Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/9/2018 9:21:38 PM
Posted: 8/12/2018 10:31:19 AM EST
We have been looking to buy an entry level DSLR for our first baby (due in a month).

I've looked at the Canon T6, T6i, T7i and SL2 vs Nikon D3400 and possibly D5600.

We want to stay in the $600 range and have seen the body and 2 lens kit deals. All the reading I've done has me wanting to go with the D3400 for cost/benefit and avoid the T6 and T6i.

Should the kits with the 2 lenses be avoided and we buy the body and a lens separate? Deals like the one at Best Buy or Amazon on the D3400 with 2 lenses are enticing.

Amazon

Best Buy

Any input would be appreciated. We don't want to make this complicated but would love to have many nice pictures of the new baby.

Thank you in advance.
Link Posted: 8/12/2018 10:32:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/12/2018 10:55:39 AM EST
I've got a 3400 that I picked up on a black Friday deal a couple years ago. It took me awhile to figure it out, but I can take some decent photos with it. I went entry level, because I don't use it enough to have bought something any more expensive.

Youtube tutorials are your best friend.
Link Posted: 8/12/2018 11:10:20 AM EST
I have a nikon d3300. I sometimes regret not going with a Canon, but only because the bottom tier of lenses and flashes seem to be a bit cheaper.

In a Canon, the focusing motor is in the body of the camera. In the nikon, it's in the lens. This makes the Nikon lenses slightly more expensive. OTOH, it also means if a motor fails, you're out one lens, as opposed to the whole camera. From what I've seen, failure isnt really an issue in either brand.

I agonized over the same decision for a long time. On one of the forums I saw a reply to another "what camera should I buy" topic that said something to the effect of, "The most basic dSLR has more features and is capable of taking better pictures than any camera Ansel Adams even dreamed of using." After seeing that, I realized that the PHOTOGRAPHER is the biggest part of the equation, and I picked the one that felt best in my hand.

Figure out your white balance settings and the relationship between ISO, shutter speed and aperture and you'll be on your way.

My phone does take some really nice pictures, but when it comes to portraits, or something I'd like to blow up to 8x10, my dSLR does way better.
Link Posted: 8/12/2018 12:13:05 PM EST
I don't think that your baby will be able to hold that thing up for a few years.
Link Posted: 8/12/2018 7:31:50 PM EST
I went mirrorless and did the panasonic g7

Bonus is videos at 4k 30fps.
Link Posted: 8/26/2018 11:12:50 PM EST
Underthegun, I sent you a PM
Link Posted: 9/17/2018 1:51:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zack3g:
It's probably going to take longer than a month to learn how to take good pictures, especially on an entry level DSLR where all the good stuff is buried deep in menus.

Use your phone. A cheap DSLR with kit lenses on auto won't do any better.
View Quote
I don't agree. I have a little bit of experience with this very thing.

Own a flower shop. We take pictures of everything that goes out of here.

Even a old rebel with a 18-35 EFS lens runs circles around most phones.

We have various employees take the verification photo before it goes out the door. Documenting condition, count. Their photographic knowledge begins and ends with selfies.

I had one girl who lasted about 2 days. I was looking through the work and could not find certain ones I know where made.

I asked her and she said they where on facebook. I said we download to the computer then we decide what goes on facebook.

Sure enough there's about 10 photo of the flowers with her holding them in a selfie.

On average the photo from the DSLR is sharper and exposed correctly far more than the phones. Most phones have dirty lenses and the composer is not nearly as good.

This is with about 25,000 DSLR pics and 5,000 phone pics
Link Posted: 9/17/2018 2:56:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2018 8:06:49 PM EST
Look for a D7100 on craigslist.
Link Posted: 9/18/2018 12:14:36 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zack3g:

I promise you 100% of the time @FredMan and I could kick the ass of any random DSLR noob with either one of our phones.

If you're talking about raw image quality sure, a DSLR is more capable, but that breaks down to sensor size more than anything.

The truth about photography is really indian, not arrow. A good photographer (or someone that just has an artistic eye like my GF) will get great pictures from just about anything. People that don't have it, don't want it, and can't be bothered couldn't get a decent picture with the best gear you could give them.

