little help with camera purchase?

[matt3o]

all I know about cameras is that pictures never come out the way I want them.

Can anyone suggest a nice camera for mainly indoor product shots? I'm intrigued by mirrorless for their reduced size, but I'm open to any option. I definitely don't need a €3000 product, I would never take advantage of it.

I've found the Sony a6000 (or a5100) that seems nice, but I'd like to know your opinions.

I don't need many extras but I'd like timelapse and wifi. I very rarely use a flash, so it doesn't need to be integrated.

thanks

[7bit]

Nikon D750 or Fuji XPro2 (also X-T10) or some micro 3/4 from Olympus or Panasonic.


Sony is shit!


A good choice might also be a D7000 (used) and a macro zoom lens, like the 70-180mm AF or a manual focus 70-210 if you have not so much money.


X100T with fixed 23mm lens takes pictures in any crummy light and can focus up to 10cm. It might be the one camera you ever need ...


Cheapest option:
Used Nikon D40 and a used 18-55mm DX lens (25cm close focus!

[ohaimark]

Nikon uses Sony sensors in their cameras with a filter removed. So no, Sony is not shit. They've been huge innovators in the industry. Their lens line isn't as mature as Nikon. The adaptability of their mirrorless cameras make them uniquely suited for manual focus "art" lenses or "serious" prime lenses from other manufacturers. The fact that you can find those lenses for cheap is an added bonus. Their JPG colors aren't as well refined as Canon and Nikon, but their RAW workflow is wonderful. Lots of dynamic range.

I've had great luck with the a6000 and cheap manual focus lenses, particularly the Canon 50mm FDn f1.4. Sharper than a razor. My only gripes are the digital viewfinder and a relatively short battery life, but that's the price you pay for the compact size of mirrorless cameras. Its ability to shoot RAW at a TON of frames per second makes it very competitive for entry level action photography, though.

Any Nikon DSLR will treat you well if you have a larger budget to take advantage of their mature lens line.

[chzel]

Nikon uses Sony sensors in their cameras with a filter removed.

And Toshiba.

Any Nikon DSLR will treat you well if you have a larger budget to take advantage of their mature lens line.

That. Even a lowly D3x00 will have more than enough image quality.
After that it's just features and "nitpicking".
I had my trusty D50 for a decade before "upgrading" to a D5300, which I kept for about 4 months because I couldn't stand it.
Too small, no top screen and too few buttons, no AF motor. Everything was buried deep in menus. So I sold it and got a D7200, which is brilliant.
The biggest investment is glass. With a good Nikon body you can pick up a 40-50 year old razor sharp lens and start shooting.
Good luck doing that with Canon!

Mirrorless are a good compromise if you can stand the form factor.

[matt3o]

I've had great luck with the a6000 and cheap manual focus lenses, particularly the Canon 50mm FDn f1.4. Sharper than a razor. My only gripes are the digital viewfinder and a relatively short battery life, but that's the price you pay for the compact size of mirrorless cameras. Its ability to shoot RAW at a TON of frames per second makes it very competitive for entry level action photography, though.

can you quantify "short battery life"?

The nikon D7200 seems really nice and can be found at a pretty reasonable price point. The D500 looks really fantastic but a bit too expensive probably.

wondering why there's basically nothing interesting in the $600-1000 range, you go from $600 straight to $1200.

[ohaimark]

~250 shots per battery using the kit lens. I get 350 with manual focus lenses. There's a lot of static power draw due to the viewfinder or LCD screen. I advise bringing 5 batteries to an extended shoot. I get by with 2 and it isn't much of a hassle. You just have to be conscious of keeping one on the charger at all times -- preferably an aftermarket charger and not the USB cable bullshit that comes with the camera.

Consumers and prosumers tend to have the same budget. The only differences are their needs and wants, the former having more of both. After those brackets the pros are the only large demographic that produces interesting revenue due to their huge budgets.

Don't forget to snag a cheap color calibration unit. I use a Colormunki Smile with DispCalGui, an interface for ArgyllCMS.

I'd actually be willing to let people in the U.S. borrow it if they paid shipping. sRGB calibration fixes folks' tendency to oversaturate images.

[7bit]

Nikon uses Sony sensors in their cameras with a filter removed. So no, Sony is not shit. They've been huge innovators in the industry. Their lens line isn't as mature as Nikon.

The sensors are not really relevant, it is the software.
Also: Sony is very well known for shitty user interfaces.
One more reason to buy Nikon, Fuji or Olympus/Panasonic.

The adaptability of their mirrorless cameras make them uniquely suited for manual focus "art" lenses or "serious" prime lenses from other manufacturers. The fact that you can find those lenses for cheap is an added bonus. Their JPG colors aren't as well refined as Canon and Nikon, but their RAW workflow is wonderful. Lots of dynamic range.

Those lenses when used with a lens-adapter have a bad performence and you are back in the 1950s. With Nikon manual focus lenses, everything works flawless, except you focus manually.

I've had great luck with the a6000 and cheap manual focus lenses, particularly the Canon 50mm FDn f1.4. Sharper than a razor. My only gripes are the digital viewfinder and a relatively short battery life, but that's the price you pay for the compact size of mirrorless cameras. Its ability to shoot RAW at a TON of frames per second makes it very competitive for entry level action photography, though.

Amateur camera for people who should better use their iphone!

Any Nikon DSLR will treat you well if you have a larger budget to take advantage of their mature lens line.

yep.


All mentioned brands (plus Canon) are way better!

[Matt_]

Whatever camera you choose, if you want to take product shots, be sure to get a tripod and a lightbox. You can get great results with those two, an entry-level DSLR, and a bit of technique (i.e. practise). You definitely don't need a $1200+ body for this kind of shots (where you can take your time setting up light/focusing/checking the viewfinder or rear screen, etc.).

Canon or Nikon will allow you to get used prime lenses (no zoom, but better optical quality) for cheap (relatively). A sharp 50mm prime would be a great start. There are a bit less options for Sony, Olympus or Pentax bodies but you can always use adapters, although it's not always ideal. But honestly, for product photos, the default 18-55mm Canon EF-S lens or their equivalent from other manufacturers should be perfectly adequate already.

Oh, and don't hesitate to scour dpreview for advice.

[ohaimark]

The sensors are not really relevant, it is the software.

Also: Sony is very well known for shitty user interfaces.

All mentioned brands (plus Canon) are way better!

The sensors are VERY relevant for RAW photography. The software is VERY relevant for JPEG photography. Saying that the sensors are irrelevant... I have no idea what you're smoking, man. It actually upsets me a little.

The UI on the a6000 isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. There are also a lot of custom function buttons, which mitigates the awkwardness.

I second the tripod. Get a rock-solid one -- sharpness strongly correlates with stability. The lightbox can be DIYed on the cheap if you're into that sort of thing.

[7bit]

I 100% agree with you, Matt_!*

-------------------
*) except I'd recommend a Nikon

[ohaimark]

I 100% agree with you, Matt_!*

-------------------
*) except I'd recommend a Nikon

Agree with you about the choice between Canon and Nikon. If you want a DSLR and not a mirrorless, get Nikon.

[7bit]

all I know about keyboards is that text never comes out the way I want it.

Can anyone suggest a nice keyboard for mainly indoor typing? I'm intrigued by tenkeyless for their reduced size, but I'm open to any option. I definitely don't need a €3000 product, I would never take advantage of it.

I've found the Topre a6000 (or a5100) that seems nice, but I'd like to know your opinions.

I don't need many extras but I'd like USB and n-key rollover. I very rarely use a numpad, so it doesn't need to be integrated.

thanks

[ohaimark]

all I know about keyboards is that text never comes out the way I want it.

We all have that problem sometimes...

OP -- get a program like Lightroom too. Even if it's through... Questionable means. A postprocessing program is a necessity.

[chzel]

If text never come out the way you like, search for tutorials to learn to type better and practice A LOT.
To the point now, you could get an IBM SSK, the controller on the Topre is good, but their drivers are meh.
Plus with the IBM, you can get an old 5170 computer and it will do DOS perfectly!
Oh, and get a strong sturdy desk! And a desk lamp!

We know 7bit, open questions like that rarely amount to more than opinion throwing, but let's humour matt3o!

[Muirium]

Oh boy. You're on the dive board, about to leap into something more complex and mind bending than the whole world of keyboards! Expect more opinions than the number of people opening their mouths with advice. And they'll be right, too; because there's swings and roundabouts everywhere you look. Especially because you're starting from zero. All the brands! Where to look?

A couple of key pieces of advice from me:

1. It's all good! Fortunately, your use case is a great place to start. Product photography is something every camera can do quite nicely. You don't need speed, fancy lenses, endless modes or much of anything. But what you do need is:

2. Light! The lightbox and tripod advice is very sound. I'd say a good flash is the key to your setup. Choosing one and learning how to use it! There's an art to lighting that makes all the difference.

I'm actually in Speedlite research mode just now myself. My time in America is coming to an end and if there's one missing piece in my camera gear it's a flash. There's plenty of dirt cheap ones available, but I'm going to check out Canon's newest model in a local camera store. Because those still exist here, unlike back home!

Speaking of which:

3. Try before you buy. Camera gear is nicely available for rent or at least fondling in a store almost everywhere, because photographers are almost everywhere, and they don't always bring all their stuff. Try some equipment to see how it fits you. There's no worse time to discover you hate an interface than after you just bought something. The guys in the shops aren't always idiots, either. For something so fundamentally nerdy, photography is a surprisingly widespread interest!

[ohaimark]

I think cameras are easier to discuss. At least the websites that compare them can directly measure dynamic range, RAW fps, and sensor size (among other things).

On keyboard forums the "grittiness" of dirty Alps hasn't been quantified in measurements, for example.

You can get good results with any "quality" entry level camera using technique and effort.

I'll jump out of this discussion because I've contributed all the useful advice I have.

[Matt_]

Agreed, there is less snake oil in photography than in other fields (keyboards, musical instruments, you name it). Lots of strong opinions, but in many cases ("which lens for this or that?") you can make your own from comparison shots for instance.

[matt3o]

I have a tripod and a very simple lightbox, I took some decent product pictures in this setup with a (hi-end) point and shoot but I hate that image noise especially noticeable in close ups.

I'm not interested in pc vs mac, amiga vs atari, the thing vs hulk, nikon vs canon things. From my point of view (that could be totally wrong) a sony a6000 seems a huge step forward from my current camera. I understand it is considered a lame camera but ohaimark confirmed it's a decent option.

@7bit, honestly I don't get your point with the "keyboard post". I would like the equivalent of a "take a Filco" for cameras. Probably it's not that simple, but like I said, I know terribly nothing about cameras.

I made some more research, I've found a nikon 7200 with a standard lens for €1200. That is very tempting, I'll think about it. If I decide I want to take it so seriously I'll go for it, otherwise there's the a6000/5100 or the samsung NX500.

[chzel]

If you need any clarification regarding the D7200, feel free to ask! Which lens?

[matt3o]

If you need any clarification regarding the D7200, feel free to ask! Which lens?

It comes in kit with the D7200, it's a 18-105 VR. I could take just the body the lens separately but that would be more expensive.

when I fist bought a keyboard I knew nothing about them, I made some research and took a Filco with MX Red. I later switched to MX Blue... and then switched and switched and switched... It's a trial and error process, but I got to start from somewhere.

[7bit]

Sorry for poking fun of you.

The D7200 is a perfect camera, except I would not buy DX-format anymore. At least not new. This is why I suggested a used D7000. It is almost the same for a fraction of it's price. Istead you can invest in lenses and save the money to buy a full frame camera in 4-5 years.
But if buyibng new is yur only option, take the D7200 and ask chzel for the best lens choice.

[matt3o]

what's wrong with DX?

no, I don't care about "new", simply I usually try to spend more initially and make a long term investment. Last time I bought a Sony RX100 and it's a magnificent camera (for its size). It was expensive but it's still a sound point and shoot 100 times better than a camera-phone

Edit: I just found a refurbished D7200+18-105 lens for €890. Now THAT is tempting...

[Matt_]

I have a tripod and a very simple lightbox, I took some decent product pictures in this setup with a (hi-end) point and shoot but I hate that image noise especially noticeable in close ups.

If you want to take close-ups, make sure that whatever's included in your $1200 kit allows you to do macro photography. Better than taking a larger shot and cropping it later.

To avoid image noise, use abundant light, the lower possible ISO setting, and shoot in RAW to avoid artifacts due to the camera's internal jpeg conversion (although it should be more than decent in recent DSLRs).

[chzel]

Nothing inherently wrong with DX, just FX is better in many ways.
Better viewfinders (larger), better wide end (no crop factor), in general better image quality.
Ideally I'd be getting a D750 instead of the D7200, but the price jump is a bit steep...
18-105 is not a really good lens...I think the 18-55 is a better option. Or if you get the body only, the Sigma 17-50/2.8 is an excellent lens for the price. Or get the kit and sell the 18-105!
My current lens lineup is the Sigma 17-50/2.8, Nikon 35/1.8(DX), Micro Nikkor 60/2.8, Tamron 70-300 OS. And a dinky 55-200 kit lens I'd like to get rid of!

[7bit]

what's wrong with DX?

no, I don't care about "new", simply I usually try to spend more initially and make a long term investment. Last time I bought a Sony RX100 and it's a magnificent camera (for its size). It was expensive but it's still a sound point and shoot 100 times better than a camera-phone

Edit: I just found a refurbished D7200+18-105 lens for €890. Now THAT is tempting...

The Nikon (and Canon) SLRS are designed for full frame sensors (film). Even if you buy lenses for this smaller size, the distance between lens mount and sensor stays the same. The smaller-frame was necessary becuase technology was not ready when digital cameras had been introduced. Now, it is only a matter of money. A new full frame Nikon costs about 1300 EUR. You can get them used for about 800 or so. At least to me, it does not make sense to pay more money for half-frame than for full frame, because other than with Fuji or micro 4/3, there is no size argument (or the absense of a mirror for better lens designs) that would rectify the smaller format.

BTW: That plastic kit lens I would not really recommend, but then I don't like zoom lenses anyway.

[matt3o]

At least to me, it does not make sense to pay more money for half-frame than for full frame, because other than with Fuji or micro 4/3, there is no size argument

this I agree.

[XMIT]

I have a Nikon D600 that I picked up used for about 900 USD. It's one of the best purchases I've ever made. Shutter count is 15998. The D600 has a special trick up its sleeve: you can send it to Nikon to get a replacement shutter mechanism for free, effective doubling the working life of the camera.

I use a Nikon 50mm prime lens (I have the 1.4G but the 1.8G is a steal *and* sharper) and a Tamron 90mm macro lens (about 150 USD from Japan) primarily. If I had to choose just one lens it would probably be the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro lens (or the older 55mm AF-D veriant). Reason: the 50mm prime is beautiful but often times doesn't zoom close enough. 50-60mm is "about right" for shooting keyboard, 90mm is a little too long.

I also have a D7000 and love it but love shooting full frame more. You can't go up to f/1.4 on a cropped sensor. For many this doesn't matter but I like to take pictures of kids indoors without the flash.

[chzel]

I have a Nikon D600 that I picked up used for about 900 USD. It's one of the best purchases I've ever made. Shutter count is 15998. The D600 has a special trick up its sleeve: you can send it to Nikon to get a replacement shutter mechanism for free, effective doubling the working life of the camera.

Well, if you can call a service recall a special trick, I guess you are right!

[Compgeke]

D7x00 should be plenty enough for keyboards. I'm still using a D90 w/ a shitty 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G lens from an N55.

I'd personally go for a mid range body (like the D7200) and find a decent tripod at the minimum, possibly a light as well. Being as keyboards don't move it's easier to setup on a tripod and go for a slightly longer exposure.

Here's a couple examples using the D90 + shit lens + tripod: 1, 2, 3, 4

[7bit]

Some models had some trouble with the shutter spreading oil on the sensor. Nikon fixed this. My D600 is a late model which is not affected, but 'profited' from the bad reputation, so I could buy it cheaper than you can buy an almost identical new D610 today!

Also: A few weeks after I got my D600, I've sold the D90 and regretted nothing. All I kept it for was taking pictures of my new camera.

Why do you keep the D7000 XMIT?