You don't need a better camera!

Discuss cameras, settings, composition, or anything related to photography - cactus or other subjects.
DaveW
Posts: 7076
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by DaveW »

Yes a friend of mine is always upgrading his cameras to the latest Nikon's yet keeps telling me not to upgrade my D200, 10 megapixel saying I will not get a better image on the computer screen, only many more very much larger files to store on computer. I guess it is really as SnowFella says, it depends what you want it for, so "its horses for courses". I also notice there is a greater range of closeup equipment for my old DSLR camera such as bellows etc than for the newer mirrorless cameras. OK if the macro lens available goes to the highest magnification you want, usually life size on the sensor. Maybe after mirrorless has been in production long enough the more specialist accessories will be produced again?

10 Megapixels hand held available light (no flash) Crop of middle third of image.

52_Newhover3_11.jpg
52_Newhover3_11.jpg (101.76 KiB) Viewed 2585 times

Turbinicarpus polaskii stigma.
stigma.jpg
stigma.jpg (95.3 KiB) Viewed 2585 times

Close up photography is as much learning to work at very limited depths of field than high megapixel equipment. Many conventional photographers used to depths of field in feet cannot get used to optimising DOF available in a few centimetres or even millimetres.
User avatar
SnowFella
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by SnowFella »

Same goes for long lens use, getting enough DOF can be a hassle at times especially if there's multiple subjects.
As for the downsides of high Mp cameras, files are huge and to make the most of them for either web use or print you have to print or upload huge files.
Case in point, here's a shot as it came out of the camera just downscaled to 2048pixels from 9504pixels on the wide end.
Image
DSC00843_1 1 by Johan Olsson, on Flickr

Just no fine detail to really be seen.
However a 1:1 crop tells a whole different tale.
Image
DSC00843_2 by Johan Olsson, on Flickr

There's loads of fine detail there that just can't be seen unless viewed large or cropped in tight, and that's indeed somewhat of a benefit the high Mp sensors have and as I birder I frequently have to use even with a 600mm lens at my disposal.
Another benefit from newer gear is just how much detail you can bring back from both highlights and shadows.
Just too much dynamic range for the camera to fully display as it was recorded, highlight slightly clipped and crushed shadows.

Image
DSC00577 by Johan Olsson, on Flickr

Presto!
Image
DSC00577_1 by Johan Olsson, on Flickr
DaveW
Posts: 7076
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by DaveW »

As SnowFella points out, you don't always get best results with digital straight out of the camera, therefore its best to learn to post process the images.

Why post process? The following link says:

"Using a process to transform photos from what was captured in a camera either to be closer to what our eyes saw, or to alter the image artistically"

Regarding shooting RAW, not all cameras offer this function, it is mainly found on higher end ones.

https://improvephotography.com/31639/po ... otography/

https://digital-photography-school.com/ ... -workflow/
User avatar
jerrytheplater
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:38 pm
Location: Bloomingdale, NJ (USDA Zone 6b)
Contact:

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by jerrytheplater »

I just went into Canon's website and took a look at the online manual and other documents. A huge amount of reading. Then they offer software... And all of the links showing up here. This is becoming an education.

OK, really basic question. Is there a special cleaning solution/wiper for cleaning lenses? I used to use a special liquid cleaner for coated lenses and paper wipes. Has anything changed here since 1970?

And, I have a 16 GB SD card for my Panasonic Lumix point and shoot. (It is really a mini SD of some type in an adaptor to get it to fit in the Lumix. It does fit in the Canon M50). If I use it, I have to format it for my Canon. I'm thinking I'll just get another. My choices are: SD, SDHC, or SDXC. What is the difference between them and does it matter what brand I buy?
Jerry Smith
Bloomingdale, NJ
45 inches (114 cm) rain equivalent per year, approx. evenly spread per month
2012 USDA Hardiness Zone 6b: -5F to OF (-20C to -18C) min.
User avatar
leland
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:55 pm
Location: North central Nicaragua
Contact:

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by leland »

Look in the owner's manual. It should say what speed is optimal for your camera. Having a fast SD card also helps with downloading to your computer. Brand doesn't matter as much as speed. With a new camera it will probably be something like a Sandisk Pro 64 gb or equivalent. I find micro-SDs with an adapter to be awkward so if your camera takes a SD just get an SD card which should be formatted in the camera it will be used in.

If you are shooting jpeg and stills you can get by with a much smaller card than if you are shooting raw or videos but as time goes on bigger cards are cheaper and easier to find than smaller ones so buy whichever seems cost effective at the time.
Last edited by leland on Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jerrytheplater
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:38 pm
Location: Bloomingdale, NJ (USDA Zone 6b)
Contact:

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by jerrytheplater »

Leland

I got the three types of SD card from the manual but neglected to read the fine print. It says for the SDHC and SDXC the UHS-1 cards are supported.

I was just reading this explanation of the cards from a Google search https://aperlust.com/what-is-an-sd-card ... -a1-vs-a2/

DaveW, This camera can shoot either jpeg or RAW. It will be my first entry into RAW. I did see the power of photo editing when I modified a photo of an aquatic carnivorous plant flower. I just used whatever is free on my computer and it had a section called filters or something like that. I was able to make the flower look much better than the picture I started with. I have a lot to learn.

Snowfella, amazing what you have done. How long did it take you to learn to do those edits?
Jerry Smith
Bloomingdale, NJ
45 inches (114 cm) rain equivalent per year, approx. evenly spread per month
2012 USDA Hardiness Zone 6b: -5F to OF (-20C to -18C) min.
User avatar
SnowFella
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by SnowFella »

For memory cards I'd suggest to buy the fastest card the camera can handle, likely in this case an SDXC Class 10 card. Can usually tell what Class a card is by a number inside a "bucket" on the card.
Won't matter much in regular photography unless you start using the full 10 FPS the camera is capable of but it will matter if you plan on shooting video. With slower cards the camera just can't save the higher quality video's fast enough to the card and the camera will either not let you start recording or will stop recording randomly.
16 or 32Gb should be ample for a 24Mp camera for photography, for video work you might need bigger cards. I use 32Gb cards and can get over 500 shots before I fill a card, mind you that's out of a 61Mp camera shooting compressed RAW files at near 60Mb a shot! With my older 24Mp camera I could from memory fit somewhat over 700 shots into a 16Gb card.

As for editing, your camera should come with Canon's DPP software (or if not it's available free from Canon as a download). It's a reasonably good editing software that can manage most of what the often costly 3rd party editing software's that can be bought. Some even class it as better as it tends to handle reds better, red coloured things tend to be a nightmare for digital sensors and can easily clip highlights.
If you are nervous regarding starting out with RAW files then there's always the option of setting the camera to RAW+JPG, it will record both to the card and you can decide at a later date if you want to process the RAW file or if the JPG is good enough. Does take up more space on the card and harddrives though and all the shooting options in the camera might not be available.

And I honestly couldn't tell how long it took for me to learn. I've been playing around with image editing since around 2003, starting out handpainting texture files for computer games and photo editing since I got my first digital camera around 2010. Don't really do heavy editing, it's mostly all using the various sliders available in the editing program I use (Capture One). For the duck photo it was mainly just a matter of pulling the highlight slider down and the shadows slider up. =P~ All in all a 30 second fix.
DaveW
Posts: 7076
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by DaveW »

Yes for older cameras like mine make sure what cards they can take. A friend was sold two 64GB cards for his and his wife's cameras but they did not work on his but was OK on his wife's camera. He could not understand it so he asked me why and looking it up I found his camera would only take cards up to 32GB, although the later models like his wife's could handle the larger cards even though both fitted the same card slot. Anyway his wife kept that one and he took an unused card back and they changed it to a more appropriate 32GB one for him.

See:-

https://www.popularmechanics.com/techno ... -16326614/

How large a card you really need depends on how far you are from your computer. I took 2 x 32GB cards to Chile for a three week trip and only used one. Obviously somebody like SnowFella photographing moving objects like birds needs to shoot more frames than I did photographing static cacti. Generally though with static plants you should not need to take more than around 4 shots to get a decent one with no "machinegunning" static objects as some digital users now do. I guess we older ones from film days got used to being sparing with shots since film and processing was expensive, therefore shots had to count rather than selecting the best one from 20 shots as some now do.

Note the difference between my 10 megapixel camera shooting RAW. I got 1200 shots on a 32GB card, whereas SnowFella gets just over 500 shots on his 32GB card with a 61 megapixel camera. As my friend says the more you step up the megapixels the more computer storage space you need, but still get only around 8 megapixel resolution on a computer screen.