This topic is about people that want to learn and I still maintain that entry level DSLRs are terrible for this. They hide a lot of the manual options and configurations deep in menus or behind complicated multi-button presses where on a higher tier (for Nikon D7000+) they're just on buttons. Plus you get the option to fine tune lenses and generally all around better performance for things like AF and metering.

Does all that stuff matter to a newbie? Of course not.

However, it's better to buy the best camera you can afford NOW and grow into it, rather than getting a cheap starter camera, getting bored with it, getting the next level up, getting bored with that, and then finally landing on the prosumer/pro model you should have started with. It's cheaper in the long run and gives a smoother learning experience.
View Quote
I wasn't talking about you beating the noob. I was talking about the noob beating themselves. The DSLR beats the phone every time with them. Well almost. Besides they are not using their phones it would be a shop phone. They can play with theirs off the clock.

Getting back to the original question. Average person with a DSLR set on auto or phone. I would pick the DSLR almost every time. At least whet we use it for.
Link Posted: 9/18/2018 7:21:47 AM EST
There's two primary factors in photography, IMO:

1. Technical skill: Using focus, shutter, aperture, and ISO to achieve a technically well-exposed image. Hands down a DSLR can beat a phone simply because of the greater control a DSLR gives you over the final image. And, shooting raw, you have much wider latitude with exposure simply because of the ability to work with the data in post.

2. Artistic skill: Framing, composition, subject. Some folks have it innately, some folks can learn it, and some folks will never get it.

A noob with some innate artistic skill and a phone camera will beat a noob with a D5 every time. An accomplished photographer with a Kodak Brownie will probably beat an noob with a D5 most of the time.
Link Posted: 9/18/2018 9:02:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2018 9:03:27 PM EST by NorthPolar]
I'm with Zack and Fred on this one. Unless you're willing to put in the time and effort to learn how to get out of auto mode, there's not a huge variety of things that a beginner DSLR will beat out a smartphone on. Once you start getting into longer lenses, long exposure, ISO changing, etc the difference gets huge though. BUT you have to know how to work it, otherwise there's no point to it.

Considering OP is about to have his hands full, the free time to learn decision is up to them.
Link Posted: 9/20/2018 7:35:41 AM EST
I owned the Rebel XSi, the T3i and currently the T6i. All entry level DSLRs. That was all my budget allowed for.
So with the T3i I started to get better lenses, kept the camera out of the auto zones. I re-learned shutter and aperture priority skills.
I upgraded to the T6i and learned about RAW files and lightroom.
I don't use any of the auto-zones that are on the camera and I keep it on RAW now, not .jpeg. I was out taking pics of some farm animals and I must have selected L/.jpeg and the color was horrible. I'm so glad I'm learning lightroom now.

So today's modern entry level cameras are very much in the game. The T6i has the same sensor as the 80D, 24mp. The T6i also has 19 cross type AF points. The newer T7i has 45 cross type AF points and a 24mp sensor.
Canon APS/C sensors are 1.6 ratio to 35mm. So treat the 50mm like you would a 80mm and you are good to go.
Great value for the money if you are not making a living on photography.

Of course I want the Canon 1D-X, but I cannot afford it. It took me a year to save up for the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM. Best purchase I ever made and it compliments my T6i nicely.

so in my amateur (advanced?) opinion, modern entry level DSLRs, regardless of make are all fantastic. My next upgrade I see either the future T8i or the 80D or what ever comes out.
Link Posted: 9/21/2018 2:49:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By UnderTheGun:
We have been looking to buy an entry level DSLR for our first baby (due in a month).

I've looked at the Canon T6, T6i, T7i and SL2 vs Nikon D3400 and possibly D5600.

We want to stay in the $600 range and have seen the body and 2 lens kit deals. All the reading I've done has me wanting to go with the D3400 for cost/benefit and avoid the T6 and T6i.

Should the kits with the 2 lenses be avoided and we buy the body and a lens separate? Deals like the one at Best Buy or Amazon on the D3400 with 2 lenses are enticing.

Amazon

Best Buy

Any input would be appreciated. We don't want to make this complicated but would love to have many nice pictures of the new baby.

