Camera Suggestions for an Amateur Photographer

N

nozoom

Newbie
Local time
2:38 AM
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
7
Hi all,

I recently caught the photography bug and started dabbling with film cameras. I started out with an Olympus XA3 and got some decent results. The zone focusing took a while to get used to but overall I was satisfied with it. But I decided to move on to a camera with AF and better lens.

Then came the Rollei AFM35 (Fujifilm Klasse). I really like this lens and how easy it is to take pictures. We recently had our first baby and so far I took some lovely pictures thanks to this camera. The 38mm lens is perfect.

But taking a bunch of baby pictures on film is not cheap, the AF in the Klasse sometimes misses and since I don't develop/scan the film myself I'm looking into going digital for the foreseeable future.

I was set on just getting the latest and greatest iPhone and use it's camera but I'm very disappointed with the results. The photos look 'watercolor' like and the low light image quality is abysmal. Not to mention the phone does a bunch of software tricks which didn't always give good results.

After researching a lot online I decided to get the Ricoh GR III. Love the size, APS-C sensor but I'm not too sure about it. The 28mm is a tad wide for my needs.

I took a colleague's Canon 5D MkII w/50mm Sigma lens for a spin and whoa! I spent the whole day shooting it and the image quality is beyond anything I have ever seen. This is honestly way beyond my league and I don't even think I can carry around such a heavy piece of kit trying to take baby pictures.

I think a 50mm would be ideal but anything 38mm will probably do. Essentially a modern, digital equivalent of Fuji Klasse. The closest is probably a Fuji x100v with 35mm f2 lens but it's very pricey and much bigger than the Klasse. A Canon M200 perhaps?

Any other ideas? I don't shoot RAW so I'm only interested in quality JPEG shots. I'm not a fan of zoom lenses either.
 
Camera companies haven't gotten desperate enough to make the digital equivalent of the 1990s premium point & shoots.

Ricoh GXR with the 50mm f/2.5 macro module is the closest thing I can think of, but it's old and discontinued.

The Sigma DP2 is similarly niche.

Canon M200 with the 23/2 is a solid option. If you were really hung up on a longer lens, then Micro 4/3 has more prime lens options.
 
Well... We have some :). All were photographed from day one or so.
It doesn't really matter what was in use. We had some film P&S with fixed focus (or maybe it was broke AF), we had EOS 300 with kit zoom and Canon 500D and Canon 5D MKII with 50L and now Canon RP. And I used all kind of film cameras in-between. From AGAT-18 to studio 4x5.

Kids photography by parent has two modes. One is with you aside from your child. Camera size doesn't matter for it. Another is in close contact with your child. Walking, stroller and so on. Big size camera is not good for it. It tends to jump on child and smash, because you have to constantly bent down to get close and gravity does the bad trick with heavy camera.

GR III is good for been involved with child for outdoors and OK for indoors. I have seen some father taking son pictures this way. Main thing, it is perhaps only one camera with this sensor size (means capabilities) which is truly pocketable. Been involved with small child means two hands and nothing hinging around you.

I got many good ones with heavier gear, but I was always aside. And my wife always took better formal or so portraits by this mode. While I'm only good for candids.

Canon 5D.
7062750223_2bd6af0980_z.jpg
 
Welcome to our little community, nozoom!

Adorama is currently offering the Fuji X100F (the last model), new, for $799.00.

- Murray
 
Perhaps consider a M4/3 camera like a Lumix GX series with the 20mm pancake lens. Very small kit, same focal length you want, autofocus. Outstanding image quality. If you want to shoot a good quality movie on it, you can do so as well, just get some really fast CF cards. I love my GX85 and wish I had gotten one long ago, but I was a micro 4/3 naysayer because of no good reason.

Phil Forrest
 
The "latest greatest" iPhone has an amazing camera and even greater video capabilities - and will blow your RolleiAFM35 or any other 35mm film point and shoot away - there is nothing in your description of the latest greatest iPhone I can recognise, colours are highly customisable and low light photography is way better than with film. There are certainly better cameras around in the digital realm, but horses for courses.

