your buck would come from either an APS-C or full frame DSLR. You'll get great image quality, infinite flexibility, and have a huge variety of lenses you can try without breaking the bank. Personally I shoot with Nikon film SLRs, Nikon DSLRs (I have 5 of them, both APS-C and full-frame) and about 25 different lenses, but I also own and use a Sony mirrorless full-frame camera and have two very high quality lenses for that. I much prefer the experience of shooting with the Nikon DSLRs, but the Sony mirrorless system is more compact and better for travelling. And the two lenses I own (12-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8) basically cover every eventuality I travel. I don't tend to shoot landscapes or protraits or wildlife or sports, so I don't feel I need anything longer. But as it's also very high reolution, I have the option to crop my photos which makes them equivalent to a longer lens on a lower-resolution camera if I need that. Having said all that, about a third of all the photos I take are with my iPhone 12 Pro. And despite its limitations, I can take some very good photos with it.
Without knowing the kinds of things you might want to shoot, it's very hard to give specific recommendations. You can spend anywhere from £200 to £20,000, on a camera and one lens, so knowing what you want to photograph is essential before we can give you more guidance.
Some very good advice above. I'm thinking though that if you want to learn some of the basics, you could do that on your iPhone 15 Pro Max with an app like Halide that lets you adjust ISO, speed, focus, etc, as well as think about composition, natural light etc. Then you might be in a better position to look at cameras compact and not-so-compact
I also recently did an adult education course on digital photography starting again with the basics, which was a useful refresher - most people on the course were using very modest equipment; the key thing was to have full manual control and a decent prime lens
I don't claim any merit in these pics from last month, one from iPhone 16 Pro and one from Sony RX100 (guess which is which), but wanted to make the point that the imaging quality is quite similar (which would not have been true a couple of generations of phone ago) and that using an app like Halide gives me much the same manual control on iPhone as on the Sony (a key thing the phone lacks is a viewfinder for composition)
I also recently did an adult education course on digital photography starting again with the basics, which was a useful refresher - most people on the course were using very modest equipment; the key thing was to have full manual control and a decent prime lens
I don't claim any merit in these pics from last month, one from iPhone 16 Pro and one from Sony RX100 (guess which is which), but wanted to make the point that the imaging quality is quite similar (which would not have been true a couple of generations of phone ago) and that using an app like Halide gives me much the same manual control on iPhone as on the Sony (a key thing the phone lacks is a viewfinder for composition)
I disagree with LunarOne's otherwise great post on one factor.
The best camera is the one being used by the photographer next to you.
In other words, don't worry about the camera system, type, size etc. There are few 'bad' cameras around. If you have specific needs, such a motor sport, birding, macro, whatever, you might have to limit your choice, but mostly this will be lens specific rather than cameras.
I have a back that plays up if a carry a heavy camera and gear for long periods. I went with MFT for the light weight, particularly of lenses. It made no significant difference to my photography. It was just another camera. You seem to be rejecting your cameraphone. Fair enough. If you want to move on, do so. New can be so much fun. But don't assume it will radically improve your photography. Modern cameraphones are remarkably effective. I produce videos. My MFT can produce excellent 4K MOV footage. I love it. However, my £500 cameraphone's video is all but indistinguishable once it's gone through Resolve and been reduced to MP4 for YouTube. It's the same with stills.
My suggestion is to try different cameras. If you are near a camera shop, or rather, not a massive distance away, try as many as you can and then decide, but remember, the photographer makes the image, not the camera.
I belonged to an active camera club but the bloke who won most competitions used a 50mm lens on a camera that had seen better decades. Everyone hated him, but admired his images. There's probably one of him at every camera club.
But, if you fancy a new camera, and can afford it, go for it. Enjoy it. Show it off. It's what we all do.
The best camera is the one being used by the photographer next to you.
In other words, don't worry about the camera system, type, size etc. There are few 'bad' cameras around. If you have specific needs, such a motor sport, birding, macro, whatever, you might have to limit your choice, but mostly this will be lens specific rather than cameras.
