the iPhone is $1000. The cameras/lenses on the iPhone costs around $50. They do take decent pictures.
How do you choose a digital camera?
-
D
- Thread starter mmagyar
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
the iPhone is $1000. The cameras/lenses on the iPhone costs around $50. They do take decent pictures.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
Loads of programming and software that make the iphone top when it comes to photos. I don't even own one but I'll still call it as I see.
I bought one that was old enough that nobody cared about it (and before their prices started going up), the other was bought used as a gift.
I care about the mount since I don't want to buy lenses and beyond that what's it matter for me?
If I had no budget issues I'd go off of mount, my foolish brand loyalty and the aesthetics of the camera because why not? Pretty much any modern digital camera is extremely good.
I care about the mount since I don't want to buy lenses and beyond that what's it matter for me?
If I had no budget issues I'd go off of mount, my foolish brand loyalty and the aesthetics of the camera because why not? Pretty much any modern digital camera is extremely good.
I hate taking photos with a smartphone. I will use one more like a notebook or sketchpad, but will usually forego taking a photo if I'm halfway serious about it.
Either I was not told that I own that or my name has been ripped off!
Thanks, everyone for the input.
I checked out a used Canon 5d MK II, I could not pass up for the price, and I'm pretty happy with it.
I checked out a used Canon 5d MK II, I could not pass up for the price, and I'm pretty happy with it.
Having been a film shooter of numerous formats since the 1990s, after several years of digital experimentation, I ended up with two Fujifilm X-T3 bodies and an X-E3. It all came down to user experience for me. Buttons and dials are my preference, especially aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.
I've been really happy with Olympus cameras for some fifty years, since I bought an OM-1. They were tiny and lightweight, but not toys. And the glass was superb!
Fast forward. I just got the new digital OM-1. It is amazing! It has outstanding image quality, and it's tiny and light. Plus, it has a lot of computational photography features built-in. Olympus/OMDS seems to be at the forefront of CP in a "real" camera.
Forgive me for not being interested in smart phones. My old eyes can't cope with a "chimp" camera. If it doesn't have a viewfinder (or a dark cloth!), it's not a camera, in my book. And the new viewfinder on the OM-1 is to die for!
Olympus/OMDS has best-in-industry "In Body Image Stabilization" (IBIS), and it has quite literally changed the way I take pictures. Gone are thinking things like, "Damn, I wish I'd brought a tripod!" I shoot a 500/4 with a monopod, mainly to support the weight — at 1/125th! I shoot the amazing Olympus OM Zuiko 500mm ƒ/8 Reflex hand-held as slow as 1/60th.
One thing I really like about it is the ease of adapting to other lens mounts. I have a lot of OM film glass that works very well with it. And I even have some 4/3rds SHG ("Super High Grade") lenses that really have no equal out there — at least, not for less than thousands of dollars.
People often criticize Micro Four Thirds as having "poorer" image quality, compared to full-frame. I can only say the difference in quality is indiscernible, except in some exceptional cases. The noise and dynamic range are all I need. Olympus/OMDS gets the most out of their sensors with CP techniques, such as multi-sampling for higher resolution, in-camera image stacking for focus or dynamic range, etc.
To summarize: the strong points of this system are: 1) small and lightweight, 2) industry-leading IBIS, 3) computational photography features.
I can't really compare it with anything, since I'm happy with it, and am unlikely to switch.
Fast forward. I just got the new digital OM-1. It is amazing! It has outstanding image quality, and it's tiny and light. Plus, it has a lot of computational photography features built-in. Olympus/OMDS seems to be at the forefront of CP in a "real" camera.
Forgive me for not being interested in smart phones. My old eyes can't cope with a "chimp" camera. If it doesn't have a viewfinder (or a dark cloth!), it's not a camera, in my book. And the new viewfinder on the OM-1 is to die for!
Olympus/OMDS has best-in-industry "In Body Image Stabilization" (IBIS), and it has quite literally changed the way I take pictures. Gone are thinking things like, "Damn, I wish I'd brought a tripod!" I shoot a 500/4 with a monopod, mainly to support the weight — at 1/125th! I shoot the amazing Olympus OM Zuiko 500mm ƒ/8 Reflex hand-held as slow as 1/60th.
One thing I really like about it is the ease of adapting to other lens mounts. I have a lot of OM film glass that works very well with it. And I even have some 4/3rds SHG ("Super High Grade") lenses that really have no equal out there — at least, not for less than thousands of dollars.
