Probably the most difficult question when choosing a modern camera is the choice of system. By system, photographers usually mean one of the brands: Nikon, Leica, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, etc. The system allows you to build up your potential. So, for example, having bought a camera, it can be supplemented with new lenses, external flashes, battery packs, memory cards, remote controls and other buns. The more developed the system, the better. Here I will express my subjective opinions on the choice of a system for a digital narrow format (crop and full frame, please do not write in the comments about any medium format Hassel, etc.) with automatic focus support.
System Selection
Probably the most common question I am asked by ordinary people, amateur photographers and even some professionals is 'Nikon or Canon?' I have already jokingly touched on this topic. here and jokingly touched on this topic here... But it turns out that modern digital photography isn't just about Nikon and Canon. For the summer of 2015, a clear hierarchy for choosing a system has formed in my head. There is a hierarchy for two cases - when a camera / system is chosen by an amateur and a system / camera is chosen by a professional.
So if I was lover, and didn’t know which camera with interchangeable lenses I could buy, then I would be guided very, very much in choosing a system simple rule.
What system does your friend / colleague / brother / sister / uncle / aunt / dad / mom / Mamimi Samejima (girl from the poster) / teacher at the photo school / acquaintance, etc. removes, you should buy the same system.
My practice shows that this is a very wise decision, which in the future will greatly help you in your career growth. Photographers, even amateurs, support each other. It is very good when you have compatibility between your photographic equipment and that of your friends. This allows you to quickly exchange not only technology, but also experience, expands your horizons and makes your religion the system is stronger.
By the way, this spring, it just so happened, most of the weddings I shot on the lenses of my colleagues, because at the moment I just do not have a normal portrait :).
In the case of a stalemate situation, for example, when you do not have friends who have a camera, I recommend looking at the system that your favorite photographer takes. If you don’t have a favorite photographer, you can look, for example, at 500px.com, choose your favorite pet and look at what he is doing his masterpieces. If you don’t have a favorite photographer, either, or he will wipe all night long EXIF data from my masterpieces, I suggest using my subjective hierarchy for professional photography.
My subjective hierarchy of systems for digital narrow format (all kinds of mirrors / mirrorless there for crop or full frame) with support for auto focus for the summer of 2015 for bias to professional photography:
Canon # 1
Anyway, Canon is the number one system. A system that is always one step ahead. Canon is the first full-frame camera (among the competitors listed). The first full-length camera available. The first full-frame camera with adequate video recording. First autofocus system for f / 1.2 and f / 1.0 lenses. Large park of optics. Excellent system compatibility. A huge park of cameras for any photo task. Well thought out and logically correct periphery. And most importantly, it just so happened that most professional photographers shoot with Canon. Read the remaining 100500 advantages in the comments to this entry.
Nikon # 2
I have been working with Nikon for a very long time and I know all their jambs with which I constantly have to put up with. Due to the jambs and stiffness in development, Nikon is only second in 2015. But at the same time, if you grasp the essence of Nikon, then there is nothing better than this black and yellow logo! A bayonet with a very ancient history, a huge park of optics, well-thought-out peripherals, the only 'fighter' who can wipe Canon's nose :).
Sony # 3
Sony is a system with big ambitions. Sony has taken the world of photography seriously with Konica Minolta. Honestly, I really like this company. Collaboration with Carl Zeiss, full-format mirrorless cameras, full-format SLTs, the shortest flange distance of all digital cameras, extensive experience in matrix construction, a large fleet of Sony / Minolta lenses, matrix stabilization! And although I recommend it as a third alternative system, personally, if I abandoned Canon, I would simply switch to Sony. The future belongs to ideas and technologies, something that Nikon has long forgotten :(.
I did not include other manufacturers in the TOP for one important reason - the lack of full-size CZK. I believe that the crops are Pentax, Fuji, Olympus (ah, my dear Olik), Panasonic, etc. can not compete in the professional segment with the full frame of the top three.
Yes, and in fact professionals themselves know exactly what they need, what to spend money on and this my TOP for them does not matter. Only those who do not have experience working with them are eyeing systems. So, professionals who accidentally get to Radozhiva do not be offended by my TOP :).
And a small postscript. Personally, by and large, I don’t care what to shoot, you can get used to everything very quickly... I try to track myself and clearly understand that my personal habits and preferences are not yet a sign of something good or bad. Many users of this or that system are very fanatically in love with their system for one simple reason - they did not shoot for something else :). And even if they were filming, it was not enough, without understanding the essence of another system. Therefore, I can say with a great deal of truth that the opinion of many commenting here on Radozhiv, or on others forums / blogs / platforms - wrong :). Remember, important how to take pictures, and not using any photo equipment.
We share info with others. Thanks for attention. Arkady Shapoval.
What does Mitsubishi do ...
Nikon Corporation (Japanese ン ニ コ ン kabusiki gaiyas nikon ?, pronounced "Nikon" listen (inf.)) Is a Japanese company specializing in the production of optics and electronic devices for image processing.
Nikon is part of the Mitsubishi Group. Founded by Kōgaku Kōgyō on July 25, 1917 under the name Nippon Kogaku KK (Nippon Kogaku Kabushiki Kaisha), renamed in 1988 [1]. The President is Michio Kariya. Headquarters in Tokyo.
Dear photographers! Listen to my IMHO. Newbie people often choose not so much a system as just a DSLR. They are attracted by the high quality of the photo - fast focusing and an attractive picture. Lenses, flashes - at this stage, heresy is utter, because the cameraman undertakes to “shoot the child”. Well, I'm just from such a layer, and it seems to me that it will be very wide.
In short, I took Nikon due to the fact that his kit lens gives a more beautiful picture than Kenon. The rest of the players were not considered at all at this stage. With our finances (a Ukrainian-Russian citizen), it is worth thinking about a lens park in a very distant future. And therefore - the question of system number 1 is not worth it for us, we choose between Kenon and Nikon. And of course Sony can burst in with a lower price.
Well, at the moment I am the owner of Nikon d60 and Helios 44M, for which I am waiting for an adapter. Reading all your rehearsals, I think about alternatives - but again - I don't want to fuss and suffer from replacing the camera, which may be prompted by the notorious working segment. But I will rather change to Sony for again a whale lens.
