Newbie me wants help on first camera purchase

[PaulW]

Hello,

I only recently joined and have enjoyed going through the forums. There are so many amazing photos, found myself saying "get stuffed" and "wow" out loud numerous times.

So far I have decided on full frame, mirrorless camera but not top of the range due to the cost, the three brands I like are Canon Nikon Sony. After reading reviews I was leaning towards Sony but got worried that the forum posts were around 1k as apposed to canon 16k and Nikon 13k.

I thought I had decided on a camera, the canon EOS m50 II kit but I changed me mind and thought I could spend a bit more. ( I got told I was a tight a%^$) and its my birthday shortly :)

I love taking photos of everything but don't have a proper camera. My favourite photos are landscapes and nature. I love a lake, river or forest but also love a close up of a bee or spider etc.


Any feedback or opinions would be appreciated, my specific questions are;

--If i do get a sony, would I find it harder to get help as the sony forum has much less threads?
--Are there normally good camera deals on black friday? Being only a few weeks away I was thinking of waiting until then.
--Do i need a flash straight away?
--If I don't get a lens with my camera then what lens should I get? I don't really want a big heavy one to start.

I am really looking forward to getting started

Thanks,
Paul

[Tannin]

Hi Paul and welcome.

Any of the brands you mention will provide you with a good camera, and ample choice of lenses. Everyone has their likes and dislikes and I'd take any strong recommendation for any one particular brand with a grain of salt. Black Friday isn't really a thing in this country (more advertising than actual sales) and, no, you won't get anything extra special then except by chance. No, you don't need a flash yet.

Get a lens with your camera. Go for a common, general-purpose lens. These are known as "kit" lenses and the camera makers (well, Canon and Nikon, don't know about Sony) make them in vast numbers and sell them very cheaply bundled in with a new camera. They are remarkably good lenses for remarkably little money. Something like an 18-55 would be an ideal general-purpose starter lens.

Later, you can look at a made-for-purpose macro lens (probably 90, 100, or 105mm). And also at a wildlife lens in the 400mm class. They are quite expensive, so leave that go for a while. Start with the body of your choice and a kit lens. (Canon used to do a brilliant bundle of a camera body with two kit lenses: an 18-55 and a 55-250 telephoto. I don't know if they still have that.)

[ameerat42]

^Agree with Tannin's comments.
About a flash, check if there is one built-in (a pop-up flash) with your camera of interest.
The main problem would be to get one that's compatible. Not all are for all cameras.

I would not base a choice of camera on the size of the corresponding forum on AP or even
anywhere else. That some brands may be more popular - have a greater user footprint - than
others is due to many factors, and it is not a measure of intrinsic brand reliability.

To reiterate Tannin's point, go for a couple of kit lenses that you know will cover some of your
present photographic interests, - such as wide angle for landscapes - learn their systems while
you learn/improve your photography, then consider what else you might need.

[Mary Anne]

Paul when you finally make up your mind look at all the online Australian Camera Websites for your Gear find the cheapest then go to a Brick and Mortar Shop and ask them do they price match.
I have bought many cameras and a few lenses from Teds Cameras getting a good discount on the cameras, they will check so make sure you have the name and price of the online store.
Do not buy your camera from a online store that is not in Australia as your camera will not come with the guarantee you get here.

If you are going to buy a wide angle lens for landscapes as you wrote in your INTRO post get yourself a good tripod as you will need it.

[PaulW]

Thanks for the replies. There is so much to learn, I thought it was all about megapixels but realize now that it isn't.

I will keep an eye out for a camera that is bundled with a lens and be sure to try and get a local store to price match, I like the idea of having the shop I bought it from being local for warranty, holding it and questions etc. If Teds price match they are only 20 mins away. I see teds do a Canon Eos RP with lens for under 2k, I wan't to stay around 2k if possible, so many choices makes it hard. This one has this but not that and this one is has better specs but was released 2018 (Sony A7 III) etc.

I will keep reading and watching videos, not that it helps me pick, I don't know if I'm indecisive or if more information makes it easier or harder to pick a camera. Having never used a camera do I want an LCD on top, do I need the option of 161 lenses vs 27, do I need stabilization and 2 card slots, eye tracking and how many focal points do I need ha ha. All part of the journey I guess. I look forward to getting it and starting the beginner course.

Cheers,
Paul

[ameerat42]

Stabilisation can be in-body, or built into lenses. A top LCD would be a personal preference but not essential,
as the basic info they usually convey is visible elsewhere. Two card slots can be good (for some reasons), but
a single card slot is not bad.

I'd say get yourself a good (mainline brand like you said) mid-range (FF you said) camera and Go-o-o...

[tandeejay]

I can't stress the importance of how well the camera fits in your hand. Go in-store and hold a few different cameras (although that is no substitute for long term use). I started out with a Nikon D5500, and then upgraded to a D7200, and had an immediate improvement in the quality of my photos simply because the camera fitted better in my hand, which meant I was more comfortable holding the camera, making it easier to hold the camera steady. Note: a bigger camera will likely also be heavier, and the additional weight might have a negative impact on your ability to hold it steady, so bigger isn't necessarily better.... Technique is key here.

[Glenda]

I think as well as checking out the cameras, also check out the prices of the lenses which you may wish to purchase in the future. Once you commit to a brand it's usually to costly to change. I shoot Nikon and I know its lenses for mirrorless bodies are very expensive. All three brands you mentioned are extremely good and I don't think you'd be disappointed with any of them.

[PaulW]

Thanks for the comments guys.
I think I have narrowed it down to 2 cameras now (hopefully)

The Canon R and the Sony A7 III. I went in to the shop and held them both and preferred the feel of the sony, but thought that I would be happy with either. I have been searching online for deals on either of those cameras with lenses and found;

Canon R with 24-105mm lens for $2369
Sony A7 III with 28-70mm for $2307

Should I be worried that these are both 2018 models? is that a big deal? Could either of those lenses take a decent macro shot? I love landscapes but there is so much around the house and garden to take macro shots of, I know my daughter will love close ups of bugs.

I did a website side by side comparison highlighting differences and what one has over the other. I read up on some of the differences but having no experience I am just guessing what I will need.
30MP vs 24MP, min focus sens EV-6 vs EV-3, Max ISO 51200 vs 40000, eye tracking yes vs no, low light ISO 3730 vs 2742 just to name a few and I haven't even looked into editing software.

I will wait until black friday and see if I can get a better price, a few websites mentioned there should be some good discounts so I will wait and see. There will probably be a newer model heavily discounted to throw me off again :)

Thanks again for your answers.

Paul

[Tannin]

Real macro shots need a real macro lens. There are various kludges which sort-of work, but an actual macro lens is the correct answer. Note that many zoom lenses are labelled "macro" and they are nothing of the kind. Ask here first before you buy a macro lens to make sure that it is the real deal.

The lenses you mention are quite different: the 24-105 is much wider (yes, 4mm at the short end is quite a lot) and quite a bit longer too, and about the same speed when compared like-for-like. The 24-105 focuses much closer (130mm vs 450mm) resulting in a slightly macro-ish maximum magnification of .5 as compared to the Sony's .19. (In other words, the 24-105 can focus close enough to make a 5mm on-sensor image from a 10mm object where the 28-70 can only go to about 2mm. You'd rather that one if you were doing wildflowers or bugs, though neither lens is really suited to those tasks. I can't comment on the quality of these two except to say that if either Canon or Sony made a bad lens in this class these days, I'd be very surprised.

(A real macro lens (a) has a max mag of 1.0 or better and thus makes a 10mm image of a 10mm object; (b) has a very accurate close focus mechanism; (c) has a fairly wide aperture (typically f/2.8) to let lots of light in; and (d) has a very flat plane of focus so it's good for (e.g.) reproducing documents or paintings. On the other hand, a true macro lens has a fixed focal length - typically 90 or 100mm - and costs about $700 or $1100. )

The 30 vs 24mp difference is real, but 24 is still plenty. The low-light focus difference is real too, though it probably won't matter very often. None of the other stats quoted are of any significance.

I owned an R for a couple of years and took a dislike to it, detailed here: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?164721-EOS-R-one-year-on On the other hand, it did last two years in my camera bag where I reckon the A7 III would have been lucky to last two weeks. Yes, I'm a perfectionist. I reckon if I'm spending $2000 or $4000 on a camera - the R cost me $3500ish in 2019 - I am entitled to something really well thought out that is a joy to use. With several of my other cameras, that is exactly what I got. But they aren't relevant to your quest, and you won't know exactly what you like and don't like until you've owned a camera for a year or two, so you really have to close your eyes and jump into the water at some point. Either one of these two cameras will be more than serviceable (as for that matter would be the equivalent Nikon). There aren't really any wrong answers these days: most (all?) modern cameras are very capable. Enjoy!

[PaulW]

Thanks Tannin for taking the time to give me all that information. I will go read your thread on the R now.

I will be buying a macro lens for sure as I love all the close up stuff and your explanation on the lenses has helped.

I do have a couple of Nikon cameras penciled down but I leaned toward the other 2 brands when looking at reviews.

[ameerat42]

^ And along the lines of what Tannin said...


...

Canon R with 24-105mm lens for $2369
Sony A7 III with 28-70mm for $2307

...Could either of those lenses take a decent macro shot? I love landscapes but there is so much around the house and garden to take macro shots of,
I know my daughter will love close ups of bugs...

...

Paul

They say to read the "terms" and conditions, but in photography "terms" are often bandied about loosely :eek:
Just this morning I found on a "tutorial-type" website where the author had said that adding an extension tube
with increase the aperture [?of the lens]. I added my own comment to point out his gross error, in his case due
to his swapping "aperture" for "f-stop". - But enough of asides :rolleyes:

I checked out both of these lenses and confirmed that they would NOT be suitable for "macro work". This is because
their maximum magnification is 0.19X for the Sony, and 0.24X for the Canon. Look under their specifications for terms
like "max magnification" or "closest focus". That's not to say that they're not good at other things they do, which for
each one would be "modest wide angle to portrait" on a 35mm sensor. But you might get reasonable close-ups of your
subjects, especially with the slightly larger magnification of the Canon lens - at a pinch.

So too, if you want wider angles of view for your landscapes, you'd need a wider lens or do stitching of multiple shots.

Close-up and Macro...
There's no really fixed definition for the terms, but many people consider "macro" to be close to and greater than 1:1
(one-to-one) image size reproduction. "close-up" is something less than that.

And of course, many (especially zoom) lenses have "Macro" attached to their name description, like 50-300 Macro, but
when you look at the max mag you see it is sometimes struggling to approach 0.5X - in the "close-up" realm.

There's a lot to "macro" as such, and there are various means of achieving it, including the use of extension tubes,
teleconverters, and close-up lenses (that attach like filters). They are not (and cannot be) universally effective for all
optical systems. So, if you want "true macro", get a proper 1:1 macro lens. You then have a choice of what native
focal length to choose, but that anon.

/End (really).

[PaulW]

^ And along the lines of what Tannin said...

Close-up and Macro...
There's no really fixed definition for the terms, but many people consider "macro" to be close to and greater than 1:1
(one-to-one) image size reproduction. "close-up" is something less than that.

And of course, many (especially zoom) lenses have "Macro" attached to their name description, like 50-300 Macro, but
when you look at the max mag you see it is sometimes struggling to approach 0.5X - in the "close-up" realm.

There's a lot to "macro" as such, and there are various means of achieving it, including the use of extension tubes,
teleconverters, and close-up lenses (that attach like filters). They are not (and cannot be) universally effective for all
optical systems. So, if you want "true macro", get a proper 1:1 macro lens. You then have a choice of what native
focal length to choose, but that anon.

/End (really).

Thanks for the information in your reply, It's great having a thread I can refer back to for advice and tips.
I searched sony macro lens and the first one I clicked on is Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro for $769.

