# How much sensor do you really need?



## fmw (Jun 3, 2016)

Beginners normally don't and shouldn't spend a fortune on a professional camera to learn the photography craft.  It takes less camera than you think to learn the ins and outs of recording images.

We have full frame sensors, APS-C sensors and all kinds of smaller ones like the ones in your smart phone.  So how much sensor do you really need?  In this modern era you can take pretty decent images with a smart phone that can be printed in reasonably large sizes.

I got thinking about this today as I took my new Panasonic point and shoot camera for test spin in the back yard.  This camera is neither fancy nor expensive yet it has most of the features an amateur needs to make good images.  It is small enough to carry in your pocket and cost me $221 on Amazon.  It features all the normal exposure modes you would find on a DSLR and even an electronic eye level viewfinder.  It has a 1/2.3" sensor which is quite a bit smaller than the APS-C or DX sensor we see in many digital SLR's.  Yet modern technology has permitted cramming quite a bit of pixel density into these little sensors.  My Panasonic sports 18 megapixels.  Below is a quick shot of one of my wife's roses.






This is a highly compressed jpeg compared to what came out of the camera.  You can see there is plenty of detail and decent color rendition.  It is a nice image considering it was made with a plastic camera, plastic zoom lens and tiny sensor.

As long as your camera provides for control over the exposure, you can learn and practice photography with something as simple as this.  And, oddly, you can make great images as well.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 3, 2016)

Sure, but if you were really going to dive headfirst into the art of photography, why not purchase the very best camera you can afford?

Otherwise, you end up buying it later


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 3, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> Sure, but if you were really going to dive headfirst into the art of photography, why not purchase the very best camera you can afford?
> 
> Otherwise, you end up buying it later


Makes sense, and if you decide it's not your thing they hold their resell value reasonably well in most cases

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 3, 2016)

Know the tools you're using and use it well.

I use my iPhone6 for most of my personal photos


----------



## fmw (Jun 3, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> Sure, but if you were really going to dive headfirst into the art of photography, why not purchase the very best camera you can afford?
> 
> Otherwise, you end up buying it later



Two comments.  In the first place, not all beginners know whether they intend to dive or not.  Secondly, you can't put a DSLR in your pocket and carry it around conveniently when you aren't out shooting

I've owned and used Oustanding cameras from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Leica, Nikon - even the cambo view camera in my avatar. Yet the point and shoot is my latest camera purchase just so I can put it in my pocket in case I want to shoot something when I have nothing planned.  I'll bet you would find one handy as well.


----------



## fmw (Jun 3, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> Know the tools you're using and use it well.
> 
> I use my iPhone6 for most of my personal photos



And it is capable making fine images.  You may find it hard to believe but I don't carry a cell phone.  I do intend to carry this little camera which is thicker than a cell phone but actually smaller in length and width.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 3, 2016)

Medium format starts at 4x5!


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 3, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> Know the tools you're using and use it well.
> 
> I use my iPhone6 for most of my personal photos



As I think most folks do, so I guess I don't see the advantage to a point and shoot there since a lot of camera phones have "pro" or "advanced" modes now that actually allow you to play with ISO and shutter speed.  Bridge camera I could see I guess, or entry level DSLR - but point and shoot, well not much of an advantage on most of those over what most folks already have built into their cell phones.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 3, 2016)

fmw said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but if you were really going to dive headfirst into the art of photography, why not purchase the very best camera you can afford?
> ...


I said nothing about DSLR


----------



## jaomul (Jun 3, 2016)

Its true enough that great images are possible with all types of camera, be they iphones or hasselblad or whatever, but many cameras don't give you much creative control at all, be it with depth of field or iso ability if you take just the sensor into consideration.

A high quality image might just be a record of an event, rather than a vision of how a certain photo can be taken with criteria in mind, so sometimes colour, resolution and that are not enough


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 3, 2016)

What I need is no more than my cell phone.  What I want... now that's a whole different story 

In all seriousness, get and use whatever you want.  Who cares about people think.


----------



## KmH (Jun 3, 2016)

The key is knowing how to use what you have, or bought.
Don't expect _consistent_ results if you put any camera in AUTO mode.

Here is what a Nikon D50, 6.1 MP, almost 12 year old technology can do:


----------



## fmw (Jun 3, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...



OK, remove the term DSLR from my post and add "better camera" which you did mention.  Why do we have to be so confrontational.  Did I do something to you?


----------



## jake337 (Jun 3, 2016)

I need more. 

Like 8 x 10 inches more.


----------



## fmw (Jun 3, 2016)

jake337 said:


> I need more.
> 
> Like 8 x 10 inches more.



A fine pocket camera to be sure.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 3, 2016)

I built a 24x36" box camera once.

But the only film I had for it dextrochromatic and I didn't have anything to use for a safelight.

(bonus points to anyone who can guess what I mean by dextrochrome)


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 3, 2016)

fmw said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



Sorry I didn't think o was being difficult, working and on a cell so short messages may not carry the message .

My point is still valid, in my opinion buy the best you can afford. Sure a phone can take a pretty picture but so can a pin hole.


----------



## fmshoemaker (Jun 3, 2016)

There's an old saying that goes, "its not the machine, its the operator."


----------



## SCraig (Jun 3, 2016)

fmshoemaker said:


> There's an old saying that goes, "its not the machine, its the operator."


There's another old saying that goes, "The operator won't get much done without a good machine."


----------



## fmshoemaker (Jun 3, 2016)

And another is, " if the operator isnt worth a sh1t, fire his a $$."


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 3, 2016)

If questioned, my initial response would be ... If something is worth capturing ... Then capture it with the best equipment you have. 

Albeit, you spoke of neophytes, which is probably a much different paradigm. But to the experienced I say use the best you have. (But practice what I say not what I do, as of late I've been awfully fond of the iPhone camera.)


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 3, 2016)

Canon SX60HS






Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 3, 2016)

I'm all in favor of a small portable pocket-size camera that can go along everywhere. I still identify my Samsung point and shoot EX-2 as my main camera because my main camera is the one I use the most -- everywhere I go it goes.

BUT, it took me a long time to find and settle on the EX-2. It's not so much about the size of the sensor. For me it's about taking the photo I want to take. I went through a bunch of smaller PS cameras and kept getting frustrated, because I would soon enough want to take a photo like this:



 

The phone cameras and most PS cameras can't take that photo. For me the bottom line was does it save a raw file? In the JPEG that my camera made from this exposure the highlights are all nuked to oblivion. I applied a +.3 EC when I shot this. It would be necessary to expose nearly a stop less to coax the camera JPEG processor to not blow the highlights and at that point you're not salvaging this photo from that underexposed JPEG.

Joe


----------



## jake337 (Jun 3, 2016)

fmw said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > I need more.
> ...



Never had a pocket camera.   Never wanted one.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 3, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> I'm all in favor of a small portable pocket-size camera that can go along everywhere. I still identify my Samsung point and shoot EX-2 as my main camera because my main camera is the one I use the most -- everywhere I go it goes.
> 
> BUT, it took me a long time to find and settle on the EX-2. It's not so much about the size of the sensor. For me it's about taking the photo I want to take. I went through a bunch of smaller PS cameras and kept getting frustrated, because I would soon enough want to take a photo like this:
> 
> ...



The Note 5 shoots in RAW!


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 4, 2016)

jake337 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > I'm all in favor of a small portable pocket-size camera that can go along everywhere. I still identify my Samsung point and shoot EX-2 as my main camera because my main camera is the one I use the most -- everywhere I go it goes.
> ...



There are always a few exceptions! I know. And what's the range of it's optical zoom?

Joe

P.S. Just curious, what's the bit depth of it's ADC?


----------



## jake337 (Jun 4, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Not even sure to be honest.   Never use it.


----------



## fmw (Jun 4, 2016)

Good discussion.  I guess we have determined that small sensors are capable providing both a good learning platform for the novice photographer as well as great images.  Whether the small sensor is in a pocket camera or a pocket cell phone is immaterial.  All that matter is that the camera has the ability to allow the photographer to control the exposure.


----------



## Overread (Jun 4, 2016)

I would argue that depth of field can be more easily learned with a larger sensor. Whilst a mobile phone has a very capable camera these days the depth of field differences between apertures will be harder to see in casual use compared to from a point and shoot- and then again compared to even a crop sensor DSLR. 

As a result that aspect might be easier to learn on a larger sensor. 

I would also say that controls and interface matter. It's a lot easier to learn on a camera that has at least one dedicated button/wheel to set settings rather than making the user go through menus. 



However you don't even need a sensor; film cameras can teach you just the same. So long as you've aperture and shutterspeed to control you can learn exposure. ISO and ASA are a bonus (ASA of course for film will be fixed but it still factors into the exposure and you can always use different rolls of film for different variations in light sensitivity). 


In the end the mechanics are the mechanics; better interfaces and responses help the user learn and focus on learning. 







That said stepping away from mechancis we also have to consider mentality. Many people have a compermentalized view that SLR type cameras are serious cameras to use whilst point and shoots and phones are - well - point and shoot. They don't even consider to engage with the interfaces to vary things all that much (beyond filters) because its "not that kind of camera". Also linked to that is the reduced feedback on some settings with regard to what changes. 
Sometimes a better camera DOES make someone learn better. IT changes their viewpoint and association and thus their attitude.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 4, 2016)

I took this picture with a pre-smartphone era Nokia phone. Remember those with a small screen and big buttons?  I have no idea what was the sensor size or pixels number (probably 2 Mp).  Tried to replicate this shot with a full frame and APSC cameras later with inferior results.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 4, 2016)

^^^ so by inferior results do you mean it lacked bloom, accurately rendered color and sufficiently filtered IR radiation?

(only kidding. there is definitely something kind of cool about a tiny aperture placed millimeters from the sensor. it's be interesting to see a higher-end camera with manual exposure and raw capability take advantage of this)


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 4, 2016)

This was with a P&S:










This with a FF.

I think camera performance and capabilities is more important than the sensor size. Use the equipment best suited for the job at hand.


----------



## fmw (Jun 4, 2016)

fmw said:


> Good discussion.  I guess we have determined that small sensors are capable providing both a good learning platform for the novice photographer as well as great images.  Whether the small sensor is in a pocket camera or a pocket cell phone is immaterial.  All that matter is that the camera has the ability to allow the photographer to control the exposure.









sashbar said:


> I took this picture with a pre-smartphone era Nokia phone. Remember those with a small screen and big buttons?  I have no idea what was the sensor size or pixels number (probably 2 Mp).  Tried to replicate this shot with a full frame and APSC cameras later with inferior results.
> View attachment 122759



As we all know, it is all about the light.  The day you had your cell phone the light was excellent.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 4, 2016)

fmw said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Good discussion.  I guess we have determined that small sensors are capable providing both a good learning platform for the novice photographer as well as great images.  Whether the small sensor is in a pocket camera or a pocket cell phone is immaterial.  All that matter is that the camera has the ability to allow the photographer to control the exposure.
> ...



 The lighting was difficult -- side to backlight sunshine and the cell phone camera did exactly what that little Panasonic pictured would do: It crashed and burned and nuked the diffuse highlights to h*ll after the auto WB algorithm went off to lala land. High contrast light like that is a common Achilles heel of phone camera and PS camera JPEG processors.

Joe


----------



## beagle100 (Jun 5, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> I'm all in favor of a small portable pocket-size camera that can go along everywhere.
> 
> Joe



that's why camera scientists invented mirrorless and pancake lens!
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Crashbox (Jun 9, 2016)

Having recently stepped up from a Fujifilm Finepix S1800 to a Canon Rebel SL1, I have to say that the tool does have a lot to contribute to a good picture. With my Fuji, anything over ISO 100 had noise levels that even a rookie could spot. Without ISO flexibility, one third of the triangle is gone and with it one third of my available options. My Fuji simply didn't handle well in low light. With the Canon, I can crank the ISO all the way up without losing nearly as much in the noise department. My Fuji's ISO 200 noise level looks a lot like my ISO 6400 noise level in the Canon. 

