The 5 Cameras You Should Never Buy

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 10:29  | reply

Nando, you hit the nail on the head. Here you come with an article that is right up my alley. I can't afford a full-frame body. So I make do with my crop-sensor cameras (EOS 70D and EOS 80D), decent mid-range models. What does bother me, however, is the video function that is put into all digital cameras. I never use that function. I hate filming. I am a photographer first and foremost. However, I do have to pay for an option that I don't use and never will. In the past you had cameras for photography and video cameras in separate devices They still exist, those video cameras, but are hardly sold anymore. But why is an option that I will never use shoved down my throat and why do I have to pay for it.

isn't this just this article but translated?
https://petapixel.com/2021/02/06/5-cameras-you-should-avoid/

That 5th one is so recognizable. Expensive DSLR and then quickly taking a photo of a castle while walking and in auto mode.

By the way, this also applies to other things. For example, over the weekend I saw a man on the ice with expensive clap skates while he could barely stand upright on them. Let alone skate along with them.

Dear Nando, an excellent story and well substantiated! In short, an article close to my heart because it is made clear here that a striking photo is not determined by the features of the camera, but by the photographer! If you look at winning photos, it sometimes turns out that, among other things, sharpness is secondary, but that the framing is what makes a winning photo!

Nando, 'hobby' and 'photographer' are now 2 separate words. You of course mean 'hobby photographer'.

Kind regards,

Hugo.

PixelDude Raoul wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 11:41  | reply

Nando,

Great story that I fully agree with.
I also think the story that you shouldn't let club members talk you into anything is more than justified. I have the personal experience of a club where one of the board members divides up the walking groups as follows: “The people with a Nikon go with X, the owners of a Canon with me.”
And what about me with my Olympus micro 4/3, and those with Sonys, with Leicas, … ? According to that man, there are only 2 good brands, … actually only one, Canon, … his model.

@Donald Willemsen: I doubt whether a camera without a video function would really be cheaper. The entire video function is 99% software; there is no extra hardware in the camera specifically for the video function (apart from a few buttons).

A smartphone has more capabilities than affordable analogue cameras in the past. It is the photographer who takes beautiful photos, not the device.

Indeed the new cameras cost a fortune.
Like the new Sony A1, I think around 7400€.
So with a prime lens added you're quickly at around 10,000€.

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 12:07  | reply

#Matt, then they can leave out that software. Software costs money too.

4BYE wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 12:19  | reply

@ifiamminghi - that's of course relative. Certain equipment can make things a lot easier for someone or even make them possible. However, it is no guarantee of better photos if you don't understand anything about it. And one lens is simply sharper than another. Unfortunately, that often comes with a price tag. One thing remains underexposed (LOL), and that is the art of getting everything out of a RAW shot through post-processing. There is often a lot to be gained there. Finally, your audience is often much less critical and views it with a different purpose.

It is such a shame that there are still so few photographers .. they have increasingly become graphic designers. It is the gimmicks on the camera or the photo editing program that makes it a "NICE? " picture. Back to the basic; creative shooting..viewing angle ..composition .. ... lighting(angle) ...

D20 was my first digital camera. When I had enough experience, I got the itch to expand my possibilities. those only come, however, when you have mastered the ordinary one. And that is why I now use a D5, Mark 3. More than enough for me. I take a LOT of shots and am satisfied with what this little beast can do. And with what I want to use from it. Don't forget that, on top of that, there is also a load of ready knowledge on PC to complete the picture. So don't be like a club member, 1x D1, 1x new D1, 1x mirrorless I don't know what number... but we see almost no shots.
You write with light, not the camera. That simply stands between the subject and the person pressing the button. And that's how it should be.

@Matt "The entire movie function is 99% software; there is no extra hardware in the camera specifically for the movie function (apart from a few buttons)."
1) software also costs money
2) the movie function is presented as added value, allowing the price to be increased.
But.... having a movie function can lead to a larger number of devices sold, and that can be beneficial for the price.

I completely agree. I have a 5D mkII myself and when I use a Canon 50mm (not even 100 euros) you get craaaazy sharp photos, better than the 24-105. And one more thing: you can't zoom, so walking is mandatory. And then zoom and crop.

Thanks Nando for this story.
It certainly applies to the body, a full frame is certainly not a must. An APC sensor also gives excellent results. I use a Nikon D850 (full frame) for fieldwork and happily lug this around, but my Fuji Xpro3 is no worse in this regard. My advice would be to immediately purchase a good-quality lens. You can always invest in a more expensive body later (if you want to continue with photography). My first digital camera was a Nikon D70 and when I look back at the photos, the quality is fine. Nowadays you can buy a used and good Nikon D70 for a few tens.
Regards,
John Nan

PixelDude Raoul wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 13:27  | reply

@Dirk
I wouldn't dwell too long on the fact that Belgians take ‘little photos’. As a Belgian, I know that Dutch people are much better at taking ‘snapshots’. In my opinion, there's nothing negative behind it.

Guido Bellens wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 13:56  | reply

Hello Nando,
Great article stating an obvious truth. What I also see a lot is that people buy a perfectly good and very expensive camera and then start saving on the lenses. Better buy just a good body and invest in quality glass.

For that reason I now have 3 cameras. Well, more, but 3 that I use. As a (former) wedding photographer I have a Canon EOS 5d3. Wonderful camera for that kind of work. But when I just went out to take some photos, or went out with the family and took the camera along, then such a brick around my neck was a bit too much. The 5d was also overkill for street photography. So I bought a second-hand Fuiji X-Pro1. Also a great camera. And yes, the EVF isn't all that great, but who cares. And is the autofocus not that fast? I usually have my Meike 35/f1.7 on it, manually, works perfectly.

And then I was still missing a camera that I could just put in my pocket and have with me every day. And that became the Sony RX100 (mk1). Completely suitable for the purpose I have it for.

I completely understand what you mean with your article. I'll bookmark it too and have people read it when they ask me for camera advice. When they ask me, I always ask first 'what do you want to photograph with it?'.

And yes, those people with those refrigerators of cameras, with a 70-200 on them. Who then take photos on Automatic and don't look through the viewfinder but use live view, hahaha. I always have to laugh a little pityingly at those types

Wonderful article!

Having owned a Sony A100 for years myself, with which I have actually managed to build a solid foundation. What surprises me is often the stories of people who buy a DSLR from the higher segment and are then amazed that their photos aren't that good. As if the price determines the quality of the photos. A shame, of course, that the wrong choice then often results in disappointment afterwards.

Be creative, as a beginner possibly try a 2nd-hand camera, perhaps from a series that has been on the market for several years, and first get started gaining basic knowledge.

E.g. winter photos, deliberately overexposing to ensure that the snow is pure white and not greyish. Small things that can make a world of difference in making good photos straight from the camera that need little to no post-processing.

4BYE wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 15:52  | reply

@Paul, sometimes walking backwards isn't an option, which is why I'm glad I mainly have zoom lenses on my road trips. Just imagine standing on the roof of the Rockefeller building...

I find the most important aspect to be the weight of the camera. All brands are about equally good, there are no bad cameras anymore. But the weight of the camera and the lenses is decisive for me. That way, I almost always have a camera with me. After a number of Pentaxes and Fujis, a Canon, a whole series of Minoltas and a series of Nikons (having been a professional photographer for 45 years), I now photograph with M43 and I like it very much. Less than half the weight and still just as good.

My best photo investment was that training after all. The 10-year-old camera holds no secrets for me anymore !

A beautiful and objective article (with a laugh and a wink) but in which the truth is certainly not compromised.
And as I already posted in "The DSLR is dead, long live the mirrorless camera"
In it I wrote: "I have to conclude that with my Nikon D7200 I do not manage to take such beautiful photos as my mate with his Nikon D3200 (sometimes he still goes out with his old Olympus OM40, still with a film roll).
In other words, it is the photographer who determines what the final image will look like."
End of quote

So in my opinion you can also safely state that it is exactly the same with the capabilities and the price of the camera
If you put a 10,000 euro camera in my hands, my photos still won't be able to hold a candle to those of my mate with his (as he calls it) old junk

PixelDude Raoul wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 17:41  | reply

@Richard
I can already see myself walking to the store to buy the best of the best, a €50,000 medium format camera, only to then have to rent a van to transport it home.

4BYE wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 17:47  | reply

@Eric Dankbaar - that depends on the "field". Different tools for different jobs.

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 18:20  | reply

@Dirk, I can only say one or actually 2
word(s) to you: VERY SPORTING!

Howard, finally someone on my side. Down with that bpa. Angle of view is the essence. “See that lion over there? You should see how much closer my lens brings him.” You'd almost wish that it were true.

I think Dirk H is mainly hurt in his ego. Dirk H is probably a good photographer who makes a photo. "Pulling a photo" or "shooting a picture" or whatever definitely applies to that guy in option 5. Don't take it personally Dirk H. and keep making photos and buying books. I don't think it is just a "cock-and-bull story" as Ollanders say that Nando is telling here, because there is some truth in it. There are guys like that, "big necks" as Belgians say. . I "shoot my pictures" with a Canon 6DM2 And my favourite lens is the 24-105 F/4 II, still quite a bit better than the plastic fantastic though. I also have a Sony RX 10M4 adapted for infrared photography, a Canon 400D with which I take beautiful photos with the plastic fantastic and a Canon 300 analogue as well. In short; I'm crazy about photography and not to "show off". Respect for your articles Nando.

@Dirk H what a pity about your thin skin, I've been a member for many years and have never felt attacked/offended, quite the contrary, greetings from a Fleming. Lots more photography enjoyment 😎

@Donald,

I think you can't say that in the past you had a different device for photography than for filming. Yes of course that's true, but why is that? Is it because everyone wanted it that way, or because technology couldn't do it back then.
Because I think that most photographers who have trouble with a camera being able to film, have no problem with watching a film, making phone calls, going on the internet, filming, navigating etc. themselves on 1 device.

