Another “Help me choose my first camera” thread

[Rowas]

Hello everyone. This is my first post, and I hope to learn best practices here on the forum. I notice that these types of threads are pretty common, but they are all a bit different.

I could simply ask “what is the best starter camera”, but I don’t think that really helps answer the question in my situation. Therefore, I think some context is needed.

In my situation, I have never purchased a serious camera, and I have only had the opportunity to use a DSLR camera on a few occasions. I have wanted to get into this type of thing, but did not own the hardware to really delve into experimentation with various settings or features. I recently worked up a small wad of cash I can use on acquiring a camera to get me started, but there are so many to choose from.

The reason behind me getting a camera now is to help with creating photo assets for the website of a new bakery. They’re still in a “soft opening”, but I need a quality camera for some food photography, portraits, and perhaps some time-lapse as well. I’ve done what I could with my smartphone camera, but I know there’s better to be had than what we see on the construction page.

Outside of this particular project, I would like to photograph the nearby landscape (orchards, farmlands) and sky during sudden weather changes which would yield some really nice HDR photos if I knew how to produce them. Having the ability to take good video would be a plus, but not necessary. I’d rather have a camera that takes good photos than mediocre stills and video.

My ballpark is $450 or under.

Here’s where things get a little muddy for me though. I’ve found a DSLR like the Canon EOS Rebel T5 which goes for $399 and seems like a pretty sweet deal. However, I’ve noticed that there are also other cameras like the with the same image sensor size as a large DSLR but with a smaller body (one I'm looking at is the Sony NEX-5). What are the strengths and weaknesses between a “compact system” camera and a larger DSLR camera? Does a compact system provide the same flexibility as a full size DSLR?

Based on my context, what would the best recommendation be? Any models come to mind that would suit me best?


Thanks in advance guys. I'd like to take that first step with as much insight as possible.

 

[weepete]

Hi mate,

I'd say pick a DSLR or mirrorless system with an interchangable lens. At your price point I'd be looking at either a Nikon D3200/3300 or z Canon T3i/T5i, but I'm sure Sony, Fuji and Pentax all have entry level cameras that would do the job you want. Right now Nikon and Sony are slightly ahead of the pack for landscape shots as their sensors capture more dynamic range and have better shadow recovery than most.

Compact cameras typically don't have the same versitility as interchageable lens cameras do, as you are stuck with one lens rather than being able to buy a lens spesifically for what you want to shoot.

I'd really reccomend getting this book Light Science and Magic An Introduction to Photographic Lighting Fil Hunter Steven Biver Paul Fuqua 9780240812250 Amazon.com Books as lighting is critical with product shots. You may also want to start setting a bit of cash aside for a basic lighting setup.

 

[ruifo]

While the Canon Rebel T5 is a fine option, I'd recommend you the Nikon D3200 with 18-55mm kit lens (U$450), in case you think you will be ending up upgrading in the future. The D3200 also have a better sensor producing high-end image quality, even when it's just an entry level DSLR.

In the future, after you save a bit more, if you want better close up shots, I'd recommend getting a macro lens for product fotography (like food and other close-up subjects). Here some options:

• Nikkor AF-S 40mm f/2.8G Micro (U$280)
• Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED Micro (U$530)

Or, to save a bit more, skip the macro lens and just get an extension tube kit, and you can use with the original 18-55mm kit lens, converting it into a macro lens:

• Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set DG (12, 20 & 36mm Tubes) for Nikon (U$130)

If budget is really tight, than the Canon Rebel T5 with 18-55mm kit lens, with a future option for a Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set for Canon is still a good way to go.

Good luck on you decision.

 

[soufiej]

DPReview Gear of the Year Canon Rebel SL1 EOS 100D Digital Photography Review

You can find the SL1 w/ kit lens on Canon's refurbished/direct sale pages for your price range. The kit lens (with image stabilization) is quite good as a start and will not be beaten by anything close to its cost if you pay attention to the requirements of the camera/lens together. You can also pick up the 50mm f 1.8 prime lens for a song which, IMO, for your intended purposes will turn the SL1 into a very difficult combo to beat at the price.

