Nikon D3200 or Canon EOS 80D?

Status
Not open for further replies.

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,556
Well, I just ordered:

A7R III
12-24 F4
24-105 F4
Godox Mini TT350S flash
A couple of tripods (one big and one small one with flexible legs)
B+W 77mm XS-Pro Ksm C Pol Nano filter
B+W 77mm XS-Pro UV Nano filter
Samsung 256gb EVO Plus
Lowepro ProTactic 450 AW bag

I was debating with myself if I should get Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 because it works with 77mm filters I ordered for my 24-105 lens. 12-24 doesn't accept screw-on filters. I don't like the huge square ones (and they are expensive).
But then I found out that I am a puritan and want Sony lens, not a bunch of random stuff. Guess I am getting myself into a Sony system now, eh?
This all cost me about €6000 excluding the bag. 300 euros more than I expected. Ebay and their currency conversion rates...
You're right I probably shelled out far more money than I needed, but I don't think I will regret it in the long run. I realized shortly after I made this thread that €1000-1500 ain't gonna cut it if I want to upgrade my camera.
Besides, in my opinion, I do not think that this is throwing away money. Sure I buy expensive stuff, but I am pretty careful about what I buy. I think gambing in Las Vegas or online is a far worse way to spend money ;)
It's an excellent setup. There basically isn't much of anything that it shouldn't be able to do. If you have thoughts on where you want to go next, or questions about setup, the system, or photography in general, feel free to ask in another thread, or I guess just keep bumping this one.



Gonna pick on UnknownSouljer a bit ;)
Sure. But you leave yourself open to retort!

This is true when considering the lenses wide-open; however, the original 35/1.4L is still quite the performer stopped down, and it remains fairly light and compact for its type. The Sigma 35/1.4 | Art, Canon 35/2 IS and Tamron 35/1.8 VC are also all great alternatives, with the 35/2 IS being smallest and lightest and the 35/1.4 | Art being the sharpest (and largest and heaviest).
We mostly agree. I would just say that generally I don't like Sigma for much of anything. Sigma is resolution generally at the cost of everything else. I'd rather have slightly less resolution and have much better rendering, boke, and color. The Sony Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 GM as an example has that 3D pop. The Sigma will never have it. On Canon I'd rather have the 35mm f1.4L II than the Sigma. But like all gear, it's preference.


The 24-70/2.8L II is very good, and essentially second-best in the market behind Sony's latest 24-70/2.8GM, largely in terms of background rendering. For landscapes, the difference would likely be indiscernible.
I'm not certain about this. I think the dxomark scores end up giving a nod more based upon the system it's on than purely just the glass. I'd say the big problem when comparing this lens and the 70-200mm below is that Nikon and Sony's sensors have more resolution, BSi, no AA filters, and just generally better image quality. Now, I could be entirely wrong, but I don't think that this offering from Sony here, or the Nikon 70-200mm listed below actually best what Canon offers. It's just that Canon's sensor tech isn't at parity. And while it's possible to test all of these lenses on Sony, most don't want to offer that sort of direct comparison due to system disadvantage.


The 135L is compact and fast-focusing and plenty sharp, but it isn't pin-sharp on the latest bodies, and it still has significant longitudinal CA. A better example in this focal length is Sigma's 135/1.8 | Art, which is incredible, and their upcoming 105/1.4 | Art, which promises even better performance. Note that the Art lenses are large and heavy.
I haven't seen anything on the 135L that isn't pin sharp wide open. I'm also not at all worried about distortion or CA. This stuff is corrected in camera these days or just as easily in software. If you want to buy a Zeiss 135 because it has more correction or a Cinema 135 for the same reason, great. But I think you'll run into diminishing returns incredibly quickly (that curve would drop steeply after the Canon 135L in my opinion in terms of additional dollars to performance). Especially when taking the Canon rendering into account.

