New to photography, should I upgrade?

Rhyswh

Rhyswh

Suspended / Banned
Messages
45
Edit My Images
Yes
My dad has been into photography for years and has done some wedding photos in the past. He gave me some of his old gear over Christmas and so far I'm loving it.

He gave me a Sony A300 with a few different lenses and a flashgun. I haven't taken the images off the camera yet so haven't seen them properly (only came back from holiday yesterday) but I couldn't help notice the difference between his new Nikon (I think it's one of the 5000 series) and how much better it was at dealing with the natural light at much lower ISO than mine. Now I understand that the Nikon is a much newer and better camera than the Sony so here's my question(s).

Do I sell the gear I've got to buy a Nikon D3300 and possibly offend my dad? Or should I stick with the Sony whilst I'm learning? Is the Sony still good enough these days?

Thanks
 
Having fun learning photography is not about the gear. As long as the camera has certain basic features you'll be fine. It is also beneficial not to have too many features. I don't know your camera, but having expensive gear does not help you learn.

Most of us here started on much more primitive equipment than that. And even though many of us drool over the latest canera, it may not take better pictures.

Keep the camera and find another way to offend your dad.
 
Last edited:
I'd start by getting the images off the card, if you have any concerns about the capability of the camera share the images here and we will identify the cause - camera or otherwise :)
 
I'll get some images off tonight, see what I've got and post some on here. Thanks for the replies.
 
I like Sony/Minolta gear, and wouldn't see it as inferior to Nikon. However your inherited camera is a 9 year old design, while your dad's is likely just a couple of years old and has benefitted from modern sensor technology (most likely using a Sony sensor).

Since it's an older camera you'll likely need to be careful with noise, so I'd keep the ISO down to 400 or less and preferably base ISO (100) only. What lenses do you have to go with it? Decent lenses will enable great images from an older camera, while poor lenses can make even the best camera appear sub-standard.
 
Noise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise
300px-Highimgnoise.jpg
 
This is what I'm concerned about. I can live with getting the settings wrong and not being very good at composing photos whilst I learn but if I get it right I want the pictures to be sharp and full of detail. My camera seemed to really struggle in the same light as my dad's on the same ISO settings so I had to raise mine considerably meaning I'll have more noise in the image.

I have 3 lenses with it but not sure what they are, will check this evening.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
When you start missing shots due to the limitations of your equipment rather than the limitations of your ability, then it's time to upgrade. Until then, keep practicing and have fun.
Click to expand...
This ^
For the first 12 years of my digital photography, noise was not an issue as the subjects I was photographing were inherently not noisy - well light landscapes. When I started photographing old church interiors, noise became a major issue as did other factors. All those factors influenced my new camera, not just noise. Had I upgraded too soon, I would not now have a camera to suit my current interests.
 
Rhyswh said:
This is what I'm concerned about. I can live with getting the settings wrong and not being very good at composing photos whilst I learn but if I get it right I want the pictures to be sharp and full of detail. My camera seemed to really struggle in the same light as my dad's on the same ISO settings so I had to raise mine considerably meaning I'll have more noise in the image.

I have 3 lenses with it but not sure what they are, will check this evening.
Click to expand...

If you're both shooting in the same light but needing different ISO, that suggests you're either using a faster shutter speed (hence needing higher ISO to get the same amount of light), or a slower aperture (higher F number). Without knowing what lenses you're using it's impossible to say either way but ,y first suggestion would be to compare the maximum apertures of the Sony/Nikon lenses being used. If your dad was using fast primes and you're using a variable aperture kit lens you'll feel the difference in noise.
 
stevelmx5 said:
If you're both shooting in the same light but needing different ISO, that suggests you're either using a faster shutter speed (hence needing higher ISO to get the same amount of light), or a slower aperture (higher F number). Without knowing what lenses you're using it's impossible to say either way but ,y first suggestion would be to compare the maximum apertures of the Sony/Nikon lenses being used. If your dad was using fast primes and you're using a variable aperture kit lens you'll feel the difference in noise.
Click to expand...
This. It's not about the camera.
 