People often criticize Micro Four Thirds as having "poorer" image quality, compared to full-frame. I can only say the difference in quality is indiscernible, except in some exceptional cases. The noise and dynamic range are all I need. Olympus/OMDS gets the most out of their sensors with CP techniques, such as multi-sampling for higher resolution, in-camera image stacking for focus or dynamic range, etc.
To summarize: the strong points of this system are: 1) small and lightweight, 2) industry-leading IBIS, 3) computational photography features.
I can't really compare it with anything, since I'm happy with it, and am unlikely to switch.
Your first question should have to do with inkjet printing. There's only one reliable manufacturer (Canon) .
I shoot Pentax K70 and Samsung NX (several models). 25-30 MP each.
I dunno. My Epson R300 has been doing great B&W (and color) for years now. But it can get finicky about seating the cartridges and take many attempts to get everything seated so the printer is good to go. The Canon printers I have owned did not do B&W as well and tended to clog up more. The downside to any inkjet printer is the near total lack of support and service. I guess the manufacturers just expect you to buy another one when your current model develops more than a clogged printhead. Plus the fact that even though one might be printing B&W, there is a touch of the other colors used so if you run out of any ink, you can't print. And ink can be pretty expensive.
Pieter's experience is interesting.
I've had exactly one hickup with Canon Pro 1O since new. Don't know why, simply restarted it and all OK.
Never had to unclog Canon but did it regularly with Epson...which wastes an astounding amount of pigment/$ every time.
I've thrown away a dead Epson 2200 and two dead 3800. They all printed well, except for pigment waste when unclogging, until they quit. I didn't have the patience to persist with the various Epson/youtube/gossip solutions/unclog/fixes..
Got my original Epson 2200 brand new, the 3800 from Epson refurb, Epson flatbed scanner from Epson refurb. I was member of a US B&W inkjet Print Exchange, have hundreds of examples of beautiful Epson prints...I switched to Canon when I gave up on Epson. Sounds like Epson R300 is OK, based on Pieter's comments.
The Canon Pro-10 and Pro-100 have been around for a LONG time and will inevitably be discontinued one of these days. My main printing friend uses a Pro-100, which is ink-not pigment and can be more dramatic than pigment graphically.
My standard paper size is 11X17...cost of paper is almost insignificant compared with cost of pigment. I've printed a lot of 13X19 mostly because Canon gave me hundreds of sheets. For me 9X10-ish is ideal viewing size.
Reviews about color/B&W and inkjet carelessly ignore the importance of paper brand/type selection. I especially like Canon Luster and similar-appearing gold-fiber type papers from Ilford and others, none of which are "gloss", and Red River Aurora matte which I prefer to Canon Pro Matte. There are many good inkjet paper sources but I rely mostly on Canon and on B&H.
I've had exactly one hickup with Canon Pro 1O since new. Don't know why, simply restarted it and all OK.
Never had to unclog Canon but did it regularly with Epson...which wastes an astounding amount of pigment/$ every time.
I've thrown away a dead Epson 2200 and two dead 3800. They all printed well, except for pigment waste when unclogging, until they quit. I didn't have the patience to persist with the various Epson/youtube/gossip solutions/unclog/fixes..
Got my original Epson 2200 brand new, the 3800 from Epson refurb, Epson flatbed scanner from Epson refurb. I was member of a US B&W inkjet Print Exchange, have hundreds of examples of beautiful Epson prints...I switched to Canon when I gave up on Epson. Sounds like Epson R300 is OK, based on Pieter's comments.
The Canon Pro-10 and Pro-100 have been around for a LONG time and will inevitably be discontinued one of these days. My main printing friend uses a Pro-100, which is ink-not pigment and can be more dramatic than pigment graphically.
My standard paper size is 11X17...cost of paper is almost insignificant compared with cost of pigment. I've printed a lot of 13X19 mostly because Canon gave me hundreds of sheets. For me 9X10-ish is ideal viewing size.
Reviews about color/B&W and inkjet carelessly ignore the importance of paper brand/type selection. I especially like Canon Luster and similar-appearing gold-fiber type papers from Ilford and others, none of which are "gloss", and Red River Aurora matte which I prefer to Canon Pro Matte. There are many good inkjet paper sources but I rely mostly on Canon and on B&H.
Last edited:
Should mention that switching from B&W to color and reverse doesn't require any changes in carts with Canon Pro-10...I assume that's true for modern Epson's as well. Check it out.
Also, I post process every file or closely related set individually. I do rely on PS and NIK and I enjoy printing.
Also, I post process every file or closely related set individually. I do rely on PS and NIK and I enjoy printing.
MattKing
Moderator
I agree about the connection between digital cameras and printers for digital files, but perhaps it would be better to devote an entire thread to the printer discussion.