That said, a lot of the sensor debate involves a single question: What is the end goal? If you're using the camera to capture moments of the nose miners for Gam-Gam in Coral Gables, my Fuji is enough camera and enough sensor. Set it to auto and let 'er rip. If you have any ambition to take creative control over your output and want to possibly have print quality results, the Fuji is not going to help. I had minimal control over depth of field, and any of the artistic shots I want are simply incompatible with that platform. The car that will serve well as a work commute car may not handle well as a drag race platform and I feel cameras are much the same. If you're just documenting nose miners and nothing more, using an ILC with 37.5MP is like using a sledgehammer to kill mosquitoes.  

Truly, I'm not really needing more than what I have right now, and any picture I post online is going to end up being cropped way down because of size and display restraints. Thus, my 18MP is overkill if that's all I ever do with it. Still, I do intend to get into stock photography eventually and having more camera than I'll need will be much better than not having enough. 

End application is really the question for me. If the user has plans to email the pictures to a relative living away, 18MP is only going to increase bandwidth loads for small gains. If the user has plans to create and sell prints, I'm not sure 18 is "good enough" for that. 

Overread has a key point: stepping up does make you more aware of options you may have overlooked. I dove into the Fuji pretty hard and got some good shots but when I got a "better" camera I actually got serious about it. At the same time, a lousy mentality about photography is a lousy mentality. I felt I was "better" than the camera I had whereas now I know the camera I have is much more capable than I. In many things, that's important. I didn't always feel like I needed to bring my A-Game to the table with the Fuji. With the Canon, I know I can't be lackadaisical about my part of the puzzle. I actually have enough control to make a good picture or a bad one and if the shot doesn't come out I can't really say the camera is the weak link. With my fuji, I had the "ISO is so noisy" line to fall back on for a lot of things. That's why my Fuji isn't for sale; it's not just that it has a really low resale value but that I've given it cubic miles of emotional baggage with my frequent criticism.


----------



## cauzimme (Jun 9, 2016)

Trever1t said:


> Sure, but if you were really going to dive headfirst into the art of photography, why not purchase the very best camera you can afford?
> 
> Otherwise, you end up buying it later



Yes and no you purchase the best for what you wanna do. 
Pro photo and amateur are a big distinction. 
Why buy the best equipement if you're not gonna push it to his max ? 
Unless you have tons of money to spent then XD buy everything!


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 9, 2016)

I did say "but if" and that applies to shooters like me, who are charging or not, who want to learn and not be limited by my gear.


----------



## Romphotog (Jun 14, 2016)

fmw said:


> It has a 1/2.3" sensor which is quite a bit smaller than the APS-C or DX sensor we see in many digital SLR's.



I tried printing 8x10" cropped some %20.  It didnt exactly work out as upclose you could see artifacts and such.  However, further it's fine, as ifcourse all blown-up prints do look from a 1/2.3 sensor.
So, for bigger than 5x7, you need a DSLR instead of P&S sensor.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 14, 2016)

I think one should get the largest they can afford ... But there is also a case to be made of diminishing returns and "significant" advantages.  For what I shoot and how I shoot, there is not a lot of significant advantages to a FF over an APS-C.  (Which is why my 1D's are collecting dust in favor to my XP2 and XT1's.)


----------



## Stradawhovious (Jun 15, 2016)

Here is an image from a 18 year old Nikon D1.  At 2.7 MP and HORRIBLY outdated, it should produce terrible images, correct?





I've said this before, and I will say it again.

Much like anything else in life, in photography what you have doesn't matter nearly as much as what you do with what you have.  This camera, which is completely obsolete in every sense of the word, still takes what I would consider to be very usable images.

That said, it hasn't stopped me from getting a Nikon D7000 and a Nikon D3.  yes, I realize those are dreadfully obsolete as well... but I know them, like them, and they produce fantastic images.

Buy what you like, learn to use you what you buy, and have fun.


----------



## fmw (Jun 15, 2016)

I agree.  However, Romphotog has a point.  If you look at the actual pixels in an image made by my 16mp Panasonic P&S you will sell a lot of smearing of details in the raw files (and some chromatic aberration as well.)  The same image made with my 16mp D7000 will replace the smearing with details.  Same resolution.  Different sensor size.   The Panasonic makes perfectly good images for the internet like the one I posted but wouldn't be the answer for big enlargements.

However, my point wasn't that a P&S has comparable performance to a DSLR.  My point was that a P&S that has complete exposure control can be a good camera for learning photography.  This discussion hasn't changed my mind at all.  The people here are hung up on equipment.  What a beginner needs is technical information and skills.  The P&S (with exposure control) can develop those skills as well as any other camera.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 15, 2016)

unpopular said:


> ^^^ so by inferior results do you mean it lacked bloom, accurately rendered color and sufficiently filtered IR radiation?
> 
> (only kidding. there is definitely something kind of cool about a tiny aperture placed millimeters from the sensor. it's be interesting to see a higher-end camera with manual exposure and raw capability take advantage of this)


the plants/trees didn't have leaves on them.  Was the camera's fault !!  LOL .. j/k


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 15, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> Much like anything else in life, in photography what you have doesn't matter nearly as much as what you do with what you have.  This camera, which is completely obsolete in every sense of the word, still takes what I would consider to be very usable images.
> 
> That said, it hasn't stopped me from getting a Nikon D7000 and a Nikon D3.  yes, I realize those are dreadfully obsolete as well... but I know them, like them, and they produce fantastic images.
> 
> Buy what you like, learn to use you what you buy, and have fun.



In most shooting situations you'd be pretty hard pressed to tell the difference between the shots I took with my D5100, my D5200, or my D7100 or now my D600.

However I could tell a huge difference in usability between all of them.  Switching from the D5200 from the D5100, almost immediately the 24 mp sensor made it possible for me to get shots that the 16mp sensor couldn't, I could crop much more and still end up with a usable result.

Switching to the D7100, the better AF and second command wheel and all of a sudden I'm getting shots I would have missed with the D5200 because I wasn't wasting time fiddling around with menu settings or having to figure out which button to press and hold to change a setting with the single command wheel.

Going from the 7100 to the D600, and now shooting in lowlight suddenly is a whole new ballgame.  I don't have to pull out every trick in the book to get something that's barely on the acceptable level of noise when shooting indoors in bad light.

So really the better technology, at least for me, means more keepers with less effort.  It means I can spend more time focusing on the picture and less time screwing around with camera settings.

Do I use every single feature of my D600?  Nope.  I don't, and I probably won't.  But for me it's worth it's weight in gold as is, so I'm happy.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 15, 2016)

fmw said:


> However, my point wasn't that a P&S has comparable performance to a DSLR. My point was that a P&S that has complete exposure control can be a good camera for learning photography. This discussion hasn't changed my mind at all. The people here are hung up on equipment. What a beginner needs is technical information and skills. The P&S (with exposure control) can develop those skills as well as any other camera.



A camera is a camera.  They all work the same.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Jun 15, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> In most shooting situations you'd be pretty hard pressed to tell the difference between the shots I took with my D5100, my D5200, or my D7100 or now my D600.



That's a function of the photographer, not the cameras, right? 

I agree.  Going from my D7000 to my D3 in a studio situation is a dream come true.  Going from my D3 to my D7000 in low light situations is a breath of fresh air. The fact is I know how to use them both, so they both produce really usable images...  and yes, in most cases, without the exif data you'd be hard pressed to know which one I used for which shots.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 15, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> That's a function of the photographer, not the cameras, right?



Lol.. to a certain extent, sure.  Look at it this way, I'm not sure if Michelangelo could have carved David using a spork - but if he could it would have taken a very long time and it would have really sucked.  So why put forth all that effort to do it when there are better solutions available?

Me, I'm no arteest, not by any stretch of the imagination.  But I can't get the kind of shots I want from a cell phone camera, or one of the super portable pocket cams.  Sure I might be able to get something that barley rates on my acceptable scale with a ton of effort, but why bother when the tools I need to do the job much easier are readily available and well within my price range?



> I agree.  Going from my D7000 to my D3 in a studio situation is a dream come true.  Going from my D3 to my D7000 in low light situations is a breath of fresh air. The fact is I know how to use them both, so they both produce really usable images...  and yes, in most cases, without the exif data you'd be hard pressed to know which one I used for which shots.



Yup.. I can look through my flickr account and I can't tell what was shot with the D5200 vrs the D7100 - unless I check the EXIF.  Heck I've even got some stuff in there that was shot with an old SX50 bridge camera and sometimes until I check the EXIF I'm not 100% sure that was shot with the bridge.

But my keeper rate with the bridge camera was horrific, and I didn't even bother trying to use it indoors because I don't think I ever got one shot I considered usable that way.  

So yup, more power to the folks that want to produce art with a spork.  I'm sticking with a good set of hammer and chisels, thanks.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Jun 15, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> So yup, more power to the folks that want to produce art with a spork.  I'm sticking with a good set of hammer and chisels, thanks.



Bottom line.  It's the craftsman not the tool.

Can you produce a quality widget with a sub par tool?  Yes, as long as you are experienced and proficient in your trade.

Is it easier to produce a quality widget, and learn how to make quality widgets with higher quality tools?  You bet your ass.

This is why I'm shooting with a D3 rather than a D3000.  But what do I know?  I'm to hung up on equipment to offer any rational opinion.  

I do love this argument.  It's one of the few CONSTANTLY BEAT TO DEATH arguments that I consistently participate in.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 15, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> This is why I'm shooting with a D3 rather than a D3000.  But what do I know?  I'm to hung up on equipment to offer any rational opinion.
> 
> I do love this argument.  It's one of the few CONSTANTLY BEAT TO DEATH arguments that I consistently participate in.



Years and years ago when I was a kid we had one of those manual push mowers.  Yes, you could mow the lawn with it, and when you were done it wasn't like people driving by would say, wow.. looks like that was done with a push mower... so no, you couldn't really tell the difference in the end result.  But boy, once you got a chance to use a gas powered self propelled mower to do the same job, you really didn't want to go back to using that old manual push mower again.

Camera's are a bit different of course, there are some shots that I can get with my D600 under certain conditions that I just could not get using the D5100 under the same conditions, so yes there is actually some effect on the end result in certain situations.

But for me the real big difference is in overall usability, not so much in the end result.  I can get the results I want much faster and easier using my D600 than I could with the D7100, or the D5200.. and in some cases I could not get the end result with those that I can get with the D600.  No matter how skilled I am or what settings I chose I'm still dependent on light, and in many of the shooting situations I'm in I don't have the option of adding any.  That's not as common for most as it is for me, but for me a full frame camera makes a world of difference.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 15, 2016)

fmw said:


> All that matter is that the camera has the ability to allow the photographer to control the exposure.




Load of $hit.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jun 15, 2016)




----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 15, 2016)

JacaRanda said:


>



Jaca..stop that.

Eventually you'll wind up hurting the wall.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jun 15, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



True, but I have really cool imprints on my forehead.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 15, 2016)

JacaRanda said:


> True, but I have really cool imprints on my forehead.



size of forehead doesn't matter, so long as you can manually control your exposure to wall.


----------



## fmw (Jun 15, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> Here is an image from a 18 year old Nikon D1.  At 2.7 MP and HORRIBLY outdated, it should produce terrible images, correct?
> 
> View attachment 123341
> 
> ...



Speaking of the D3, I just ordered one (12 mpx version) new old stock for $550.  Hopefully the Amazon seller isn't lying.  We shall see in about a week.  If it is true then I will have to decide between keeping it or making some money selling it.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Jun 15, 2016)

fmw said:


> Speaking of the D3, I just ordered one (12 mpx version) new old stock for $550.  Hopefully the Amazon seller isn't lying.  We shall see in about a week.  If it is true then I will have to decide between keeping it or making some money selling it.



Hell of a deal if there's nothing wrong with it.  I got mine for just under a thousand and I still think it was a screaming deal.


----------



## fmw (Jun 15, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of the D3, I just ordered one (12 mpx version) new old stock for $550.  Hopefully the Amazon seller isn't lying.  We shall see in about a week.  If it is true then I will have to decide between keeping it or making some money selling it.
> ...




Yes, under $1000 is a great deal.  Most D3's are selling for $1200-$1500 used.  What I ordered seems like too good to be true and you know what that normally means.  But if it turns out to be a bust, I can file an A to Z with Amazon.  We shall see how it goes.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 16, 2016)

Well ... I dunno about beginners.

If I could travel back in time, I would tell my past self to get D700, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR2, back in 2009. (*)

And I would still use that today happily.


Other than that, I would state you should get the biggest sensor you can get, until
(a) the camera gets too expensive
(b) the lenses you want get too large



(*) And then flash: SB800, flash battery pack SD-9, flash sync cable SC-28, pocket wizards whenever they get introduced.
Also a prime trinity - Zeiss 18mm f3.5 zf, Zeiss 35mm f2 zf, Zeiss 100mm f2 macro zf, PN-11.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 16, 2016)

Sensors are like Bikinis, you need enough to cover the subject.


----------



## fmw (Jun 16, 2016)

The cheap D3 was a scam by the way.  The seller cancelled it.  I reordered and he cancelled it again.  Now I await the refunds from Amazon.


----------



## Romphotog (Jun 18, 2016)

fmw said:


> I agree.  However, Romphotog has a point.
> What a beginner needs is technical information and skills.  The P&S (with exposure control) can develop those skills as well as any other camera.



Thanks.
I think this Sony could do the job of learning a beginner as well as a $500 DSLR for 1/2 price and x4 zoom.
Sony - DSC-H400 20.1-Megapixel Digital Camera - Black

But, for large prints, P&S just wont do.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2016)

I actually disagree. With a smaller sensor you'll have less of an appreciation of DOF. Also P/S are highly geared towered Auto Everything. I think that our advise to "just turn off auto-everything" comes from a perspective of using a DSLR which is geared more for control. In my experience using a P/S like a DSLR in manual mode is a very detached experience.

Also, I very much believe that beginners should shoot with a fixed focal length. It teaches discrimination and avoids the attitude that focal length's sole purpose is to "make things bigger". Shooting a normal lens for a couple years, then buying a wide or tele the subtle impact of focal length is far, far more apparent, giving new photographers a better appreciation of when changing focal length is appropriate, and when changing working distance is appropriate.

Truly, there is a reason why first year photography students were suggested to learn using manual-everything on a 50mm lens, and I think it's truly unfortunate that attitudes are changing, and honestly I think it shows a lot in today's novice photographers.


----------



## fmw (Jun 18, 2016)

Romphotog said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > I agree.  However, Romphotog has a point.
> ...



For $250 a beginner could buy a used Nikon D80 or D100 and a 50mm or kit zoom lens and have money left over for things like memory cards so that is certainly an option.  You can have pretty large prints from either one.  My OP wasn't about large prints.  It was about a learning tool.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2016)

I agree. "Bridge" cameras are really good for experienced photographers looking for a portable, take anywhere sort of camera that still offers exposure control when needed. 

I don't think they're necessarily good for learning photography.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 19, 2016)

unpopular said:


> I agree. "Bridge" cameras are really good for experienced photographers looking for a portable, take anywhere sort of camera that still offers exposure control when needed.
> 
> I don't think they're necessarily good for learning photography.


Bridge cameras aren't good for learning photography, but they're great cameras for taking pictures and not having to worry about the details and lugging stuff.
The new Sony RX10 mkIII is my current drool at camera. Unfortunately, it costs as much as a fully kitted out Olympic Recurve bow.
The RX1R MkII is what I really want but it costs as much as this watch I'm totally eyeing.
Tudor Heritage Black Bay Dive Swiss Watch


----------