When I am at home near my computer I can just take a few shots on a small card then immediately download to computer and wipe the card for reuse. Some I know take laptops on habitat trips and download the pictures from their cards every evening and wipe the card for use next day. Therefore they don't need to hold all the trips images on their cards until they get back. As always its what suits your needs and your type of photography.
User avatar
jerrytheplater
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:38 pm
Location: Bloomingdale, NJ (USDA Zone 6b)
Contact:

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by jerrytheplater »

Re Memory cards: I've seen house brand 64 GB SDXC UHS-1 cards for maybe $10.00 and I've seen name brand (Lexar, San Disk) for $50. Should I stick with name brands? What is the difference?

Thanks Dave and all. You are giving me some ideas of how many photos a card can hold. I usually take mine off after 10-20 photos anyway. I was looking at a 512 GB card today and it wasn't really that expensive. Imagine: I remember Excel would come with 9 floppy disks, and we thought that was big.

Spare battery: here again I've seen larger capacity batteries non name brand, for $20 or so (exactly the same physical size and same battery number, just larger milli Amp-hr and the Canon exact replacement for what comes with the camera for $55. Name brand or house brand? What is the difference?
Jerry Smith
Bloomingdale, NJ
45 inches (114 cm) rain equivalent per year, approx. evenly spread per month
2012 USDA Hardiness Zone 6b: -5F to OF (-20C to -18C) min.
User avatar
jerrytheplater
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:38 pm
Location: Bloomingdale, NJ (USDA Zone 6b)
Contact:

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by jerrytheplater »

jerrytheplater wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 12:56 am Re Memory cards: I've seen house brand 64 GB SDXC UHS-1 cards for maybe $10.00 and I've seen name brand (Lexar, San Disk) for $50. Should I stick with name brands? What is the difference?
I sent a question to Canon directly about the cards. They just told me to be sure it meets the specs for SDXC UHS-1. Capacity does not matter. I ended up buying a San Disk 64 GB SDXC UHS-1 for $22.00 after tax.
Jerry Smith
Bloomingdale, NJ
45 inches (114 cm) rain equivalent per year, approx. evenly spread per month
2012 USDA Hardiness Zone 6b: -5F to OF (-20C to -18C) min.
User avatar
SnowFella
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by SnowFella »

I've had mixed luck with 3rd party batteries and cheap SD cards in the past.
Got some cheap aftermarket batteries for an old DSLR once upon a time and they lasted all of 6 months before they stopped taking a charge. Lithium batteries need to keep some charge in them to stay functioning, most do it by including a circuit that preserves some charge even if the camera claims it's empty...guess the cheapo's left out that circuit.
My 10+ year old original battery for that camera still works almost as well as the day I first unboxed it.

Also read some reports of swelling of knockoffs in various online forums, to the point where batteries have got stuck inside camera's needing either expensive repairs to be removed or some creative DIY solutions.

As for cards, same there really. Never had a good known manufacturer (like San disk) card go bad on me in over 10 years but have had one cheapo card picked up at my local grocery store go bad. It was still recording the photos but something happened internally with it's transfer speed. Both read and write speeds went right down, took ages to transfer photos from the cameras buffer to the card and trying to download photos to my computer took ages. Swapped it out for a San Disk card and problem solved.
User avatar
jerrytheplater
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:38 pm
Location: Bloomingdale, NJ (USDA Zone 6b)
Contact:

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by jerrytheplater »

Thanks SnowFella.

And totally off topic, but how much snow do you see in Sydney?
Jerry Smith
Bloomingdale, NJ
45 inches (114 cm) rain equivalent per year, approx. evenly spread per month
2012 USDA Hardiness Zone 6b: -5F to OF (-20C to -18C) min.
User avatar
SnowFella
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by SnowFella »

Ummm...none in my area but does snow from time to time up the mountains not far from here.
Did however see quite a bit of it back home in Sweden where I grew up. :wink:
User avatar
jerrytheplater
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:38 pm
Location: Bloomingdale, NJ (USDA Zone 6b)
Contact:

Re: You don't need a better camera!

Post by jerrytheplater »

SnowFella wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:45 am Ummm...none in my area but does snow from time to time up the mountains not far from here.
Did however see quite a bit of it back home in Sweden where I grew up. :wink:
I was trying to understand your user name. Didn't think there was too much snow in Sydney. Thanks
Jerry Smith
Bloomingdale, NJ
45 inches (114 cm) rain equivalent per year, approx. evenly spread per month
2012 USDA Hardiness Zone 6b: -5F to OF (-20C to -18C) min.
Post Reply