I can attest to the qualities of the Lumix 20/1.7 (40mm equivalent). It is a lovely lens and combined with one of the more recent Lumix GX bodies, it should give you a reasonably compact kit at an attractive price.
 
Maybe a 2nd-hand Oly Pen-F with either the 20mm pancake or the 17mm 1.7?
Nice small cam, fast enough AF en with lots of possibilities if you want to venture out into other focal lengths.
 
I'm surprised the iphone doesn't do the trick; perhaps a bit of research and playing with the settings might change things for the better. I can't say more than that as neither I nor the grandchildren have one to confirm what I'm thinking.


Regards, David
 
nozoom said:
...
I was set on just getting the latest and greatest iPhone and use it's camera but I'm very disappointed with the results. The photos look 'watercolor' like and the low light image quality is abysmal. Not to mention the phone does a bunch of software tricks which didn't always give good results.
Click to expand...

You can get some good results from the iPhone with a little practice and post. There are some folks here and elsewhere that have done some nice work with their iPhones.

iPhone 6 & 11 shots and post in Snapseed:


Hilltop View by rdc154, on Flickr



Easter Lily #1 by rdc154, on Flickr



NYC - Rose III, Zuccotti Park, Lower Manhattan by rdc154, on Flickr




Oculus, World Trade Center, NYC by rdc154, on Flickr





Oculus, World Trade Center, NYC by rdc154, on Flickr
 
Hi guys,

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions.

iPhone - It does take good pictures, but the default camera app has some sorta 'skin smoothing' filter or probably just aggressive anti-aliasing and I couldn't quite figure out to to turn it off or tone it down. It's pretty good for landscapes but for portraits/closeups the images looked a little too pastel like for my taste. Also they do some portrait lighting effects which when it works looks good but sometimes the lighting just looks odd in the scene. It does take really good video for sure.

That x100f for $799 on Adorama is a killer deal! I'm really tempted to just get this and call it a day. But I think an interchangeable body like an X-E3 is more appealing to me right now.

Thanks for suggesting the M4/3 systems. I didn't even know these cameras existed until now. I'm gonna do some more research on these. If they're produce great quality while being more portable than a Fuji X-E3 or M200 system I might seriously consider them instead.

Much appreciate all the responses and looking forward to be a part of this wonderful community.
 
The GR III actually has several advantages in documenting family life: for one thing, the image stabilization is really good for low light shots. For another, the snap mode allows you to shoot at a predetermined range to capture moments with lots of movement instantly, without focusing. It's so tiny it can go anywhere with you. The 35mm crop mode is still pretty high resolution, and saves your crop even in RAW, 35mm is one of the most versatile focal lengths ever. The DNG RAWs can be edited by many mobile as well as desktop editors. Remember that a family snapshot doesn't have to be in perfect focus, or without motion blur, or perfectly exposed, to be wonderful!
 
Also, if you're looking into M4/3, I recommend a Panasonic GX85 which can be found for very little money used. Get one of the inexpensive, small and light large-aperture primes for it (20mm f1.7 or 25mm f1.8) and see what it can do for you. The GX85 was my main camera for three years, it's plenty capable and has some major iterative upgrades over previous Panasonics to make its output a lot better. The GX9 and other cameras are newer and even better, but the GX85 is a real sweet spot for quality at a cheap price.
 
agentlossing said:
The GR III actually has several advantages in documenting family life: for one thing, the image stabilization is really good for low light shots. For another, the snap mode allows you to shoot at a predetermined range to capture moments with lots of movement instantly, without focusing. It's so tiny it can go anywhere with you. The 35mm crop mode is still pretty high resolution, and saves your crop even in RAW, 35mm is one of the most versatile focal lengths ever. The DNG RAWs can be edited by many mobile as well as desktop editors. Remember that a family snapshot doesn't have to be in perfect focus, or without motion blur, or perfectly exposed, to be wonderful!
Click to expand...

I'm curious about the 35mm crop mode in the Ricoh GR III. I'm not worried about the resolution but how does the lens work in the mode? Does the lens move/compensate for the distortion? Or will the images just look like they're shot on a 28mm lens but cropped to a smaller frame?

Thanks for the suggestion on GX85. I'll definitely research it.
 
It's the latter, the GR just crops into the picture. The advantage over just cropping later is that you see 35mm on the back LCD, making it easier to compose in a frame that may feel more natural to you than the wider 28mm.

28mm is a really interesting and versatile focal length, but it has to be approached intentionally. It has a way of "pushing back, and pulling in" at the same time, as wide angles do. Meaning it will make distant objects look smaller and further away, and closer objects look bigger and more dominant in the frame. The GR cameras really shine in several ways: one is when you want to get a lot of a landscape or scene in the frame - but with wider lenses, you really need to include an interesting foreground and compose with the sky toward the upper limit of the frame, or else frame with lots of sky and the horizon nearer the lower limits of the frame to get a really big sense of space.

Another way the 28mm shines is in close-up portraits of people. You have to get closer with a wide lens to get a meaningful portrait, but once you do, you can really play with that "pushing out, pulling in" effect to vary the size of your subject and the setting or background. Rather than thinking of a wider lens as just a way to get an "environmental portrait" see it as a way to make the subject dominant, but include whatever other elements you want to bring in. These photos can be really dynamic, and the nimbleness of the small GR with an LCD screen for composition is that you can "get closer" while not having to position yourself quite so close - the camera can be quite a bit closer to the subject than you are over using a viewfinder at your eye.

One more thing the GR is really good at is documenting everyday objects and settings. You will see a lot of GR photography being "snap" photography of everyday things and scenes, since the lens is really good for singling out objects within a scene. The GR III has the advantage of highlight-weighted metering, which is something that I find it hard to live without after getting used to. It requires much less exposure compensation, I usually keep it at about +0.7 and vary up or down as needed. The GR sensors and lenses have always been very good at rendering the shadows, making a space or scene feel very immediate and atmospheric, without crushing detail or looking unnatural.
 
Interesting about the GR III 35mm/50mm crop mode. From what I gather, it produces lower resolution image files (still very big and good enough for prints thanks to the APS-C sensor) but lets you compose the shot more 'zoomed' in. Avoids the 'fisheye' or 'stubby nose' look typical of wide lens because the subject is still further away physically from the camera. Never really thought about it that way - i.e. it's not the lens that causes the distortion per se, it is mostly because the subject is too close to the camera.

I think this makes the GR III a very appealing option even as a second 'always with me' camera.
 
Yep, there are actually a couple ways your photo can be distorted, some lenses have actual distortion, but an excellent wide lens like the GR lens doesn't really have much of any - getting too close to your subject on the other hand WILL produce distortion because it is a perspective issue, rather than a distortion issue.
 
I've had the original X100, the S, the T and the V is in the mail. For travel, I had the Panasonic GX85 and now the GX9. M43 primes are the P20/1.7, PL15/1.7 and O25/1.8, plus a battery of zooms as it’s my travel kit. Note, 1.5 crop on Fuji, 2.0 crop on Panny.

For pure enjoyment and no-hassle jpeg's, the X100. However, if you enjoy PP, the RAW files out of the GX85/9 are very good. Remember, with its very effective IBIS you’re getting at least 2.5 to 3 stops without any effort, more with concentration. As long as you can get away with low shutters, you can shoot at ISO's materially lower than the Fuji. From my POV, the files are very close. I tend to use Fuji's jpeg's. From a raw POV I’d rather work on the Bayer sensored Panasonic RAW's.

From a size POV the X100 is probably the smallest carry. Next the GX's. Once a lens is on an XE3, unless it’s the 27/2.8 (sharp but a totally boring render), it’s materially larger than a GX with a 20 or 15. Note: the 20 is about as slow focusing as the original X100 pre firmware updates. It cannot do CAF, as in the camera won't allow it. The 15 and 25 are gems. If size is a big criteria, use step-down rings instead of hoods. I employ those rings on every prime lens mentioned.

From a cost POV the GX85 at circa $500-$600 is a no brainer. That includes a very underestimated 12-32 and a decent 45-150. Superb IBIS plus dual IS with the lenses. I regret moving from my GX85 to the GX9.

Good luck, have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom