I'm curious what do users of HN use as their cameras? What do you like about it and do you want to get something else?
I like that it's fully mechanical and built to a higher standard (and with higher quality materials) than cameras today. I enjoy film photography because it imposes a constraint on the creative process and makes you consciously pause before shooting. I find that without such constraints it's too easy to take a million garbage photos. For mundane everyday use I have an iPhone.
If I were to get something else it'd be a medium format camera with similar build quality and reliability.
It is attached to my backpack or running vest shoulder strap using the Peak Design Capture Clip. To prevent bounce while running I use a simple velcro cinch strap.
While not particularly great at taking pictures with either a phone or camera, my camera photos are always much better quality than the ones I take with my phone, especially if I am looking at them on anything other than a phone.
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA65/AA65A.HTM
I post-process raw files using https://rawtherapee.com/ so not really interested in filters/processing the camera provides.
I like otoh explicitly setting aperture / shutter / iso sensitivity; otoh the electronic viewfinder showing what will be recorded.
With $$$ to spend I'd replace it with one of the newer models — https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-camera...
The basic technology has improved. Automatic following of eye-focus works a lot better. Autofocus micro-adjustment allows autofocus to be precisely fine-tuned for each lens used with the camera.
But the old stuff I have still works too well for me to upgrade.
When I was looking around, years ago, at buying a DSLR there were a few options. Canon & Nikon were the obvious ones, along with Sony (who bought Minolta) and a few others. I went to a store and held them all - in the end the Canon felt most comfortable for my (smallish) hands.
I started out with a Canon Rebel, but you'll soon discover that when you buy a few lenses you get "locked in". When I'd spent £750+ on lens and wanted a better body it made no sense to switch to a Sony, Nikon, or other brand. So I bought the next body up, gradually getting to where I am today.
If you stick with the standard/stock/"free" lens you can switch around freely. But if you spend a few thousand over a few years you're almost never going to switch brand. Selling used lenses is pretty easy, and they mostly hold their value. But even so you need to be somewhat aware of the possible choices you're restricting yourself towards.
Love it, mostly because I learned photography on manual film cameras and this camera gives me that nostalgic feelings. Besides it looks cool and it is a good conversation starter with strangers.
Image quality may not be the best though.
If you want pure IQ, go for what everyone else has said. Get good glass & an older full frame flagship camera. Quality used glass won't depreciate much, but most bodies will lose 10%+ of their purchase price per year. A Canon 5d2 (or 7d2 if you take more action shots) with a 35f1.4 or 24-70f4IS can be had for $1,200 and can cover lots of situations.
I usually travel by motorcycle, so weight comes at a premium. I won't fish a bulky SLR out of my pannier every time I see a pretty landscape. The RX100 could fit in my motorcycle jacket pocket, so I wouldn't even need to get off the bike.
Yet, I prefer my smartphone, because it geotags and syncs my photos automatically. I can send them to people in an instant, as long as there's signal. That's worth a lot if you spend most of the day on the saddle, and have little time or energy left to process photos.
I like photography, but I don't like making my trips about photography. In any case, I find that keeping a travel journal works much better than taking a million pictures.
It is a fantastic travel camera. It is in the form factor of a traditional rangefinder, with great ergonomic controls, and even at "only" a micro-4/3 lens still destroy even the best smartphone, while still fitting in my pocket with a prime.
The only thing that might replace it are some of these mirrorless full frame cameras being produced at reasonable prices (<$1K). They won't be as good at travel as m43 (due to lens size/weight if nothing else), but give you more photographic tools.
I'd never go non-mirrorless again, the Viewfinder is a second class citizen in mirrored/SLRs, lacking useful features like focus peaking, realtime histograms, preview of color modes, but most importantly requiring you to take your eye off of the Viewfinder to review your last shot (as opposed to being a one-stop-shop screen for everything).
I have a Panasonic GX85 / GX80 (depends on the market) which is a model inbetween the GX7 and GX8.
I started out with a GX1, loved it and eventually upgraded to this model. I have a Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4 which is an absolute dream to use. Also got a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 pancake which is great for travel.
I've considered a FF with a fixed 50mm lens as it's the focal length I use the most but... I'm so happy with the combo that I don't really see a reason to change.
Before I had a Canon 500D with an EF 27-80 f2.8 USM however the weight was actually insane (it was around 1.7kg) especially compared to what I have now. Yeah I could've put a prime lens, but the bulk would not have been worth it. Currently at 505gram for the body + 200gram for the lens.
Almost any dedicated camera will provide a different experience than a phone. Ergonomic design for single purpose. Psychologically because it only comes out to make pictures.
The easiest upgrade is a point and shoot with 10x or 12x zoom because it provides more reach. One with physical dials and physical buttons will provide a dedicated tactile experience. It's the simplest thing that might work and has the important quality of being easy to take with you.
To me, the biggest difference between cameras is whether you hold them to your eye when making pictures (or not). Making pictures with the camera to your eye is "looking through the camera" versus "looking at the camera." Neither is better. But they are different.[1]
Holding the camera to your eye facilitates tight composition of moving subjects because of hand-eye coordination. It facilitates the use of longer focal lengths (narrower field of view) to capture action. The disadvantage is the tendency to make pictures from eye level rather than more interesting angles.
The easiest way to try a camera that can be held to the eye is a used Canon/Nikon entry level DSLR with a kit lens for a couple of hundred dollars. If you like it, there's more than two orders of magnitude headroom you can spend for better cameras and nicer lenses.
To me, fallacious sunk cost reasoning is about the only mistake you can make buying a camera. Your next camera is just your next camera not your last one. The more pictures you make, the more you will understand which pictures you can't make and being able to make different pictures is the reason to look for new gear (unless you are getting paid making the same pictures "better" usually isn't a good reason).
[1] It's not quite either or. Cameras with waist level finders sort of sit in between. A tilting screen camera at 90 degrees can capture some of the experience but not all of it.
For digital, I have a Google Pixel phone and the camera takes good quality photos.
For a dedicated digital camera, I really like a lot of the compact mirrorless cameras out there. I like the Nikons and have some experience with the Sony Alpha cameras and have few complaints. Usually complaints boil down to how a person relates to the interface and whether or not the camera has the features a person wants.
Learn the fundamentals of a DSLR (aperture, f-stop, and all that jazz).
Gradually grow from there as your abilities improve.
I thought I'd be buy a DSLR and take awesome photos and while I did by accident produce some stunning shots, there's a learning curve.
Also, if you have any interest in space, try astrophotography. It really helped me learn the challenges of ISO, focus, aperture, etc.
Anything more than 6 megapixels is fluff, unless you really like cropping away most of your image. Back in the day, I bought a Nikon D40, instead of the D40x because it had fewer megapixels (but the same size sensor, which meant each pixel on the D40 was bigger, gathered more light, thus was better able to deal with low light). I wore the shutter out after about 46,000 pictures.
I take pictures of things like cities, buildings, trees, etc... I'm not very good at portraits.
I still have some things up on flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/145132971@N05/
Not that you need 300dpi. Most people don't print.
Were enough to tempt me into stitching 6 or 9 for 300dpi all across the print
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/product/computation...
So 42MP would help when there’s movement in the scene :-)
At that size though, you don't really need 300dpi for ordinary purposes.
And a 42MP camera would mean stitching fewer than my 24MP camera, so easier to finesse movement in the scene.
> don't really need
When you live in a small apartment, you see the wall art close-up ;-)
Oh I don't "worry" about window-like panoramas.
I delight in being able to make those pictures!
If you want to make the jump to something more capable I recommend skipping all the stuff in the middle like mirrorless, 4/3, or high end point and shoot. Nothing wrong with these if it is what you want. However, I recommend you get a digital SLR. Decide on a budget. If it is small, buy used. Heck if it is big it still doesn't hurt to buy used. Especially lenses and tripods. I have never purchased a new camera, lens, or tripod.
Prioritize your purchase in this order:
- A book about the photo style that interests you.
- Lens or lenses. This is the most important thing. It doesn't matter how awesome your camera is if you are sticking low quality glass on it.
- A good tripod you can tolerate carrying for extended periods of time. The number one thing you can do to take better pictures is to use a tripod. For most, tripods are an afterthought.
- A digital SLR body.
I recommend this order because lenses are very long term investments as are tripods. They can last a lifetime. Bodies churn constantly and you can always get a better one later.
If I were going to buy a DSLR today, most likely I would choose Nikon (but I'm already invested in Nikon glass). I would probably go for a D750 (D700 if money is tight, or a newer variant if I'm feeling flush) and a 50mm f/1.4 AF-D. If I wanted to shoot portraits an 85mm or so would be my next lens. Otherwise I really like the 35mm f/2 AF-D for landscapes and general use. All of this said, I don't think you can go wrong choosing from any of the major manufacturers. Favor full frame over crop sensors.
As an added bonus, when taking wildlife photography, the lack of a shutter click means that I can take photos silently without spooking birds and animals.
It's pretty much impossible to make a truly bad choice right now by buying a recently released camera from the major brands. They're all top quality but trade blows over minutiae. See if you can rent or just hold a few different bodies in your price range and pick which one feels the best in your hand. The more you feel comfortable with the camera the more you'll use it and the better you'll get at making photos.
Happy to chat about photography anytime. Contact info in my profile if you so desire!
Most of the time I just use my phone.
If you've always shot C41, try out slide film. Its harder to expose correctly but looks great.
To answer your actual question, I have a Nikon D810 with a 1.4f 50mm lens that I adore, but it's expensive and overkill for most purposes.
It's amazing for taking pictures of dancers in poorly lit rooms without being forced to use a flash.
95%+ of the time I use my phone just because it's a camera I always have with me though.
I dont understand why high end cameras don't have a GPS when a 100€ smartphone does.