Just not this thread please.
It was a practical choice. I already had the lenses.
Last edited:
Reason I bought a Sigma SA9, I had Sigma SA mount lens, then when my SA9 and 7 died the yellow viewfinder death I moved to Minolta AF, then came Sony, again I had lens. Now Sony has killed the A mount line up, I should have gone with Canon EF.
Both have already been discontinued:
The PRO-100 has been replaced by the PRO-200. The PRO-10 has been replaced by the PRO-300.
Buying cameras seems to be like anything else. Cost vs. Features and required performance. My long-term digital is the D600. The favourite of all was the Leica M8 followed by the M9. Light, compact and really good. But hellish expensive, especially the Leica lenses. Still, I wish I had never sold them. But as we say at the drag strip “horsepower costs money, how fast do you want to go?”
today's ameras are all good;to make it easier to pick the very best, they print thw qord'Nikon' on them.
I returned to photography after many years of photographing nothing or nearly nothing (I had been an editor, a journalist, and a photo editor, both as a pro and a semi-pro).
I started afresh with Pentax as they made the cheapest digitals that looked like my old SLRs made in the '50s. Very logical setups, menus, and general handling, not too far from my old m42 gear.
But with time I learned what I really liked: Fast and accurate AF, lots of nice lenses to choose from, preferably not too expensive.
The number of pixels was not important for me, but around 20MP suited me well (I have one 10.4MP mirrorless, and the rest of the DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are still around 20-25MP!). With time I seem to prefer faster and faster lenses, like the lovely 135 Art, or the viceless 30 Art.
I like small (and light) cameras for macro and extreme distances, full-format cameras for portraits and views, and the rest is handled by various DX cameras (and DX compact).
The Canon R line seems fantastic, and so do the Nikon Z lenses and cameras, but if I should switch I'd be eyeing the Fuji line, or the Olympus E-M1X, a camera a professional photographer friend switched to after years with Canon, and although being very old (older than me!!!) he climbed Mount Everest just after switching to Olympus, while he now also uses a monochrome Leica as back-up and compliment.
After my years with Pentax, I sold almost everything off, and just kept the first DSLR, as it ran on AA batteries, sold two K-5s (the top model in those days) plus around 20 lenses and other stuff, and restarted with a Nikon 1 V1 and a D600, two cameras that complemented each other perfectly. With an FT1 adapter, I could use all the F Mount lenses I had on the Nikon 1 cameras (nowadays ZNikon C cameras do the same using an FTZ adapter to work well with almost all F Mount lenses there are. Never regretted that switch one second, but I eventually got myself a couple of DX bodies (took a few years, though). The Nikon 1 lenses proved to have a design flaw, so they eventually failed, most of them, but the ultrawide, the newer kit lens, and the fantastic 70-300 CX had an upgraded design, so no issues with those.
Alas, the lens debacle made Nikon bury the Nikon 1 line fast, and the fixed-lens Nikon DL line never got further than the glossy shows with lightly clad girls, booze, and fanfares.
After over ten years the Nikon 1 V1 isn't the world's fastest-focusing camera with exchangeable lenses, and the Z line is just an upgrade to FX format with newer, far better, lenses and IBIS.
If I would buy a new camera system today it would be a camera with IBIS (if I had the funds), either a Canon R, a Nikon Z body, or a Fuji, but a mix of small sensor and big sensor bodies is a blessing! Just saying!
I rely on Pentax K7 and the unfortunately discontinued Samsung NX-5. The latter is directly comparable to the Pentax when files of same subject are compared...both incredibly good.
I'm into images and inkjet prints, not technical geekery, and I very much doubt that either Canon or Nikon are better optically than Pentax or Samsung. The Samsung is very small, Leica-M-size. and great indoors, but often difficult outdoors due to lack of proper viewfinder.
If I was back to making my living with photography I'd have to assume that whatever Nikon or Canon announced last week they will discontinue next week. They always do.
Camera reviews always (always) fail to recognize the ultimate reasons for making photos: prints or digital media.
Reviews talk about toys, not photos.
I'm into images and inkjet prints, not technical geekery, and I very much doubt that either Canon or Nikon are better optically than Pentax or Samsung. The Samsung is very small, Leica-M-size. and great indoors, but often difficult outdoors due to lack of proper viewfinder.
If I was back to making my living with photography I'd have to assume that whatever Nikon or Canon announced last week they will discontinue next week. They always do.
Camera reviews always (always) fail to recognize the ultimate reasons for making photos: prints or digital media.
Reviews talk about toys, not photos.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |