Photography

I've looked at this a lot and had friends do a fair bit of this, I've done some research but nothing beats asking someone directly.

I'm looking for help regarding cameras, I'm looking right now to buy a Canon EOS 80D but im not 100% - is it a baf move for entry level and are there maybe better options? Any comments are welcome :)

is that camera set to do both still photos and video? You need one that does both.

It is yeah though personally I'm looking solely for great photos as I'd be using it for this mostly:)

I need to get a camera too. so when you find out let me know :P and then when you take beautiful pics of your beautiful land, send htem to me! :)

Canon EOS 80D is good enough for a semi-pro enthusiast. Don't forget the type of lens you use plays a major factor too. But yea, 80D overall is good enough.

Can't tell other things much, as there was no specific questions on other stuffs.

Just other suggestions, better options etc :)

80D is a solid choice in my opinion. It's a bit stockier and got a few more features than the true 'entry-level' cameras.

To be honest, I think you'd be quite hard pushed to differentiate between it and other cameras of a similar range from Nikkon or Canon. They're all pretty much the same imho.

The only other thing to consider is a mirrorless camera which has interchangeable lenses. Big DSLR cameras are great for many reasons. I like to walk to the top of a big hill with a bag on my back, set up a big tripod and take photos like that. I'd opt for a DSLR because they feel chunky and can take knocks and scrapes quite well. If you're planning on walking through cities, getting in people's faces and taking photos like that, a mirrorless might be a better choice for you. They are comparable in terms of megapixels and shit, they're just much smaller and much less hassle. Samsung do a mirrorless option which charges on mini-usb and looks genuinely tempting.

You'll find as you get more and more into photography that everything (and I really mean everything) is a compromise.

As for lenses. If you know the type of photography you're wanting to get into, get a lens specifically suited for that. If you'd like to try your hand at this and that, get a versatile lens like a 35-75 zoom or something.

Tbh, it all depends on what you want to be able to do with the camera you have.

Some DSLR cams might have this A function, but no B function...where as that other camera has B function, no A function. Some might have both A & B function, but compromise on something else.

Again, 80D is a semi-pro camera. So for any beginner or amateur-level enthusiasts, 80D is good enough.

Also, if you want to enhance the look of the photos you have taken, there are other softwares that could help you do that. (Adobe Lightroom...etc etc etc).

Hope this helps.

[image: gyazo.com]

Found this image, might help others if they search for the term in the future.

This is really interesting, i didn't know where they all stood definitively. I started out a few years ago on the 100D and I'm surprised it's considered so low on the list. There really aren't too many features lacking hat I can think of, and the ones I can (type of autofocus and stabilization and such) I don't use for the types of photos I like to take normally.

I'm planning to save in the future though and upgrade to something bigger and better.

In all honesty, after a certain point, I think there are very few times in which the camera determines the quality of the photo. Perhaps a great camera can make an amazing shot better, but they'll never be able to make a bad shot good.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos800d&products=canon_eos77d&products=canon_eos80d&products=canon_eos100d&sortDir=ascending

The 3 main cameras i'm looking at + 100D if interested, I found it to be a good comparison site

Nice, that seems like a brilliant site. I never looked into all that to be honest, I've just played with friends' cameras and they seemed about the same to me. There doesn't seem to be too much in it between your three choices, mine is a bit further down but for the price difference, I'd probably go for it again if I had the choice.

I went from taking photos on my phone that I thought were pretty to suddenly wanting a camera. I knew nothing of image composition or any of the technical aspects of a camera. I have all the photos I've taken for the past two years saved away from my computer. It's only the ones I've taken in the past few months that I will ever show anyone though. Something's twigged in my head and I think I understand now what I like to focus on and what I want my photos to be. If you're absolutely certain that you're going to be investing a lot of time and effort into this hobby (and have plenty of disposable income available), then going for an expensive camera can only be a good thing.

I've got extremely good use out of my little camera, it's a great way to unwind on your down time and it's awesome to see yourself improve and progress. I'm excited for you! haha

It's the sort of person I am I guess, I've had an interest for a while using family and friends cameras, currently using my s7 camera too but for landscape noticing nothing really compared to a real camera vs my phone. So to justify the purchase (as dumb as that sounds) to myself I spent a whole looking through cameras trying to find a good range and then finding out what would be a good go for me.

Everything from ISO, shutter speed, lenses and other things. In a way it's good that I'm my biggest hurdle when buying something but I placed an order for a d80 with a 18-55mm lense and I'm look8ng forward to getting it :)

Oh boy...in photography, the setting for ISO, shutter speed and aperture are much more annoying than taking videos.

Just a fun fact, using high ISO is bad. Coz the higher ISO is, the more blurs will show up in the picture/footage. Hence, an external light source (flash) is usually used, to avoid increasing the ISO too much. It all depends on the light souce on the location, lens aperture etc etc etc tho.

Again, annoying lol. But to get the best pic quality, it is what it is.

Ah yeah, I've effectively been told 100 iso is what you should aim for and the more you raise it the worse the imagine quality will become - the 80d has a 8000th/sec shutterspeed allowing for "sporting" photography while suggested 1000/s for decent speed

If it goes well I'll likely go out and buy a 50-200mm lense as I didn't want to go straight for a 18-135mm due to the costs :p

"Prime" (non-zoom) lenses have better picture quality than zooms. It's also good practice to use your legs as your zoom because you'll be much more deliberate about your framing. Being able to zoom in and out for miles makes us lazy (though, obviously it's needed if we're at a river or on a cliff or something).

You'll probably find that you'll very rarely want to use a high ISO as you quite rightly said. The noise can get bad quick, leaving a load of static in the picture. But this is what I was getting at in my first post, it's a compromise. If you're taking photos around sunset and then you see a really photogenic fishing boat just as the sun has set and it's getting dark. You could pull out a flash, but then you'll get a load of ugly shadows all over the shot. So what do you do? Compromise. Push up the ISO to where you're willing, so it allows you to get a shot with perhaps a bit of noise but so that's it's still usable. Same is true for the shutter speed, the aperture, where you position the camera. It's the very beauty of photography. Every shot you take stems from a series of decisions which would have made a very different shot if you had changed your mind.

The thing about having a great camera and the best lenses is you have the flexibility, if you come across a humming bird and you want to freeze its wings in motion, you're able to at 8000/s. It's an option you won't find yourself using all that often, but who knows when you'll be grateful for having it?

Three things I'd recommend getting if you like landscapes: A polarizing filter (one of the most important bits of kit and quite inexpensive), at least one strong ND filter (good ones cost a bomb but they're important to allow you long exposures during high light conditions) and a sturdy tripod (don't cheap out on this one by one as expensive as you're willing and able, they make life so much easier and give you a lot of freedom.

Doesn't really need to be exactly 100 ISO. It's basically, the lower the ISO you used, the better. But even with low ISO, if the light source is crap(too low for the camera/lens to catch) = picture quality still crap.

Another funfact, here are the 3 types of lens . Standard, Wide, Prime lens (as Cathead said, prime lens can't zoom.)

I'm no pro but I do like cameras both film and digital.

The lenses will likely outlast the body so my opinion I'd put more money toward lenses than the newest and best body which will be outdated in a few years.

Personally I'd look at used bodies first, maybe even used lenses if they are really clean. You might find that dropping $1,200 plus on a camera, lenses, tripod, strobes, etc makes you a little more uncomfortable taking it around everywhere. Even shooting it all the time might weigh on you thinking about the shutter count but idk maybe not. Also camera bodies can really depreciate equaling a good deal for you if you can look past the my pixels are bigger than yours.

MP are pretty much a scam now unless you plan to do a lot of poster sized prints, cropping or post processing. I'd look into how many MP you actually need to print out a 5x7 or 8x10 you might be surprised.

Ah while 26MP is a n8ce amount I based what I ended up going for on the sensor and the size of the sensor:)

[image: i.imgur.com]

I'm officially one of those plebs who takes pictures not knowing what they're doing

tho results don't seem too bad :p