With either of Canon's own 40mm or 24 mm "pancake" lenses mounted on the SL1, you have a package size which can fit in most situations without being obtrusive or complex.

IMO "compact" cameras get a bad rap here in this forum. Not all inexpensive cameras are up to the task, but, then, neither are many more expensive cameras. If they were, you wouldn't need a half dozen interchangeable lenses to suit the situation.

IMO any camera is a set of trade offs and any camera requires the intelligent user to determine which camera/lens system best fits their needs and then to make the decisions which garner the most response from that one camera and lens system. In a sense, a fixed lens camera is rather easy to figure out in this context. With an interchangeable lens system, I feel it's fair to say with each lens change, you have an entirely new system to contend with. The vast majority of manufacturers have several "bridge" cameras to select from which provide a DSLR type shooting experience and very high quality images. A bridge camera can be a great option since it too can fit into a pocket or small bag and go most anywhere.

Not to be trite but, the best camera is the camera you have with you.

 

[TCampbell]

The camera is a bit of a distraction... what the image needs is lighting.

For what you want, ANY camera body will do (with one or two caveats). You won't be stretching the capabilities of the camera body to do food photography.

Lighting, on the other hand, is more important (more important than the body and more important than the lens.) You can't just grab any point & shoot body because the vast majority of lack a good way to work with external speedlites. That's the caveat... the camera body needs to have a hot-shoe and have the ability to work with off-camera flash. BTW, every DSLR on the market today can work with off-camera flash (with the right gear.)

I disagree with the broad generalization that "Nikon and Sony are way ahead". The difference is subtle at base ISO and at high ISO they trade places (Nikon is a bit ahead at base ISO and Canon is ahead at high ISO.) So there is no "best" from that perspective -- it's a tradeoff. If one were serious about landscape photography, you'd probably end up needing gradient ND filters and/or shooting HDR and at that point the difference goes out the window. I can find stunning landscapes shot by photographers using either brand -- it's not a compelling reason to buy one brand vs. another.

Meanwhile, back to the lighting... you could use an advanced point & shoot as long as it's equipped with a hot-shoe and get stunning food photography shots. The photography is done at base ISO (e.g. ISO 100), the camera is on a tripod, the food isn't in motion. So there's nothing stressing the shooting conditions (you don't have to worry about focus performance, etc.)

But you DO have to worry about the lighting.

In the shot above, you've got significantly more light on the left edge of the frame than you have on the right (where it drops off to almost complete blackness.) That needs to be balanced out. You don't want to eliminate shadows completely -- we need shadows to make things look 3-dimensional (otherwise it looks flat) but you don't want strong, harsh shadow.

Also, you've got a focus issue. The decorations on the top-left side are in focus, but the below goes soft.

You can considerably help the lighting just by purchasing a collapsible reflector. One of these: Collapsible Reflectors B H Photo Video

(btw, you want the silvery type -- not gold. Gold creates a yellow-orange color cast in the light which is flattering to accentuating the look of a suntan on a swimsuit model... but not a flattering look for the food you want to shoot.)

If you're shooting near a window, the available light of the window can illuminate one side of the food, and the reflector can bounce light into the other side of the food. The reflected light will be weaker so you'll still get a highlight & shadow... but the difference between highlight & shadow won't be so severe.

Adding off-camera flash would be really helpful too, but the flash needs to be diffused. There's usually some mis-understanding of what that means. If light appears to originate from a single pin-point source, then that light casts a defined shadow. You can see the edges of the shadow/light boundary. If, however, the light is shining through something about the size of a white bed-sheet (just an example... don't run out to the linen store) then the entire sheet appears to "glow" with the light. The object (a pastry in your case) will be illuminate by a soft glow from a very "broad" source (not a pin-point source) and that means the shadowy edges will be very gentle... you get a gradual transition from light to shadow rather than a harsh shadow edge.