Thank you in advance.
View Quote
Skip the nonsense of all the junk in the Amazon deal. It really is all junk beyond the camera and lenses.
You are looking for a simple deal like in the Best Buy page.

One thing to keep in mind about these "entry level" DSLRs is their small size. If you have large hands, you will likely find these small bodies uncomfortable to hold. Thus you will not use them much. You really want to get to a camera store where you can play with the cameras to find the one that works best for your hands considering the size, weight, shape, button placement, and menu layouts.
Link Posted: 9/22/2018 2:46:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2018 2:50:15 AM EST by Bloencustoms]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:
There's two primary factors in photography, IMO:

1. Technical skill: Using focus, shutter, aperture, and ISO to achieve a technically well-exposed image. Hands down a DSLR can beat a phone simply because of the greater control a DSLR gives you over the final image. And, shooting raw, you have much wider latitude with exposure simply because of the ability to work with the data in post.

2. Artistic skill: Framing, composition, subject. Some folks have it innately, some folks can learn it, and some folks will never get it.

A noob with some innate artistic skill and a phone camera will beat a noob with a D5 every time. An accomplished photographer with a Kodak Brownie will probably beat an noob with a D5 most of the time.
View Quote
I have read a lot of articles and opinions on the talent vs. learned skill argument. My feeling is that the photographers that become really great after years of working at it, and proclaim that it is skill and experience alone, simply do not recognize their own natural talent. I have also read an article suggesting that people want to believe that natural talent is the decisive factor in great images so that they can give up and quit trying to improve because they lack "talent".

I know a few things as fact from personal experience.

I used to take shitty pictures. I still do, but after many years and a lot of reading and taking pictures, they are getting better. I know what all of the controls on my cameras do and the effects they have on focus, motion, noise, light, etc. I can manipulate them to get the depth of field, motion blur, and exposure that I want. I know about the rule of thirds and I try to incorporate that where it feels appropriate and ignore it when it something else looks better.

I cannot draw, sculpt, sing, dance or make music to save my life. I don't believe I have any artistic ability at all.

I often see some really beautiful pictures and I am pretty sure that I would never in a million years have thought to incorporate this or that element that makes them so compelling.

So while I can't make beautiful things from my own imagination, like most people, I can recognize beauty when I see it. I think anyone with enough practice can learn how to operate a camera to capture a beautiful scene. But where the talent comes in is when the photographer begins to create the scenes he photographs, rather than just capturing a pre-existing scene.

For example, a beautiful landscape image is a matter of being in the right place with the right lighting conditions and knowing how to operate a camera to capture them.

A great portrait might involve the photographer working with a makeup artist, adding props to the scene, costumes, multiple lights, flashes, gels, etc. All of these things differ from capturing an existing scene in that they involve directly creating the scene before capturing it.

To put it another way, if you had a second photographer in the studio who didn't choose the model, pose them, choose the props and lighting, etc but was there taking pictures alongside the photographer who did set up the scene, they might both produce nearly identical images if they have the skill to operate their cameras to capture the scene. But only one of them has the artistic vision to create the scene itself before capturing it.

Regretfully, I don't think that kind of talent can be learned through any amount of experience. You either have it, or you don't. That doesn't mean you can't capture great images. But it might mean you can't create great scenes where none existed before
Link Posted: 9/28/2018 8:13:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2018 8:15:03 PM EST by FredMan]
Regretfully, I don't think that kind of talent can be learned through any amount of experience.
View Quote
I'll disagree, to a point.

Someone with a basic level of talent can dramatically improve their skills over time.

If you've got a little you can improve a lot. If you've got NOTHING, you might, after lots of practice, get to the point that your friends will know you as the guy who takes good pictures.

Without coming off as conceited, I like to think I've got some pretty good innate talent. Practice, experience, and gear have allowed me to (IMO) dramatically improve my work. Here's an EXTREME example:

This is one of my first moon attempts, with a D50 and the kit 18-55. From 2008.

DSC_1370 by FredMan, on Flickr

8 years later, with some much better gear (D7100 and the Tamron 150-600) and I get this, and it's to the point that the moon doesn't really interest me any more unless some unusual phenomenon is going on. But for a while there I was always shooting the moon.

