Beginner in need of help

Vark · Aug 7, 2017

Hello,

I am sure you are probably already tired of newbies requesting advice on camera equipment, but I am simply overwhelmed by the amount of information on the internet.

My name is Sven, I am 24 years old and I will start a small journey soon, which I want to take as an opportunity to get a decent camera (I have been taking pictures with my phone or the DSLR of my father before).

I want to use the camera mainly for landscapes and portraits, so a decent zoom would be nice, but definitely not necessary. It would be very nice to get decent photos in poorly-lit conditions (evening etc.). Also, as I will probably travel a lot, I do not want to carry a huge DSLR with me all the time, a more compact camera would be good.

EDIT: A viewfinder in the camera would be nice, though.

I know enough about photography to not always use automatic mode, but little more.

My budget is quite variable. It would be nice to get a camera for about 300€ (sorry, european here), but if the price is justified I am willing to spend twice as much.

At the moment I am tending towards either the Sony Alpha 6000 (I really like that you can change the objectives, although to be realistic I can probably not afford more than the kit one) or the Sony RX100 (I heard that despite the smaller sensor it is really good).

Could you maybe point me towards a direction where to look and what to look for? Which of the upper two would better fit my needs?
Sorry for bothering you with these newbie questions!

Kind regards,
Sven

Designer · Aug 7, 2017

Vark said:
I want to use the camera mainly for landscapes and portraits, so a decent zoom would be nice, but definitely not necessary. It would be very nice to get decent photos in poorly-lit conditions (evening etc.). Also, as I will probably travel a lot, I do not want to carry a huge DSLR with me all the time, a more compact camera would be good.

Hello, and welcome!

An "entry level" DSLR is smaller and lighter than the "enthusiast level" DSLRs. A zoom lens might not be the best choice for landscapes and portraits.

Here is one possibility that you can find in Europe:

Nikon D3300 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens (Black) 1532 B&H Photo

A fine starter camera for about 380 euros.

cherylynne1 · Aug 7, 2017

Hi, Sven!

Which Sony RX-100 are you considering? (There are five models.) I'm guessing the original, based on your budget?

There are two big trade-offs between the RX-100 and the a6000 with kit lens. The larger sensor and ability to change lenses are a huge advantage for the a6000. The larger sensor, as you mentioned, is better for low light. However, the RX-100 has a much more compact size and it has a zoom lens with a much wider aperture than the a6000's kit lens, which will help in low light. In my experience, the wider aperture will not completely offset the smaller sensor...in low light, the a6000 will do better. But it will help.

Now, if you can get a prime lens for the a6000 (something like the Sigma 30 2.8 would be a good walking around focal length at a budget price) then that would have a major advantage in low light situations. The disadvantage is of course that it's adding on to your budget and that you would have both the kit zoom and the prime to carry around.

Both cameras are very popular for travel, and both can do amazing things. Based on what you said, I would lean towards the RX-100. Unless you intend to get very serious about photography or perhaps become a professional, you probably don't need the low light or lens-changing abilities of a mirrorless. If you intend to print 8x10 or smaller and/or post photos to Instagram/Facebook/etc, the RX-100 would be very well suited to your needs.

Vark · Aug 7, 2017

Thank you both very much for your replies!
I am not a big fan of Facebook etc., my main purpose for these photos is to print them (collect the good ones in a book, and one or two maybe for the wall)

My main focus is of course the image quality.. I have heard some complaints about the standard (kit) objective of the alpha6000, so I am interested if the image quality of this camera with the kit lens is still better than the one of the RX-100. Right now the alpha 6000 is on sale on amazon (506€ incl. SEL-P1650 objective), which is of course tempting...