Is it possible to get other monster lenses of this type? Sure, the Sony 100mm STF GM is in this range, as is the Nikon 105 f/1.4, both of which have their advantages versus Canon's (albeit with different pros and cons, apertures etc). However this is all nerd talk. We can dive into "absolute numbers" but for me that is all besides the point. This is and continues to be a God lens because it has excellent character, beautiful boke, and amazing color wide open (and I will continue to be a contrarian and say it's plenty sharp). Are there other options, sharper options even? Sure, but once again I argue that that isn't the end-all-be-all. Sigma falls into this category to me. I think Sigma offers incredible bang-for-the-buck, and probably among the sharpest lenses of any system. But I don't like their rendering and color, etc, as I've already discussed. Other people have other preferences, hence why they buy Sigmas (like for that dollar to performance ratio).


It has been superseded in performance by Nikon's latest 70-200/2.8E VR, and the upcoming 'III' version will not make up that distance; however, that's not that big of a deal given how well the Canon already performs, and especially since it performs better than Sony's 70-200/2.8GM in the wild. Sony likely designed a better lens, but they shoved so much technology at such tight tolerances into the design that they can't actually make copies that live up to it. Also, if you have a 70-200/2.8, you don't really need the 135L, especially not for landscapes, unless you have a specific shot in mind and a hard weight limitation.
Talked about a bit above. Long and the short the Nikon and Sony are great lenses, but I don't necessarily think they're better than the Canon, so much as I think their sensors are better than Canon's. I'm sure that each of the lenses trade blows in different areas (correction, stabilization, sharpness, vignetting, contrast, color, etc). But much like the discussion about 100's/135's above, I don't think there will be an absolute winner.

The 135L then is in that category, as the f/2 is something that the 70-200mm can't touch in terms of look. If you're a serious portrait guy, then having both lenses is totally valid. But it's NOT valid unless you're shooting the 135L wide open. If you're stopping it down, then I agree with you, you might as well just use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, because you're no longer getting the character that you wouldn't be able to get any other way.

I could also go onto a tangent about character of lenses as well, and get into some weird discussion about the Helios 44-2 58mm lens. But the long and the short, sharpness or other trumps in some areas to me never beat character and look. That's why people buy a Hasselblad/Zeiss, or Contax/Zeiss, or PhaseOne/Schneider, or Canon over a lot of the competitors.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,533
I haven't seen anything on the 135L that isn't pin sharp wide open. I'm also not at all worried about distortion or CA.
Just this little bit- the lens is sharp, but it's not sharp wide open, and the kind of CA it exhibits- logitudinal, specifically- cannot (and is not) corrected in software automatically. It's no 85/1.2L in that regard, but it's definitely there. What makes the lens a jewel is that it is sharp enough wide open, that the CA is present but not altogether objectionable (and is addressable though not fully correctable in software), and that it is compact and fast-focusing. That last part is key!

[can't really compare it to Zeiss lenses that lack AF altogether or are a stop slower as the Batis; this class of lenses consists of the 135L, the Sigma 135/1.8 | Art, and the Nikon and Sigma 105/1.4 lenses]

Also, as an aside to glass acuity comparisons, I'd go with Roger's writeups at Lensrentals. DxOMark has its uses but direct comparisons are not one of them ;).
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,774
It's an excellent setup. There basically isn't much of anything that it shouldn't be able to do. If you have thoughts on where you want to go next, or questions about setup, the system, or photography in general, feel free to ask in another thread, or I guess just keep bumping this one.
Where do I go next? :p
Well, what I'm gonna do first is get Lightroom and learn it. I have never tried it.

But the long and the short, sharpness or other trumps in some areas to me never beat character and look. That's why people buy a Hasselblad/Zeiss, or Contax/Zeiss, or PhaseOne/Schneider, or Canon over a lot of the competitors.
Funny I read that somewhere else... let me think... Ken Rockwell's review site, you sure you're not him? ;)


If you guys are willing to hand out some tips and tricks, I'm all ears.
I've spent quite a few hours on YouTube and learned quite a few tricks I can't wait to try out, but there's always something new to learn.

Edit:
Oh yeah, suggestions for a good remove for A7R III that won't break the bank?
I remember using the remote on my D3200 very often. Loved it. Then I lost it somewhere :/
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,556
Just this little bit- the lens is sharp, but it's not sharp wide open, and the kind of CA it exhibits- logitudinal, specifically- cannot (and is not) corrected in software automatically. It's no 85/1.2L in that regard, but it's definitely there. What makes the lens a jewel is that it is sharp enough wide open, that the CA is present but not altogether objectionable (and is addressable though not fully correctable in software), and that it is compact and fast-focusing. That last part is key!

[can't really compare it to Zeiss lenses that lack AF altogether or are a stop slower as the Batis; this class of lenses consists of the 135L, the Sigma 135/1.8 | Art, and the Nikon and Sigma 105/1.4 lenses]

Also, as an aside to glass acuity comparisons, I'd go with Roger's writeups at Lensrentals. DxOMark has its uses but direct comparisons are not one of them ;).
Fair enough. I think all the review sites are just data points. Generally at the end of the day, I think of the focal lengths I need. Then I see the output of people that use it wide open and their experiences using it. I tend to end up preferring to look at user experience and rendering over a test chart. I generally trust what Steve Huff, Bryan Carnathan, and Ming Thein have to say about lenses and their respective systems. Are they all biased? Yes and amen for sure. But everyone is and I'd rather at least know who and why people have their biases and put my own filter through that.

At the end of the day, like we've said before: each of these lenses will get the job done. It just comes down to preference. And I'm not saying mine is the end all be all either. It's just my preferences and how I weight what I think is most important. But much like I've said before in other threads and even this one: no one will really be able to tell whether you shot on Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Sony at the end of the day. The same can be said of resolution for lenses (it's really hard to see pure resolving power, lets be honest). But we do see the character. We do see the contrast. And the color. Yes a good portion of that is also post processing choice, but the character of lenses shows through more than acutance is the point. And that will always get me closer to where I want to be.
Some lenses that are old are softer than soft, so to be clear I think a certain sharpness level is necessary. The lenses I have meet at least a certain bar of sharpness, but I don't feel the need to get the ones with the absolute highest sharpness over the ones that meet the sharpness bar (for me) and have character.


Where do I go next? :p
Well, what I'm gonna do first is get Lightroom and learn it. I have never tried it.
EDIT: The where do you go next question is answered below when you asked about tricks. Really the basics are covered there.

It's not hard. Lightroom works much like the Photoshop RAW editor. You may not even want or need Lightroom. But if you retouch and edit enough photos, then Lightroom becomes useful. Photoshop allows for basic and very deep editing. Lightroom covers the basics only, but allows you to apply those adjustments quickly to either single pictures or multiple. So, Lightroom to me is about speed of workflow. And Photoshop is what I pullout to do deep skin retouching or color work etc.


Funny I read that somewhere else... let me think... Ken Rockwell's review site, you sure you're not him? ;)
I'm not. And I disagree with him on quite a bit of stuff. He has his leanings that he isn't afraid to talk about. Which is why you read him because his bent is obvious. He prefers all metal, heavy construction. Lots of physical dials. And generally argues his preferences on ergonomics above all else (often calling such things "real lenses" or "real cameras").
He doesn't seem to have the capacity to say that there is preference there and that there aren't or cannot be any other school of thought. I have enough sense to know that these are my preferences and also why all this other stuff exists is because there are other niches and photographers that value things that I don't.

If you want things that are purely sharp, it's unlikely you'll be disappointed by a Sigma lens. But to me their rendering is flat and they have busy boke and lack other nice characteristics. But the price is a lot less than Zeiss or Canon or Nikon, so people looking for just pure numbers are generally happy.


If you guys are willing to hand out some tips and tricks, I'm all ears.
I've spent quite a few hours on YouTube and learned quite a few tricks I can't wait to try out, but there's always something new to learn.
Tricks are something you learn as solutions to problems. You need a problem to solve first then it's easier to say a trick to solve it. But I would say that something to go ahead and learn first is the Exposure Triangle. Especially learning how to control Aperture, Depth of Field, and Subject distance (and how that relates to depth of field). The most important thing for you to learn as a landscaper/architecture guy is to learn "Hyperfocal distance" on all your lenses, and how to take advantage of it. Learn at what F-stop all of your lenses are sharpest. Learn the hyperfocal distance, then reap the rewards of your knowledge. I know that this sounds confusing and you don't know what the terms mean. But that's where you should go and learn first.