I have a back that plays up if a carry a heavy camera and gear for long periods. I went with MFT for the light weight, particularly of lenses. It made no significant difference to my photography. It was just another camera. You seem to be rejecting your cameraphone. Fair enough. If you want to move on, do so. New can be so much fun. But don't assume it will radically improve your photography. Modern cameraphones are remarkably effective. I produce videos. My MFT can produce excellent 4K MOV footage. I love it. However, my £500 cameraphone's video is all but indistinguishable once it's gone through Resolve and been reduced to MP4 for YouTube. It's the same with stills.
My suggestion is to try different cameras. If you are near a camera shop, or rather, not a massive distance away, try as many as you can and then decide, but remember, the photographer makes the image, not the camera.
I belonged to an active camera club but the bloke who won most competitions used a 50mm lens on a camera that had seen better decades. Everyone hated him, but admired his images. There's probably one of him at every camera club.
But, if you fancy a new camera, and can afford it, go for it. Enjoy it. Show it off. It's what we all do.
LunarOne said:
- Fixed lens campact or bridge cameras - as above, but you can't change the lens and either have a fixed angle of view, or a built-in zoom lens. These can be quite cheap of very expensive, but the lens you get with the camera is the one you'll always be using. This doesn't mean that you can't be just as creative as you can with the other types of cameras, but it does mean that certain genres of photography will not be feasible with this type. Fofr example, I'm not aware of any cameras with fixed lenses that are suitable for shooting sports or wildlife, because the lenses and camera needed for that tend to be at the higher end of the market in terms of cost, size and weight. But there are many excellent cameras of this type suitable for general street, family, travel and more creative types of photography
A lot of sound advice from LunarOne.However I wouldn't discount bridge cameras for wildlife or birds - a Sony RX10iv is a very good choice. The lens is astonishly good covering the (35mm equivalent) of 24 -600mm and even at 600mm its F4 which you will find hard to match on a APS-C or full frame camera at reasonable cost. It's wide zoom range and 1" sensor ultimately limit the quality of course - but perhaps not as much as you might think. Having taken literally thousands of bird photos with the rx10iv, I can tell you tthat while there is a definite improvement in quality with my current Canon R7, it's perhaps not as big as you might expect. The biggest improvement is in the autofocus, because the R7 is much newer design. I would certainly take the Sony over a DSLR for bird photography and expecially for bird videos. As a do everything camera the RX10IV is probably unmatched as many reviews will attest to. Not cheap though.
Incidentally I wouldn't recommend the RX10's smaller brother, the rx100, as a first step on the "proper" camera ladder. It's small size makes its sophisticated features more difficult to use than something bigger. Also pricey.
A point to note is that all of the good bridge and mirrorless cameras have a steep learning curve after a phone. DSLRs tend to be simpler because they are older technology and don't have all the features of more modern cameras. It will take you hours, perhaps days, to set up the camera to best use its features, so be prepared for that. Of couse you can just use it in auto as it comes out of the box, but that rather defeats the objective in moving from a phone.
bcr5784 said:
A lot of sound advice from LunarOne.
However I wouldn't discount bridge cameras for wildlife or birds . . .
A great, often overlooked, general purpose camera type. Just the thing when moving up (away?) from cameraphones.However I wouldn't discount bridge cameras for wildlife or birds . . .
I had a series of bridge cameras. My requirements changed and I went for interchangeable lenses, but my results improved only a little. A friend has a bridge with an equivalent maximum zoom of, I think, 1200mm. If you want to bore your friends with innumerable number of photographs of the Moon every clear night, it's superb.
Lots of good advice, but I'm not sure how much is relevant to the OP. My impression is that he's ditched the smart phone for anti-smart phone reasons but needs something to replace the camera capability.
The issue then becomes a question of how much he actually wants to learn about taking and processing photos. And then what is he going to do with the photos he's taken.
A smart phone is an incredibly useful integrated system for taking and sharing photos. I've actually moved from a decent compact to a phone upgrade because I would take photos from the camera by WiFi and share them from my phone and never did more than that.
The issue then becomes a question of how much he actually wants to learn about taking and processing photos. And then what is he going to do with the photos he's taken.