The description says 1:1 with a minimum focus distance of 6.3" (16cm), So that means the end of my lens cannot focus on a subject closer than 16cm? Would I be able to get a good pic of a spiders head/eyes with this? and is it used for normal everyday shooting aswell? I though a macro lens would mean that I can only take photos of things really close.

In the pictures I see a 3 position switch on the side, is that something I adjust depending on how close I am to subject?

Thanks again guys

[ameerat42]

Yes, you should, because no matter what, you'll have 1:1 reproduction, which is the maximum for most
macro lenses. That price BTW, is not too bad for such a lens. A long FL lens, say 70mm, 105mm, or even
150mm will all still typically do just 1:1. The close focus distance gets further away, and the field of view
will narrow with increasing FL, that's all.

You can, of course, use a teleconverter for extra magnification while maintaining the min focus distance,
but it should be of good optical quality that does not significantly detract from the native IQ of the lens.

- And of course, trying to use such a set-up with tissue thin DOF in the ghost of a breeze makes for a
lot of fun.

If Mary Anne sees this thread, she can weigh in about her 2:1 macro lens (or some others too). Macro is a
different technique (and I'm just a dilettante :o) from other photography.

[Tannin]

Minimum focus distance is the distance from the subject to the film plane. (Yes, it's confusing.) So in the case of the lens you mention, the front of the lens will be the MFD (160mm) - the length of the lens (70mm) - the distance between the back of the lens and the focal plane (18mm) = about 50mm. Being so close to the subject tends to cause trouble with perspective and especially with lighting (as you are throwing shadows on the subject). In other words, this wouldn't be your first choice for things like spiders. It would very likely be an excellent general-purpose lens, great for landscapes, portraits, and light-duty macro work (not really small things).

If you want to do spider's eyes, you are looking at something more like this one: https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/mp-e65mm-f-2-8-1-5x-macro (about $1500) or a long macro lens - say 180mm, probably at a similar or higher price. Serious macro is a specialist field requiring specialist equipment. Most macro experts would probably recommend that you start with a middle of the road macro lens - on full frame that's usually a 90mm, 100mm or 105mm unit. Every lens manufacturer I know of makes them: Tokina (100mm), Tamron (90mm), Sigma (105mm), Canon (100mm), Nikon (105mm), Sony (100mm), and Pentax (100mm). As lenses go, macro lenses, though specialised, are fairly straightforward to design and manufacture. Any of the seven lenses I just mentioned would be just fine. They are also very handy as general-purpose short telephotos for portraits, landscapes, and other tasks. Prices start from about $700 and go up to about $2500 or so. The $700 ones are just fine.

(Contrast with my specialty, bird photography, where suitable lenses sell for between $1500 or so and $18,000ish - and no, the $1500 and $2500 ones are not nearly as good as the $10,000 ones.)

[PaulW]

Thanks guys, your information is very helpful.

I looked up the link for MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro, I would love a lens that does 5x magnification, I l think I would have a lot of fun with that. It looks like it's going to be an expensive hobby :scared:

I have another question if someone has a moment :)
I work in Aged care and the residents feed the birds kg's of seed a week and there are quite a few birds that come for a feed. My question being... How close would I have to get to the bird for me to take a picture of it filling the frame? If I was using a kit lens 24-70mm? I can probably get to within 3-4mtrs of them.

[Tannin]

Much closer than you think, I'm afraid. It depends on the size of the bird, but for that situation I'd use the 100-400. Something like a 70-200 or 70-300 would be OK. For any sort of serious birding, you want a 400 at least, more is better.

[PaulW]

Much closer than you think, I'm afraid. It depends on the size of the bird, but for that situation I'd use the 100-400. Something like a 70-200 or 70-300 would be OK. For any sort of serious birding, you want a 400 at least, more is better.

Thanks Tannin, I get why people have a bag of lenses now :)

[ameerat42]

Yes, "it depends". Occasionally I think of resulting image sizes by employing similar triangles,
or distance ratios.

You already know: focal length and have an idea of the image size you want (from the sensor size for the bird to fill).
You can estimate the size of the bird (or sedate and measure it :eek: )

Then you can do a simple:

focal length/image size = bird distance/bird size

So,
bird distance = bird size x (focal length/image size)

Given FL = 70mm, bird size = 300mm, and that you want a 20mm image...

bird distance = 300 x (70/20) ~ a bit over a metre (Bring you own bird seed :p)

[tandeejay]

I get why people have a bag of lenses now :)

That is why some people go for the super zoom cameras. trouble with those though is the image quality. The best image is going to be a prime lens where the lens manufacturer only has to concern themselves with a single focal length, and they can optimize the lens groups inside the barrel to eliminate as many optical aberrations as possible. when they start to build lenses that have a range of focal lengths, each focal length has its own set of optical aberrations and the lens manufacturers have to start compromising on the optical aberration correction to try and get the best across the range of focal lengths covered by that lens. the greater the focal length range, the more compromises required and it tends to be at either end of the focal length range that you notice issues like chromatic aberration, barrel distortion, pin-cushioning etc. also, some of the super zoom cameras have tiny sensors which impacts image quality... so the solution is to have, as you say, a bag full of lenses :D

(I've noticed that even the latest smart phone manufacturers have recognized the issue with trying to squeeze too much zoom range into a single lens, and they now have 3 - 5 cameras to try and compensate... even the phones have become the bag of lenses :D )

[ameerat42]

...

(I've noticed that even the latest smart phone manufacturers have recognized the issue with trying to squeeze too much zoom range into a single lens, and they now have 3 - 5 cameras to try and compensate... even the phones have become the bag of lenses :D )

If you've never heard of Well's Head :eek: try well said, Tands :th3:

To OP: You may even end up with a bag and a lot of lenses, but not always all at once :D

[tandeejay]

You may even end up with a bag and a lot of lenses, but not always all at once :D

and the problem comes when your bag doesn't hold all your lenses and camera body... something has to stay at home... just make sure it isn't the camera body... ;)

[bitsnpieces]

Just get a Sony RX10 iv

Your all-in-one solution, almost...

If you're going with Sony, do consider the spending a little extra (if possible) for their newer models using their new battery.

Lasts twice as long as the standard batteries from their first line of mirrorless cameras

That is, if you'll be spending long hours shooting and need long lasting batteries, unless you're fine switching out batteries (old batteries aren't bad, I've done weddings with them, needs 2-3 for the day)

[ameerat42]

Just get a Sony RX10 iv

Your all-in-one solution, almost...

"Almost" is not a solution, and the solution is just your recommendation.

What if the OP does not want a 1" sensor and an "all-in-one non-interchangeable lens",
but an APS-C or "FF" AND interchangeable lenses? Such a first purchase may just not be
what the OP is after.

[PaulW]

Hi guys,

I have pretty much decided that I am getting the SONY A7III, I am now just waiting for black friday in a couple of weeks, hoping there will be some good deals. I am still open to other cameras if there is a crazy great deal on the Canon r5 or Nikon z7 II or Sony a7 IV etc. Trying to not be the guy with all the gear and no idea :)

The last few weeks I have been comparing so many cameras and I think the Sony A7 III will work for me.
Best price new so far is: Body only $1993 or with 28-70mm $2307

Hanging out to get started.

[ameerat42]

^In your reviews, have a good look at their sample images. Sites like DPR
(Digital Product Review) post these as part of their reviews.

Take note of and compare the "Conclusion" section for cameras of interest.

For the Sony A7 III: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7-iii-review

NB: For any review, exercise some interpretation, because they're not all
gospel.

[bitsnpieces]

"Almost" is not a solution, and the solution is just your recommendation.

What if the OP does not want a 1" sensor and an "all-in-one non-interchangeable lens",
but an APS-C or "FF" AND interchangeable lenses? Such a first purchase may just not be
what the OP is after.

Was just kidding xD

[pommyt]

and the problem comes when your bag doesn't hold all your lenses and camera body... something has to stay at home... just make sure it isn't the camera body... ;)

Or get 2 or more bags