# What is the best beginner camera - a test!



## photo1x1.com (Aug 6, 2020)

Hey all,
I have tried to answer the question of what is the best beginner camera - or entry-level camera - so often, that I thought it might be wise to do a "real life" entry-level camera test to enable people to make an educated purchase.

I tested 9 entry-level cameras:
CANON t7i (800D)
CANON t7 (1500D or 2000D)
CANON M50
NIKON D5600
NIKON D3500
OLYMPUS OM-D E-M10 III (what a name ) 
FUJI X-T100
SONY a5100
SONY a6000

out of competition for comparison how they stack up:
SONY a7III
CANON 5D MkIII

Here is the first in-depth video about how these cameras performed in regard to focus. I tested different focus scenarios tracking, low light,... with different lenses (two kit lenses, 70-200 f/4 IS, nifty fifty).

I hope this is helpful for people looking for camera recommendations:





Next up will be low light performance, a quick test of the lenses,...


----------



## fmw (Aug 6, 2020)

What could be less important than a camera?  Photography is all about creativity and technique.  The camera just captures what the photographer saw and did.  They pretty much all do that.  Choose something that appeals and go make some images.


----------



## Soocom1 (Aug 6, 2020)

Hasselblad H6 with 400Mp Back. and 50-150 mm Lens.


----------



## photoflyer (Aug 6, 2020)

Something that requires film.  I don't shoot film but I did when I was a kid.  When you only have twenty or thirty six shots to work with before you have to reload and when there is a real cost to every click of the shutter, it forces you to be disciplined.

I was in a camera store while a mom and daughter were purchasing a film camera for a summer course the daughter was taking.  I said that it would make her a much better photographer.  They looked at me incredulously.  Then I made the points I just did above.  I think it really sank in.


----------



## RVT1K (Aug 6, 2020)

A good entry level camera needs one thing...an automatic setting.
This will allow a new photographer to actually take decent photos without getting confused or too discouraged. If the interest is still there, the desire to explore more will follow and so will experimenting with the camera. 

I hear the argument for film and agree with some of it. But there's no feedback on what you just shot until the film is developed and it is very likely, especially for a new photographer, to not remember just what was done or not done as far as settings go.


----------



## mjcmt (Aug 6, 2020)

I'd say the best beginner camera is the one that feels best in your hand and the controls are intuitive, all within your price range. I shot film years earlier, but my first digital camera was a Canon G-10. It just felt right and I enjoyed taking photos for a long time with it. When I felt the image quality was too lacking I up-graded to the Fuji X100T for the same reason of feeling comfortable. It's likewise a rewarding camera to shoot with. My next camera will have a variety of focal lengths to choose from.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 6, 2020)

fmw said:


> What could be less important than a camera?  Photography is all about creativity and technique.  The camera just captures what the photographer saw and did.  They pretty much all do that.  Choose something that appeals and go make some images.



Ummmmm, no, not really. If photography were all about technique and creativity, then an iPhone 6 and a Canon 1Dx would be equal nin terms of shooting an NFL football game, and a VW New Beetle and a Formula One car would each be equal in a Formula One race.

Your statement is laughable. Driving is all about steering and braking, ergo any car is equal to any other car.according to your logic


----------



## Derrel (Aug 6, 2020)

The more experience a photographer has the more he or she can overcome limitations with a camera and or a camera lens combo. To the beginner the quality of the camera and its ease of operation and its successful completion of basic photographic tasks, the more important the camera itself is. I used to sell cameras. My experience with hundreds of clients is that the mid-level photographer is the one that benefits the most from advanced camera features. The serious enthusiasts can often make excellent use of high-level amateur or pro bodies. Many working professionals use nothing but manual exposure mode and a limited subset of camera features.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Aug 7, 2020)

I have to agree with Derrel. And I have to disagree with a lot of other things that have been said. For example the Fuki X-T100 is a fabulous camera in regard to controls and menu structure, yet it is so laggy, and has issues with focusing, that it can't keep up with the competition. For me as a Canon and Sony user, it was painful to work with the Nikons menu structure. But that's because I'm used to another system. You get used to everything and once you are, what felt comfortable before is a pain. 
Sony for example is said to have a terrible menu system and not all that great handling due to the size. When I shoot Sony for a while and then get back to my Canons, the latter feels just totally wrong.
To me it is the hard facts that count. Particularly when it comes to focus, which I tested. 

Another point was a beginner camera has to have an auto-setting.
Well yes, it has - and most do. But how well does the camera track focus in that auto-mode, how well does it handle low light, so that the newby doesn't get frustrated when he needs to set ISO1600+ (and yes, I'm moderating two facebook groups - that is an issue). And what happens if people outgrow that auto-setting? Many times people save the money to buy a camera for months, they just don't have the funds to go and buy a new one after a few weeks/monts.

Regarding Film: when I want to photograph a dog running towards me, I shoot that 36 images in 4 seconds. Why? Because I can. Have people done great dog shots in film age? I think I even got some myself. Are the ones with e.g. a Sony a6000 with 11fps better (not talking about cams that shoot 20fps)? No doubt they are, because you highly likely get the better pose - particularly if you are not a professional dog photographer, but only do it once in a while - hence beginner.

I think we all need to take a step back and sometimes need to appreciate that other people shoot different things than we do, and have a different budget. Film to learn landscapes or even portraits? Yes, maybe. Film to learn sports photography - why?


----------



## photoflyer (Aug 7, 2020)

photo1x1.com said:


> Film to learn landscapes or even portraits? Yes, maybe. Film to learn sports photography - why?



I draw a lot from experiences as an aviator.

There is truism that is counter intuitive: if you can land a Piper or Cessna you have the skills to land an airliner. The opposite is not true.  Hand flying an an airplane is a skill that is difficult to  develop and  quickly lost, performed very little in airliners (two percent of a one hour flight) and even when done in airliners, assisted by "cheats" like a flight director and auto throttles. These are good things for safety.   But in an emergency all the automation goes out the window: think Southwest 1380.

In the US we have a great safety record because so many of our airline pilots come up through general aviation building time hand flying.  The same is true for some military flying.  When bad things happen, turn the automation off; you may not have a choice.

In photography we have seen the developement of  automation.  Does one have to learn film to become a proficient shooter. No.  But like so many fields, those who understand the fundamentals have an advantage especially when the automation cannot achieve a non-standard result.


----------



## Overread (Aug 7, 2020)

When people say "start with film" it often has little to nothing to do with film vs digital and more to do with learning to take carefully taken shots compared to just "spray and pray" of a digital system. Thing is that is both a benefit and a negative.

See when you're on film you might take less shots because each shot costs. This will typically encourage person to focus on areas they CAN do and reduce the chances for experimentation because each shot is costing them. Plus, as has been outlined, they have to take notes at the same time if they want to remember what settings and situation they were in at the time. They might not get results back for days after that. 
With digital you get results that very moment, even if it might be until the end of the day until you get them up on a proper screen. Furthermore it saves all the data for the shot on the file. This encourages a person to experiment. They've total freedom to play with the aperture and shutter and SEE what those settings do. They can take "risky" shots in situations they are not familiar with and be quite happy and safe that they are not "wasting money". If anything I would argue that digital is a superior tool to learn on in terms of being able to experiment and record your settings and situation. 

It allows you a powerful learning tool which is repetition. The whole "Learn to take one shot that counts rather than thirty that don't" will only ever come with experience, practice and time. Be it on film or digital you can't really skip that aspect unless you withdraw and focus on only one or two very niche areas. 

Furthermore many are learning on their own ;if you're not in a classroom then self-learning can take even longer - digital again opens up a lot of experimentation doors and also the easy access to the internet for feedback. Of course for a price you can get your film negative scanned. 



Finally I think many forget that postprocessing is part of the whole picture; film is far more time consuming and differently focused than digital even if many of the processes share the same name. Cloning out a few stray hairs is seconds in digital; its longer in film. Plus many never touch on it in film and rely on the lab. 



And the very final thing is that some people are just not interested in digital. Or they aren't interested in film. So suggesting that they go to the other side might well not help. I know that I never had an interest in film photography and if I'd been pushed that way early on chances are I'd never had developed very far on my own. Of course I'm but one example; others might flourish under film instead of digital; but often as not that is something they know a bit with themselves as opposed to being advised by others.


----------



## photoflyer (Aug 7, 2020)

Overread said:


> When people say "start with film" it often has little to nothing to do with film vs digital and more to do with learning to take carefully taken shots compared to just "spray and pray" of a digital system. Thing is that is both a benefit and a negative.
> 
> See when you're on film you might take less shots because each shot costs. This will typically encourage person to focus on areas they CAN do and reduce the chances for experimentation because each shot is costing them. Plus, as has been outlined, they have to take notes at the same time if they want to remember what settings and situation they were in at the time. They might not get results back for days after that.
> With digital you get results that very moment, even if it might be until the end of the day until you get them up on a proper screen. Furthermore it saves all the data for the shot on the file. This encourages a person to experiment. They've total freedom to play with the aperture and shutter and SEE what those settings do. They can take "risky" shots in situations they are not familiar with and be quite happy and safe that they are not "wasting money". If anything I would argue that digital is a superior tool to learn on in terms of being able to experiment and record your settings and situation.
> ...



All very good points. Of course one could do both.


----------



## Soocom1 (Aug 7, 2020)

My comment was both sarcastic and deliberate at the same time. 
Obviously unless you're Jeff Bezos, your prob. not going to be able to afford nor handle a H6 with a 400Mp back all yours for $94,000. 

But I want to tie this with a point that Derrel said, both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. 

The diff. between a iPhone 6 and a Canon 1D is substantial. No doubt. Plus they are NOT on equal footing by any stretch.  The core here is that photography is both a mechanical as well as artful industry. The mechanical represents the adjustable factors of photography in general. 

Ergo; A ring to adjust the aperture or an electronic control to do the same, but it is the equivalent of the human iris opening and closing. It is indexed with numbers (typ. 1.8-32 etc) to mark a value of the size of that opening because it controls the depth of field and the amount of light physically being recorded.  

THAT aspect alone requires the ability to understand the metrics, methods, conventions and concept of aperture. 

Here I fully agree that a camera with full manual aspects is key. Up until approximately 2000, film was the obvious (because it was the only medium) to record.  
For that reason, you have to understand the film concepts and how it behaves in order for it to work for you. 
With digital the application though similar is different in construction and approach. Thus a different means to approach the photograph. (No chemicals involved). 

This is the equivalent of teaching calculations on a slide rule. It's a tool and has been made obsolete first by Texas Instruments and then by Apple. 
It's not so much the tool of delivery, but the application of theory that is key here. Hence why I joked about the H6. It's still a camera, it does exactly the same thing as a Canon Rebel just in a prettier and higher maintenance package.  

I disagree on one point alone. That the iPhone would not be capable of teaching someone photographic principles in general. Here the iPhone is practically idiot proof, but "apps" can be applied to allow the functionality of a camera to be used, minus of course the actual physical movements of mechanically designed items such as apertures and focus rings, etc. 

But there inlies one more layer to my argument. The physical design of the camera is slowly being overridden into a new design and in years to come will not be recognizable to us. If cameras even exist. Thus the application will change. 

This is why the original prose of the question itself (which camera is best as a beginner) is subjective. 
Nothing against the OP, but its a non-sequitur in this regards because unless like the iPhone not being able to do manual adjustments nearly all slr's, TLR's, Med. large and some instamatic cameras will be capable of doing the job.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Aug 7, 2020)

Thank you for your thoughts.
Nevertheless, there are people who need info, and "what is the best beginner camera" (I rather like to call it "entry-level-camera") is one of the main questions out there in any beginner environment. 
I don't know if you watched the video, but I tried to be as objective as possible, and I don't really name a real winner in the test (it's part one of the test anyway). I want people to make their own educated choice based on what they think they will photograph. If one camera performs unusually bad in one segment, I even say that it might be a bug that might get fixed in a firmware update. 
Either way, that question is real, being subjective or not, and people would love to get answers  




Soocom1 said:


> My comment was both sarcastic and deliberate at the same time.
> Obviously unless you're Jeff Bezos, your prob. not going to be able to afford nor handle a H6 with a 400Mp back all yours for $94,000.
> 
> But I want to tie this with a point that Derrel said, both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
> ...


----------



## webestang64 (Aug 7, 2020)

Would be interesting (also I'm curious) to see the different responses from the sales staff at the camera store I work in. I might have to check that out.


----------



## photoflyer (Aug 7, 2020)

So many interesting perspectives.  I play guitar and that is another where what a student   starts with may influence whether the student sticks with it.  There is no one size fits all approach.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Aug 7, 2020)

Beyond a certain novice period, where one is learning what they can do with their camera, the best camera is the one that is easiest to use in your particular field of photographic interest.

If you are sports photography oriented, your needs are different that those who like to experiment with unusual shots in the manual mode.

You can rest assured that no matter what camera you choose, it will not be your last.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 7, 2020)

" Best beginner camera" is far different than " merely adequate to the task of taking photos"...in response to Soocom1.

  Af far as the iPhone 6 versus Canon 1D analogy that I gave in my second response, that is in reply to fmw and is my acknowlegement of the importance of the camera in the photographic process. If as fmw says, the camera is unimportant ,then the iPhone and the 1D Canon should perform equally in a wide range of photographic endeavors, but as we all know, the two instruments are different in their capabilities, and for the beginner the capability of the camera is of very high importance. I have seen examples on the web of highly-skilled very experienced professional photographers getting good results from toy cameras and from low-end point-and-shoots. On the other hand, beginning photographers often have miserable success with cameras that have low inherent levels of capability; if a camera is balky, and difficult to work with, the beginning photographer often has a great deal of difficulty with it. As someone who has used cameras that were built from the 1930s until the last decade, I have a fairly good level of experience with multiple types of cameras. Cameras which were built in the 1930s,1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 70s which were very simple mechanical affairs, but which often required a fairly high level of proficiency with basic photographic tasks, and all such cameras used film. By the 1980s and 1990s film cameras were quite sophisticated and many had automation and some even had autofocus.

I began my digital photography experience in 2001 with the Nikon D1, a rather crude digital single-lens reflex with a 2.7 megapixel sensor. It had alphanumeric menu commands, and was a bridge between the film Nikon's and the new digital idiom. It was not that great a camera compared with even the Nikon d40 which came about eight or nine years later. Today we have a wide variety of digital cameras to choose from, and some are much better than others. I think the video was quite interesting, and I look forward to subsequent videos.