1) Exposure Triangle (Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO)
2) Learn how Aperture affects depth of field
3) Learn Hyperfocal distance and how that relates to depth of field
4) Learn at what f-stop(s) your lenses render the best


Edit:
Oh yeah, suggestions for a good remove for A7R III that won't break the bank?
I remember using the remote on my D3200 very often. Loved it. Then I lost it somewhere :/
Hrmmm, I don't really use remotes, using 2 second delay and mirror lockup has always been enough for me.
Sony themselves have a simple wired remote:
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-RMSPR1-...1529109443&sr=8-5&keywords=sony+remote+camera
or more complex ones:
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Wireles...1529109443&sr=8-7&keywords=sony+remote+camera

The simple one is enough. Or alternatively you could just buy a cheapie Neewer or off brand one. If all it does is kick the shutter, basically any wired remote is fine. Nothing else is really necessary to keep the camera still.
 
Last edited:

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,774
Fair enough. I think all the review sites are just data points. Generally at the end of the day, I think of the focal lengths I need. Then I see the output of people that use it wide open and their experiences using it. I tend to end up preferring to look at user experience and rendering over a test chart. I generally trust what Steve Huff, Bryan Carnathan, and Ming Thein have to say about lenses and their respective systems. Are they all biased? Yes and amen for sure. But everyone is and I'd rather at least know who and why people have their biases and put my own filter through that.

At the end of the day, like we've said before: each of these lenses will get the job done. It just comes down to preference. And I'm not saying mine is the end all be all either. It's just my preferences and how I weight what I think is most important. But much like I've said before in other threads and even this one: no one will really be able to tell whether you shot on Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Sony at the end of the day. The same can be said of resolution for lenses (it's really hard to see pure resolving power, lets be honest). But we do see the character. We do see the contrast. And the color. Yes a good portion of that is also post processing choice, but the character of lenses shows through more than acutance is the point. And that will always get me closer to where I want to be.
Some lenses that are old are softer than soft, so to be clear I think a certain sharpness level is necessary. The lenses I have meet at least a certain bar of sharpness, but I don't feel the need to get the ones with the absolute highest sharpness over the ones that meet the sharpness bar (for me) and have character.




EDIT: The where do you go next question is answered below when you asked about tricks. Really the basics are covered there.

It's not hard. Lightroom works much like the Photoshop RAW editor. You may not even want or need Lightroom. But if you retouch and edit enough photos, then Lightroom becomes useful. Photoshop allows for basic and very deep editing. Lightroom covers the basics only, but allows you to apply those adjustments quickly to either single pictures or multiple. So, Lightroom to me is about speed of workflow. And Photoshop is what I pullout to do deep skin retouching or color work etc.




I'm not. And I disagree with him on quite a bit of stuff. He has his leanings that he isn't afraid to talk about. Which is why you read him because his bent is obvious. He prefers all metal, heavy construction. Lots of physical dials. And generally argues his preferences on ergonomics above all else (often calling such things "real lenses" or "real cameras").
He doesn't seem to have the capacity to say that there is preference there and that there aren't or cannot be any other school of thought. I have enough sense to know that these are my preferences and also why all this other stuff exists is because there are other niches and photographers that value things that I don't.

If you want things that are purely sharp, it's unlikely you'll be disappointed by a Sigma lens. But to me their rendering is flat and they have busy boke and lack other nice characteristics. But the price is a lot less than Zeiss or Canon or Nikon, so people looking for just pure numbers are generally happy.




Tricks are something you learn as solutions to problems. You need a problem to solve first then it's easier to say a trick to solve it. But I would say that something to go ahead and learn first is the Exposure Triangle. Especially learning how to control Aperture, Depth of Field, and Subject distance (and how that relates to depth of field). The most important thing for you to learn as a landscaper/architecture guy is to learn "Hyperfocal distance" on all your lenses, and how to take advantage of it. Learn at what F-stop all of your lenses are sharpest. Learn the hyperfocal distance, then reap the rewards of your knowledge. I know that this sounds confusing and you don't know what the terms mean. But that's where you should go and learn first.