And can you maybe give any information how the Nikon you mentioned compares to the other two? I am sorry if I appear as a total newbie..

cherylynne1 · Aug 7, 2017

Probably it would just be easiest to compare photos and see what works better for you. Here are some photos taken with the Sony a6000 with kit lens: Search: Sony a6000 16-50 pz | Flickr

And here are some taken with the RX-100 (although some are taken with later models...not sure how to filter those out): Search: Sony RX-100 | Flickr

Both are very capable cameras. There's a lot of hate out there for the kit lens on the Sony, but it can take good photos, and many of the flaws are automatically corrected by either in-camera or computer software. It's never going to be as good as a prime, and it doesn't show off that stellar sensor, but it works well as a beginner lens to help you learn what you like to shoot. Most kit lenses are pretty unimpressive (and in my opinion, most zooms in general are pretty unimpressive compared to primes.) The lens on the RX-100 is superior, but the sensor could be limiting depending on how low the light is.

In summary: The Sony kit lens isn't that bad, but if it's the only lens you ever intend to buy, you'd be better off with a fixed lens camera like the RX-100.

Vark · Aug 8, 2017

Thank you very much for your help!

I think although my heart wants to go for the alpha 6000, the RX-100 is the more reasonable choice! You have helped me a lot, thank you!

jaomul · Aug 8, 2017

The a6000 would in my opinion be the better option. The kit lens on cams is often dissed just because you can get better, but a 16-50 lens is handy and you can add others later.

As you are travelling a micro four thirds camera might be a nice option, they are lighter, and the lenses are smaller. A Panasonic gx85 with a 12-60mm lens should be in around 600 at the moment after Panasonic cashback deal.

If you were happy to go second hand, you'd do a little better for your money

chuasam · Aug 8, 2017

RX100 and the A6000 are both good choices.
Also consider the Olympus OMD EM10 II.

Vark · Aug 11, 2017

Thank you all for your help! After your input I bought the alpha 6000, both because it was on sale and because the possible versatility appeals to me.

The images that this camera creates are amazing! Even with the 'bad' standard kit lens it surpasses my expectations by far!

I have one issue with this camera: As I have a feeling that in the jpeg a lot of information is lost I want to store the images as raw files. When I open those with darktable (I am using ubuntu on my laptop) there are dark corners in the images, which are not shown in the preview of the camera. A quick google search told me that this is due to lens distortion that is corrected (and the rest then cropped) by the camera. Is this correct? (Is this a normal issue with the alpha6000?)

Also, unfortunately darktable has no lens correction preset for the alpha6000 (or I am unable to find it). Is there a way to circumvent this problem or is there a program that can do the lens correction (ideally for free for ubuntu, but windows is also fine and if paid programs are better its also fine).

You guys have been a great help for a beginner that is simply overstrained with all the new stuff that is coming!

cherylynne1 · Aug 11, 2017

Congratulations! I also have the a6000, and I love it.

I'm not familiar with that particular problem. I have the paid subscription to Lightroom, which is generally considered the standard for photographers. It has lens corrections for that lens, so I've never had to deal with that, even with RAW files. You're correct that jpeg files will lose information but should also make lens corrections like that. You could try shooting in RAW + jpeg, so that you have both available to you until you get this issue sorted out.

I unfortunately don't know much about the lens corrections available with free programs. However, did Sony software come with it? I seem to remember some kind of Sony software for downloading RAW files, and I would think that it would include lens corrections for their lenses.

Vark · Aug 11, 2017

Curiously the lens is available for corrections, but the body is not. Right now I am on vacation and only have my laptop running ubuntu, so software-wise I am limited unfortunately.

The problem itself only occurs at small focal lengths (16mm-18mm), so I am pretty certain that it is a lens-thing. I uploaded a sample-image that shows the problem:

cherylynne1 · Aug 11, 2017

I'm not seeing the photo, but I'm pretty sure I have heard about this problem before. I've never heard of the software that you're running, however, so I can't really be much help. This forum doesn't have many Sony shooters either, so you might have better luck trying to post this question on a Sony-APSC-specific forum, like this one on DPreview: Sony Alpha / Nex E-mount (APS-C) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Vark · Aug 19, 2017

Thank you for your hint, I was able to solve my problem there!

Vark · Aug 22, 2017

Okay. You warned me, I did not listen, now it happened: I am hooked to the idea of buying an additional lens. I do not have the appropriate budget yet, but I want to know what to prepare for.

I am basically taking three kinds of pictures: Portraits, night scenes and landscapes. What I particularly like (if not love) is focusing on one object and making everything else blurry (I know this has a certain name here, and you are probably banging your heads now at how stupid I am but I am afraid to lose the wrong term

).
From my understanding this means that I need a wide aperture (is the focal length important for this effect?). Also, for night scenes a wide aperture also seems convenient, although I mostly do not have the trouble of shooting fast-paced scenes, so a lower shutter speed is also fine at this part.

As I have seen on this board, many people race for the widest aperture and the lenses get exceptionally expensive. Unfortunately I do not (and do not plan to) make my living with photography so I can not spend a 4-figure amount of money on a lens.
In the previous posts the lens Sigma 30 2.8 was recommended. The price of this lens is of course very appealing to me, as I would not have to save up for too long to afford that. Also, from what I have heard, at this price segment the lens is a true masterpiece. (Plus, I do most of my pictures at about this focal length, which would also be convenient)

I could afford more expensive lenses (with wider apertures) simply by saving up for longer, but I want to ask you if it would be worth waiting, or if this lens would be a good fit for my needs.

My next investment would be a telezoom lens (sometimes I see things at a certain distance, some crazy surfer, an interesting bird etc. and it bugs me that I can not get detailed pictures of them), but that would have to wait for a little longer.

cherylynne1 · Aug 22, 2017

The 30 2.8 is excellent for its price.

The two terms that are often used interchangeably but are not actually interchangeable are bokeh and depth of field. You're probably right to not use either, because many would have jumped all over you for it.

Depth of field refers to how much of the photo is in focus, for example, a very narrow depth of field would have just an eye in focus and even the tip of the nose is slightly blurred, while a deep depth of field would have the entire body and the background in focus. The narrower the depth of field, the blurrier the background will be. You're right that the blurriness is determined by both the aperture (lower numbers=wider aperture=narrower depth of field) and by focal length (longer focal length=blurrier background.) It is also affected by how close the subject is to the camera, and by how far the background is behind them.

Bokeh, on the other hand, is the quality of the blurred areas. Is the background soft and smoothly blurred, like a watercolor? Or do the big balls of light have jagged edges? Are the balls even and circular, or are they more like cat's eyes with sharp edges?

Shorter focal lengths, like the 30 2.8, will not have massively blurry backgrounds unless the subject is relatively close to the camera and the background is very very far away. It will be a bit blurrier than the kit lens, but not by a ton. I do still think it's an excellent purchase, however. It will be considerably sharper and opening to 2.8 will let in quite a bit more light than the kit lens.

The biggest competition in Sony lenses would be the Sony 35 1.8 (for APS-C.) That lens is around $450 at full retail price. I own that lens, and it is by far my most used lens. It has basically replaced the kit lens for me, and I only use other lenses when I need extra reach or am doing an actual photoshoot. But it is my everyday lens. I will say that it's probably not worth double the cost of the Sigma, especially if you're not certain you need the 1.8 vs the 2.8 aperture or OSS. Still, you can only take that lens from me when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Other choices are things like the Zeiss Touit 32, and the Sony full frame 35/2. Honestly, I wouldn't even look at those. They're insanely expensive, and at this point in your photography, you won't notice the difference. After a few years, it might be worth the investment.

In case I'm not being clear: The Sigma 30 is an excellent first choice. I would keep an eye out for the Sony 35 1.8 if you can find a good deal on it, because it has a few advantages, but otherwise, buy the Sigma 30 with no regrets.