Ok, the only other thing to consider I guess is the value of the Sony. If I sell all the equipment now I should I get almost enough money to buy a newer camera and a lens. If I keep it for a few years then it might become worthless, would I not be better off starting with a better camera now?
 
My first DSLR was the Sony A350 -- a higher resolution version of your A300, issued around the same time. Those cameras were the last to use Sony's CCD sensor technology, whose virtue was excellent IQ at lowest ISO, and whose vice was horrid noise as ISO was raised. In fact those sensors may have been what gave Sony's DSLRs their reputation for horribly noisy images. It was not just the sensors, but the not very good noise reduction in Sony's in-camera jpeg conversions. However, if you use a specialised noise reduction program you can improve these noisy images a lot, 2-3 stops worth of improvement I seem to remember I got from Neat Image.

In thier A-mount cameras Sony have now given up the DSLR flapping mirror technology. They've gone over to their SLT technology, where the mirror is fixed and semi-transparent, feeding both the image sensor in permanent live view, and the dedicated independent phase-based AF sensors which give DSLRs (and now SLTs as well) the AF speed and tracking mode variety which mirrorless cameras with image-sensor AF have so far failed to match. The upgrade path from an A300 would I suggest be one of the SLT crop sensor cameras. One of the advantages of the SLT technology is that the EVFs of the SLTs now have the very big capacious viewfinder images that you used only to be able to get on full frame DSLRs. The A77ii is the current top APS-C SLT body, so the original A77 is now available second hand at good prices, and would be a dramatic and substantial upgrade to your A300.

Don't hurry, however. If you keep the ISOs low your A300 is capable of very good images. Play with it, find out what the lenses you've got can and can't do, and you'll end up being able to make a better educated choice about which direction to go in.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I like Sony/Minolta gear, and wouldn't see it as inferior to Nikon. However your inherited camera is a 9 year old design, while your dad's is likely just a couple of years old and has benefitted from modern sensor technology (most likely using a Sony sensor).

Since it's an older camera you'll likely need to be careful with noise, so I'd keep the ISO down to 400 or less and preferably base ISO (100) only. What lenses do you have to go with it? Decent lenses will enable great images from an older camera, while poor lenses can make even the best camera appear sub-standard.
Click to expand...
400's quote limiting, especially if you don't have fast lenses :eek:
 
Rhyswh said:
This is what I'm concerned about. I can live with getting the settings wrong and not being very good at composing photos whilst I learn but if I get it right I want the pictures to be sharp and full of detail. My camera seemed to really struggle in the same light as my dad's on the same ISO settings so I had to raise mine considerably meaning I'll have more noise in the image.

I have 3 lenses with it but not sure what they are, will check this evening.
Click to expand...
As others are saying this is not down to the difference in capabilities of the camera but your understanding of how exposure works. I would suggest learning about photography with your current gear, you'll be surprised how good the images are that you can get with it.
 
snerkler said:
400's quote limiting, especially if you don't have fast lenses :eek:
Click to expand...

TBH 400 is what I limit both my a58 and D610 to for landscape work normally, and usually find 100 or 200 adequate most of the time, working between f5.6 and f11. But I'd agree that when you need a little extra speed then yes, it would be very restrictive.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH 400 is what I limit both my a58 and D610 to for landscape work normally, and usually find 100 or 200 adequate most of the time, working between f5.6 and f11. But I'd agree that when you need a little extra speed then yes, it would be very restrictive.
Click to expand...
Ahh landscapes are different, I seldom go above base ;)
 
The Sony models like the a580 have very good sensors. The base older ones are a bit primative.

Are you shooting in RAW and jpg? If so then you can try different noise processing on the RAWS as some of the in camera processing isn't that good.
 
The room we were in had a few lamps and using flash just made things ugly. I prioritised (on manual) the shutter speed as I was taking photos of my family, including my 18 month old daughter who doesn't really sit still! Aparture as wide as it would go to get as much light in to compensate for the fast shutter speed and then adjusted the ISO until the exposure was right. How does that sound? Make sense?

