What camera do I buy? / general gear talk

Ken Rockwell is a penis. His idea of good colour photos is Vivid and then +3 on all settings.

Ha, contentious then! The nikon d90 seems to be a decent shout though? Any other recommendations under £400? I'm guessing for a lens I should be looking for a kit lens?

Also any more 'you're an idiot, just take your sony' or 'this is the best idea you could have' comments welcome too

Lens is probably more important than the body. My first DSLR was a nikon d70 which now seems to go ridiculous cheap on ebay for something that'd still take really good photos. D90 seems a good choice (seems to be 100ish). Am out of touch with nikon lenses, but imagine someone will be able to make suggestions. Lenses hold value better so worth putting more money into that and less into body. Kit lenses generally ok, but if you're only spending 100ish on the body then you could get a higher quality lens.

I think it's a great idea to get a Dslr based on what you've said about the holiday. But take your Sony too. On recent holidays I took a Canon 7d plus a little ricoh gr camera and used both about equally, but for very different things.

That's great, thanks.

used both about equally, but for very different things.

Could you elaborate on this for a newbie please?

DSLR for anything where I didn't mind carrying a camera bag and wanted higher quality pics or would have time to think about pictures I was taking. Mini ricoh camera for taking out cycling in back pocket, and particularly not wanting to distract people with bigger camera. Based on my experience of taking photos in India, the moment you pull out a DSLR people will want to pose for photos which makes for very different pictures. Whereas something like your Sony isn't as noticeable.
Also generally I took b&w photos on the ricoh as I wasn't keen on the colour pics unless I messed around with the raw files in photoshop afterwards.
I scratched the lens on the ricoh and now have an x100s for much the same purpose, though it's less portable and in many ways less useful as a result.

Also this honestly isn't why I started replying... But this has reminded me I've got a nikon d300 and 18-200 vr lens gathering dust. If you want to make me an offer based on a bit under whatever the current ebay rate is, I should probably get rid of them before they depreciate any further.
Though am away for next two weeks, so gives you a chance to do research on whether something more suitable is available. It's not the most compact lens.

I have an RX100 for a pocket camera and it takes decent photos. Noticeably better than my mobile in low light, high contrast, etc.

For various reasons I also own a Sony A5000. Better pictures than the RX100, they've got a bigger sensor in them, and you can get them for £200 or so. Still pretty compact though, although not sure if they're really necessary with you having the RX100.

What I'd probably recommend is the other one I have, Nikon D3200 (or the current model, D3400 maybe). Coupled with the F1.8 prime it takes great pictures for the price but doesn't weigh a ton. You've also the option of adding a zoom or ultra wide.

I find it better than the RX100 or A5000 for a few reasons.

A proper viewfinder is much easier to use than a screen, particularly for zoom/fast moving items.

The fast prime gives more options in low light and is also very clear.

The size/weight of the camera actually makes it a bit more stable when taking pictures. Also means the controls are a bit nicer as there is a bit more space for buttons, etc.

The cheap DSLR route will get you good pictures but it will be much bigger. My RX100 probably gets as much use as my DSLR as it's so easy to carry round.

Shooting RAW and bit of time processing the pictures afterwards will get them looking much better as well, regardless of the camera.

I guess something that can deal with bright skies and shadowed landscapes in the same frame

Most digital cameras can do this (including your RX100), you just need to shoot RAW and post-process

I always try to do stuff "first time" i.e. without any post-processing (takes too much time that I don't have)

I would really recommend learning to process your images, it doesn't take very long.
Some situations are impossible for your camera to get right - eg high contrast.

If you can get a good deal on a 5D, do it. They render differently than all the bodies that come after it and they will be sought after in time.

Following advice on here im now after a Canon A1 body. Did a bit of research and ended up picking up a 50mm lens for a decent price in Arundel. Anyone know of any decent shops in london/brighton that might have one? Or anyone have one for sale?(long shot)

Clock tower cameras in Brighton is a nice shop - have a lot of regular new stuff in - worth giving them a ring.

Don't have one listed on the site but i'll give them a ring in a bit. Cheers!

I would really recommend learning to process your images, it doesn't take very long.
Some situations are impossible for your camera to get right - eg high contrast.

I didn't say I never post-process my images, I just say I try not to... I think if you go out with the idea in your head that "I can take whatever, I'll just post-process it when I get home" you will have a lot harder time than if you go out with the intention of taking a good image first time.

But yeah, you're right, I should probably invest a bit more time in trying to learn some techniques. As I said already, though, I don't have very much time - and have I do a huge backlog of photos.

I don't get this "purist" view on photography. Post processing will never make a shit photo good, but it can make a good photo great.

"I can take whatever, I'll just post-process it when I get home"

Literally nobody thinks this way

I don't get this "purist" view on photography. Post processing will never make a shit photo good, but it can make a good photo great.

Absolutely. I know at least one person who thinks like this and I don't understand it. Photography has always been a two step process, with the lightroom edit or darkroom print the final step.

Amazes me the skill and time that went into darkroom work like Pablo Inirio did at Magnum.

https://theliteratelens.com/2012/02/17/magnum-and-the-dying-art-of-darkroom-printing/

Sounds like I've got some learning to do on that side too. Is lightroom the standard for this kind of processing? Can anyone recommend me a free alternative?

So I'm thinking for a setup to lug around: dslr (yet to be specified), some form of zoom lens, a (35mm??) prime lens, and a gorillapod

I use darktable: https://www.darktable.org

Ubuntu supported, amazing. Thanks.

To process or not to process! There's a place for both approaches, and everything in between. I've gone from lugging two DSLRs, lenses, tripod, flashes, filters etc and processing thousands of RAW images to now mostly shooting jpegs with either my original Fuji X100 or Nikon D750 and some middle-of-the-road lenses. When you have time, the post-process part of photography is great fun and yes, the results will be "better" than what the camera's meter and colour profiles can output. But, for time-poor me, getting the shot "right" - as in, composition and exposure - at the time and being able to share, print and enjoy it quickly is now more important than rinsing every last detail or getting the white balance spot on. And as most cameras can now bracket colour profiles, exposure etc etc, there's even less incentive for me personally to post-process beyond a bit of cropping and straightening.

well said @Timmy2wheels - this is exactly my feelings too.

something that can deal with bright skies and shadowed landscapes in the same frame

How about an iPhone?

I mean, all joking aside (and I know Tina’s not joking) but an iPhone X has an unbelievably good camera. It’s a shame, I rarely use it as I normally have a camera on me.

I know Tina’s not joking

I'm joking / not joking.

Of course proper DSLR's have their place, and all those mirrorless systems and whatnot, they can deliver impressive quality.
My perception is the majority of people just want an easy way to "great pictures", which basically means pressing a button and getting great exposure, great colours, a picture that looks like "what I see", without much fucking around, in good quality (really more than good enough for instagram, facebook, and even a slideshow on an iMac screensaver).
Oh, and this "her face is sharp but all the rest is unsharp" is now possible as well, also just with a touch of a button.

There are more and more situations where I realise I would not need pro DSLR and a couple of fine lenses - there's some idiot standing next to me taking a great (!) picture with his iPhone and sending it over to his mother, while I'm still swapping my prime lenses around and adjusting the camera.

And from what I read on here I gather a lot of people would indeed be very happy with a good smartphone camera, because it's easy (!) and they always have it in their hand (!), once they get over the illusion they need expensive / new / other gear.