1) Exposure Triangle (Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO)
2) Learn how Aperture affects depth of field
3) Learn Hyperfocal distance and how that relates to depth of field
4) Learn at what f-stop(s) your lenses render the best




Hrmmm, I don't really use remotes, using 2 second delay and mirror lockup has always been enough for me.
Sony themselves have a simple wired remote:
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-RMSPR1-...1529109443&sr=8-5&keywords=sony+remote+camera
or more complex ones:
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Wireles...1529109443&sr=8-7&keywords=sony+remote+camera

The simple one is enough. Or alternatively you could just buy a cheapie Neewer or off brand one. If all it does is kick the shutter, basically any wired remote is fine. Nothing else is really necessary to keep the camera still.
There are a lot of lessons over at photographylife.com
It covers basically everything. I have already covered aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

About the remote, I'm not gonna make a mistake and buy IR remote (not that you suggested those). I read the sensor is in the front of the camera, so it's only good for selfies.
Something like this good enough?
https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wireless-R...or-SONY-A7-A7S-A6300-RX100-Z9F2-/323286436856

Also, external HDD or cloud storage?

I like cloud storage, we have 4G/LTE connection basically everywhere in Sweden. And I don't have to haul yet another thing with me.
Another reason for cloud is that OneDrive is integrated into Windows and the sub which is about $10/month comes with 5TB and full Office 365 Home. That's quite neat.
And yet another reason is that I can easily access my files with a phone. I can't really connect an external HDD to my phone.
For me, cloud storage is a clear winner, but maybe there's something I am missing?

I already have a 2TB external HDD connected to my desktop which I could use if needed, but I would rather it stays with my desktop.
With cloud storage, I currently have free 5GB with Microsoft. Once I hit that limit, I could upgrade to 50gb for $2/month, once that is reached, I could go for 1TB for $7/month, and finally, 5TB for $10/month.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,556
There are a lot of lessons over at photographylife.com
It covers basically everything. I have already covered aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

About the remote, I'm not gonna make a mistake and buy IR remote (not that you suggested those). I read the sensor is in the front of the camera, so it's only good for selfies.
Something like this good enough?
https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wireless-R...or-SONY-A7-A7S-A6300-RX100-Z9F2-/323286436856

Also, external HDD or cloud storage?

I like cloud storage, we have 4G/LTE connection basically everywhere in Sweden. And I don't have to haul yet another thing with me.
Another reason for cloud is that OneDrive is integrated into Windows and the sub which is about $10/month comes with 5TB and full Office 365 Home. That's quite neat.
And yet another reason is that I can easily access my files with a phone. I can't really connect an external HDD to my phone.
For me, cloud storage is a clear winner, but maybe there's something I am missing?

I already have a 2TB external HDD connected to my desktop which I could use if needed, but I would rather it stays with my desktop.
With cloud storage, I currently have free 5GB with Microsoft. Once I hit that limit, I could upgrade to 50gb for $2/month, once that is reached, I could go for 1TB for $7/month, and finally, 5TB for $10/month.

I didn't even click the eBay link. As long as it's compatible, pretty much anything will work. In my mind there isn't much point to fancy remotes. Anything that kicks the shutter should be enough.

===

I use all local storage. And have everything redundant on two HD's (not in any form of raid). I personally use what's colloquially called a "toaster". Basically an HDD dual dock. Very low tech in terms of ways to do things. In the field it's much the same. I have two identical 4TB WD drives that I have duplicate copies. I keep track of all of it with a specific macOS software called "ChronoSync". Which duplicates all the data and keeps track of all the versioning for me. It's tedious, I won't lie. But tedious is better than data loss.
I don't use cloud storage. I don't like the idea of having to pay every month essentially for the rest of my life. I also don't want to have to try and download and upload large amounts of RAWs. This is of course compounded by the fact that I do video. But if I ever needed 4TB of data near immediately, having to download it all is unacceptable (especially in the field). If you're using it purely as another form of backup, I guess. But in terms of data storage and best practices, this is exactly the same as any other piece of critical data. So treat it like that. If you think Cloud is what works for you, then do it.

I have to say that even keeping up with local storage requirements is quite a hassle. I have work going back near a decade at this point. So no matter what you do, you're going to be stacking harddrives. Cloud storage will become impossible at some point, unless you have some type of unlimited. Granted, if you're doing this as a hobby, getting near 50TB (as an example) would take you years, but eventually you will hit the cap. And either you'll have to increase the cost or hope that by that point the cost of cloud storage goes down enough to offset. And I really hate being at the mercy of others, especially when we're talking about my critical data.
 
