Here's a new type of thing I made, and looking for device advice

[Misery]

Okay, so, I'll start by sharing this thing... it's not a drawing this time. Today, I have a photo for you. Here:

Now, this photo is heavily altered, and started out looking like this:

f

To explain, this project was a gift for my father... this particular sign has some meaning to him from his childhood (he actually has another sign from a different part of that road that's just sitting in the basement here for some reason). My stepmother came up with the idea, took the gray photo with her phone, sent it to me, and just asked me to "do things" to it and we'd get it printed as a gift. The photo was taken in the middle of the night for who knows what reason, and that wouldnt do, so it was time to get creative. The final image was professionally printed and framed and now hangs on a wall.

Now, I went into this not really knowing what I was doing. I have Photoshop, I changed my Adobe subscription to also include Lightroom, and I've got two other image processing programs that I can work with here, each good at different things, and a certain other major AI that I can ask questions of while going through the learning process of the Adobe programs (Photoshop in particular being notoriously hard to use, I get lost trying to find the bloody functions I need.) The end result here is a combination of using Photoshop and Lightroom, but also using program #3 (which I suddenly cant remember the name of), which can use a high-end AI of its own to produce a wide variety of effects. The image AI was used to deal with some splotchy weirdness and noise that occurred during the alteration process, as well as to massively upscale the thing (seriously the final result is *huge*). Now, the end result isnt perfect... the powerlines in the background got a little weird and I just could not figure out how to fix that, and same with the grass. But hey, when the client just places an order of "do something" and I have no idea what I'm doing, well, I think it came out decently.

Now, I also recently had the idea of a hobby sort of thing I could do along with my father, who always expressed an interest in photography. We could go to different locations, he could take photos, and I could then do stuff with them. That sounds good.

Phone cameras just wont do though, so the question I have for anyone here is: what sorts of proper cameras might you recommend? I've tried browsing around myself but I have no idea what I'm looking at, it's just this bewildering array of gizmos that I dont understand.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated!

 

[Outdated]

Hi Misery, I'd recommend an entry level professional camera, something where you can change lenses for different applications. These cameras can be as complicated or as simple to use as you want them to be and are a great way to learn more about photography.

When it comes to professional photography the are only two brands worth looking at - Nikon and Canon.

For start up and hobby enthusiasts a camera with a twin lens kit is probably the best way to start. You get the camera, a wide lens for your party and happy snaps as well as landscapes, and a zoom lens for those further away objects.

You can get a Mirrorless two lens kit for around the $1000 to $1200 mark. If the internal workings of the camera are of no interest to you then an older DSLR camera is a lot cheaper now that the new mirrorless cameras are out. I recently bought this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Rebel-EF18-55mm-75-300mm-Double-Zoom/dp/B0101RW3QK/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=canon+2+lens+kit&qid=1689316601&sr=8-3

 

[TBRS1]

I've always been partial to Canon, but mostly because my first "real" camera was a Canon. The Nikon would likely be just as good.

(my experience is that the average person wants a fancy camera, but never learns how to use the controls so they set it to "auto" and use it like a cheap point & shoot. So if you don't have one, get a good modern photography book also)

 

[Aspychata]

Very creative Misery. You do surprise me with all the interesting things you do. Like the sign, l would love that with my soon to be live partner and my name intersecting. It's a beautiful background you did. It beats the two stupid names drawn in the sand l see all the time for sale.

 

[Nervous Rex]

I have no suggestions, since my art skills are limited to drawing straight lines with the aid of a ruler.

But I just want to say that photo is amazing! It is truly beautiful.

 

[Rodafina]

I recently purchased the Canon Rebel T100.

It is very affordable and perfect for amateur photography, particularly that which will be digitally altered. You can easily transfer the pictures over a Wi-Fi network.

You can choose to purchase different lenses over time if you find that the standard one is not sufficient. I ended up getting a telephoto lens in addition to the standard 18-55mm lens.

---

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PDJ3Y4N?ref_=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_2YV5KZ1F5C9KXMB2W874

 

[Dagan]

The most important thing about cameras and ensuring clarity is that you want a high level of "optical" zoom. Companies try to sway folks with high "digital" zoom counts, but that's not what you really want. High optical zoom allows you to crop, zoom, layer, photoshop, etc. and will keep much better clarity. It also better ensures that what you see on your end of whatever software is what you will get if you print it out and/or enlarge a printout. Pixel counts matter, too...or DPI counts...but neither of those are going to matter if you don't first have a high optical level lens on your camera. Both film and digital cameras can be found with great optical counts.