DSC_8464-Moon160116 by FredMan, on Flickr

Here's anothetr example, from 2003 with a Fuji Finepix 3800. Snapshot quality,really. I had no clue what I was doing, and the camera didn't help.

Kurhaus2 by FredMan, on Flickr

Now, I'm not saying this is great, but everything about it beats the pants off that other building.

Grove Park Inn by FredMan, on Flickr
Link Posted: 9/29/2018 9:14:14 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:

I'll disagree, to a point.

Someone with a basic level of talent can dramatically improve their skills over time.

If you've got a little you can improve a lot. If you've got NOTHING, you might, after lots of practice, get to the point that your friends will know you as the guy who takes good pictures.

Without coming off as conceited, I like to think I've got some pretty good innate talent. Practice, experience, and gear have allowed me to (IMO) dramatically improve my work. Here's an EXTREME example:

This is one of my first moon attempts, with a D50 and the kit 18-55. From 2008.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/773/32098600401_d9a15f8e38_b.jpgDSC_1370 by FredMan, on Flickr

8 years later, with some much better gear (D7100 and the Tamron 150-600) and I get this, and it's to the point that the moon doesn't really interest me any more unless some unusual phenomenon is going on. But for a while there I was always shooting the moon.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1482/24316627762_e8c01d97bf_b.jpgDSC_8464-Moon160116 by FredMan, on Flickr

Here's anothetr example, from 2003 with a Fuji Finepix 3800. Snapshot quality,really. I had no clue what I was doing, and the camera didn't help.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1903/30042062027_43bd0704ce_b.jpgKurhaus2 by FredMan, on Flickr

Now, I'm not saying this is great, but everything about it beats the pants off that other building.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1751/28851148398_04be6e0919_b.jpgGrove Park Inn by FredMan, on Flickr
View Quote
Lol at moon pic frum 10 years ago. Nice.
Link Posted: 9/29/2018 12:41:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:
I'll disagree, to a point.

Someone with a basic level of talent can dramatically improve their skills over time.

If you've got a little you can improve a lot. If you've got NOTHING, you might, after lots of practice, get to the point that your friends will know you as the guy who takes good pictures.

Without coming off as conceited, I like to think I've got some pretty good innate talent. Practice, experience, and gear have allowed me to (IMO) dramatically improve my work. Here's an EXTREME example:

This is one of my first moon attempts, with a D50 and the kit 18-55. From 2008.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/773/32098600401_d9a15f8e38_b.jpgDSC_1370 by FredMan, on Flickr

8 years later, with some much better gear (D7100 and the Tamron 150-600) and I get this, and it's to the point that the moon doesn't really interest me any more unless some unusual phenomenon is going on. But for a while there I was always shooting the moon.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1482/24316627762_e8c01d97bf_b.jpgDSC_8464-Moon160116 by FredMan, on Flickr

Here's anothetr example, from 2003 with a Fuji Finepix 3800. Snapshot quality,really. I had no clue what I was doing, and the camera didn't help.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1903/30042062027_43bd0704ce_b.jpgKurhaus2 by FredMan, on Flickr

Now, I'm not saying this is great, but everything about it beats the pants off that other building.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1751/28851148398_04be6e0919_b.jpgGrove Park Inn by FredMan, on Flickr
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:
Regretfully, I don't think that kind of talent can be learned through any amount of experience.
I'll disagree, to a point.

Someone with a basic level of talent can dramatically improve their skills over time.

If you've got a little you can improve a lot. If you've got NOTHING, you might, after lots of practice, get to the point that your friends will know you as the guy who takes good pictures.

Without coming off as conceited, I like to think I've got some pretty good innate talent. Practice, experience, and gear have allowed me to (IMO) dramatically improve my work. Here's an EXTREME example:

This is one of my first moon attempts, with a D50 and the kit 18-55. From 2008.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/773/32098600401_d9a15f8e38_b.jpgDSC_1370 by FredMan, on Flickr

8 years later, with some much better gear (D7100 and the Tamron 150-600) and I get this, and it's to the point that the moon doesn't really interest me any more unless some unusual phenomenon is going on. But for a while there I was always shooting the moon.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1482/24316627762_e8c01d97bf_b.jpgDSC_8464-Moon160116 by FredMan, on Flickr

Here's anothetr example, from 2003 with a Fuji Finepix 3800. Snapshot quality,really. I had no clue what I was doing, and the camera didn't help.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1903/30042062027_43bd0704ce_b.jpgKurhaus2 by FredMan, on Flickr

Now, I'm not saying this is great, but everything about it beats the pants off that other building.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1751/28851148398_04be6e0919_b.jpgGrove Park Inn by FredMan, on Flickr
There is definitely a marked improvement in your examples for sure.

For my part, my photography skills have improved a ton as well, but I am still just recording scenes rather than interacting with them and creating them.

I feel like to a significant degree, photography is an skill/artform that builds upon the last century of work. In other words, so some degree, today's best photographers could not just come up with their stunning images without having learned techniques pioneered by their predecessors. But by the same token, for every neat concept, someone, somewhere had to think of it and do it first. Those are the true artists. The guy who uses colored gels on flashes in a creative way is recording a scene. But there is no question that the first guy to think of putting a colored gel on a flash is a true artist.

I can read about and replicate almost any scene, just like cooking a gourmet recipe. But creating a new recipe, or a new photographic lighting technique takes a special level of innate talent that goes beyond knowing how to operate a camera or use measuring cups.

I don't feel like I have that talent.
Link Posted: 9/29/2018 2:49:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2018 2:52:30 PM EST by durtychemist]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zack3g:
It's probably going to take longer than a month to learn how to take good pictures, especially on an entry level DSLR where all the good stuff is buried deep in menus.

Use your phone. A cheap DSLR with kit lenses on auto won't do any better.
View Quote
So much wron information in here.

First off, a phone will NOT take better photos. If they did professionals would use their phones.
Second, it takes about a month to figure out what the three settings are for and how each changes a photo. It mostly requires using the camera. If you use the camera one hour a day you’ll learn faster than using it one hour a month or five hours a year. Reddit has a Photography 2018 forum you can follow and it gives assignments to learn more about the camera.

Edit: I got a 2 lens D3400 kit for Christmas last year. I use it for vacation. You’re going to be busy with a baby BUT it’s the perfect subject to take LOTS of photos of. Even “bad” photos will be a memory. If you’re staying home a lot for the first three months I’d HIGHLY recommend the subreddit forum. If you can’t find it send me a message or email and I’ll send you the link. It seriously helped me and I only did the first two money’s before my son took over my free time, and running, and I had to pick something to spend less time with. I’ll be back a time it in January.
Link Posted: 9/29/2018 7:17:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By durtychemist:

So much wron information in here.

First off, a phone will NOT take better photos. If they did professionals would use their phones.
Second, it takes about a month to figure out what the three settings are for and how each changes a photo. It mostly requires using the camera. If you use the camera one hour a day you’ll learn faster than using it one hour a month or five hours a year. Reddit has a Photography 2018 forum you can follow and it gives assignments to learn more about the camera.

Edit: I got a 2 lens D3400 kit for Christmas last year. I use it for vacation. You’re going to be busy with a baby BUT it’s the perfect subject to take LOTS of photos of. Even “bad” photos will be a memory. If you’re staying home a lot for the first three months I’d HIGHLY recommend the subreddit forum. If you can’t find it send me a message or email and I’ll send you the link. It seriously helped me and I only did the first two money’s before my son took over my free time, and running, and I had to pick something to spend less time with. I’ll be back a time it in January.
View Quote
Which is better? Taking phone pics, using something you know, for all those "first" moments, or taking DSLR pics, when you don't really know how it works, and are spedning more time fiddling with settings you don't understand?

I've posted this before, but here's a iPhone 4 pic. This pic is just about print-ready for a back=page glossy magazine ad. This is straight out of the phone. About the only thing I'd do is level that horizon.

BrightonRail by FredMan, on Flickr

Pros don't use phonecams because they understand how DSLRs work and they can use all the features and settings to their fullest potential. But I guarantee you a pro with a potato cam will blow away novice with a D5 every single time.
Link Posted: 9/29/2018 9:05:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2018 9:09:42 PM EST by beavo451]
Unless you have a real interest in learning photography, I will echo the "just use your phone" sentiments. It's always with you and normally there is more sentimental value than artistic/"good" photo value.