Let's be honest: some cameras are much better than others.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Aug 8, 2020)

fmw said:


> What could be less important than a camera?  Photography is all about creativity and technique.  The camera just captures what the photographer saw and did.  They pretty much all do that.  Choose something that appeals and go make some images.



LoL Fred, let me guess you're either a Bug Chaser or a Landscaper or you're just trying to have some fun!!
Just ask any photographer that shoots fast action and tell them all they need is a pin hole camera and a great artistic ability to compose and they'll laugh at you!
I admit, I personally feel that composition is KING but i'm also not naive enough to think that the camera doesn't matter!!! IT DOES!
SS


----------



## fmw (Aug 8, 2020)

No, I'm serious.  I'm not talking about pinhole cameras.  I'm talking about new modern cameras.  I believe some photographers are more interested in photographic equipment than they are on making images.  I read the term "time to upgrade" pretty often.  No thought is given to why one should upgrade.  The question is always should I get this camera or that camera.  Point is that either camera will get the job done as well as the camera from which one is upgrading.  The camera isn't the important part of photography.  The important parts are creativity and technique.  

I don't question that some cameras can do things that other cameras cannot do.  If a photographer understands why a current camera can't do something he or she needs to do and what camera can do it, then the question about which camera is pointless.  

I'm also not against fine cameras.  The Fuji system I use is very fine with cameras and lenses made from metal rather than plastic and the optics are first rate.  I use it because I need small, light equipment in order to get where I need to go with a camera.  I'm an old man.  I switched to the system for a very clear reason.  Without that reason it would have been meaningless to change from a DSLR.  I could make exactly the same images with my older, larger, heavier DSLR system.

I used to be a commercial photographer so I ran into about any subject matter you can name.  My work involved some landscapes but I can't remember ever shooting bugs for a client.


----------



## fmw (Aug 8, 2020)

Derrel said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > What could be less important than a camera?  Photography is all about creativity and technique.  The camera just captures what the photographer saw and did.  They pretty much all do that.  Choose something that appeals and go make some images.
> ...



The point of a car is to take you to your destination.  Any car can do that.  Some may be more fun to drive or more comfortable but they will all take you to your destination.  In order to exercise creativity the camera has to have adjustable focus, aperture and shutter speed.  That is what is required to capture your vision.  I did use the term camera, not cell phone, by the way.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Aug 8, 2020)

In the end, I do not think anyone can select the perfect camera for another photographer. It is possible to the guide them to models which satisfy their particular photographic interests but the "right" camera also included personal nuances.

I have a 1923 Old Town wood and canvas canoe. An absolute joy to paddle with a unique feel in the water.  However, when I am in the wilderness areas of MN portaging and I dodging rocks, use my 45 lb. Kevlar Wenonah  canoe. It is designed for that task. So too, my collection of  guitars, banjos and fiddles. Each is unique and at times more suited to a particular music style.

Photography interests are quite varied, how would you advise someone who wants minimal weight and bulk, someone who likes the challenge of  action shots or one who does mostly studio work? I have a lot of cameras, but when I grab one to go, I often use an old Olympus C740 with a 10x zoom and a mighty 3.2 megapixels. It drops in the jacket pocket an usually does the job.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Aug 8, 2020)

Grandpa Ron said:


> In the end, I do not think anyone can select the perfect camera for another photographer. It is possible to the guide them to models which satisfy their particular photographic interests but the "right" camera also included personal nuances.
> 
> I have a 1923 Old Town wood and canvas canoe. An absolute joy to paddle with a unique feel in the water.  However, when I am in the wilderness areas of MN portaging and I dodging rocks, use my 45 lb. Kevlar Wenonah  canoe. It is designed for that task. So too, my collection of  guitars, banjos and fiddles. Each is unique and at times more suited to a particular music style.
> 
> Photography interests are quite varied, how would you advise someone who wants minimal weight and bulk, someone who likes the challenge of  action shots or one who does mostly studio work? I have a lot of cameras, but when I grab one to go, I often use an old Olympus C740 with a 10x zoom and a mighty 3.2 megapixels. It drops in the jacket pocket an usually does the job.


That was exactly my intention, I test various features and explain them and kind of let the viewer decide what would work best for them, but give advice at the same time. 

One thing we must not forget - we who discuss here are mostly veterans. We know the tech stuff in and out. Beginners need a lot of guidance and more often than not are completely lost when they purchase their first camera having no idea what the difference between camera a and b really is.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 8, 2020)

There is no one size fits all.
IMHO, it is a variety of approaches.

Today's kids are brought up on a cell phone.
It is that simplicity they are used to.  And if that is what it takes to get them to take pictures, so be it.

When they hit the limits of the cell phone, like when they are trying to take a picture of their kids on a sport team, then they have to go up model, to something with a tele.  It could be a bridge camera with a long zoom or an ILC.  Whatever works for them.

If they find that the bridge camera does not do the job, then they go up model again to a dSLR or mirrorless ILC.

A person can stop at any level along the way.

And you have the person that has the $$$$$, and goes directly to a high end dSLR/mirrorless.
_The camera is expensive, so it will take good pictures._

The size of the camera can be a barrier.  I've had people preferring a mid/high end P&S, like the Canon G series, over a dSLR, because it is smaller, less bulky and lighter.

Like was mentioned, for a beginner, the bridge and ILC has to have Auto and scene exposure modes.  I've seen MANY people using a dSLR in Auto or scene mode.  They are not ready or willing to go to Aperture or Shutter priority, much less manual.  Thankfully today's cameras have the option to go from Auto and Scene, to P, to AS, to M, so we are all covered.
I have seen them.  Parents shooting pro gear, but only in Auto, because they don't know how to use the other modes.

While I grew up in the film SLR era with a manual camera, I recognize that many people today would not be shooting pictures, if they had to use a manual camera.  So IMHO, the auto and scene modes are more critical for the beginners than Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony.  Or P&S vs. various dSLR/mirrorless ILC.

To a degree, I face that issue at school each year.

Each year I teach the yearbook students to use a dSLR (Canon T7i), when for most of them their cell phone camera is what a camera is.
The yearbook had T5, but I started purchasing the T7i for technical reasons.  This was primarily the higher max ISO, for night and gym sports in low light.  For day time, the T5 was and still is a perfectly usable camera.​Most of the kids never get off Auto and Scene modes.  The ones that use ASM modes, have a photo background before they joined yearbook.
They also don't understand lens selection.  The lens that is on the camera is what they normally use.  Luckily, that lens being an 18-135 has enough range that it does 80% of the job.  The 18-135 is in a way, similar to the Auto exposure mode.  We have other lenses, but few use them, without being told to use a specific lens for a specific shoot.

My other group (the Athletic Director's Sports Leadership class) is going to be using Nikon D5600 + 18-140.
In this case, they are starting from scratch (vs. yearbook which had Canon gear).  The decision to go Nikon was mine.  I am a Nikon shooter, and Nikon is easier for me to teach and help the students.
When a student with a Canon needs help with the camera, in some cases I had to send them to one of the other students who owns a Canon, or tell them I can't help them.  That is frustrating to both the student and me.​Like the yearbook students, despite my lessons, I expect they will primarily use Auto or Scene modes.

Conclusion:
For a "beginner," it matters less than people in the industry make it out to be.
Canon - Nikon - Sony, it does not matter.
D3500 v. D5600 vs. T5 vs. T7i, vs. T7 vs. T8i, again it does not matter.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2020)

All cameras are equal, apparently. If you put in a big dose of creativity, any camera can do anything, and a Canon T7i performs as well as a Fuji GFX 100.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Aug 9, 2020)

ac12 said:


> There is no one size fits all.
> IMHO, it is a variety of approaches.
> 
> Today's kids are brought up on a cell phone.
> ...



