deskthority

Hi everyone,

I know a lot of people here love photography and take awesome pictures of their keyboards.

I also really like photography, I love nice photos, I like to take photos and I like camera gear. I actually studied photography for 3 years, so I have some technical experience, but unfortunately I have not that much experience on field, because I never had a real camera. I have some film cameras, I like to develop film and everything but it's too much hassle to just pick it up and take some photos.

I'm still a student so I'm on a budget, I know if I buy a reflex I won't be able to buy any lenses other than the standard one. So I'm considering to buy a Sony DSC-RX100, also known as the best compact camera in the world. Obviously a compact camera would be a lot more portable and imho needs less care, and those factors are quite important to me. Still I don't want to ignore photo quality, which is also very important.

What do you, more expert photographers, think about this choice? Is a reflex still better (for a similar price I could choose an used Canon 550D) for what I've said or the RX100 is a nice choice? It's a difficult decision and I don't know what to do

Getting a used Canon or Nikon will be the more future proof option. True, you will most likely spend a year with only one or two lenses, but you will need that time to get used to the camera and break it in anyways. Faced with a similar decision two years ago I went with a used Nikon I picked up locally and I never regretted the choice.

Exactly! Learning gear the slow way is highly advised. No matter how experienced you are, a new camera body takes a lot of adaptation; and a new lens as often as not shakes up your whole idea of photography. For instance, I've had the same Canon lenses and basic body now for 5+ years, and when I came over to California to visit my brother, I naturally dipped into his collection of fancy glass. He's got excellent long telephotos and Canon's finest wide angle zoom lens. I'm used to teles, albeit not as long or nearly as fast, but that wide angle lens is mind bending insane! You can understand a lens in theory, but using it in practice is really something. I'm back to basics with that fancy glass. And enjoying it!

If we didn't both use Canon SLRs, I couldn't even have really seen it. I'd be too busy getting confused by another camera's interface.

I'd say a used DSLR would be a better - and as Ascaii already said - is a more future proof option. You can get a lot of nice gear for not much money. Especially regarding photo quality: you won't be very happy with a RX100! Soon enough you will recognize its limits, and even an old DSLR is way better than a compact cam. I also do have a small compact camera, but rarely use it. Instead I use a smartphone!

Maybe a mirrorless camera is an option for you? They should be more compact than DSLRs but you can still put on different lenses.

They're interesting, aye. Worth looking into. But keep an eye on lenses. Glass is the one thing immune to Moore's Law. A great lens today is a great lens in 10, 20 years; so long as its mount is still in use. That's where Canon and Nikon shine.

Compact, fixed lens, cameras are a dying species today. Smartphones are so much more convenient (instant photo sharing, software filters, and other apps) and SLRs are so much more embedded in photography culture. I wouldn't consider any point and shoot with such strong competition from above and below these days. I'm far from alone!

Muirium wrote: ↑Compact, fixed lens, cameras are a dying species today. Smartphones are so much more convenient (instant photo sharing, software filters, and other apps) and SLRs are so much more embedded in photography culture. I wouldn't consider any point and shoot with such strong competition from above and below these days. I'm far from alone!

The best camera is the one you have with you when you need it. Even a compact camera is likely to be left at home most of the time, so unless it is substantially better than the camera on your phone, you probably can't justify it. Once you accept that you probably aren't going to use any camera unexpectedly, this further weakens the case for compacts.

Of course there's also no point in buying an SLR if you find it too cumbersome to carry, for the same reason. You're also going to pick one lens and stick with it all day a lot of the time rather than toting a camera bag around, so having a reasonably fast and reasonably versatile zoom is essential. Fortunately, even the starter lens that comes with a camera body frequently is up to the task.

One thing to watch out for though: if you want full-frame but can't afford it now, you still want to buy full-frame glass and not the cheaper/lighter -S lenses which are made strictly for crop sensors.

I upgraded from a compact camera to a mirrorless about a year and a half ago. I had decided I wanted an SLR, but ultimately decided against it because of the bulk of the SLR house and lenses and went for a mirrorless instead. Most of the time I'm perfectly happy with my choice, it is very portable even if not at all at the same level as a compact camera or a phone and it produces very nice photos. When comparing to friends' SLRs though, I envy their focusing speed and the helathy collection of lenses available. My camera has on chip phase detection auto focus, but it's no match for the focusing system of an SLR and while the lens eco system I bought into is getting larger and larger, it's not as versatile as that of any of the SLR manufacturers.

With that said I would buy the same camera again

Preface, I'm weird.

My experience is that one gets either an D-SLR, but never uses it, because it's too bulky (and expensive) to carry around, or a compact camera, but never uses it, because it sucks. The good news is that keyboards are usually at home, with the camera, thus we can still take pictures of our keyboards. ^_^

If I had to pick something to buy (on budget) again, I'd get either a "high-end" Canon compact camera, because of software support (CHDK, desktop control/shutter software) and at least some SLR-like accessories (remote shutter, flash! and obviously a tripod), or a Pentax D-SLR… wait, what? Why not a Canon again? Because of vintage lenses. Pentax is much, much better than anything else in this regard, if you ask me.

davkol wrote: ↑wait, what? Why not a Canon again? Because of vintage lenses. Pentax is much, much better than anything else in this regard, if you ask me.