Just look at social media. Everybody "likes" the cell phone/selfie/whatever kid/family pictures just as much as when they put up pro photos of the same thing.



Skip to 11:20. Probably not the best example because I don't think that the pro did a very good job. Maybe he intentionally did badly.



There's also the whole pro with cheap camera series from DigitalRev.
Link Posted: 9/29/2018 9:29:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2018 7:06:05 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zack3g:
DigitalRev was great before they ran off Kai, Lok, and whatever that chick's name was.

They ceased to exist for me after that happened.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zack3g:
Originally Posted By beavo451:
Unless you have a real interest in learning photography, I will echo the "just use your phone" sentiments. It's always with you and normally there is more sentimental value than artistic/"good" photo value.

Just look at social media. Everybody "likes" the cell phone/selfie/whatever kid/family pictures just as much as when they put up pro photos of the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRWXeGaRwRU

Skip to 11:20. Probably not the best example because I don't think that the pro did a very good job. Maybe he intentionally did badly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0JQfoMZbTM

There's also the whole pro with cheap camera series from DigitalRev.
DigitalRev was great before they ran off Kai, Lok, and whatever that chick's name was.

They ceased to exist for me after that happened.
Alamby.

I still occasionally watch Kai's and Lok's own channels.
Link Posted: 9/30/2018 7:13:24 AM EST
i started with a used Canon 30D

so I'm basically saying, any camera

having gear and taking good photos are two very different things
Link Posted: 9/30/2018 7:57:21 AM EST
We have three SLRs and the one that gets used the most is the least expensive one.....the SL1. We have had it for years and the small size and the healthy amount of features makes it the camera that we have with us the most. On top of everything else, it takes great photos. We have paired it with a used Tamaron 17-50 2.8 ($200) and that is the lens that is almost always on it. The SL2 is about the only Rebel line camera that I would recommend, for those reasons.

Ask around to friends and family and find out if they have SLRs and what kind that they do have. We made our choice of getting Canon cameras, because most of our friends and family had them. It is nice to be able to swap different lenses with each other, based on one-off events that we may need a lens for.

Buy the book Understanding Exposure. The first three chapters, alone, will easily get you out of auto mode. Understanding Exposure

Also, check out Canon's refurbished website. They run some great deals and stand behind the products. Canon Refurbished
Link Posted: 9/30/2018 9:27:29 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:

Which is better? Taking phone pics, using something you know, for all those "first" moments, or taking DSLR pics, when you don't really know how it works, and are spedning more time fiddling with settings you don't understand?

Pros don't use phonecams because they understand how DSLRs work and they can use all the features and settings to their fullest potential. But I guarantee you a pro with a potato cam will blow away novice with a D5 every single time.
View Quote
Which is better? Neither if you don't use them. The phone is the same as a simple point and shoot except it's more convenient.

I guarentee you a novice with a D5 who spends 2 months playing with it will be better than anyone who has had their phone for 2 months and just pulls out the camera app and takes photos. If you don't know how to adjust the settings in the phone to adjust for lighting you'll miss out all those "first" moments. If knowing how settings work make someone a pro I'd suggest following the reddit subforum I mentioned which teaches you how to use it. Since it's a newborn it's the best subject to use the camera to practice with. I PERSONALLY wish I'd have stuck with it. Digital film is cheap and a bad photo can be deleted but you'll capture a lot more. One area I think a DSLR will beat a camera phone is zoom. Max zoom on a camera phone creates a much granier photo than a DSLR. Maybe I'm completely wrong though because I'm still enough of an amateur to know my DSLR is in the closet and my phone is next to me right now.

unreladed...kind of...After having a kid for 9 months, you're going to be too busy to capture the "first" moment. You'll capture it another time unless you're always behind the lens. As a new parent I can't tell you how annoying it is for grandparents to be behind the screen attempting to capture photos. Also, Grandparents won't be happy you're not sending them photos because you're using an actual camera.

This has inspired me to pick up the camera again soon. Just sitting here watching my (10 months next week) "walk" around the couch and smile/laugh makes me wanna take more photos of him.
Link Posted: 10/1/2018 3:22:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2018 7:27:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2018 7:30:55 PM EST by FredMan]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
Kind of a shame this concept didn't really take off.