A smart phone is an incredibly useful integrated system for taking and sharing photos. I've actually moved from a decent compact to a phone upgrade because I would take photos from the camera by WiFi and share them from my phone and never did more than that.
LunarOne said:
Smartphones are leaps and bounds technically superior to the most of the compact cameras we used to carry around in the film and early digital age.
They achieve good results very easily thanks to the cleverness inside, especially for high DR. I think when the OP moves to a 'proper' camera his results may fall off a cliff and need to be clawed back. The word 'processing' comes to mind...Whilst I normally use a Nikon D500, it would sometimes be quite nice to have a 'smartphone' setting for high DR scenes. There's Active D-Lighting but it's not in the same league.
Another idea is for the OP to switch to PAYG, turn off data and just use it as a camera.
Simpo Two said:
>
>
>
Another idea is for the OP to switch to PAYG, turn off data and just use it as a camera.
That sounds like a much better option for the OP, especially as he says he enjoys taking photos with his (expensive) iPhone 15 Pro Max. He could also delete all the redundant Apps etc, freeing up more memory. And he then wouldn't have to carry around his dumb Nokia as well.>
>
Another idea is for the OP to switch to PAYG, turn off data and just use it as a camera.
Simpo Two said:
They achieve good results very easily thanks to the cleverness inside, especially for high DR. I think when the OP moves to a 'proper' camera his results may fall off a cliff and need to be clawed back. The word 'processing' comes to mind...
Whilst I normally use a Nikon D500, it would sometimes be quite nice to have a 'smartphone' setting for high DR scenes. There's Active D-Lighting but it's not in the same league.
.
That is where the latest mirrorless cameras have a major advantage over DSLRs. The latest ones have almost all the facilities of high end phones and lots more that no phones or DSLRs have. Where all (I think) cameras fall down is in image sharing. That mostly comes down to them not having a SIM - but is compounded by the clunky nature of the Wifi and Bluetooth facilities they do have. Very few have built in GPS and generaly rely on your phone to provide that facility - but again seems a bit hit and miss.Whilst I normally use a Nikon D500, it would sometimes be quite nice to have a 'smartphone' setting for high DR scenes. There's Active D-Lighting but it's not in the same league.
.
Simpo Two said:
LunarOne said:
Smartphones are leaps and bounds technically superior to the most of the compact cameras we used to carry around in the film and early digital age.
They achieve good results very easily thanks to the cleverness inside, especially for high DR. I think when the OP moves to a 'proper' camera his results may fall off a cliff and need to be clawed back. The word 'processing' comes to mind...Whilst I normally use a Nikon D500, it would sometimes be quite nice to have a 'smartphone' setting for high DR scenes. There's Active D-Lighting but it's not in the same league.
Another idea is for the OP to switch to PAYG, turn off data and just use it as a camera.
The idea of sticking with a smartphone for calls, messages and photos alone is a good one. In the last few years I have begun to loathe soclal media and have removed all the apps from my phone that aren't essential. But the ability to do online banking, pay for goods, have a camera, make and receive calls and keep in touch with the office without needing to carry a wallet, laptop and all that stuff means I never want to be without a smartphone. I don't have to be glued to it though and don't pick mine up unless I'm leaving the house.
In my Nikon days I needed a camera bag for a DSLR body and a choice of lenses.
After I recovered from severe lens lust I ditched all my Nikon gear and now all my pictures are taken with my Pixel smartphone.
Even my excellent Panasonic DC-TZ90 is too bulky to fit in a trouser pocket.
The greatest advantage of a smartphone camera is all those occasions when you have a ready camera in your pocket and would have missed the moment with any "proper" kit.
After I recovered from severe lens lust I ditched all my Nikon gear and now all my pictures are taken with my Pixel smartphone.
Even my excellent Panasonic DC-TZ90 is too bulky to fit in a trouser pocket.
The greatest advantage of a smartphone camera is all those occasions when you have a ready camera in your pocket and would have missed the moment with any "proper" kit.
Simpo Two said:
Is that simply because they're newer products so have newer software? A flippy-up mirror isn't going to affect DR.
