What camera do I buy? / general gear talk

I have a galaxy s7 which is constantly impressive and enjoyable to take photos with, I want a camera though

You can take my bag of bright primes from my stiff dead fingers

Did lol at ‘make her face sharp’.

But yeah, totally agree. My girlfriend has a 70d with kit lens or something like that. Never takes it anywhere. But she sure does take a shit load of photos on her phone. Some of them are half decent, too.

iPhone X featuring my dog.

1 Attachment

Oops! Didn't see this before I responded.

You're probably right, I could manage with my smartphone, and will continue to when on my bike etc but I've already noticed taking more time with photos on my Sony, I think that would extend further with a dslr and it would be more of a process, which I want to try

That's awesome

Also, an iPhone X costs a grand.

Friend of mine - formerly a pro tog, now primarily doing video - reckons that still photography is going to be obsolete in a few years' time; says that rapidly-increasing video resolution means that we'll just film everything then pick high-res stills from the footage. Discuss.

I've had cameras with video capabilities but have never had an interest in video filming. Not sure why, maybe I just don't have a quick enough mind to grasp all that's going on with the moving pictures these days - the rapid fire techniques utilized in modern films turn me around, even get me dizzy at times. Staring at a photograph or painting gives me a chance to make up some meaning that I can attach to it, or even just observe colour or shadow or shape.
Also, learning new shit is hard.

Obviously straying away from camera chat now. But yeah - it’s a pill that was hard to swallow at first, but I use it more than any other device I own. iPhone 8s aren’t that much cheaper. I did try a cheaper non-iPhone but just didn’t really like it.

This phone is unbelievably capable. Good value for money if I really consider what I do with it/how much I use it. I know cheaper phones can do the same thing, but this just does those things really, really well.

Also, the comment above about still photography dying. Nonsense.

Definitely for certain applications. With Sports and Wildlife it's probably happening already, especially with the quality of the cameras they use in those fields.
At a more personal level I'd imagine there's people doing similar with Street Photography and Family photos.

Re Phone Photography. I prefer a viewfinder as I need reading glasses which phones don't have (yet). I'd like to see more experiments like the Lumix CM-1 - get an EVF on that I'd be happy.

Shame Sony are always hampered by internal squabbles, they should be knocking it out the park with the cameras in their phones.

Nikon and Canon should be ploughing all their money into software and android devices instead of faffing around with trying to sell full frame mirrorless to a decreasing amount of pixel peeping old men.

An eloquent and considered response! I can see it from both POVs: in many situations (think weddings, fashion, sport and wildlife as mentioned), the client might want both film footage and stills. Why pay for both when very high quality stills can be extracted from high-frame-rate video, meaning you'll never miss the decisive moment? On the other hand, if your primary aim is stills, who wants to sift through hours of film footage, trying to decide between dozens of nearly identical frames?

Ha, sorry, was on the bus and couldn't be bothered to type anymore. For me, I'm never going to just walk around with a camera recording mountains to then skim through the footage to try and find a great photo. Also, twenty photos in RAW versus a 4k 60fps video that lasts for ten minutes? There's only so much storage a device can have.

One of the reasons I really enjoy shooting film is that at most, I make about 144 photos per month on average. Compare that to my girlfriend who takes about 144 photos per week on her iPhone, most of which are junk... Storage is never an issue for me. Your friend has a point and @ste_s is right - it probably is happening in sports and wildlife and I guess maybe in paparazzi-esque journalism too, but for actually taking photos, for me? No way.

That's more like it. Certainly agree on the film thing. If it didn't come with the cost I'd certainly shoot it, partly for nurturing the virtue of patience as one waits to fill a roll, send it off, receive prints/scans etc. That level of differed gratification is hard to achieve in the modern world.

Indeed. I’ve kind of just gotten over the cost factor, given how cheap film equipment can be (though the price is obviously going up).

Tina gave me some good advice when I moaned about the cost and said ‘take less/better photos.’ Totally right. After reading that, the number of times I’ve put my viewfinder up to my eye, thought about what I’m seeing, thought, actually would I want this printed? Would I publish this on the internet? If the answer is no, you don’t take the photo. And yes, it does mean that sometimes I may not finish a roll of film for three weeks, but at the end, after they’ve been sent off and I’ve got them back... man, the satisfaction is immeasurable.

This in spades. Being forced to only take ~100 photos over the course of a trip makes you really consider if a shot is worth taking, or how you can improve it

Tina gave me some good advice when I moaned about the cost and said ‘take less/better photos.’ Totally right.

Well... I think part of the process of being able to take better photos is shooting lots of photos and learning from it.... So no.
I think the cost of film is something you have to live with or balance out by mixing it with shooting digital.

I agree but I do still think Tina's advice was very valuable. There's no point in taking photos for the sake of it, was my point. I remember a couple of years ago I got back from a holiday and had used 30 out of 36 exposures. I just shot 6 blanks... no way would I do that now.

I just shot 6 blanks

There's always photos of cats to use up a roll

I was in a dark bar tonight and took the same pickup on an iPhone (8 I think) and Sony alpha 5000 (the one with an APS-C sensor).

There was a huge difference in the pictures, the Sony had much more background detail, coped way better with the dark.

I'd still say that although a phone may compete in decent light there's no substitute for having a decent sensor size and lens in low light.

(Admittedly this happened as the lens on my android phone is screwed, I probably wouldn't have had the camera with me otherwise...)

I don't doubt that at all - I am not arguing that an iPhone is there to replace a digital camera - I am merely stating that for 75% of people, an iPhone camera is more than adequate.

Thanks to a fair bit of inspiration from this thread and @tnts nice photos here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/26643008@N07/sets/72157669449062517/with/29740037098/

I decided to have a good play with my sony last night, messing on with aperture and shutter speed. Good fun! But time consuming. Just came to say thanks.

These look really nice. Are these straight out of the camera?

That's a nice set!
Makes me wish I had been there - miss the alps!

I've been wondering the same thing. They have that very desirable look to them and I want to know more!

Oh, sorry, I misread that. I thought they were yours. Yes, I want to know more too - I am considering buying a digital camera again for multiple reasons that I cba to explain and the RX100 does keep popping up as a good solution to my needs... which are basically a digital point and shoot with a viewfinder...