 

[Slime_Punk]

I got a Canon rebel t7 a few years ago and it's basically the only thing I'll ever need as an amateur who does mostly design work on the photos in post.

Also, you can fix pretty much anything in any photo with something like PS or even Affinity Photo, depending on how much you're willing to put into it. Some cases are totally worth it, depending on the goal

 

[MildredHubble]

I'm at the poverty side of the digital camera scale and just got a 16 Megapixel Fuji FinePix S(something or other). It has quite a good lense on it and despite not having a tripod, I got a pretty darned good picture of the moon for the first time ever. Sure it's fuzzy but, waaaaay better than anything I've taken on my phone. I will probably post it soon.

I can definitely highly recommend getting something with a darned good lense. My dad has a higher end Fuji camera which is basically a entry level DSLR but with a fixed lense. Much superior to what I have.

I still haven't figured out how to use most of the features, but I'd imagine you can get something several orders of magnitude better than the camera my dad has for around 900 of your local currency units.

If Nikon or Canon (saw one today in CEX without a lense for £2,500!!!) are out of your budget, or you want something pretty fancy for a more budget friendly price (maybe to get going and learn with) I'd recommend looking at the higher end Fuji Fine Pix Bridge/DSLR style cameras. Heck, you can pick up a camera like my dad's for £60 used now and chuck it on a bag each day to learn all the fancy stuff, then maybe keep it as a spare if you want to migrate to something posher

 

[Shevek]

I still have a big collection of 35 mm lenses and gear, but am very satisfied with my "travel cam." It is a Canon 260 HS I got used for $200 six years ago, from someone who was only using her 'phone. Just today, I learned to use another of its creative tricks. It has a 10 X optical zoom, and enough controls that I'm not endlessly scrolling through menus. When getting into any new technology, I'd try to buy used with the hope of re-selling at a small loss once I figured out what my real priorities were in the new field of opportunities.

 

[tazz]

All good advice so far. To add my two-cents:

My interpretation of an entry-level "proper" camera would be:
You can change the lenses.
You can manually and separately set the aperture, ISO and shutter speed (using buttons and wheels on the device without having to navigate through menus on screen).

I once happened to be teaching in a school alongside a professional journalist who had this $5000 camera. At the time I had just purchased a Nikon for about $600 - the sort of thing that Outdated mentioned, with wide and zoom lenses. I also purchased a 50mm fixed lens for portrait photography which was from the same brand but in their medium quality range (the two lenses that came with the camera were from their basic range).

The first thing to note is that the better quality lens really did make a difference - the colors and lighting were significantly richer. There were other ranges of lens even more expensive again. So to me it makes sense to check that the base camera is compatible with the medium and high-end lenses because then you can upgrade without replacing the whole thing. Some cheaper cameras had a different socket and wouldn't take the better lenses.

The second thing is that this journalist showed me how to manually adjust the aperture, ISO and shutter speed. It took a bit of practice but in the end I was able to get better quality results than the "auto" setting.

 

[Nervous Rex]

Here's a random thought: Find a beginner's [community] college course on photography and look up the camera they recommend for the course. It'll probably be a decent camera to start with.

 

[MildredHubble]

Here's a random thought: Find a beginner's [community] college course on photography and look up the camera they recommend for the course. It'll probably be a decent camera to start with.

My dad did this and at the time they recommended his last Fuji Finepix camera that he stuck with for years. Still a very serviceable camera but unfortunately it used the scarce XD cards as storage. I think the "nice to have" recommendation was a Nikon. They certainly seem to turn up regularly in my local CEX. I was tempted by a 10 Megapixel Nikon they were selling with an impressive looking lense for £70. But I resisted since I need to learn first with my current camera. It was only £14 used on eBay but to me it's like a Saturn V rocket.

With a super high quality lense, you can take some amazing pictures as the lense makes up for the lack of resolution in a way. Cheap point and shoot cameras tend to "cook the books" with digital zoom. So even a very humble DSLR will kick the ass of most compact cameras from what I've seen in my admittedly, limited experience.

 

[Outdated]

I got a pretty darned good picture of the moon for the first time ever.

Here's mine from about 15 years ago. Taken on a cheap Canon DSLR with a 300mm zoom lens.

It was still daylight and blue sky when I took this pic.

 

[MildredHubble]

Here's mine from about 15 years ago. Taken on a cheap Canon DSLR with a 300mm zoom lens.

It was still daylight and blue sky when I took this pic.

View attachment 109127

That's an awesome picture! Mine doesn't quite compare, but I have always wanted to see the details of the moon in a picture that I know I took myself. It makes it seem more local. I think I achieved that, even if it looks more detailed when zoomed out. If that makes sense?

 

[Dagan]

I apologize for word salad and not being as detailed on point. Oops. Yes, to all per the lenses and if interchangeable being the big thing. That's what I meant, as well. The options of manual, optical lenses is what will serve you best. No matter if the body / processor is digital or not.

The first time I used a RedCam, it was on Mt. Le Conte back in 2009. It was late August, and we had almost tropical weather the whole shoot. It was hot, bright and sunny hour one. It was cloudy, smokey hour two. It was dark and storming hour three. So random. That camera body / processor is no bigger than my two fists put together, but the magic and saving grace comes from the ability to use (interchangeable and from small to huge) optical lenses to one's content. There was never a problem having enough light or clarity. Light is basically where digital lenses and zooms and focus features really go wonky, actually. "Digital" doesn't quite understand human optics and light required...yet. I imagine it's going to get there eventually. Just not yet.

I've filmed with said "cheap Canon DSLR's" as well - don't discount them at all - the results look as good as many films you've likely all watched before because, again, the optical lenses it gives one the ability to use make all the difference. They allow shutter-speed and aperture options to matter big time.

I don't consider myself a pro, still, though. I just have experience and have remembered things. All of this said, yes, there's always still a post production process, but if you don't have the front end / first-in clarity of optics, the options in post will be way more limited. As reference to this sort of area, I like to suggest folks try and find behind the scenes of when David Fincher filmed his movie, SEVEN. The sets were always very well lit...quite bright, actually. His lenses used were of obvious optical quality, as you'd think. The point being, he had a lot of light and clarity going on first-in, and the resulting film we all got to watch was, of course, very dark and gritty...but still clear. The dark, grittiness was all done in post and only worked out like we saw because of what he ensured on the front end.

Sorry for rambling.

 

[Outdated]

That's an awesome picture!

That's the full frame of the picture too, not cropped.

To take good pictures takes a bit of learning, and it needs proper hardware. Interchangeable lenses and full control over aperture and exposure. Here's a full sized copy of the picture, 10 megapixel, taken in 2007.

300mm lens (sensor crop factor makes it the equivalent of a 486mm lens)
ISO 400
Aperture f:16
Exposure 1/200 second

 

[MildredHubble]

That's the full frame of the picture too, not cropped.

To take good pictures takes a bit of learning, and it needs proper hardware. Interchangeable lenses and full control over aperture and exposure. Here's a full sized copy of the picture, 10 megapixel, taken in 2007.

300mm lens (sensor crop factor makes it the equivalent of a 486mm lens)
ISO 400
Aperture f:16
Exposure 1/200 second

View attachment 109241

You can really zoom in on your picture and the detail doesn't get soft as quickly as the photos I took! I need to transfer mine so I can post it here. I'm not entirely sure of the settings but I did use a short exposure time. To be fair, my camera isn't the most simple in terms of how you change the settings. I haven't got much of a frame of reference, but maybe with Fuji cameras, that's not their strong suit.

 

[Outdated]

I haven't got much of a frame of reference, but maybe with Fuji cameras, that's not their strong suit.

They're more of a "happy snap" camera. Well suited to group photos and urban landscapes but you can't really zoom that far but they do take good pictures in what they were designed for.

If you're a little in front with the quids you could maybe look at buying a cheap DSLR. Right now they're going at around half price because everyone wants the new mirrorless cameras. You can get an entry level professional camera and two lenses similar to what I posted above for around £500.

 

[MildredHubble]

That's the full frame of the picture too, not cropped.

To take good pictures takes a bit of learning, and it needs proper hardware. Interchangeable lenses and full control over aperture and exposure. Here's a full sized copy of the picture, 10 megapixel, taken in 2007.

300mm lens (sensor crop factor makes it the equivalent of a 486mm lens)
ISO 400
Aperture f:16
Exposure 1/200 second

View attachment 109241

Ok, finally got my phone to connect to my computer so I could use it to post my pictures of the moon

So here we go... All were taken free hand with me just trying different random settings at 12MP.