With all due respect, that is just not correct. 

How can a camera/lens combination that misses focus on most of the shots be as good as one that delivers almost 100% of shots in focus.
Why do so many users of e.g. the t7 complain about noise at relatively low ISO?
I agree that some people wouldn't mind. Those who don't really care. That's the same in every field. I like skiing and when I do a ski test, I feel a huge difference in skis. Others too, no matter if they are newbies or pros. But then there are others who don't care, because they just enjoy to be outdoors in the snow, or like to have a drink in one of the ski bars. 
People all too often make the mistake to think humans are robots and think alike. No, we are not. We are individuals with different needs and we should appreciate those needs of others rather than assume they think and feel just like we do. There are even people that think it makes a difference what wine glass they use when they drink their wine. I couldn't care less. But that doesn't mean I don't respect their opinion.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 9, 2020)

photo1x1.com said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no one size fits all.
> ...



Well you did say "*beginner camera,*" not advanced amateur or enthusiast.

There will always be both ends of the bell curve; the beginner than can barely use a cell phone camera, and the beginner who is a real TECHIE.  And the center of the bell curve where it is "good enough."
Most of us are not in the center of the bell curve.  We are out on the techie side of the bell curve.  And that often distorts our perception of the world.

The fact that cameras have the range of exposure modes from Auto to manual, and scene modes, accomodates this range, to a large degree.

But the brain must still engage.

As for "misses focus on most of the shots."  Based on my experience, that has generally be a user learning issue, not a camera issue.

Example1, The camera in "auto" exposure mode on the Canon T7i and Nikon D7200 is configured for "closest subject."  So you will never get the people on the far side of the dinner table in focus.  The camera will always focus on the closest subject, the dinner table.  The photog has to know to switch to an exposure mode / AF mode that will let him focus on the people on the other side of the table.  This is why I never use the "auto" mode, instead I use the "P" mode where I can select what to focus on.
Example2, zone/area focus.  On the Canon T7i, zone focus uses "closest subject" logic.  So if you shoot your son playing soccer, if another player is closer than your son in the focus area, it will focus on the other player, not your son.  My experience is that zone focus does not work well in crowded sports like soccer and basketball.  But it works fine where there is no distraction from the subject, like tennis singles.
Example3, where the focus point/area has been moved to the side, and the photographer is still pointing the center of the viewfinder on the subject, ignoring where the active AF point is.  The subject will almost never be in focus.  This is real life beginner behavior.
I don't know how the students accidentally move the AF point, but I have to periodically check and center the AF point on the yearbook cameras.
In these examples, the user has to know how to set the camera to get what he wants.
As much smarts as the mfg put into today's cameras, there are many situations that defy the predefined scene modes.

As for the T7i, we do not have any "complaints about noise at relatively low ISO."
It does the job that we want it to do.  It may not be good enough for a gallery quality 24x36 print, but it is good enough for the yearbook.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Aug 10, 2020)

ac12 said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > ac12 said:
> ...


I assume you didn’t watch the video. Some cameras clearly missed out in the focus tests. That has nothing to do with user error, but cameras performing differently. For me that’s a fact because I have seen it with my own eyes. If you don’t believe me, please rent the best and the worst cam in the test and see for yourself.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2020)

Did anyone who is commenting actually watch the video?


----------



## ac12 (Aug 10, 2020)

photo1x1.com said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



The video has no testing on Single point center, Single shot AF ?
That is the core test of the camera's ability to focus.
Other than sports, when I shoot it is 99% of the time in single shot AF.  
On my cameras, single shot AF will not let the shutter fire, unless the camera thinks that the lens is in focus.

I only shoot continuous AF when I shoot sports.

I've shot sports with the T7i with Single point center, Continuous AF and have been pleased with the focusing ability of the camera.
Shots that are out of focus, are where I missed putting the AF point on the subject.  So user error, not camera error.

CDAF and PDAF perform differently, with faster focusing on moving subject generally going to PDAF cameras.  The scooter test validates that.  Is that a real life issue, in some cases yes it is.   That is indeed an area that mirrorless cameras lag behind dSLRs.  Some mirrorless now have PDAF, but some still do not, and only have CDAF.
Having said that, my EM10 which uses CDAF is perfectly fine for a LOT of what I shoot.  And I have had zero focusing issues with it.  However, I do not use the EM10 to shoot sports.   For sports, I use the Nikon D7200 and EM1-mk2, which are not "beginner cameras," though the D5600 is similar in behavior to the D7200.​"Live view" on a dSLR uses CDAF, so the poor scooter AF results is no surprise. 
So yes, if shooting fast moving subjects is important, then you are looking for a specific camera function.

I do not use tracking AF, because except for a very few situations, tracking AF is not practical in most of what I shoot.  In my experience, tracking only work for a single subject like a single child or singles tennis.  Tracking fails in group activities, because the camera cannot track the ONE specific person, out of a group of people.  Color tracking, as Nikon uses, fails for me, because in sports, all the players on a team are wearing the SAME color uniform. 

Similarly I rarely use face AF.  Unless the ONLY face(s) in the frame is who you want to shoot, the camera will often select all the faces that it finds.  This includes the faces in the background and on the sides of the frame.  The result is the camera tries to focus on faces that I do NOT want in focus.  End result is that, for me in real life, face AF is more trouble than it is worth.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 10, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Did anyone who is commenting actually watch the video?



Yup.
IMHO, he did a decent job of a difficult subject.
But he did not do the one test that I consider critical, Center point, Single Shot AF.
If the camera cannot nail that, the AF fails.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2020)

ac12 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone who is commenting actually watch the video?
> ...



Kind of like testing a car to see how it handles in straight line driving for 500 feet...


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2020)

TechRadar has a nice test of 9 beginner cameras...their winner is the Nikon D3500.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 10, 2020)

Derrel said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Yes you are right.
One would ass-u-me that the camera WILL AF correctly with the center point and single AF.

IMHO, if one is going to do an AF test, the base line should be set and tested.
I recall once reading that someone's camera just could not focus sharply.  Move the lens to another camera and it focused sharply.  So the camera's AF was defective, and had to go back for warranty service.  
So, doing a baseline test would tell you if the camera does focus the lens properly.​


----------



## photo1x1.com (Aug 10, 2020)

@ac12 
I did that test to make sure they focused accurately (on a side note I had issues with the t7 in regard to white balance and other things and wrote to Canon whether that would be normal - they didn't reply. So I do take a lot of that into account, but if Canon wouldn't reply, I take the camera as is). But as Derrel said, that is pretty much a no-brainer. AND: if you checked the low-light focus test where I did exactly that in more difficult lighting situations. If they can do it there, they can do it in good lighting too.

When you say you have no issues with your cameras focusing: yes, of course, there are situations where it is much easier to focus, like a subject running parallel to the sensor plane. Which lenses did you use? 
I wanted to do some of the more difficult stuff, like a kid or dog running towards you. Because that is what challenges cameras. Sure I could have asked our neighbor boy to run towards me with a soccer ball to make it even more real life. But that is not 100% repeatable and that would lead to not statistically relevant data. 

Regarding face detection. On many cameras, you can register faces, but it has to work reliably, which it doesn't on the Olympus . As many people said (not here, but everywhere in the web): if face detection works properly, it is a game-changer.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 11, 2020)

I might be wrong, but I think beginning at 11:43 in the low light test that Wolf might have used center-point AF, but he does not specify. The Nikon D3500 and the Canon T7i nailed the test perfectly.


Glad to know that you are so enthusiastic about using a modern 3-D tracking capable digital camera as if it's a first-generation AF film SLR from 1990....from (multiple times over the past year) reading your lengthy scenario list it's clear that you are unaware of the nuances of Nikon's 3-D (distance and color aware focusing and metering, and it sounds like you need to re-configure your Lock-On setting so that your camera does not immediately scream to find a new focus target when you momentarily swing by something in the foreground. Center-point AF ONLY is wasting a lot of the capability. Have you ever tied Group Dynamic AF in a Nikon? Are you telling us that you think and react faster than a microcomputer that measures object color,reflectivity,and distance.

I have read multiple times of your difficulties when shooting crowded, multi-player sports events...I would suggest you buy a Thom Hogan "Guide to The Nikon ______" for whatever Nikon you wish to use for sports shooting, and read and learn about more-nuanced use of a modern, multi-point AF System….currently you are advocating using sophisticated AF cameras as if they were three-AF-point cameras from the 1990's.

Center point, single focus use? Kind of like evaluating a sports car by how it drives in first gear at 15 MPH.....


----------



## Derrel (Aug 11, 2020)

Seriously...buy and read the Thom Hogan "Guide to The Nikon D ____" and read about different ways to use a modern AF system...there are many situations where the 11-point or 21-point AF options will work wonders. Using single-point, center AF is sooooo 1990's.


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 11, 2020)

Why, the best beginner camera would be a Nikon D700 with low shutter count from the used market, really. Even better a D4, which are now getting really cheap recently.

Pro build, direct controls for everything, and really cheap really high quality glas available in spades, like:

- Nikkor AF 24mm f2.8
- Nikkor AF 35mm f2
- Nikkor AF 60mm f2.8 micro
- Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro
- Nikkor AF 180mm f2.8
- Nikkor AF 80-200mm f2.8

The socalled entry level bodies however are a massive waste of money. They lack essential features, they require menu surfing to operate, they have poor viewfinders, yada yada yada. No thanks.

P.s.: Oh, and none of the cheap but well built and optically amazing lenses from that list will autofocus on them, because those lenses all need an autofocus motor in the camera.





photoflyer said:


> Something that requires film.


Thats a great choice if you have too much money and too much time, to get rid of both for little effect.



RVT1K said:


> A good entry level camera needs one thing...an automatic setting.


Or they could, like, take a minute or two to learn the exposure triangle ?



webestang64 said:


> Would be interesting (also I'm curious) to see the different responses from the sales staff at the camera store I work in.


The most expensive camera the client can still afford.


----------



## Dave Maciak (Aug 11, 2020)

Simplicity
Wow, all that new "stuff" with all those switches and dials!  Think I'll load up my FM and just set "asa" and then
concentrate on composition and just having fun!  What a great way to learn.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 11, 2020)

@Derrel, I tried it.

On my D7200, for sports, I generally set the AF to C-D9.  Center + 1 point all around it, in a 3x3 matrix.  This gives me a bit of fudge when I miss tracking the subject.

On the Canon T7i, there is not a setting comparable to the Nikon D9, so I set to single point.  On the Canon, it is either single point or zone/area.  _Canon zone AF uses closest subject logic._   And that is the problem and the reason I don't use Canon zone AF.  Because often, MY subject is not the closest subject in the AF zone.

So for purposes of sport photography, as I shoot it, the Nikon D9 AF mode works better than Canon's zone AF.
Both are DX/APS-C dSLR cameras.
The majority of my focus misses are not from tracking, but when I switch subjects from A to B.  
When I do it FAST (like in volleyball), when I swing the camera, because of inertia, I sometimes overshoot the subject, so the AF point is on the background when I press the shutter.  The Nikon AF needs the AF point to start ON the subject.  In this scenario, the Canon zone might work better, IF there is no one closer to me in the AF zone.
Other times (soccer) it is just me trying to figure out where the ball in going to come down.  After 3 years, I've gotten better at this, but I don't shoot enough soccer to get that skill sorted out.

Because I generally do not have trouble tracking people, I only use D9.
If I were trying to track a fast moving bird or small animal, I might use D21 or D51.

I generally shoot plays, not tight individual shots.  So there are usually several players in the shot.  This is another reason Canon's zone AF does not work for me.  Invariably, some of the players will be closer to me than MY subject.
If I need an individual, I crop into the image to get that individual.

In most sports, the team is wearing the same uniform, so Nikon's color 3D tracking cannot keep track of a specific individual.  See note below for tennis, where I tested the 3D AF.

Football/soccer/lacrosse.  

Nikon lens is 70-200/4.  Olympus 12-100, 40-150.

The QB sometimes runs behind other players.  So other players are closer to me than the QB.
This specific scenario has been an issue of mine.
I could slow down the AF, so that it would ignore momentary interruptions, like a player or the ref running in front of me.  But then the AF also slows down when trying to follow the player who is not always running a straight line.  So setting the AF speed is a compromise.

Volleyball

Nikon/Canon lens is 35, 50 or 17-50/2.8.  I was hoping to try the 35-150/2.8-4, but the spring season closed down before I could try it.

Canon zone AF fails because of how the players are in the image.  

One of my target subject is the front spiker on the far side of the court.  This is because I can see the face of the far spiker, which I can't for the near spiker.  But there are 2 players between the far spiker and me; the near spiker and the setter.  

If I am shooting the middle player in the back row, the close player is between the middle player and me.

Sometimes I shift subject FAST from player A to B, and it is here where I have most of my OOF misses.  Simply from overshooting player B, and not having the AF point on player B when I press the shutter.
Basketball

Nikon/Canon lens is 35 or 17-50/2.8.  Olympus 12-45/2.8

Like football, the player that I am after is often inside a group of other players, some of whom are closer to me than my subject.
Tennis

Nikon lens is 18-140, 70-200, 75-300.  Olympus lens is 12-100, 75-300.

With just ONE subject, no other players to distract the AF, I tried the Nikon 3D tracking, and it failed.  It would lose the player and lock onto the lines on the court    It did that so often that I gave up using 3D tracking.
I used zone AF with my EM1-mk2, and it worked pretty good.
Baseball/softball

This is usually easy to use a Zone AF with, as most of the time the players are individual shots.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 11, 2020)

photo1x1.com said:


> @ac12
> I did that test to make sure they focused accurately (on a side note I had issues with the t7 in regard to white balance and other things and wrote to Canon whether that would be normal - they didn't reply. So I do take a lot of that into account, but if Canon wouldn't reply, I take the camera as is). But as Derrel said, that is pretty much a no-brainer. AND: if you checked the low-light focus test where I did exactly that in more difficult lighting situations. If they can do it there, they can do it in good lighting too.
> 
> When you say you have no issues with your cameras focusing: yes, of course, there are situations where it is much easier to focus, like a subject running parallel to the sensor plane. *Which lenses did you use? *
> ...



I shoot on the sidelines and court floor, so I have motion in all directions.

When I shoot basketball/volleyball/soccer/lacrosse, and do a FAST switch from player A in the distance to B closer to me (or visa versa).  Some/many times the lens is still focusing on player B, on the first shot of the burst.  But has reached focus on the 2nd shot of the burst.  In that case, it is simply the inability of the lens to change focus fast enough.  The camera is fine, because shot #2 and on are in focus.  So in this scenario, it is not only the camera but the AF speed of the lens that is important.  Some lenses focus faster than others, and some focus slower.

Canon T7i:  Soccer = Tamron 35-150/2.8-4, 70-210/4.  Basketball/Volleyball = Tamron 17-50/2.8, 35-150/2.8-4
Nikon D7200:  Football/soccer/lacrosse = Nikon 18-140/3.5-5.6, 70-200/4.  Volleyball = 35/1.8, 50/1.8.  Basketball = 35/1.8.
Olympus EM1-mk2:  Football/soccer/lacrosse = 12-100/4, 40-150/2.8  Basketball/volleyball = 12-40/2.8, 12-100/4

Yes the face AF is a game-changer, IF it works properly, and IF the situation is suited to us face AF.  As I said, I found face AF to be more trouble than value when shooting at parties and group events.  So I am much more selective when I choose to use face AF.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Aug 12, 2020)

ac12 said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > @ac12
> ...



And that's exactly why I did two things in the video:

tested different lenses on the same body to show people that lenses are important
told people "If working properly, that is a game-changer, because the camera detects the face in your frame and you don't have to constantly change the focus points you want to use, then do the framing and finally take the image."
It "almost" seems as if we are running in circles here


----------



## photo1x1.com (Aug 12, 2020)

Solarflare said:


> Why, the best beginner camera would be a Nikon D700 with low shutter count from the used market, really. Even better a D4, which are now getting really cheap recently.
> 
> Pro build, direct controls for everything, and really cheap really high quality glas available in spades, like:
> 
> ...



In general I agree, but "cheap" is relative and people have different needs.


----------



## RVT1K (Aug 12, 2020)

Solarflare said:


> Why, the best beginner camera would be a Nikon D700 with low shutter count from the used market, really. Even better a D4, which are now getting really cheap recently.




A D4 as a beginner's camera? Really?


----------



## ac12 (Aug 12, 2020)

I just bought a Nikon D5600 + 18-140 for the high school athletic dept., for the sports leadership students to use to take pictures for the athletic dept.
In a sports photography environment, the high school kids are about as beginner as I can think of, once you get beyond a phone camera.

Yearbook will probably be buying a couple Canon T8i cameras, to add to their T7i, and replace the old T3 and T5.
Yearbook has Canons, so they are going to stay Canon.


----------



## Dave Maciak (Aug 15, 2020)

photoflyer said:


> Something that requires film.  I don't shoot film but I did when I was a kid.  When you only have twenty or thirty six shots to work with before you have to reload and when there is a real cost to every click of the shutter, it forces you to be disciplined.
> 
> I was in a camera store while a mom and daughter were purchasing a film camera for a summer course the daughter was taking.  I said that it would make her a much better photographer.  They looked at me incredulously.  Then I made the points I just did above.  I think it really sank in.


Here in Nevada UNLV and I'd guess UNR both teach their respective photo classes using film.  IMHO it's simply the best way to teach.  I agree with your post, 100%.  It is a base, a foundation if you will, for technique, imagination, and all the things that have led us to this digital photography age---and the digital age is amazing. I bid all beginners to enjoy whatever equipment they have.  My starter was an Argus C3--anybody remember that one?


----------



## ac12 (Aug 15, 2020)

Dave Maciak said:


> photoflyer said:
> 
> 
> > Something that requires film.  I don't shoot film but I did when I was a kid.  When you only have twenty or thirty six shots to work with before you have to reload and when there is a real cost to every click of the shutter, it forces you to be disciplined.
> ...



Mine was a Kodak Starmite, then an Instamatic.
Then my father's Exakta . . . oooo my first 35mm SLR.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Aug 16, 2020)

After reading many of these replies the most important piece of equipment a beginner will need to have is a really good pair of hip waders!!! LoL
I think only once did I hear talent mentioned, all gear, gear gear!
About five years ago I finished photo school and was using a Canon 5Dmkll. Most of the students looked at it like it was the space shuttle! Most were using very entry level Canon dslr's. A dslr was a prerequisite to take classes, unless it was a film class.
Some of the more talented kids were producing amazing work with those entry level cameras. It had nothing to do with the cameras or the focus systems or the lenses! It was all talent to produce those amazing and unique images.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Aug 16, 2020)

To be honest after reading most of the replies the best suggestion to a beginner would be: don't read forums that are mainly visited by advanced photographers.
I'm really having issues understandin what would be wrong in getting the best possible equipment for the money people are willing to spend. Everyone does the same when buying a TV, a car or even a microwave oven. Yet when it comes to cameras, some people think it is a great idea to get the worst possible piece of equipment.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 16, 2020)

The answer is "It depends". I have students asking me this constantly and I ask:

What's the budget?
What kind of images do you want to make?
Film or Digital?
Mirror or mirrorless?

Many times, I will tell them to buy used and get the better lenses and bodies for what they would pay for a new, less expensive model. It really depends though. If I have a student who says "I want something I can photograph my friends and family with", a low end Nikon D series. If they tell me "I want something I can grow into (which is much more common)", then I might tell them to get a used D700 or if they have the budget a new, higher end Nikon. I generally recommend Nikon's because Canon now has so many different lens lines that many times, students will order via the internet and get the wrong kind of lens for their camera. And while the Z series now has a new line, I can still use my trusty 50mm F1.4 from my Nikon F on a Z body, so much more backward compatibility.

And if a student says "I want something I can go into a studio and shoot great images" I will suggest they look at a used Mamiya 645 or 645-1000s for film and an RB 67 if they want to shoot digital. Having used these and Hasselblads, I see no real difference in the overall image quality between the Mamiya and Hasselblads, and the Mamiya's are half the price.

Anyway, just my take on this question, which is an almost constant at my university. Be well one and all!

Cordially,

Mark


----------



## photoflyer (Aug 16, 2020)

Perhaps the best first camera is a book.  Yeah, a real honest to goodness book.   Not sure which, but I think a bit of theory goes a long way in any pursuit before one just plunges in.   Oh, and then after getting the camera, another book: the manual.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 16, 2020)

photoflyer said:


> Perhaps the best first camera is a book.  Yeah, a real honest to goodness book.   Not sure which, but I think a bit of theory goes a long way in any pursuit before one just plunges in.   Oh, and then after getting the camera, another book: the manual.



RTFM
I've banged my head against that wall with both kids and adults.
Unless they HAVE TO, many people today learn by experimentation.

So as an old timer who does read books, and have written a couple, this behavior upsets me.
We spend a lot of time and effort to write an instruction book, only to have someone tell us, "I don't have time to read, so tell me what to do."
IOW, they are too lazy to read, and want to be spoon fed.
I recall an old saying, "teach me and I will learn, tell me and I will do."  What is not said, in the 2nd half is, you will do, but not learn.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Aug 16, 2020)

Well by now you have a host of opinions, trials, and facts. None of which tells the beginner which is best for them.

Faced with this situation, I chose a Cannon T6 Rebel. It and its Nikon cousin are entry level cameras, available on the web for about $400.00. 

The first thing I discovered was all the bells and whistles that came with the camera. So I turned the knob to "manual" and decided use all these features I paid good money for. Low light, action, astro, micro, telephoto, fireworks were just some of the types of photography I have been taking. The digital camera re-introduced me to Black and White (a.k.a. monochrome) and a lot of old film gear came out of retirement including and old 4x5 view camera.

My point is, any of the above areas of photo interests, may have a camera best suited for those needs but if you like to dabble in all of them, you have to resign yourself to the fact that it is up to you to get the best out of whatever camera you have at hand.

Then you can say, this is what I want in a camera.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 16, 2020)

photoflyer said:


> Perhaps the best first camera is a book.  Yeah, a real honest to goodness book.   Not sure which, but I think a bit of theory goes a long way in any pursuit before one just plunges in.   Oh, and then after getting the camera, another book: the manual.



John Hedgecoe's "The Art of Color Photography" is excellent and I am a huge fan of Ansel Adam's series "The Camera", "The Negative", "The Print" and "Polaroid Land Photography". And even though they are a bit dated now, there is some fantastic information that is still highly relevant. If you are wanting to up your technical game, these four books are a must.


----------



## choidavid (Aug 17, 2020)

Ironically enough, these 'entry' level cameras have the worst user interface and design ever created.  They are so cumbersome and inefficient...to change the ISO you have to access the digital menu which is already too long for it to be useable!  I always suggest beginners to buy semi-pro bodies at used price than buying a Canon T series or a Nikon 3000-whatever.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Aug 17, 2020)

choidavid,

You are correct about entry level cameras having very poor interfaces making it slow to access what you want. But when you really do not know what each features does, the slower interface issue is of less concern.

However, it can be annoying when you want to hop between a couple of features you like.


----------



## marmle (Aug 20, 2020)

All my cameras have always been basic or "entry level" since that is all I could ever afford. I currently have a D5600,  the interface is fine but I do miss the top display and the second command dial that my D80 had. The touch screen and ability to assign certain buttons makes up for that though.  When/if I can afford it I have my heart set on a Z7.  I love the idea of having 3 user presets...I think I would have one for night, one for normal daytime and one for high speed. I also like the fact it has a dedicated ISO button,  although I have set up one of the function buttons on my D5600 to do the same job.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2020)

If you really want the worst user interface you can pay $3,499 for a Sony a 7 series, 47 megapixel.... Universally heralded as one of the worst menu systems ever, and talk about menu diving...


----------



## ac12 (Aug 20, 2020)

@marmle, since I don't shoot video, I setup record button to be my ISO change button, coupled with the rear command dial to change the ISO.
This weekend, I have to figure out how to do that on the D5600, since that is the camera that the school is using.

I shoot enough different stuff, that I've managed to not use presets.


----------



## Soocom1 (Aug 20, 2020)

Sigh.. 

Again I find it ironic that "advanced camera" translates to a plastic box with a digital sensor and some fancy features. 
funny how some of the most 'advanced" photographs taken used a bellows and manual lens. 

having owned and currently getting into a used BMW vs a jeep patriot, I can attest that the bimmer is really really fun!  But the patriot still goes from point a to point b. 

And, I can out run, out maneuver and beat at various street racing people in mustangs with the patriot who have not one iota clue on how to drive.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2020)

All cameras are equal, right? A Nikon D6 is the equal of a Canon T7i. I read as much earlier in the thread. Why spend $5,000 when a $389 camera can do just as well?

Oh and the same goes for motorcycles, cars, dishwashers, cellular phones, and computers: all of them are equivalent to all others in their category.

It does not matter what tool or instrument you use. All you need is talent and creativity..


----------



## Dave Maciak (Aug 21, 2020)

Derrel said:


> All cameras are equal, right? A Nikon D6 is the equal of a Canon T7i. I read as much earlier in the thread. Why spend $5,000 when a $389 camera can do just as well?
> 
> Oh and the same goes for motorcycles, cars, dishwashers, cellular phones, and computers: all of them are equivalent to all others in their category.
> 
> It does not matter what tool or instrument you use. All you need is talent and creativity..


Have not seen an "creativity" switch on any camera yet.  Agree 110%


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 27, 2020)

Derrel said:


> All cameras are equal, right?





Dave Maciak said:


> Agree 110%



How old are you ? Because I'm fairly sure you're surprisingly bad at spotting very obvious sarcasm.


----------



## fmw (Aug 29, 2020)

Derrel said:


> All cameras are equal, right? A Nikon D6 is the equal of a Canon T7i. I read as much earlier in the thread. Why spend $5,000 when a $389 camera can do just as well?
> 
> Oh and the same goes for motorcycles, cars, dishwashers, cellular phones, and computers: all of them are equivalent to all others in their category.
> 
> It does not matter what tool or instrument you use. All you need is talent and creativity..


Give a $5000 camera to a rank beginner and a $389 camera to talented creative phographer and send them out for a day of shooting.  Take a guess at who will return with the best images.  I didn't say every camera can do everything.  I said the camera one uses isn't the reason for the quality or value of an image.  I stand by that.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Sep 10, 2020)

I would have never thought that my video would start such a weird discussion, to be honest. A camera test is supposed to help people find the best camera for their needs. Some of you guys on the other hand compare beginners to professional photographers. 
As a beginner, you can only buy cameras, not talent. So what is wrong with maximizing the output of those things that you can buy instead of buying the worst possible equipment for whatever reason? It won't make you a better photographer if you buy the worst camera for your budget.
What I was hoping to be helpful in a beginner forum ended up in a 6-page discussion of very advanced photographers. I think sometimes we need to understand that this is not about us, but about photography.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 11, 2020)

A Ford pinto from 1977 is the equivalent of a 2019 Ferrari Formula1 car. Or at least that is what a certain poster here seems to think, that the machine has absolutely no bearing on the final results. I am here to say that that is poppycock, which is a polite way of saying total bullspit.

A long long time ago back in the film days I used to sell photo and video gear at retail.I can tell you from actual experience with hundreds of people that the camera makes a huge difference, especially to beginners.
In my experience, it is the intermediate photographer and the advanced amateur who can benefit the most from advanced camera design features

The more experience you have, the easier you can work around camera limitations. For the experienced photographer the camera is of less importance than it is to a beginner. To say that the camera makes no difference is a statement that is born out of ignorance of what beginner photographers need the most.

I have seen a few YouTube videos where experienced professional photographers make good pictures using even toy cameras. For people who do not have a vast reservoir of photographic knowledge and skill, a camera that has highly automated features,and which works with extreme ease and with high focus accuracy is a godsend.

The idea that any camera is as good as any other for a beginner is simply a falsehood. This is based upon 2 years of selling cameras to people, most of whom would be considered beginning to intermediate. I can tell you from actual experience selling at least one to five cameras a day for two years that the camera is actually of quite a high level of importance to beginners. To an experienced photographer, the camera is of little consequence.

Once again I am basing my statements on 2 years of retail selling of cameras over the counter to real people,not my own opinion. Some opinions are based upon actual experience, while others are based upon conjecture. The idea that all cameras are created equal as far as beginners are concerned is ludicrous. I have been involved with photography for over 45 years now and I have had cameras made in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1990s, 2000 and my most recent camera was made in 2012. I can say with a high degree of assurance that for a beginner the correct choice of camera is as important as anything.

For example let us take a Nikon D90 and compare its performance with a Nikon D800.  The D90 has a fairly narrow dynamic range and almost no highlight recovery is possible if you overexpose more than one stop. the Nikon D800 on the other hand has an amazingly malleable file, with an amazing dynamic range. I know of two beginning level shooters who were saddled with their old d90s and one is about 75 years old. He claimed over and over that film was better than digital. About 6 months ago he bought himself a Nikon d3400 and was amazed at the quality of digital. My ex-wife had a D90 for about 5 years... It was not that good a picture maker, and she replaced it with a d3300, which is much better.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 11, 2020)

fmw said:


> What could be less important than a camera?  Photography is all about creativity and technique.  The camera just captures what the photographer saw and did.  They pretty much all do that.  Choose something that appeals and go make some images.



Just so you can see what was stated earlier. I disagree with this post wholeheartedly.

What could be less important than the camera? The camera is actually quite important... We are talking about beginners here.There are several cameras that are known as good machines. The Tech Radar site which I linked to earlier,specifically lists the Canon t7i and the Nikon D3500 as being exceptional machines for the beginning photographer. I would say that the Canon EOS M50 is a horrible camera for a beginning shooter.


----------



## fmw (Sep 13, 2020)

Derrel said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > What could be less important than a camera?  Photography is all about creativity and technique.  The camera just captures what the photographer saw and did.  They pretty much all do that.  Choose something that appeals and go make some images.
> ...


Derrel, you are far too hung up on equipment.  Equipment is a collection of tools for the photographer.  What the beginner needs is a camera that provides for adjustable aperture, shutter speed and focus.  You can add more capability to include more photographic subjects and techniques to the mix.  But as a learning tool what is important is adjustable aperture, shutter speed and focus. Of course, you have the right to disagree all you like.  If everyone thought the same way it would be a boring world.  

By the way, I did have a 1975 Ford Pinto for a while.  I bought it to take me places I wanted to go and it served that purpose well. A Ferrari would have just cost more to get the job done and probably wouldn't have taken well to the bumper to bumper traffic common in that area.  I don't think a beginner should be hung up on things like motor drive speed and metering modes.  Those things can come later when the basics are out of the way.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Sep 13, 2020)

fmw said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


Later? How many cameras do you think a beginner will purchase per year? 
Again: what is wrong with purchasing the best equipment for the money you spend, and what is wrong with rather getting a camera that focuses 60% of the images correctly rather than 10%? 
To be honest, much of this is a really arrogant discussion.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2020)

FMW... I hope you enjoyed your Ford Pinto.I had a 1979 Mazda RX7. I have shot with a 1950s model Argus c3 and have owned and shot with the $8,000 Nikon d3x. Over a period of about 20 years I have bought 11 different DSLR cameras : three from Canon,three from Fuji, and the rest from Nikon itself. I know what I'm talking about. Like I said I used to sell cameras for two years.  I know how the camera affects the beginning photographer. The best camera  is far more productive for the beginner than a camera that has numerous issues. Choosing the right camera is actually important.for the beginning shooter, the right camera makes a big difference.

If we were to go by your logic,any pair of shoes would be equal to any other pair of shoes. Any house would do . Any job would do . They are all the same, unimportant, right? The flaws in your logic are quite clear. Best of luck to you.


----------



## fmw (Sep 15, 2020)

Derrel said:


> FMW... I hope you enjoyed your Ford Pinto.I had a 1979 Mazda RX7. I have shot with a 1950s model Argus c3 and have owned and shot with the $8,000 Nikon d3x. Over a period of about 20 years I have bought 11 different DSLR cameras : three from Canon,three from Fuji, and the rest from Nikon itself. I know what I'm talking about. Like I said I used to sell cameras for two years.  I know how the camera affects the beginning photographer. The best camera  is far more productive for the beginner than a camera that has numerous issues. Choosing the right camera is actually important.for the beginning shooter, the right camera makes a big difference.
> 
> If we were to go by your logic,any pair of shoes would be equal to any other pair of shoes. Any house would do . Any job would do . They are all the same, unimportant, right? The flaws in your logic are quite clear. Best of luck to you.



Sorry Derrel, your logic is faulty.  Any car will do for learning how to drive.  I learned on a Riley which had a stick shift.  Shoes don't have a learning curve.  Everybody knows how to use them.  Also you make an assumption that I recommend spending as little as possible on beginner camera.  All I said is that it doesn't matter what camera a beginner uses as long as it is controllable enough to teach the basic techniques.  If they want to learn on a $8000 camera that is fine with me.  My only point is that it isn't necessary.  We are talking around each other.


----------



## limr (Sep 15, 2020)

Can y'all just agree to disagree now? This is about 2-3 posts away from turning into "NUH-UH! "YEAH HUH!"

In other news, I now really want an RX7.


----------



## fmw (Sep 16, 2020)

limr said:


> Can y'all just agree to disagree now? This is about 2-3 posts away from turning into "NUH-UH! "YEAH HUH!"
> 
> In other news, I now really want an RX7.


No problem.  Consider me pulled out.  Obviously opinions contrary to the forum norm aren't welcome here.  I'll spend my time elsewhere.


----------



## limr (Sep 16, 2020)

fmw said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Can y'all just agree to disagree now? This is about 2-3 posts away from turning into "NUH-UH! "YEAH HUH!"
> ...



Oh for heaven's sake. Of course differing opinions are welcome. But when two members are just going back and forth essentially repeating themselves, there comes a point where you have to agree to disagree. You each have firm, strong opinions on this and neither one is going to budge. Is anything really going to be accomplished by continuing along in the same vein?


----------



## terri (Sep 16, 2020)

fmw said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Can y'all just agree to disagree now? This is about 2-3 posts away from turning into "NUH-UH! "YEAH HUH!"
> ...


Well, I sure hope it doesn't come to that.     As someone who has been here on TPF as long as you have, you likely know when a healthy discussion has devolved into repetition of certain points, and little is likely to be gained.   You're a very good photographer and have tons of info to share - so I hope you continue to do so.

Frankly, when the OP started saying he was getting too much info from what he perceives as more advanced photographers, posting in the Beginner's  forum, it should have sent up a flare.       There's no harm in asking to have one's thread closed, once an OP feels he or she has gotten enough info.   There's always room for expanded discussion, of course, and generally we _like_ to leave threads open.  But we may face the risk of maybe dragging stuff on too long. 

Let's all take a collective deep breath, remind ourselves that many of us may be dealing with Covid-induced cabin fever, and be willing to let stuff go.   Peace out.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 16, 2020)

limr said:


> In other news, I now really want an RX7.



Fun cars. Very different from a Pinto... The newer rx8 is on the market now and much more readily available in good condition.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 16, 2020)

fmw said:


> /QUOTE]
> Shoes don't have a learning curve.



Great! Then I will swap out my size 12 steel toe Danner work boots for a set of size 6 ballet slippers. The weight savings should make it all worthwhile!


----------



## Daria91 (Sep 19, 2020)

Derrel said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > What could be less important than a camera?  Photography is all about creativity and technique.  The camera just captures what the photographer saw and did.  They pretty much all do that.  Choose something that appeals and go make some images.
> ...


I absolutely agree. Of course, all the stated parameters are important, but without quality equipment do not get a quality picture as do not try.


----------



## greybeard (Oct 15, 2020)

fmw said:


> What could be less important than a camera?  Photography is all about creativity and technique.  The camera just captures what the photographer saw and did.  They pretty much all do that.  Choose something that appeals and go make some images.


Just pick something that feels good in your hands and seems easy and logical to understand.


----------