Nikon is pretty good about taking old glass too, though of course fully manual.

davkol wrote:Preface, I'm weird.

My experience is that one gets either an D-SLR, but never uses it, because it's too bulky (and expensive) to carry around, or a compact camera, but never uses it, because it sucks. The good news is that keyboards are usually at home, with the camera, thus we can still take pictures of our keyboards. ^_^

If I had to pick something to buy (on budget) again, I'd get either a "high-end" Canon compact camera, because of software support (CHDK, desktop control/shutter software) and at least some SLR-like accessories (remote shutter, flash! and obviously a tripod), or a Pentax D-SLR… wait, what? Why not a Canon again? Because of vintage lenses. Pentax is much, much better than anything else in this regard, if you ask me.

This! This is what I'm worried about and why I can't make a choice. I already know the situation will be similar to the one you described.

But yeah you guys made me desist pretty much on the choice of the RX100. Soon or late I'd be disappointed by its limits. I think I'm gonna wait for a good deal on an used 550D.

Last time I checked, Nikon had lens-only stabilization, thus nothing with older ones, and adaptors were required for M42, unlike in case of Pentax (that supported K-mount as well).

I'm also a big fan of standard AA batteries instead of proprietary accumulators.

acolombo wrote: ↑But yeah you guys made me desist pretty much on the choice of the RX100. Soon or late I'd be disappointed by its limits. I think I'm gonna wait for a good deal on an used 550D.

Think about the lenses you want. (Canon tends to be somewhat cheaper than Nikon for the same specs.) Then get a body to match your desired glass, not the other way around, because as others have already mentioned, lenses age well. Sensors do not.

Yes and really good DSLR lenses can be quite expensive. So if you're going to get a DSLR check the general availability of lenses for that camera beforehand. There are often good third party lenses too. Or you could do it like me (and many others) who shoot with old manual lenses that fit on modern DSLR. Not sure if that's possible with Canon or Nikon though.

seebart wrote:Yes and really good DSLR lenses can be quite expensive. So if you're going to get a DSLR check the general availability of lenses for that camera beforehand. There are often good third party lenses too. Or you could do it like me (and many others) who shoot with old manual lenses that fit on modern DSLR. Not sure if that's possible with Canon or Nikon though.

I actually have a couple of old, manual, third party Nikon F lenses, and a Canon mount adapter for them. Anything special at all, pretty bad actually, but something to start from.

What is still scaring me is that I will need at least a well made stand and a nice flash to complete my gear, and that's more money. When you have a compact camera, that's it, you can't change it, you can't buy many things for it. A dslr instead feels more like a money pit to me, because there are so many things to buy and it's hard to resist.

Yes that's true, with DSLR you'll be buying various components. Nothing wrong with compact cameras, although I have little knowledge about compact cameras I know quality has generally risen and prices have declined in the last ten years or so.

A used DSLR plus used lenses is way cheaper than a new compact camera system.


You pay for the compactness and for the fact that these are not on the market since the 1950s, 1970s or 1980s, so there is not much used gear available.


However, I can recommend a Fuji X100, X100S or X100T (the latest model). All 3 come with the lens you neec 99% of the time and even have macro abilities.

I can also vouch for the used DSLR way. My Nikon D90 w/ 18-105 f/3.5-4.5D lens and 3 batteries was only $375 used - I even got the original box and manuals for the body. That's $25 more than the RX100 is where I am.

I started out on an even cheaper Canon 300D body with the 18-55 kit lens, 80-200 shit lens and 75-300 USM shit lens. I was able to get decent enough results despite the thing being 9 years old when I bought it for $120.

I can't recommend starting with a manual lens. I got an old D100 and a third party macro (does that mean macro or zoom in Nikon land?) lens by Sigma or someone. It's a great lens and my photography buff friends can take great pictures with it, but I feel totally lost when trying to use it.

scottc wrote: ↑I can't recommend starting with a manual lens. I got an old D100 and a third party macro (does that mean macro or zoom in Nikon land?) lens by Sigma or someone. It's a great lens and my photography buff friends can take great pictures with it, but I feel totally lost when trying to use it.

I can recommend a manual lens. After all, until about 25 years ago, that's all there was, and we learned to deal with it just fine.

You don't know what you're doing until you can turn off everything but the metering and get things right by yourself.

Mal-2 wrote: ↑I can recommend a manual lens. After all, until about 25 years ago, that's all there was, and we learned to deal with it just fine.

You don't know what you're doing until you can turn off everything but the metering and get things right by yourself.

That's a pretty poor argument. 25 years ago, everyone ran DOS on their 286s and Linux hadn't been invented yet. Why don't we just use those anymore?

In any case, I said that I can't recommend starting with a manual lens. Just like I wouldn't recommend starting to learn Linux with Gentoo. Sure, they're probably good options once you have a feel for what you're doing and want everything tuned just as you like it, but as a beginner you'll probably want to start with something a bit more user-friendly.