Yes to quite an extent. The major camera manufacturers haven't introduced new DSLRs or lenses for them for 4 years or so. They clearly believe that mirrorless is the way the market is going. How much is chicken and egg is debatable but mirrorless now outsell DSLRs by 4 or 5 to one, despite DSLRs being a bit cheaper.LunarOne said:
Ah yes this is a point I had intended to make, and then I forgot to include it. Smartphones make up for their limited lens and sensor systems with very clever software and AI, and the results out of the box can be impossible to replicate in-camera with a standalone digital camera no matter how much you spend. We've become so used to over-sharp, over-saturated images from smartphones - particularly the dramatic skies that phone cameras render with ease. They might not be your cup of tea, but to the uninitiated or the casual snapshooter, digital camera pictures look quite flat and boring by comparison and it can be difficult to replicate the smartphone look even if you know what you're doing with post-processing.
.
While it may take longer, producing over sharpened oversaturated images with dramatic skies from raw files in post really isn't a problem. .
Part of the reason (the main part?) that phone images can limpress is that phone screens are VASTLY better than rear screens of even top end cameras - which are pretty rubbish, typically 1.4megapixel. If I want to look at an image critically I would always use the viewfinder which is generally higher resolution than the screen. The viewfinders on high end cameras are a match for the best phones in resolution. Sharing an image with mates by passing round your camera and have each one adjust the diiopter compensation isn't very practical!
Thank you for all your considered replies. There is a lot to take on board!
To clarify, I no longer have a smart phone - I have given my wife my 15 Pro Max, so only have a 2 megapixel camera on the Nokia. Which is fine. I like taking fairly spontaneous photos of things when I am out and about, but am also happy to learn and perhaps buy something a little more decent when my skills have improved.
To clarify, I no longer have a smart phone - I have given my wife my 15 Pro Max, so only have a 2 megapixel camera on the Nokia. Which is fine. I like taking fairly spontaneous photos of things when I am out and about, but am also happy to learn and perhaps buy something a little more decent when my skills have improved.
Magikarp said:
Thank you for all your considered replies. There is a lot to take on board!
To clarify, I no longer have a smart phone - I have given my wife my 15 Pro Max, so only have a 2 megapixel camera on the Nokia. Which is fine. I like taking fairly spontaneous photos of things when I am out and about, but am also happy to learn and perhaps buy something a little more decent when my skills have improved.
Based on the fact that you said you wanted something small to replace a smartphone, how about a micro four-thirds camera. You get interchangeable lenses and a small body which should be easy enough to carry with you without being too obtrusive. There's a good recent buying guide here:To clarify, I no longer have a smart phone - I have given my wife my 15 Pro Max, so only have a 2 megapixel camera on the Nokia. Which is fine. I like taking fairly spontaneous photos of things when I am out and about, but am also happy to learn and perhaps buy something a little more decent when my skills have improved.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/b...
Or if you have the budget for it, a fixed lens non-zoom retro-style camera, the Fujifilm X100VI. It's expensive but very highly rated, as are its predecessors:
https://petapixel.com/2024/04/25/fujifilm-x100vi-r...
I'm trying very hard not to spend some of my annual bonus on one!
That's another thing with photography. It can be addictive in a good way, but it can also lead to a terrible disease called GAS - Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Remember all those cameras I said I had? I have 5 Nikon DSLRs. Possibly a D700 incoming. I have four Nikon film SLRs. I have a ton of Nikon lenses. I have my Sony A7RIII and two lenses. I have a Nikon E990 and I recently found the Canon Ixus 130 that I gave my mother years ago for Christmas. I have some older curiousities such as old Agfa and Voigtlander rangefinders. I have my father's old Polaroid 250 Land camera. And I recently rebought the Pentax P30T and two lenses which I had at university - purely for nostalgia reasons. And I'll happily give a home to any used photo gear that feels too good to miss. I'm not even a very good photographer. Just an enthusiastic amateur. But I can't help myself. GAS affects many of us who enjoy photography, and it's a very difficult disease to shake. All I can say is that someone else with GAS is going to get a bit of a bounty of a stash of old gear when I die.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff