Which digital camera is right for me?

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 9 January 2018 at 10:47  | reply

@Michelle, you forgot a category of cameras. I don't blame you though. It's a category that is generally only used by professionals. Think of Hasselblad and Malta, for example. They have huge sensors with sizes like 36.8x49.1mm or 32.9x43.8mm, up to even 53x40.4mm. The prices reflect that, of course. But with a thick wallet or a well-filled credit card, you can get quite far. 😁

Good article, but I do think there’s rather too much Canon. Not right for an objective story.

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 9 January 2018 at 11:27  | reply

@Michelle, for me, a Canon Eos 1Dxxx is already out of reach. Let alone those medium format cameras. In the context of the article, those could easily have been mentioned too. Such a medium format camera could also be a suitable camera for you. Even if you don't have the money for it.

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 9 January 2018 at 11:33  | reply

@jaak, the viewfinder image can be smaller than the actual image. With a DSLR, that is more often the rule than the exception. With a mirrorless camera, that also seems possible to me. I could be wrong. I use a DSLR.

Educational and clear explanation... But, after years of photography with decent digital cameras, I, just as nostalgia now makes CD buyers buy Long Playing records, have switched back to photography with film. Through auctions I bought a Hasselblad 500 and Leica M2. A remarkable observation: in second-hand sales you find digital cameras, even Leica, for 100€, but for my purchases I paid 1,500€ /piece + a few more lenses and I quickly end up paying 2,500€ per piece. So, if you are interested in an inexpensive top device, you still end up spending quite a few cents. But, if you want to buy the mentioned brands as digital today, you are almost 50x more expensive.
What is the result?
Film photography is a "ceremony". Adjusting everything yourself, as accurately as possible, and afterwards, after developing the film (in a lab), checking whether the hoped-for result has been achieved.
Is film photography "better" than digital? No, but on the old top brands you do find phenomenal lenses, which also still fit digital devices. For example, I bought the first digital Leica with a Summicron 35 lens for 200€, whereas today you pay 2,200€ for the same lens!
Hasselblad 500: 6x6 negatives. When enlarged, I get a painting as a result, viewed from a distance, the same photo viewed from 30 cm is a collection of spots and dashes where you would never think that anything decent could come out of it.
Finally: an enlargement on film next to an enlargement photographed digitally? A painting next to a print.
My digital photography and video today: with my iPhone. Nice little pictures and quite enjoyable with lots of light. My Canon with a prime lens (½ kilogram) looks at me reproachfully.
Finally: top devices with film are professionally cleaned up (a CLA) and work like new (and also look new at Leica)

osten wrote on Tuesday 9 January 2018 at 16:15  | reply

A good summary.
Sadly Leica is so expensive
rgds.osten

Jaak does have a point, by the way, not about looking through the lens, but that with an electronic viewfinder (EVF) you 'see what you get', and it also has other advantages as Bob points out. For example, with an EVF you always see 100% of the image (with the optical viewfinder of a DSLR it is often e.g. 95 or 99%) and it can often also display exactly what the photo will look like, indeed including depth of field, white balance etc. Electronic viewfinders are getting better, faster and more advanced all the time, and can also be adjusted more and more to personal preferences, an EVF can also display a lot of extra information. Of course it just depends on what you prefer working with, an optical viewfinder has other advantages and disadvantages.

These days you can make the camera possibilities as crazy as you want. Often the budget is mainly the limiting factor.
What I miss in the piece is the speed of autofocus. Generally speaking, DSLRs still have faster autofocus than mirrorless and compact cameras (especially those in the entry-level segment), which is particularly important in action and sports photography.

Mirrorless cameras are getting faster all the time, but they are not necessarily cheaper than DSLRs. For beginners, I still think an entry-level DSLR offers the most 'bang for your buck' - and you can easily 'upgrade' such a camera by buying a better lens for it. These cameras are usually not very big and heavy either and they are also widely available second-hand, so with a bit of searching you can find a decent camera for next to nothing. And in principle, the quality of the lens is often more decisive for the sharpness of your photo than the camera itself! The well-known 'nifty fifty' lens (50mm) from Canon, among others, is really highly recommended in that respect (bright and not expensive).

For the rest, roughly speaking, this still applies imo: the more demands you have, the more expensive it gets. There are also very good compact cameras for sale that do not fall short of a DSLR or mirrorless camera in terms of quality and speed (possibly even with a larger sensor), but they are also at least as expensive, often even relatively much more expensive. And there are even compact cameras with a fixed (very good) lens that are very nice, but they are certainly not cheap either - you also pay a bit extra for the design, of course...

The development of mirrorless cameras is currently progressing very quickly: where they were really still lagging behind DSLRs (including cheaper ones) a few years ago, for example in terms of autofocus, they can now really compete with them, especially the newest and more expensive models such as the Fuji X-T2 and a number of Sony models. There are major differences here too, just as with compact cameras, in terms of sensor size and autofocus etc, and you often soon end up in the more expensive segment if you have more demands. The same perhaps applies even more to the accompanying lenses.

Well, you can of course mention medium-format cameras in this article, but you can assume that information about such a camera is probably already well known to the photographer who is interested in one.
For most photographers, an APS-C sensor (or possibly full-frame) is more than enough, and indeed the cameras in smartphones are also getting better and better. There are professional photographers who take the most beautiful photos with them, in that respect it is still the photographer who takes the photo and not the camera. And the best camera is the camera you have with you...

Furthermore, I would advise: if you are interested in a particular camera, be sure to read lots of (extensive) reviews and tests about that camera, ask other photographers for information and above all look for points of criticism. No camera is perfect, the trick is to find a camera that matches your wishes - for a sports photographer, fast autofocus is very important, but if you photograph still lifes, fast autofocus is not that important.

Nice informative article, enjoyed reading it, but I miss Fuji in your story. With the X/ APS-C sensor, they have raised the bar for APS-C cameras a bit higher again and brought them closer to Full-frame capabilities.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Tuesday 9 January 2018 at 22:32  | reply

I corrected a number of errors in the article. Thanks for your attentiveness! Among other things, the difference between an optical (DSLR) and electronic (mirrorless camera) viewfinder and the format of full frame.

On a website of the camera brand I use ( seems to be bad according to users of another brand ) there are help routines that make choosing easier. Especially the lens tool is very practical.

@Emile, Jef: I really don't see that, when I read through the text again what strikes me is that Michelle has tried to phrase it as neutrally as possible and has also used various camera brands in the photos. In an article like that it is almost inevitable that a brand will occasionally be mentioned as an example, but I don't read a clear preference for one or the other. In the reactions that follow below it you do see some brand preferences. Only the photo with the collection of Canon cameras and lenses is clearly an 'advertising photo' (very illustrative, by the way, to indicate the multitude of choices) but there are also photos of Leicas and Sonys etc. included.
By the way, I do think that a beginner (for whom this article is primarily intended) will often still end up with Nikon or Canon if the choice is a DSLR, simply because there is a lot of choice in affordable entry-level cameras and lenses from those brands (both new and second-hand). And someone who is just starting out and still needs to orient themselves I personally would not immediately advise to start with e.g. a Sony A7 RII but that is my personal line of thought on this.

too bad my camera brand isn't mentioned anywhere. A missed opportunity!

Casanova56 wrote on Wednesday 10 January 2018 at 13:31  | reply

Here then, clearly my opinion.
If someone asks which camera to buy.
Then make it clear to him not to buy any Entry Kits for sure, because then you fatten the retailer, but let that person then look at a body higher than those Entry Kit cameras.
The reason for that is: With those bodies you then do NOT have to pay attention anymore to whether the drive for the AF is in the lens, because it is already in the body, that is with Nikon in the D7xxx series and higher.
If that person buys such a second-hand body with a lens with a fixed aperture, he can be cheaper off than such a kit from the Entry series.
Yes ok, then he does not have a telephoto lens with it, he can buy that lens later according to his interest, birds in nature require a longer telephoto lens, but birds in a Zoo can therefore be done with a shorter telephoto lens.
Then also give him advice when he buys those lenses, to buy them as FullFrame, if he does want to switch from crop to FullFrame later after all, he already has the lenses for that.
Yes, I made my last Analogue photos in 2011, then switched to Digital, after having bought 4x Digital crop bodies, I am now the owner of a second-hand Nikon D750.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Wednesday 10 January 2018 at 16:50  | reply

A classification of digital devices can be found at www.cameradecision.com. Very comprehensive with rankings and, as far as I can judge, objective. Mark Vierin.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Wednesday 10 January 2018 at 20:35  | reply

@guest: search for ILC or look at the mirrorless cameras!

Anyone who wants to consult an overview of all hobby digital cameras should surf to www.cameradecision.com.
An absolute must and in my opinion objective. Comparisons in figures.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Thursday 11 January 2018 at 20:29  | reply

@José: a really good question!

A smaller sensor has a smaller field of view (you can see that in the image of the carbide shooting). To get the same photo in that field of view as with a larger sensor, you automatically get a smaller image scale (after all, the photo is displayed smaller on a smaller sensor), and that smaller image scale is the cause of the increased depth of field here.

In principle, sensor size will have no influence on depth of field.But if you want to have a subject at the same size in the photo with a crop and a full-frame camera, the distance to the subject will have to change, in other words the focal length. As you know, distance and focal length have a very big influence on depth of field. Sensor size and crop factor therefore have indirect influence on depth of field.

It seems as if the focal length of a lens with a crop sensor is longer than on a full-frame. That is a great advantage for, for example, wildlife or sports photographers who photograph with a telephoto lens: you get the subject much larger in the photo and you have more depth of field throughout the entire image!

@José: for detailed information about depth of field and the influence of sensor size on it, you can also google 'nandoonline' and 'depth of field': Nando explains it all in great detail on his blog

Michelle Peeters wrote on Thursday 16 August 2018 at 11:30  | reply

@Tinne: I would definitely go for a camera with a larger sensor and zoom capabilities. It's difficult to determine what suits you best. Photo shops often provide good advice, and it helps if you have already been able to determine for yourself what your skill level is and how much creative freedom you want. I think it will then be either a mirrorless or DSLR camera. If you don't want to carry a lot of weight, a mirrorless camera is a better option.