Advice on camera

Byrnew · Jul 12, 2019

Hello all,

I am still trying to decide on a first camera. I have narrowed it down to 3 types. Would there be much in the diference with the quality of the photos from each of these ? Nikon d3400 / d3500 , sony a6000 and the fujifilm xt20 with 16-50mmF3.5-5.6 Lens ( i see a used fuji for sale there and I know there expensive new )

Thanks

Wayne.

Derrel · Jul 12, 2019

Not much difference. You are the biggest determinant of photo quality. " it's not the arrow, it's the archer. "

Byrnew · Jul 12, 2019

Derrel said:
Not much difference. You are the biggest determinant of photo quality. " it's not the arrow, it's the archer. "

Thanks again Derrel ;-)

Designer · Jul 12, 2019

Byrnew said:
Hello all,

I am still trying to decide on a first camera. I have narrowed it down to 3 types. Would there be much in the diference with the quality of the photos from each of these ? Nikon d3400 / d3500 , sony a6000 and the fujifilm xt20 with 16-50mmF3.5-5.6 Lens

Since image quality has quite a lot to do with the lenses, what you should be thinking about is; the entire system, and the lenses that will be compatible for future upgrades.

ac12 · Jul 12, 2019

I put a pro grade lens on my D7200 and noticed significantly better detail than with my 18-140 lens.
So whatever kit lens you use on a Nikon (and likely the others as well), that lens will limit your IQ. It is the weakest link in the chain.
Actually the lens is the primary link in the chain, not the camera.

Tropicalmemories · Jul 12, 2019

All the cameras you list will take very similar quality of images, assuming each has a similar quality lens attached.

But each one of those bodies has very different handling - so try similar models in a shop first to see which you like.

My personal preference is the Fuji - but the lens on the one you listed is the slightly more basic one. It's a good, sharp lens, but maximum aperture is a bit limited. If you can find a Fuji X-T20, X-T2 or 3 or XT100 with the better 18-55 f2.8 max aperture lens at a decent price - go for it!

Byrnew · Jul 13, 2019

Thanks all for the replies much appreciated;-)

Byrnew · Jul 17, 2019

Hi all , could anyone advise me what the following means . ISO 200–12800, expandable to 100–51200.
I see some cameras have 100-51200 native but others have iso 200-12800 . Is that a bad thing ?

Thank you.

Wayne

Dacaur · Jul 19, 2019

A high ISO allows you to take pictures in less light, but there is a trade-off. Higher iso will have more/larger "grain", basically, Veri high ISO images will have random pixels of black and white spread over any non black or white portion of the photo. (Google "high ISO grain")
For the most part, anything over 800-1000 iso will result in a non printable picture. I mean, its probably better than no picture at all if you are wanting to document something, but no one is going to look at it and go "wow", and you aren't going to be able to blow it up and hang it on the wall.
High ISO pictures normally look like they were taken with a terrible camera.
(Of course there are exceptions, sometimes that's the look you are going for.)

Original katomi · Jul 19, 2019

ac12 said:
I put a pro grade lens on my D7200 and noticed significantly better detail than with my 18-140 lens.
So whatever kit lens you use on a Nikon (and likely the others as well), that lens will limit your IQ. It is the weakest link in the chain.
Actually the lens is the primary link in the chain, not the camera.

Same applies to canon though their nifty fifty is the exception to the rule of price ver quality
the camera is only as good as the person behind it, most of us will change camera bodies before we change lens esp once we have good glass.

Original katomi · Jul 19, 2019

With the high iso sometimes you can loose some of the noise if you print in b&w it’s not a new problem fast film used to suffer from grain (c. 1970s-1990s)

Soocom1 · Jul 19, 2019

Byrnew said:
Hi all , could anyone advise me what the following means . ISO 200–12800, expandable to 100–51200.
I see some cameras have 100-51200 native but others have iso 200-12800 . Is that a bad thing ?

Short answer... no.

There is an unfortunate aspect in modern engineering of consumer products where those making them seem to think those consuming them are stupid. (Can we say idiot lights... err.. nevermind.)

The cameras of past (film) has film speed settings as low as 6 speed and crept up to a maximum for most applications of 6400.
There are in fact many cinematic films (cine) that run down to a 2 speed and was also used as reproduction and archiving film from the past.
But marketing the way it is these days seems to think that people want higher speeds more as a bragging right than actual useful application. So now we have the "magical" 3,000,000,000,000 speed sensor (yes I am exaggerating) and somehow thats going to give folks stop motion photography and discovery of ancient aliens and jimmy Hoffa.
But no physical shutter is actually capable of moving that fast without exploding. The sensor is being switched on and off rapedly and therefore negating the physical shutter alltoegther.
This is why mirrorless works the way they do.

But what most dont know is that the high ISO numbers as previously pointed out affect the image quality and render in many cases the mechanisms of the lens in weird ways.
The sensitivity of the picture is part in part of the overall function (the "f" in f stop) and unless you know how to compensate for such things as reciprocity failure (What is Reciprocity Failure? - The Film Photography Project) , inverse square etc, your spinning wheels.

First thing is to understand how the sensitivity (speed) works to understand WHY those numbers are what they are, and NO they are NOT fake!