Last edited:

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,774
I didn't even click the eBay link. As long as it's compatible, pretty much anything will work. In my mind there isn't much point to fancy remotes. Anything that kicks the shutter should be enough.

===

I use all local storage. And have everything redundant on two HD's (not in any form of raid). I personally use what's colloquially called a "toaster". Basically an HDD dual dock. Very low tech in terms of ways to do things. In the field it's much the same. I have two identical 4TB WD drives that I have duplicate copies. I keep track of all of it with a specific macOS software called "ChronoSync". Which duplicates all the data and keeps track of all the versioning for me. It's tedious, I won't lie. But tedious is better than data loss.
I don't use cloud storage. I don't like the idea of having to pay every month essentially for the rest of my life. I also don't want to have to try and download and upload large amounts of RAWs. This is of course compounded by the fact that I do video. But if I ever needed 4TB of data near immediately, having to download it all is unacceptable (especially in the field). If you're using it purely as another form of backup, I guess. But in terms of data storage and best practices, this is exactly the same as any other piece of critical data. So treat it like that. If you think Cloud is what works for you, then do it.

I have to say that even keeping up with local storage requirements is quite a hassle. I have work going back near a decade at this point. So no matter what you do, you're going to be stacking harddrives. Cloud storage will become impossible at some point, unless you have some type of unlimited. Granted, if you're doing this as a hobby, getting near 50TB (as an example) would take you years, but eventually you will hit the cap. And either you'll have to increase the cost or hope that by that point the cost of cloud storage goes down enough to offset. And I really hate being at the mercy of others, especially when we're talking about my critical data.
I'm gonna set up my own cloud storage that I can expand if needed. I will start with 4TB HDDs in raid1 so if one fails I don't lose both. They won't be just for pictures though but even music and videos. And I will use my 2TB hdd for field trips because it's rather light.

I got my bag today and with everything loaded, it's too heavy, so I removed the laptop. I still have to add a bunch of other camera and drone equipment, so I can expect more weight added (the body, 2 lenses, tripod, flash, 8.4" tablet, tablet holder, another Mavic battery and landing kit and some other stuff like cables, chargers etc).
I'm still debating if I should keep DJI Goggles or ditch them. They are very bulky and take too much space.
 

kumquat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
5,269
Out of curiosity, how many shutter activations do you have since you started this thread?
 

MN Scout

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
4,620
Lightroom is the one program that keeps me on Windows. It is amazing.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,533
Are you in this thread just to be an asshole?
Might wanna try being an asshole somewhere else or you'll get ignored.
kumquat seems to be implying something along the lines of you using the D3200 as a glorified point-and-shoot. Which the Nikon compact is most certainly suited for!

But that brings up the question as to how much you should have learned taking those 25,0000+ photographs versus the level of expertise that you express now...


;)
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,556
For what it’s worth, I feel it took me 2 years to gain a good level of understanding of the exposure triangle. Aperture in particular.

Easy to “understand”, but to actually know through experience takes time.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,774
kumquat seems to be implying something along the lines of you using the D3200 as a glorified point-and-shoot. Which the Nikon compact is most certainly suited for!

But that brings up the question as to how much you should have learned taking those 25,0000+ photographs versus the level of expertise that you express now...


;)
Point and shoot camera.
Out of those 25k shutter counts, 10k only from this year when I was in Thailand.
Didn't use it much before. Shared it with my sister.
 

kumquat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
5,269
My point is just that you're spending a ton of money on gear that won't effectively change what you're doing or what you're capable of. Your D3200 has everything you need to learn photography and produce tremendous images. You're going to be gaining a little bit in ISO performance and angles, but ultimately you're falling into a very, very common trap. You should be focusing on learning and understanding exposure and composition. That's what will actually make you better.

It just pains me to see people make such expensive mistakes. The D3200 is absolutely not the thing holding back your work.

There was a great Ken Rockwell article back in the day comparing the performance of a cheap point and shoot to an expensive DSLR. They produced roughly equivalent images. The big difference between the P&S and the DSLR was the level of control the DSLR gives. You're not going to produce better images with a $3000 DSLR than you would with an iPhone without experience working with exposure control.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,556
Read the thread.

My point is just that you're spending a ton of money on gear that won't effectively change what you're doing or what you're capable of. Your D3200 has everything you need to learn photography and produce tremendous images. You're going to be gaining a little bit in ISO performance and angles, but ultimately you're falling into a very, very common trap. You should be focusing on learning and understanding exposure and composition. That's what will actually make you better.

It just pains me to see people make such expensive mistakes. The D3200 is absolutely not the thing holding back your work.

There was a great Ken Rockwell article back in the day comparing the performance of a cheap point and shoot to an expensive DSLR. They produced roughly equivalent images. The big difference between the P&S and the DSLR was the level of control the DSLR gives. You're not going to produce better images with a $3000 DSLR than you would with an iPhone without experience working with exposure control.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,774
My point is just that you're spending a ton of money on gear that won't effectively change what you're doing or what you're capable of. Your D3200 has everything you need to learn photography and produce tremendous images. You're going to be gaining a little bit in ISO performance and angles, but ultimately you're falling into a very, very common trap. You should be focusing on learning and understanding exposure and composition. That's what will actually make you better.

It just pains me to see people make such expensive mistakes. The D3200 is absolutely not the thing holding back your work.

There was a great Ken Rockwell article back in the day comparing the performance of a cheap point and shoot to an expensive DSLR. They produced roughly equivalent images. The big difference between the P&S and the DSLR was the level of control the DSLR gives. You're not going to produce better images with a $3000 DSLR than you would with an iPhone without experience working with exposure control.
I have finally received my 24-105 lens.
I have been looking through it but can't find the "take picture" button. How do you take a picture with this thing? I expected a lot easier operation for €1300!
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,774
Got the camera today. Tried it real quick as I was on my lunch break from work. Damn that's a nice camera. And I love how clear that EVF is. It's head and shoulders above D3200.
I also love how it automatically switches between EVF and the screen. Too bad my SD card is still not here so I couldn't shoot any photos.
I won't be home until late around midnight though so can't play with it today, typical :(
 
Last edited:

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,774
After trying it for about a week I'm rather happy with it. There are not many issues with it except I can't seem to get flash to work in sync with the picture I take (actually can't get it to work at all even though its screen turns on). But it's a hot shoe flash and not pop up like on my old D3200 so I probably am missing some setting.
Two things that annoy me is that when there are no pictures on sd-card the camera shows an ugly gray screen saying "unable to display" or something like that.
Also when I want to delete a photo, on D3200 I could just press delete button once to prompt and delete again to delete the image. On Sony I have to press delete button to prompt and then another "confirm" button to delete. Makes no sense, but it's a Japanese product.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,229
Check the flash doesnt need a firmware update. (same with the camera)
I had all sorts of problems with a Metz flash on my D3300 (was always too bright even on manual minimum setting) until I realised after a year that it has update-able firmware and a hidden USB port!
All problems were fixed from that point on.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,774
Check the flash doesnt need a firmware update. (same with the camera)
I had all sorts of problems with a Metz flash on my D3300 (was always too bright even on manual minimum setting) until I realised after a year that it has update-able firmware and a hidden USB port!
All problems were fixed from that point on.
I noticed there is a hidden USB port where you put the aa(a?) batteries. Will give it a try tomorrow, thanks!
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,556
Two things that annoy me is that when there are no pictures on sd-card the camera shows an ugly gray screen saying "unable to display" or something like that.
I assume you mean when you press the playback button? You can choose options for generally what is on the screen.


Also when I want to delete a photo, on D3200 I could just press delete button once to prompt and delete again to delete the image. On Sony I have to press delete button to prompt and then another "confirm" button to delete. Makes no sense, but it's a Japanese product.
The delete procedures can be altered in the menus. But I'd point out that both Nikon and Sony are Japanese companies. But then again so are Canon, Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus as well.
Generally speaking, all the major camera companies are either Japanese or European (most other brands aren't centralized. Hasselblad is Swedish, Leica is German, PhaseOne is Denmark, as an example). To my knowledge the only major American camera companies were Polaroid and Kodak (in terms of consumer usage cameras... there were many hand built large format camera companies built all over the place).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top