We had various Unices 25 years ago, and Plan 9 was in development. People had actual keyboards…

…and from the OP:

I actually studied photography for 3 years, so I have some technical experience, but unfortunately I have not that much experience on field, because I never had a real camera. I have some film cameras, I like to develop film and everything but it's too much hassle to just pick it up and take some photos.

scottc wrote: ↑That's a pretty poor argument. 25 years ago, everyone ran DOS on their 286s and Linux hadn't been invented yet. Why don't we just use those anymore?

It's not even remotely the same argument.

Program modes are fine, and I use them extensively. The problem is, cameras are still relatively stupid, and one size does not fit all. There are lots of corner cases, and specific ways of dealing with them, such as: Backlight - use fill flash and/or increase exposure. Motion blur desired - use Tv (shutter-priority) mode, let the camera pick the aperture. Depth of field is key - use Av (aperture-priority) mode and let the camera pick a shutter speed. Astrophotography - your meter a shit. I don't care how good the camera is. Go full manual and lock the focus at infinity. Look at your results. If you don't have time to look, bracket the hell out of everything. Letting the camera bracket for you is fine, but you should understand what it's doing and why. Macro - you need to be manually focusing unless it's time-prohibitive (moving insects or the like). Your depth of field is likely measured in millimeters.

Basically you don't have to know what the operating system is doing with the bare metal to get the best results, unless you're programming for raw speed. You do need to know what the camera is "thinking" if you want to get optimal results, and the only way to do that is to do all the thinking yourself for a while before handing some of it off. I don't mean you have to spend years or even months in full manual. A couple weeks is probably quite adequate, provided you go out of your way to experience those corner cases where you're going to have to do the piloting yourself.

If you never step outside the box of taking family photos and technically undemanding travel photos, you can get away with just pointing and shooting, but why close yourself off from the power of taking control when that's half the point of having a rig that can give you that control? In order to be able to wield it properly, you have to practice, and cost is no longer a reasonable objection in the digital camera era.

Program modes work well within their (admittedly quite common) limited use cases, but even so, you need to have a grasp of what's going on in order to pick the right program mode. Think of the modes like a set of overlapping circles. If you're in the middle, it probably doesn't much matter which one you pick. If you're out toward the edges, it becomes crucial you pick the right one. And if you're WAY out on the fringes (using what should be the biggest circle of all, your own ability), you're going to have to do it yourself.

scottc wrote:I can't recommend starting with a manual lens. I got an old D100 and a third party macro (does that mean macro or zoom in Nikon land?) lens by Sigma or someone. It's a great lens and my photography buff friends can take great pictures with it, but I feel totally lost when trying to use it.

It wouldn't be a problem, I'm used to old cameras so I wouldn't have problems with a manual lens. I wouldn't use it as my main lens, though it would be a but impractical

I think I've made my choice. I will try to sell some of my analog cameras (some Minoltas and a Canon 1000F, if I can remember well... They are the latest film cameras models. They need batteries to work and everything, which I find a bit stupid for a film camera) to then buy an used Canon 550D which I found for 250€ and also get atleast the Amazon basics tri-stand and a decent flash

Canon 550D is a nice camera, I used a 550D with the EF-S 18-135 IS lens a lot for school photography before I had my D90, it's one camera I'd like to buy sometime.

A Youngnuo flash will work quite well as a basic flash or even more. I know a guy running YN-560s as they're much cheaper than the actual Canon and Nikon flashes and at $120ish/ea you can buy 2 for a bit less than the price of one, say 580 EX II.

It's also worth noting that there's a reason why photography classes still use cameras like this:

http://www.vivitar.com/products/8/profe ... 4/v3800-50

Compgeke wrote: ↑A Youngnuo flash will work quite well as a basic flash or even more. I know a guy running YN-560s as they're much cheaper than the actual Canon and Nikon flashes and at $120ish/ea you can buy 2 for a bit less than the price of one, say 580 EX II.

I am using a Yongnuo YN-565EX and it is a fine flash, although I can't vouch for it's longevity, since I got it only recently!

What kind of photos do you like the most? Landscapes, macro, street, portraits, sport...

The 550D is a great wee camera. My old man has one, and it works with the whole range of Canon's top glass; not that he has much of that! But when he's over here to see my brother, all their gear works together. A nice strong ecosystem lock-in. View that whichever way you choose! For me it's an immense and overwhelming plus.

My brother just picked up a 7D Mk.II the other day in LA. It's a marvel. The view through the viewfinder is as big and bright as his pentaprism 5D Mk.II somehow, while the interface and controls are much better laid out. Takes a mean sequence of fast shots, too. But it's easily the biggest bodied crop camera I've ever seen. Definitely not for newbs!

The 550D meanwhile, I'd recommend to anyone interested in getting started. It'll play nice from the get go (set it to Picture mode for the first few days), and unlike a compact it really will let you do pro stuff once you really know what you're doing. Scott!