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSC-QX100-Smartphone-Attachable-Lens-style/dp/B00EVIBN26
View Quote
My understanding is that most of those attachable lenses were cheap, as in poor construction and materials. Plastic lenses, inferior attachments, etc, to meet a price point.

Put shitty lenses in front of micro sensors and you'll get shit pictures.

ETA, well that link shows a not-expensive product! $700.

I think that the "good" types of that product don't do well becasue if you're going to spend $700 on photo gear, you're probably going to be buying a real camera.

Hell, $700 gets you a used D7100 series body and a few lenses!
Link Posted: 10/3/2018 10:51:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:
My understanding is that most of those attachable lenses were cheap, as in poor construction and materials. Plastic lenses, inferior attachments, etc, to meet a price point.

Put shitty lenses in front of micro sensors and you'll get shit pictures.

ETA, well that link shows a not-expensive product! $700.

I think that the "good" types of that product don't do well becasue if you're going to spend $700 on photo gear, you're probably going to be buying a real camera.

Hell, $700 gets you a used D7100 series body and a few lenses!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:
Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
Kind of a shame this concept didn't really take off.

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSC-QX100-Smartphone-Attachable-Lens-style/dp/B00EVIBN26
My understanding is that most of those attachable lenses were cheap, as in poor construction and materials. Plastic lenses, inferior attachments, etc, to meet a price point.

Put shitty lenses in front of micro sensors and you'll get shit pictures.

ETA, well that link shows a not-expensive product! $700.

I think that the "good" types of that product don't do well becasue if you're going to spend $700 on photo gear, you're probably going to be buying a real camera.

Hell, $700 gets you a used D7100 series body and a few lenses!
I think you're right about that as well. Motorola did a phone last year or the year before that had multiple device attachments, one of which was a pocket camera. They partnered with Hasselblad for it (which has now been purchased by DJI, sadly).

https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-Hasselblad-Camera-Droid-Force/dp/B01J9SSQZY

Kind of the same concept but considerably cheaper than Sony's offering, and more in line with standalone pocket camera pricing. But then, when your cell phone will do almost as much as a pocket camera I guess it makes them obsolete.

Perhaps the integration of phones and "serious" cameras can't really happen because of the short product lifespan of phones (1 year versus 3-4 years for a good camera, or 5-6 if you're a skinflint like me). But if they were I think the way to go would be to build a DSLR sans screen, and make a series of removable, articulating docks for various popular phone models. That way when you upgrade your phone, you buy a new dock for your camera and then your new phone can snap into place and become part of the camera just like the old one did. I guess the only real advantages of such a system are pointless now that cameras have wifi, NFC and bluetooth, or some combination of them.

Still, the way some people take calls it might not be practical to keep a phone connected to the camera long enough for any serious work.
Link Posted: 10/5/2018 4:56:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chainshaw:
We have three SLRs and the one that gets used the most is the least expensive one.....the SL1. We have had it for years and the small size and the healthy amount of features makes it the camera that we have with us the most. On top of everything else, it takes great photos. We have paired it with a used Tamaron 17-50 2.8 ($200) and that is the lens that is almost always on it. The SL2 is about the only Rebel line camera that I would recommend, for those reasons.

Ask around to friends and family and find out if they have SLRs and what kind that they do have. We made our choice of getting Canon cameras, because most of our friends and family had them. It is nice to be able to swap different lenses with each other, based on one-off events that we may need a lens for.

Buy the book Understanding Exposure. The first three chapters, alone, will easily get you out of auto mode. Understanding Exposure

Also, check out Canon's refurbished website. They run some great deals and stand behind the products. Canon Refurbished
View Quote
This. Don't live in Auto mode. Learn how to control your settings.

I primarily live in Aperture Priority and switch between auto ISO or manual ISO.
Link Posted: 11/1/2018 3:54:39 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
Kind of a shame this concept didn't really take off.

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSC-QX100-Smartphone-Attachable-Lens-style/dp/B00EVIBN26
View Quote
Moment has a range of lenses for various cellular phones.

Moment
Top Top