Good shots to all!
ahh !! a dormouse breaks into the thread with a LOWER price. O_O
It is easy for lucky owners of a meal to laugh at other photographers :)
10 thousand in the secondary market. I do not see anything else in this.
And I see a little bit, but I won’t raise that much :)
I recently saw on the internet an offer for $ 200, with a mileage similar to mine - about 140k, but the body is terribly shabby. At first I did not understand why there was such a difference in the condition of the housings, but when I saw that the camera was running from the Internet 139k on the fourth shutter, everything became clear :)
I recently borrowed for $ 220 with a mileage of 7900 at first shutter. So for 200 with such mileage to take is too much ...
You have just a paradise for amateur photographers :) everything that is offered in Ukraine is made of money - the price is usually 400 - 500 dollars and there are few offers. Even the fall in the exchange rate did not greatly affect prices. Everyone has read "Legends are going to battle" and the price is laughed :)
well .. no, we had offers of 30 and 60 thousand run.
I saw Sonya A35 at Technopoint, it seems, were the cheapest of the DSLRs. Now the truth in the same store is leading the Canon 1200D for 20k
cheap Sonya is not particularly Sonya (it's like a cheap mirrorless is not a mirrorless, but an indistinct half-soap dish). Plus the question of price, it's not just a question of a carcass, it's optics, and so on, and this is either “cheap and breaking garbage” for the little ones, or good, but expensive.
.....
And I took the D3100, because it seemed prettier than the 1100D. Then came the heel of the lenses, a couple of puffs, replacing with the D5100 and D40x. And where am I from this good?
If the technicians are satisfied with the result of the work, then nowhere. Create and rejoice. Nobody forbids using two different systems, if income allows. :)
Ergonomics are also important in the chamber:
Compared my Nikon D90 with Nikon D5100. The picture from 5100 is a little more detailed (matrix 16 MP versus 12 MP), but ...
1. Less convenient viewfinder with inconvenient display of focus sensors.
2. Reduced settings and capabilities - I climbed all the menus and did not find something.
3. Absence of the second disk - albeit small, but a problem (you have to hold down the button).
4. Absence of a small LCD screen at the top - every time you have to turn on the main one.
5. Less comfortable grip.
But I liked it:
1. More pleasant colors on the screen.
2. Interesting, soft, shutter sound.
3. Compact size.
Bottom line: Better to take the Nikon D7000!
1. I like the dots more than the “huge spots” on d90 - a matter of habit.
2. Yes, it seems like everything is there - a friend has d90, I have 5100 :)
5. Depends on palm size
I agree with the rest.
“Compact size” is not such a big difference between 90 and 5100 :)
“Bottom line: Better to take Nikon D7000” - definitely, if finances allow. When I took 5100, 7000 cost almost twice as much ...
Add a spoon (out of envy).
As I agree with Arkady (the only thing is that Sony, with her crazy frenzy in the market, has brought so much confusion into my poor head that I still want Fujiyam as a second small camera), but this is not about that.
As you can easily see the entire canon-nikon holivar comes down to color rendering.
And now, attention, a question!
And who, besides the photographers themselves, sees the difference (and where)? I mean, well, someone from the leading members of the forum will go and take a picture of something on all the listed systems and choosing one of any photos with closed eyes will show a certain number of people-customers-connoisseurs ... So what? Who on which monitor-cover-exhibition-billboard will see-pay attention to the nuances of tones, etc.? That's right - photographers.
And the rest?
It's like with music - what the viola hears from Bashmet's orchestra, for example, a normal person will NEVER hear, because prof. a musician with perfect pitch and years of education hears and perceives music in a spatial-color equivalent.
Back to the photo (about painful :). Do you seriously think that after a goat with an iPhone and a selfie from the bathroom is about to get married and starts choosing a photographer, looking at the pages on her iPhone, she will painfully evaluate the semitone and color rendition of the photoworld icons listed by Arkady?
Or a simpler example - for whom does it matter what the photo was taken on, which got on the cover of National Algegrafi-Times Vogue, etc.
I hope the conclusions themselves have come to their attention :)
Best regards,
Igor
To the point.
Yes, this is the problem if you take a picture of a model (prof.) then she can see all the nuances, and if you shoot some kind of wedding, people often don’t understand what is in these photos (skinton, volume, bokeh, and so on) and why it’s so expensive because they don’t see the difference between a DSLR and a mob. tel. and therefore photographers process photos adding so many colors that the photos in my opinion are just acidic but then customers like it.
and I even know why this is happening -
this is given as a punishment to wedding photographers for watching very good films on a computer, and not very good ones and scrolling "slow" places :)
Absolutely not everyone understands bokeh. For example, my friends said to me, "Why is it not abruptly behind, but on our soap dish it is abrupt, then we felt the difference"
)) exactly! some even get dizzy from the beautiful bokeh! especially from Zeiss twisted ...))
all this nonsense disappears from your head when you see yourself filmed, dressed in your favorite clothes / shirts / panties - not important, but important - not the color as they are, and you will immediately reshoot on Canon ... then everything becomes very clear
Maybe because it’s extremely unpleasant, with prof. point of view, give the client something that you don’t like yourself?
And they noticed that after Sony intervened in the dispute, the degree of opposition in society fell noticeably. Hence the most aggressive conclusion is the canonists and Nikonists. And the most peaceful are Sony. Holivar we create, not Arkady. Do not take everything seriously, take everything simpler. Everything has its pros and cons.
it's just that everyone has already said everything and left, and sleepyhead - just got busy))
)) dormouse ... .. I, for example, have a somewhat biased attitude to dormouse since ancient times, when I chose my first digital camera. the choice was between Canon, Sony and Samsung. that sony was the slowest .. it turned on slower than anyone else, saved pictures even slower ... even the shutter with a delay worked. :))
Subject.
I started with the Sony A35.
While everyone was running and praising 5DMark, I took pictures for fun.
He got a fifty dollars, 35, 18-200, 70-300. All native, from the Alpha series.
Sucked in.
He began to understand that somewhere I was already missing the A35.
Sold, bought of course SonyA65. Because the lenses. I still have it and really like it.
Sony is a camera for a person. User friendly. :)
Later it became interesting how “real” cameras differ from Sony.
I bought a Nikon D7000, a new one, with a battery grip and 18-105 included.
Why Nikon? I don’t know so far. But I read Shapoval and lens reviews too.
When shooting on the D7000, I clearly began to understand how Nikon differs from Sony. And an amateur camera, from semi-professional.
Because I’m a healthy perfectionist, then Nikon appeared in baggage 17-55 (legend), the best shirik for crop Tokin of the second version, Nikkor 80-400 and a small bunch of lenses.
With the D7000, I went on trips, filmed sports competitions, he withstood everything with honor.
Then, for fun, I bought a Nikon D2H.
Ancient-ancient. But in a chic condition.
It was a song of the soul. Yes ancient, 4 megapixels.
But damn me, what a huge difference in ergonomics and workmanship!
Rubber bands are everywhere, battery charging is like a spaceship. With calibration, training.
There is rubber protection under each cap. What….
The bright viewfinder covers the entire frame, the Nikon D7000 wanted to smash against the wall :)
Now Nikon has not changed. In place of the D7000, came the D750.
There are more lenses. :) SonyA65 is still in order.
Sometimes I photograph on PentaxQ. Wonderful little camera. :)
I am definitely an amateur.
And I recently got an old Canon 1D carcass with 4 megapixels on board. You're right, this is the song, this is the soul! Now all Canon optics work more often on 1D, “pennies”, “shokhi” and “seeds” are in disgrace))) And in my pocket I have Canon g9, not the most “little bit”, but a wonderful compact…. Well, I am now an amateur pensioner )))
Guys, winter is coming, end it
“The choice of system” - it would seem what to talk about here, everything has been said long ago - to each his own and disputes are inappropriate. A professional does not need to be convinced of anything or advise anything. Photography is his craft, and he decides how and with what tool to work. For those who are taking their first steps in photography, I think it is too early to think about the system, i.e. about the system camera. Serious technique can scare a novice photographer away not only at the cost, but also by the complexity. A cheap amateur SLR will disappoint with the low quality of both the product itself and the images. A solid compact, perhaps, will be the best choice for a beginner, I emphasize, not an amateur, but just a beginner in photography.
The question of choosing photographic equipment is really relevant only for a relatively small category of true lovers of photography, for whom photography is serious and for a long time, who is important not only and not so much the final result, but the process of creating a “masterpiece” itself, who is ready to learn, experiment and discover new horizons for themselves ... There is something to think about, only the problem seems to me personally much deeper than a primitive comparison of brands in terms of their popularity.
It is important to know the basics, to understand that photography is, first of all, color, then form and, finally, composition, as the ratio of objects in the frame and subject lines connected together by the author’s plan. So, not a single camera in the world will build an interesting composition, neither cheap, nor expensive, nor simple, nor complex, nor at all. This is the task of the photographer. If this simple, at first glance, truth is immediately recognized, then for most fans the problem of choosing a camera will disappear by itself. Not so important what is removed, but how important.
And then you need to correctly prioritize. In the first place should be you yourself, it is you, your personality, individuality, and not the camera that you own or dream to buy. The meaning of photography, like any kind of creative activity, is to show the inner world of a person through art, to reveal the abilities, well, or at least to grope them for a start. And to grope the ability, in my opinion, is best with an inexpensive, practical and convenient in all respects soap box. It doesn't matter if it's Canon, Nikon, or whatever. At one time Canon had an excellent line of compact, but very high quality and functional “G” series cameras. This line exists today, but, starting with the Power Shot G7 model, it has been steadily degrading. The best representatives in the family were the G5 and G6 cameras. They are in no way inferior to entry-level DSLRs, and surpass them in ergonomics and optics (if we take into account the standard DSLR lens). By the way, in some way, these cameras were systemic, since they allowed the use of various optical attachments and flashes. For photographic tourism and filming in hard-to-reach places, a win-win option.
Let us return, however, to priorities. For me, color is the most important thing in photography. Color rendering, dynamic range, natural colors, smooth tonal transitions. The matrix and processor of the camera are responsible for this. I could recommend mirrors from Fujifilm to all amateur photographers, but they have long been discontinued and have become a legend. Canon, Nikon, and other manufacturers are passionate about the race for megapixels, without attaching special importance to other important technical aspects of photography. In terms of color rendering, serious breakthroughs and achievements have not been seen recently. From this point of view, choosing a camera is a matter of taste, wallet and personal ambition.
Another important priority for an amateur photographer is shape, plastic frame, various optical effects. The selection strategy is not simple. It is not the specific model of the camera that comes to the fore, but the optics park with which this camera can work, because the image forms the lens. For a serious amateur photographer, any system camera, i.e. one that has the ability to change the lens will be preferable to a camera with one single lens. Of the system cameras, the most advanced are SLR cameras, since they allow you to take a closer look, aim, compose the frame without even including the camera itself.
In addition, historically it so happened that there are much more optics for DSLRs than for other system cameras, and this optics is of higher quality. And the largest fleet of optics to date has been developed by Canon and Nikon, so I put them in first place. I advise you to start your choice not with a camera, but with a lens, more precisely with a set of lenses that are necessary for you as a photographer to solve your creative tasks. I'm not saying buy this or that lens, just decide what you need. When you figure out the lenses, calculate how much they will cost, then choosing a camera will not be difficult. The camera class must correspond to the optical class. This is the basic rule of choice. You cannot save on optics. High-quality optics will outlast more than one camera. But the "carcass" can be taken and used, but in good condition and of a fairly high class. Cost savings plus the ability to experiment with a camera you can't buy in a store.
Answering the question “system choice”, I can safely say: for an amateur, these are Canon or Nikon DSLRs. Both brands are equal and equal. There is no serious alternative to them, and not because these are the “coolest” cameras in the world, there are simply more optics, which means more opportunities for creativity. Add to their branded optics also the optics of independent manufacturers such as Sigma, Tamron, the famous Carl Zeiss, and you will understand that I am right.
For a amateur photographer, in the sense that I understand this, it makes no sense to take an entry-level budget SLR. Both Canon and Nikon have frank consumer goods in this segment. I myself held these soap dishes in my hands and did not feel enthusiasm for the fact that these soap dishes are mirror-like. An amateur, in my subjective opinion, should have a mid-range SLR, such as the Canon EOS 60D, EOS 70D and above. If we talk about Nikon, then these are SLRs of the 300D, 700D, 750D class. Nikon DSLRs have one feature. Entry-level cameras cannot work with screwdriver lenses, and this is important for the amateur. Old optics can be bought cheaper, but they are much more reliable in operation.