I find the title of your story quite exaggerated. A more accurate title would have been: "When you buy a camera, first think about what you wish to achieve with your new camera".
Agreed, the quality of a photo is largely determined by the person looking through the viewfinder and pressing the shutter, but I do know that the capabilities of the camera also play a role. Just think of the dynamic range, for example.
Currently I photograph with a Sony A7RIII and a Sony A9. Top cameras that I have already gotten a great deal of pleasure from.
Incidentally, I find PixelDudo Raoul's remark very telling in relation to the clique formation . I too have been photographing with Sony for many years and have unfortunately had to experience that several times already. If you don't belong to the Canon or Nikon little club, you are classified among the eccentrics. What a pity!

Donald Willemsen wrote on Wednesday 17 February 2021 at 10:10  | reply

@Mac, your comparison doesn't hold up. Yes, I use a smartphone to make calls, navigate, browse the internet, email, and use social media. But what I do NOT do with the smartphone: take photos and film. I only take photos with my SLR (in the future perhaps with a mirrorless camera).

@Jef Langenarjen, do you know what I find unfortunate? That you feel backed into a corner as a Sony user, often unjustly. I do understand that you experience it that way, but try to see through it. I am an avid Canon user, because I know it inside out and can operate it blindfolded. I also know that Canon performs much less well in terms of dynamic range. In that respect, Canon could still learn a thing or two from Sony. Let's be realistic. Every brand has its pros and cons. Canon and Nikon have traditionally been brands that have already undergone a great deal of development in the analogue era. Sony only entered the market when electronics and digitisation really took off. So don't feel backed into a corner, because there's no need to. Many who switched from the analogue era to the digital camera have remained loyal to their brand. That's it.

@Donald Willemsen @Jeff Langenaeken
Dear Donald, Sony already brought the Mavica to market in 1981 and has been a market leader for a long time. A few years ago they released new successful models that have practically knocked Nikon out and dealt Canon a very sensitive blow. I have never seen so many colleagues switch to another brand.
For a long time, the white Canon lenses were an overwhelming force, but increasingly I see the white Sonys standing next to me...
So Jeff, don't feel discriminated against... Sony delivers top-notch gear and simply holds a solid 2nd place. As a Canon user, I was happy about the arrival of the R5 and the Pro that is planned for this year, because otherwise Canon might also have been finished now that Sony has introduced its new Alpha1... wow, what a top performer... But that one also costs almost as much as a Yeti

Donald Willemsen wrote on Wednesday 17 February 2021 at 11:56  | reply

@Richard, if I could throw money around, I’d buy a Hasselblad with a top-of-the-line lens. Unfortunately, my wallet doesn’t stretch any further than a mid-range crop camera. You don’t need to praise the Sony to the heavens for me, because I’m not interested in that. I can’t afford it anyway. I only look at what my wallet can handle and then choose the most acceptable quality for me. Whatever the camera can’t manage, I’ll correct with Photoshop and/or Luminar AI.

What I want to say is that many pros have the more expensive bodies and lenses and almost all of them can barely make ends meet these days... if their work could also be done with more affordable cameras and lenses then they certainly would, because then it would be easier to have a bit more left over.

Brands indeed don't matter and switching to another one has nothing to do with being familiar or not with an operating system or buttons, but with the enormous costs that come with it. All lenses and peripherals also have to be replaced, and you don't do that because one brand brings something better to the market one time and then another brand the next. I did consider it once... when Canon took a long time to present a counterpart to Sony's top models, but it was mainly the costs that kept me from doing so.
Besides... and that touches on another article by Nando... I once chose Canon because, in my humble opinion, no other brand renders skin tones as beautifully as Canon.... but of course that is opinion and taste.. before everyone starts going at that again. I do find Nikon's RGB recognizable and very beautiful.

PixelDude Raoul wrote on Thursday 18 February 2021 at 10:50  | reply

@ Ynze
Very wise. That's what I'm trying to do more and more too. You see something in the store and nowadays often on the internet. I already have my card in hand ... but put it back. Maybe I'll think differently about it the day after tomorrow.

Paulussie wrote on Friday 19 February 2021 at 00:02  | reply

Late reaction. Good piece Nando, as pretty much always.
A camera is a tool, and if you're a hobbyist, you buy hobby tools. If you occasionally need to saw something, you don't buy a deWalt saw either, at most a Skil...
The same goes for cameras. I'm a Nikon guy myself, because of the lenses I've accumulated over the years I wouldn't switch anyway, but a D5 is that deWalt, after the analog one a D80, which lives on with my son. Now (thanks to a lucky break) a D500, which is actually already proving to be overkill, but the viewfinder is so nice if you wear glasses. But I don't take better photos with it, it just makes things easier.
Started with a luxury box (for the connoisseur: an Ensign full-vue), still took a few special pictures with it, as a 10_12-year-old. Later a Lubitel II, a work of art device costing a few dozen guilders! Always continued modestly with a Zenith, technically imperfect, but still enjoyed the possibilities.
In other words: simple material can provide a lot of satisfaction.