I say all this, because what helps is to use a light you can control (such as a speedlite flash) which is shooting through a large diffuser. A photographic "soft-box" is ideal -- but those will cost a bit more. A budget way to get a similar look is to use a "shoot-through" umbrella. It's a white umbrella with a fabric which is translucent -- you point the umbrella at your lighting subject, and mount the flash so that it fires through the fabric of the umbrella and onto your subject. This creates lighting as if the entire umbrella surface was the light source (rather than the relatively tiny size of the flash.)

Here's a link to a budget-priced version of what I am referring to: Westcott 43 Collapsible Umbrella Flash Kit with Stand 2332

This does leave you with the problem of how to get the off-camera flash to fire when the camera takes the shot. For that, you need a way to trigger the flash. Many cameras can use their built-in flash to trigger and off-camera flash if the off-camera flash is compatible with their triggering technology (a Canon flash for a Canon camera or a Nikon flash for a Nikon camera -- OR a 3rd party flash designed to be compatible with Canon's E-TTL or Nikon's i-TTL technology.)

You can ALSO use a budget off-camera flash (like a Yongnuo) and they do make these rather inexpensive trigger accessories (one mounts to your camera's hot-shoe, the other goes on the flash.)

Back to the camera & lens... I use a 100mm macro lens for food photography, but the lens alone is more than the budget you have available. The macro lenses tend to have much higher detail resolving power and I like the focal length (for several reasons.) As it's a macro lens, I can get in quite close (but usually don't need to get in that close.) There are less expensive versions of macro lenses than the one I have and less-expensive ways to get close-up shots without using a macro. I suspect that shooting pastries might require that you get in a bit closer -- so macro could be an essential.

An alternative to owning a true macro lens is to use either "close up filters" (diopters) or something called an "extension tube" for the lens. The close-up "filters" (really diopters) thread onto the filter threads on the front of the lens. They're sort of like a magnifying glass and they allow the lens to focus at a closer distance than otherwise possible. The downside is that almost all of them are a single glass element so the edges distort *just* like a magnifying glass (color separation -- called "chromatic aberration" can be a problem near the edges.) Canon (and, as far as I know, only Canon) makes a special close-up diopter that uses a two-element design in a configuration called an "achromatic doublet". The design is designed to substantially reduce (almost completely) the chromatic aberration (distortions) that happen near the edges of the frame. A close-up filter has to have a thread-diameter that matches the filter thread diameter on the lens. They make 250D "close up" diopter in a 58mm diameter (which fits Canon's kit lens) and also in a 52mm diameter (which I think fits Nikon's kit lens.)

The "other" alternative (ok, there's more than two ways, but I will only mention this one other way) is to use something called an "extension tube". This is a hollow barrel that attaches to the camera body (like a lens) and then the lens attaches to the other end. It passes through the electrical contacts so that the lens and body can still "talk" to each other. There is no glass of any kind inside the barrel. The idea is that by merely increasing the distance between the lens and camera sensor you decrease the minimum focus distance of the camera and this allows you to get closer to a subject. Since there are no optics, they are relatively inexpensive.

Either the close-up diopter or the extension tubes will be considerably less expensive than using a true macro lens (the true macro lens will provide the best quality and functionality.)

A basic DSLR camera body (Canon or Nikon) will do the trick... and the kit lens (typically an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6mm lens) will be adequate to start. You will shoot only at the 55mm focal length.

At a minimum, I'd want a camera body & kit lens (not sure you'd need the close-up capability -- that depends on the subjects), a reflector, and in good lighting I could probably make-do with that. Ideally I'd want a flash and a way to soften the light (shoot-through umbrella or soft-box.)