It also makes no sense for an amateur to take a top-end professional DSLR (one). Value for money will obviously not be in favor of amateur photography. High quality can be achieved on a less expensive device. The rate of fire and other professional bells and whistles are not always needed, not everywhere and not for every amateur. In the hands of an amateur, a professional camera will become morally obsolete much faster than it has time to work out its colossal shutter resource. If funds allow, it is better to spend them on optics, flashes and other accessories, or buy a second camera with a different matrix.
If you desperately need a rate of fire, it is better to buy a top-end DSLR of the previous generation in the secondary market, such as the Nikon D2X, for example. The price is ridiculous, and the reliability is high, and a resolution of 10-12 megapixels will be enough for an amateur. Happiness is not in megapixels, but in the skilled hands of the photographer. Do not forget that many masterpieces of photographic art were created with the help of such “equipment”, which in our time is simply impossible to look at without a smile.
Since it came to choosing a system SLR camera, I’ll say a few words about lenses. An amateur should have several, but not very many. All the same, do not carry it away. The best option is:
1. Televik 200 mm or 300 mm, depending on the problem being solved and not for every day, preferably a fixed focal aperture of at least F4, higher is possible, but not necessary (joke). Everything is honest there, 200 mm is exactly 200 mm, 300 mm is exactly 300 mm plus crop factor.
2. As a more versatile alternative to option No. 1, you can purchase a fast telezoom, for example AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 mm F / 2.8D ED, but this is not cheap and not for every fan.
3. Shtatnik for all occasions, preferably with a stabilizer (AF-S Nikkor 24-120 mm F / 4G ED VR).
4. Aperture portraiture (I won’t say what, there are a lot of good ones, everything is individual here).
5. For architecture, landscapes and enclosed spaces, the AF-S Nikkor 24 mm F / 1.4G ED or the lower-cost AF Nikkor 20 mm f / 2.8D version is perfect
6. If you have a Nikon crop camera and you need a wide-angle view of the world, I recommend the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24 mm F / 4G IF-ED lens.
Thus, for an amateur to work comfortably or for creativity, call it what you want, you only need four or five lenses. You can still buy an inexpensive compact to the DSLR. In no case do I impose my opinion on anyone, I just share my experience. The lens models are indicated only as an example, I worked with them and they suit me. Given the presence of adapters, the choice of a system camera is not as important as the choice of optics. After all, the system is not a camera in itself, but a combination of a camera and various lenses. Using the lens of one manufacturer on the camera of another manufacturer, you can get very interesting shots.
The discussion raised the issue of film photography. In the digital age of film technology, film photography does not exist, film cameras exist, but film is just a way of capturing an image, which can then be digitized. For me, film is a kind of disposable digital matrix that can record and save multiple images, the number of which corresponds to the number of frames. Another thing when we talk about the artistic side of film photography, about the peculiar film colors and the effects of graininess of the image. Almost all of this can be recreated programmatically. In some graphic editors, such as Photoshop, the ability to simulate various types of film has appeared. The greatest success in this matter, in my opinion, was achieved by Fujifilm. She first managed to realize the effect of film photography directly in a digital camera. Unfortunately, this experience is undeservedly forgotten.
When people talk about a system camera or “system,” they primarily mean the way the lens is mounted. This is fundamentally the wrong conservative approach. The differences in the mounting method are explained not so much by technical necessity as by competition between manufacturers of photographic equipment. I believe that in the near future many basic elements of cameras will become unified, including the bayonet mount. Over time, the camera should turn into a very flexible tool, the main structural elements of which are selected and replaced depending on the specific task and even for a particular photographer. The handles and control panels will become removable under the left and right hand (for whom it is convenient). The matrix, possibly, will be combined with a memory card into a single electronic unit and will also become quick-detachable and replaceable, like a flash drive. An amateur photographer, especially a professional, will carry in his bag not only interchangeable lenses, but also several digital sensors, with different resolutions, pixel sizes, adapted to various spectral characteristics, up to x-rays and cosmic rays (astro photography). Over time, the optimal size of the camera sensor and the size of its body, corresponding to the anatomical structure of human limbs, will be found. The division of cameras into amateur and professional will be a thing of the past. Photography in itself will cease to be a profession. Those who are interested in the artistic side of photography will become art workers (photo artists, photographers), and for others, the camera will become one of the auxiliary tools in their main profession, whether it is a forensic scientist, scientist or engineer. Initially, all cameras will be designed as professional, but with the ability to select the program modes of the main menu for specific tasks and areas of work. It would be useful to program three global settings or operating modes in such a camera: “Beginner”, “Amateur”, “Professional”. And then everything is simple. Beginner, he is a beginner, here is the work on the machine, plus instructional tips. An amateur level should provide an opportunity to customize genre types of photography, such as portrait, landscape, macro, architecture, reproduction, sports, night shooting, etc. At the amateur level, the camera works as a semiautomatic device, plus the possibility of in-camera application of various artistic effects to photographs, including the emulation of various film films. The "Professional" mode, in principle, should also include several sub-modes, but deeper and more functionally rich than those of an amateur. This should take into account the features of the use of photographic equipment in a particular area of professional activity. Here are some of the basic professional modes: doctor, engineer, forensic scientist, art critic, artist, scientist, astronomer, astronaut, correspondent. I believe that in these professional modes, the camera itself must adjust not only the exposure (shutter speed, aperture, ISO value), but also the spectral characteristics of the sensor. When switching to some professional modes, the camera should warn the user about the need to change the lens, matrix, as well as compliance with laws and ethical standards. Cameras of the future should be able to remember an almost unlimited number of settings and modes, including modes and settings created by specific users and be able to quickly exchange settings. In principle, there is nothing supernatural, everything has long been tested on personal computers, and a digital camera is the same computer, only specialized. This is my concept for the development of photography and photographic equipment.
Above, I talked about general-purpose system cameras, universal cameras. Of course, highly specialized cameras for medicine, microbiology, transport, and special services will remain. Their evolution will turn out differently. Most likely these will be fully automated robots, not intended for direct contact with humans, i.e. actually for handheld shooting.
Currently, the development of photographic equipment is experiencing a systemic crisis precisely because of the lack of a concept, a clear strategy and marketing perversions. Manufacturers do not already know how to surprise an amateur photographer, how to promote him to buy another hastily assembled novelty, and they absolutely do not think about what the photographer really needs. The photographers themselves do not know what to expect from the manufacturers, and whether the new product will be better than an old trusted friend. And when photographers stop buying all kinds of junk, and manufacturers will no longer be able to shake off this junk, an evolutionary leap will come in the world of photography and photographic equipment, cameras will become truly systemic, loyal and reliable human assistants. Something similar about the "top" and "bottom", it seems someone has already said before me (just kidding).
And then Ostap suffered ... :)
Oooh ... copy and paste!
In fact, a great comment, otherwise everyone closed in his own fortress and guards his deity
Yes, deeply plowed (concerns the second half of the speech). Thanks, of course, to the author for the work. It’s a pity, and I don’t agree that all the crops, except for the D300 (?), Were sent to the category of “frank consumer goods”, thus offering the lover very good. tighten your belt tightly. Aren't the D80 - D7000 (7100) line up for creativity? Canon 60,70D, it seems, is of the same class. It is also good that having put color at the top of the photo, the author did not go to the proprietary skin tone and CCD vs CMOS. There seems to be no truth here, everyone can decide for himself.
I think, first you need to come up with ultra-sensitive photodiodes, so that there would be less noise. And so that the entire JVI would be covered with AF points. And so the BB would immediately be as it should. And so that the lenses would all be sharp and without distortion, and they would not catch any rabbits. Both light and small. Etc.
In general, there is still work to do. It's just that it all takes a lot of time and money, but we want everything at once and without any glitches. So, for our age is enough with the head.
About an infinite number of settings, so you will need to go to vocational schools to learn them all.
The camera of the future must itself reveal its shortcomings and inaccuracies, and it must improve itself, lo!
You will still laugh, but you already have all this from birth - these are your eyes and brain, well ... .. buy more binoculars and a microscope, everything else becomes outdated too quickly ... ..))
I disagree about budget DSLRs: there are amateurs for “different pockets”, well, you should understand perfectly well that the cheapest DSLR has a matrix from an older sister (albeit the previous generation) - and the matrix is the first thing that affects the image quality , after the lens, of course.
Then “start your choice with lenses ..” - novice amateurs are unlikely to be able to make a tedious choice without holding the lenses in their hands - but how to do it without a camera? And the difference between two similar lenses from different brands is not always obvious to the uninitiated amateur.
Further, about your fantasies - it seems to me that you have re-read Soviet science fiction :)
I do not exclude that this is possible ... perhaps our great-great-great-grandchildren will use such technologies :)
+ 100 !!
Eh ... until the last 3 paragraphs are very interesting. Then the water
... and Moscow will be renamed NewVasyuki2 ...
It is important to know the basics, to understand that photography is, first of all, color, then shape and, finally, composition - photography appeared much earlier than color in photography. In general, photography is a drawing with light.
Besson disagrees with you. Especially for the color.
An important note, very important for understanding the conceptual issues of photography. It was to the conceptual issues that I tried to draw the attention of the forum participants. The choice of a system, or even a specific camera model, is an applied question. However, without knowing the basics, the right choice is hardly possible. Photography is a drawing with light, that's right. But, on the other hand, is light possible without color, does not white include an infinite number of colors and shades? Is black absolutely black? I read somewhere that cats can distinguish up to two hundred shades of gray and black. Artists and graphic designers will tell you no less than a dozen recipes for creating black for all occasions. It is my deep conviction that light and color are inseparable. I have a decent archive of old “black and white” photographs taken with different cameras, on different films, at different times and for different purposes. All these pictures differ in hue, i.e. are colored. It would be more correct to call them monochrome, but this does not change the essence. Color, like light, has always been in photography, so in my first comment, I did not go into this issue. And color photography, in principle, has existed for over a century. Let us recall, for example, the experiments of the famous Prokudin-Gorsky. And what is his color rendition! Perhaps Fujifilm will envy, not to mention the others. Truth is indivisible, as the Buddha taught. Trying to pay attention to one part of it, we, thereby, involuntarily limit ourselves in understanding the other parts. You need to grasp everything at once and in general. At the same time, the truth can be deepened to infinity, because it is infinite. The Buddha seemed to be loyal to the deepening of truths (joke). Seriously speaking, modern digital photography, especially amateur photography, has problems with color reproduction, and the manufacturers of photographic equipment do nothing to fix this. The race for megapixels and ISO values only hurts business and wallets. Color, shape and composition are the cornerstones of photography as a creative process. This is my opinion. Maybe it is not the most correct, but it still brings you closer to understanding the truth.
Associations
1. New Vasiuki
2. "Spaceships ply ..."
:)
The lens selection process is endless and possible (conscious) with a camera
I would like to share my impressions of the new acquisition, the Samsung nx 3000 mirrorless camera. Samsung is not a camera company, but nevertheless very pleased with the camera after Nikon D3100 with a bunch of lenses. Lightweight, compact, generally handy camera with excellent output shots. The whale lens that comes with the 20-50 is pretty sharp. There are more than functions for auto and manual settings. Previously, with Nikon, I was constantly thinking about post-processing in Camera RAW, I was not satisfied with the grayness, blur, I always had to chemistry something, improve after. I changed lenses, all sorts of Nikkors, Sigmas. And to tell the truth, he was looking in the direction of Marks from Kenon. On Yandex photo, only Mark (II or III, it doesn't matter) have pictures that leave a pleasant impression. But it’s worth it ... when traveling, you’ll probably only think how not to drop it or how not to be stolen.
Pictures from Samsung NX 3000 https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/mr-vyacheslavsergeevich
“Before with Nikon, I was constantly thinking about post-processing in Camera RAW, I didn’t like the dullness, blur, I always had to chemistry something, improve it afterwards.”
And do you blame this camera?
Even my wife, who is panicky afraid of DSLRs, gets juicy and sharp pictures in Auto mode.
Nikon. Dot. Plus a solid collection of manuals (both Soviet and Japanese), and 4 autofocus. Enough for everything - from 1: 1 macro, and even 2: 1 (with rings) to portrait, landscape, and telephoto birds. Autofocus - in fact, exclusively reportage + room, well, the portrait is still 35 and 50: 1.8, the rest is a manual.
“Even my wife, who is terrified of DSLRs, gets juicy and sharp shots in Auto mode.”
This is subjective. You can also say that everything is filmed on smartphones and no one thinks that it is possible and for some reason necessary to have a higher quality of their “selfies”.
In general, science is not great at knowing how to use shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, otherwise they often write and get smart about straight arms. Everything is pathetic somehow.
I often noticed at matinees, graduations, concerts, ... etc. trips in the hands of people in the hands of Nikona D3100 (D3200) or Canon 550-650 with whale 18-55 in auto mode (on the green segment) And what else is needed, why bother? - solid and it seems like a quality result.
There would have been something to shoot (or why) I have not seen any magic from the loudly spoken word “DSLR” since the purchase of the D2013 in 3100. Fair. On my hard drive in the folder with a photograph, I can not distinguish where it was shot, where is Olympus Fe-120, and where is D3100. Imagine three years later an amateur-class device with a matrix from D700 or the third Mark will be released, and it will be affordable. Isn't it possible? And it will be funny to read "And here is Nikon! ... and here is Canon! ..."
My first slides on ORVO film or the first silent video frames from the Quartz movie camera were much more mysterious. Then it was a miracle!
I don’t know how you “do not distinguish” between shots of a soap dish and a DSLR.
Even from a 600 * 900 photo, I can often tell what was filmed - with a soap box / smartphone, or a DSLR, and if with a DSLR, then most likely I will guess the system - Nikon or Canon. We are talking about raw photos. Prior to the purchase, Nikon D5100 used a Panasonic ultrazoom - a good thing, but the quality is not comparable with the CZK. Now I periodically carry a Canon sx150 soap dish (it seems, or sx130) - it is difficult to confuse its pictures with a DSLR.
Well, of course, you can also “kill” a picture on a DSLR beyond recognition: somehow they gave a photo for printing, with a skewed green BB and eerie noises - I thought from my phone - but no, a DSLR, on full automatic, in a dark room, iso3200, without a flash ...
This is already out: Sony A7. Less than $ 1000 is affordable for many.
The very first digital camera I had was Vivitar 1.3Mp, after the film soap boxes it seemed like a spaceship. Then a friend knocked him down to buy a superzoom Canon S5IS and had a soap dish from the same Canon. I shot it for a long time and, as I realized much later, almost always on the machine, i.e. did not bother at all on the settings. So I would have used it, but I got tired of the flash firing every other time and wanted more. And I bought the cheapest DSLR from the same Canon - 1100D. I bought it for one simple reason, it was for a stock at a cheap price. Over time, I bought a couple of objective lenses and that's it. Of course I would like more, FF for example - but why? I will not make my living in photography anyway, but this is enough for my filming. Take pictures of kids, flowers, cats, etc. etc. all sorts of brands there to put it mildly overkill. The theory + its application in practice + Lichtrum (where without it) will give a greater effect.
PS Jedi advice for Padawans is a little touching: “Better buy good optics and buy a used carcass. Standing on the top of the mountain of knowledge, the Jedi understand what, when and why they need it, but Padawan at the foot of this does not give anything, since the top of the mountain, and like all of it, however, is in fog and advice will not rise to it until he himself climbs.
“… You can get used to everything very quickly…”
I have been the “happy” owner of Nikon D3100 for 3 years already. I have never seen more inadequate automatic white balance. I still can't get used to it ...
shoot in a rabbi, business then.
besides, “baby Timokha” suffers not from BB, but rather skin tones, which he always takes into mustard-gray colors.
When you shoot a series of a hundred or two photographs, do you propose editing the BB in each of them in the editor?
read about lightroom all the same
I have been using it for a long time. And what exactly do you mean?
the fact that there you can edit the balance and all other moments immediately for ALL (even a couple of thousand frames) of the captured session, one template in three clicks.
read about lightroom yet.
What about Fuji? XT-1, for example.
Good technique. .for me - хт1 and хт10 are the best mirrorless cameras for amateurs with advanced settings.
They have three questions / problems:
1.price. Of course the price of the top fuji and top crop is comparable, but ..
2. optics. rather, the price of optics. There is no secondary market, and most of the shops are very bite, although the glasses are tasty.
3.Lack of flash, CLS and high-speed sync - FTP. if you shoot reportage with flashes, or do on-site with flashes, then problems begin.
and the native puffs of fujik are dull like no one else.
In all other respects, IF there are no strong money problems (that is, it is not worth the goal to collect a set for 20-30 searches), if there are no great requirements for working with puffs, then fuji is a VERY and very tasty option.
The mode is called "FP", and you call it ftp for the second time))
it happens to me)))
Minolta was never consumed. Sony bought part of Konica-Minolta's photographic division (which still makes optics). About the first adequate autofocus of Canon in LV it was generally strange to read against the background of the same Sony SLT, Olympus, Lumix, Samsung. In general, as usual - taste.
Fixed But this does not change the matter.
Summing up, you can ask a question to the hero of the occasion: Arkady, and what prompted you to choose the Nicon system for Canon. In my opinion, canon is still more practical (well, there are discrete portraits, a shorter working length)
What is written about at the beginning - a circle of acquaintances filmed on Nikon.
thank you
I shot first on the Nikon D40, then on the D80 - both broke in the end, the first one after 1 year, the second one lived longer, from which I concluded that the entry-level Nikon DSLRs were extremely unreliable. Repairing is more expensive than buying a new one. The service center was only in Moscow. As a result, I switched to Sony NEX-5, then to NEX-6 - and I am very pleased, for me, as an amateur, their compact size was very suitable and the fact that all the optics fit on them through acc. adapters, unlike Nikon. It is more pleasant for me to shoot with manual optics than with autofocus. The picture from the NEX-6 suits me. I will probably sell the remaining Nikon lenses, leaving only those that work on the old Nikon FE film. Nex-5 is still working, I will redo it for IR photography.
Of course, the ergonomics of the DSLR, a comfortable grip and an optical viewfinder are great, but I don’t feel like carrying around such a bandura all the time. My next carcass will probably be full-frame Sonya.
I have to upset you have to drag that bandura again.)
That's right, but so far no one has said about magic. For me, as an amateur, this is the main thing.
I love to shoot. There was a Canon soap dish, everything is great, the pictures are very good - for a soap dish when traveling. Hack Nikon - superzum (I'm an amateur). It became fun to shoot. The pictures became emotional. Took D90 (after reading Radozhiva, thanks!). Well !!! Feelings, literally a physical sensation with the eyes! Began to try lenses ... No words. I tried Canon's shooting in my hands (I snatched it from my friends) Okay. Not it. The soul does not fly. Sony. Class. Doesn't fly. Out of harm, I began to look mirrorless: technologically, everything is. Logically, that's what it is for me. Don't rush. Smart shots, but there are no vibrations.
Again Radozhiva read a lot. I took (why?) D300. It would seem that the model is older, the matrix is the same, everything is the same. Auto smaller, buttons at hand. I'm an amateur! But the D300 is already a part of me. Like a samurai in a sword, the soul lives there. I took the D7000 - but no, something doesn't catch on ... D300! Old, weak, it seems, but come on! Just as often (again, Arkady, thank you!) Old manual fixes stick me, although I am a lazy person and a fan of making life easier and a backpack.
Summary? Besides technology, there is “something” that, in my opinion, gives us what we are shooting for. The technique is excellent, but it makes sense to hold it in your hands, shoot with different systems. Probably, everyone has their own - to their individuality, to their character. Not always technology and manufacturability determine the choice.
This is how I came to the Fuji S5 Pro.
And I! Was d7000. From the very beginning I did not like the color, but I blamed the hands of the shooter. I thought: everyone is the same, it's just that people are more advanced in the editors. Accidentally (!) I came across a resource (I do not name it) on old Fujs. I liked the color (there many write about “the best zhpeg in the world” ... Probably, but I like the process of processing, I don’t shoot in zpeg). Looked at the price, nonsense, bought it. The first weeks "poked" on the settings, but figured it out and now I saw a COLOR! Not at someone else's, but at home! The D7000 went on sale (although the camera is very good). I bought another d700 for high ISO and calmed down. And Impregnation / Protroyka-vesch !!! It would be ff, even for expensive, I would sell and take everything, but ... not the point.
I completely agree, Boris.
Our task is not to stumble over any annoying and distracting components of the equipment, but to concentrate directly on the most important thing - the composition.
Otherwise, for me personally, the Muse easily disappears, and the eternal picture "Barge Haulers on the Volga" begins.
Great comment. Indeed, like a samurai in a sword, the photographer's soul lives in the camera, so you have to choose a camera for a long time, meticulously and for yourself. Everything here is individual. For someone, ergonomics is important, for someone weight or something else. I bought one of my first cameras by intuition, I just liked it, I fell into my hand. It was a Canon PowerShot G6. As it turned out later, it was a reliable, compact sturdy device with high-aperture optics, a long-lasting battery and a small RAW file. I still use it for photography from awkward positions and in hard-to-reach places. After not very successful experiments with Canon DSLRs, I took Fujifilm S3 Pro and I have no regrets. This is my favorite camera in terms of ergonomics and color reproduction. If I get a chance, I’ll buy another one of the same, only with an extended buffer (the blue line is very rare). There may be a modification of S3 Pro UVIR (produced for the American market), it is also interesting to experiment. It's a pity that Canon's “G” family of good compacts has degraded, and Fujifilm DSLRs have been discontinued and have not received further development.
As an amateur who lives far from the border (either from the west or from the east, although China is some 2000 km away) I choose Nikon. Why? Because for this camera you can find accessories, lenses and carcasses, and Nikkon costs exactly 1/3 less than Cannon, including on the secondary market of carcasses and lenses. New lenses from third-party manufacturers Sigma, Tamron, etc. cost Cannon exactly 2000 rubles more (in the same store), I don't know why.
For 30000 on the secondary market, you can buy a Nikkon d7100 + manual 50mm. 1.8 lens for 4-5 thousand. Having bought 1000 more adapters for 2 rubles, I screw Helios 44, Jupiter 21M. For this price, you can wildly contrived to buy a carcass of 600DE + Canon EF 50mm F1.8 Boots for about 6-7 thousand. Why Cannon cameras on the secondary market have such a wild price I don’t know, but the fact remains. Yes, a swivel screen, but at the zenith there is only a peephole and nothing, they took pictures in childhood. Again, a similar Nikkon 600 for the Cannon 5300D costs just 1,5 times cheaper - 28000 rubles (new).
Why 71000 and not D5200 or D5300? Screwdriver: still manual optics are 2-3 times even newer cheaper and 10000 differences are beaten off at the first fix.
Thus, Nikkon in the amateur segment is about 1/3 cheaper than Cannon and much more common. It’s not ready to say which camera is better, but Cannon uses more modern technologies, the question is that the cost is incomparable with the quality.
Well, you have prices. Two days ago he sent 600d in excellent condition, with a batlock and 18-55 for 16. Try using the forwarding service, what if it comes out cheaper?
I tried to buy a camera from Novosibirsk. I sent part of the money - no answer, no hello. Minus 13500 rubles. Although the photo of the central locking was sent, and the picture was taken to pixels and back and front focus. With whom I came across - thieves, and if they deceived it is much more expensive - to the same Novosibirsk 20000 round trip. It will be more expensive with Ali Baba, and even there is often deception. Therefore, only in cash and only in hand. All these Internet is a complete deception, as I was not careful I have already lost 5000 on quite solid sites. This in central Russia can be 200 km. come and give a tambourine, or call the police, we have for 500 km. you can't get anywhere - Siberia.
And it is useless to contact the police, they will not find it - in general, they write correctly: there is no prepayment, but online stores work only on prepayment, so this option can not be considered as possible or reliable.
In the photo ru, I sold my 600 days. Naturally, no prepayment. Cash on delivery only. The package will come, paid, checked. If something is wrong, they wrote a refund in the mail. Now I plan to sell 500 thousand for 9.5 according to the same scheme. In my city for a long time. And in Russia there are always those who want it. 60d sold to a famous wedding man in Feodosia.
Thanks for the advice, now I will not be such a boob.
just someone really wanted a lot of dough for a dull 600d. It happens.
In our country, for example, people sell for 40 thousand d300s, or for 30 thousand - d90.
Rather - trying to sell))
We are also trying to sell with might and main at “good” prices, a vivid example: NIKON D200 + Nikkor 35mm 1: 1,8G = 35 rubles.
Well, good luck dudes, cho!))
Yes, and with us, too, the new d300s costs the same as the new d610. Well, what for it is necessary to ask, I'm talking about d300. If in dollars, then 1377.
Duc is for BU!
Well, he's like “prof”. А д 610 is of “amateur ff” type ... As my friend, a horror professional photographer, says: an amateur camera in the hands of a pro becomes a “professional camera”, and a professional camera in the hands of an amateur becomes an “amateur” one. I think he's right.
he is outdated, he is half-frame, he is on the old matrix and DD.
In the spring it was mainly sold about 25 thousand, and it was not very often taken (more than three hundred could be taken from 16 to 20.)
So I agree that the price for 300ku is not adequate. Of the pluses, it has good AF, not bad color and ergonomics. I agree with the minuses you named. $ 1000 for ff d700 and $ 600 for a crop, although professional-strange (prices in Ukraine, used, condition and mileage are comparable). For d610-d600 (I didn't hold it in my hands) I heard both bad and bad. But the fact that Nikon slightly “bonded” her is a fact.
Olympus had "half-frame" DSLRs - with a crop factor of 2
You forgot about the top amateur Nikons: the D90 has a screwdriver, and the 7000 and 7100 have metering with manual optics.
I used the EVI in the half-soap box. And what happens with the picture when it's dark?
The Nikon D90 and D7000 are no longer completely amateurish, the price tag is significantly higher and the screen is not rotary, for the amateur it is not the best option. D90 is generally out of date.
In complete darkness, the EVI starts to slow down, but in such conditions even the optical VI will be of little use.
In complete darkness, both viewfinders are useless, but when you can barely see, the optical viewfinder works, and the electronic viewfinder is useless.
What do you mean "not quite amateur"?
Nikon has two types of cameras: amateur and professional.
So everything that is not professional is amateur.
Swivel screen - yes, it's a handy thing. But how often is it really needed?
I used the Nikon D4 with a rotary display for 5100 years, before that I used the Panasonic FZ4 for 50 years, also with a rotary display. I can say that a rotary display was needed in 2-3% of cases, or even less.
Death to DSLRs was predicted five years ago, and things are still there.
I am a lover. I am glad that Nikon chose in due time, and never regretted it.
If you take a very beginner amateur who is not going to grow, then he needs just any cheapest DSLR, or a non-DSLR with a whale lens, and he absolutely does not care for the presence of a screwdriver, work with manual lenses, etc.
>>>> The death of DSLRs was predicted five years ago, but things are still there.
Already dying, mirrorless are compared by autofocus speed and ahead in all other parameters.
>>>> Swivel screen - yes, it's handy, but how often is it really needed?
ALWAYS NEED IT !!! 90% of the frames at a wide angle do on LiveView and with a rotated screen.
For example, I recently photographed kids at school. It was enough for me to reach out to photograph how the children draw while sitting at the desk, without scaring them with the approach of their carcass. At the same time, the children saw my friendly face and easily made contact.
And by the way, I didn't go half bent for an hour to take pictures from children's eye level - I turned the display away and took pictures from the belly, if I needed to take a closer shot, I just stretched out my hand. Therefore, after the shooting, I did not feel any fatigue or back pain.
I had both Canon and Sony, Nikon held it in my hands and but did not find anything better than a similar Kenon, besides, amateur carcasses do not have a screwdriver and M42 only through an adapter with a lens. At the expense of Nikon's LiveView, I can only say about the D90 - the most hands-on implementation in DSLRs, the Canon 50D is slightly better, but not much better. The current cameras probably still have jambs, they need to learn from Sony ...
Now think about the visually impaired people who really want to take pictures - LiveView is a salvation for them. I talked with one girl who was shooting fifty kopecks on a Canon 600D, she had to shoot on the display and focus manually, because she could not see anything through the viewfinder, and focusing in LiveView is very slow.
So for some people, Canon and Nikon are contraindicated, they need Sony mirrorless mirrors and DSLRs, try to take this into account when praising your favorite brand.
Do not forget that the camera is just a tool in the hands of the photographer, it does not matter what kind of company he is, the main thing is that he is comfortable and does not interfere with the photographer creating masterpieces)
What a nightmare. What is going on in people’s head ..
And then deuces in the quarter, and a seat beaten with a belt.
Poor vision - use glasses / contact lenses or a diopter attachment on the viewfinder. I have poor eyesight. I rarely use LiveView, and it won't save me from bad eyesight. LiveView is not a panacea, and yes, it is NOT the strong point of modern DSLRs, but that is why it is a DSLR in order to use the Optical Viewfinder.
Let you always need LiveView. This does not mean that EVERYONE needs it always. Someone never needs at all.
Yes, Sony is very amateur friendly - especially the range and price of optics.
When mirrorless cameras are cheaper than DSLRs, when lenses for them will also cost adequately, and their variety will catch up with the "mirror" park, and the functionality of DSLRs will remain the same - then we will say "DSLRs are practically impractical now", but I'm afraid it will be oh, how not soon.
From photographic equipment, a carcass plus glass requires only three things - sharpness, the correct BB, the correct exposure. All this is easy to get on any DSLR. Everything else is creativity and does not depend on photographic equipment. Of all the systems worthy of attention and purchase, I consider Canon and Nikon, according to their characteristics, go head to head. The new Nikon is cheaper by 25-30%, the canon has more choice.
Something and I, too tired of the megapixel race, bought six months ago an "ancient" by today's standards a Canon 1D carcass with a 4-megapixel SSD matrix from Kodak .... The case, I must say, is almost clinical, but the most interesting thing is that the clients are satisfied. The white balance is correct, the colors are generally pleasing to the soul, and even a crop of 1,3 does not bother. My FF carcasses became spare, not even the second !!! My second camera is now a compact G9 from Canon ... Now I can classify myself as a hipster, and the editors do not mind, and layout designers are generally happy to reduce the "weight" of files ... As it turned out, reasonable conservatism and retrogradeness is sometimes encouraged)))
Yes, they cost the same, maybe 5-10% of the difference, on average, in Ukraine, Nikon will be even a little more expensive if we take the lower and middle price ranges.
And above average - everything is ambiguous there, for example, top-end Canon is twice as expensive as top-end Nikon, but non-top prof. models from Canon are 20-30% cheaper.