I shoot in RAW and jpg as I found how much more you can edit RAW images in post processing. Unfortunately I forgot the lead at my parents house (250 miles away!) so will have to wait for the cable to arrive in the post before getting the images off the camera.

These are the lenses. I have no idea if there's a model number on these things? Just went with what it says on them.
1. Sony 18-70mm - Also has 3.5-5.6 but I don't know what this number means?
2. Tamaron Aspherical LD Di2 18-250mm - 1:3.5-6.3
3. Minolta AF Zoom 75-300mm

Hope that makes sense!
 
Rhyswh said:
The room we were in had a few lamps and using flash just made things ugly. I prioritised (on manual) the shutter speed as I was taking photos of my family, including my 18 month old daughter who doesn't really sit still! Aparture as wide as it would go to get as much light in to compensate for the fast shutter speed and then adjusted the ISO until the exposure was right. How does that sound? Make sense?

I shoot in RAW and jpg as I found how much more you can edit RAW images in post processing. Unfortunately I forgot the lead at my parents house (250 miles away!) so will have to wait for the cable to arrive in the post before getting the images off the camera.

These are the lenses. I have no idea if there's a model number on these things? Just went with what it says on them.
1. Sony 18-70mm - Also has 3.5-5.6 but I don't know what this number means?
2. Tamaron Aspherical LD Di2 18-250mm - 1:3.5-6.3
3. Minolta AF Zoom 75-300mm

Hope that makes sense!
Click to expand...
Yes it makes sense as that's how you adjust exposure. However, the light gathering of any camera is the same, so it doesn't matter if you're shooting Sony, Nikon, Canon or whatever your ISO should be the same assuming aperture and shutter are the same. So if your dad's Nikon was at a lower ISO this is because he has the aperture and/or shutter set differently and not because of differences in the camera.
 
You were always going to be struggling in low light with those 3!

The 3.5 to 5.6 is the maximum aperture of the lens - the relative size of the hole that lets light through to the sensor. Unintuitively, the smaller the number, the bigger the hole and the more light that comes through. These are normally called the f stop values - if you hear someone talking about f stops, that's the aperture they're referring to. f numbers are normally given at fixed intervals, and running downward typically go f22, f16, f11, f8, f5.6, f4, f2.8, f2, f1.4 etc.

If you would like to try a lens with a larger aperture for lower light shots then you could do worse than look out for an old Minolta 50mm f1.7, assuming prices haven't got silly yet. (*edit* Ffordes have a couple, plus a Sony 50mm f1.8 for £49 - http://www.ffordes.com/category/Len...cending&PageIndex=1&SortExpression=SalesPrice)

If you want to get the images off the camera then if you have a card reader slot on your computer, you could remove the memory card & pop it in. USB card readers are also only a couple of quid on Amazon
 
Last edited:
.... also..... if youre judging the images from the back of both lcds your sonys screen is way worse than a more modern camera.

If I were you I'd check the images on screen first, then I'd take and compare images at the same camera settings, then I'd make sure I enjoyed photography, then I'd upgrade.... if required.

Actually screw it, get a full frame.
 
Ok, so his lens could have been able to get as low/big as f1.4 meaning he could have a lower ISO. Makes sense. How come there's 2 different minimum numbers? Does it depend on the amount of zoom used or something?

My computer doesn't have a card reader unfortunately and it's one of the older massive SD cards! Will get my dad to post me the cable.

I don't even know what a full frame is but sounds great lol

I'm torn, part of me thinks I'd be daft not to upgrade whilst I can! Also I like new shiny things.....

I would also like to take some video footage which the Sony doesn't do.
 
snerkler said:
Yes it makes sense as that's how you adjust exposure. However, the light gathering of any camera is the same, so it doesn't matter if you're shooting Sony, Nikon, Canon or whatever your ISO should be the same assuming aperture and shutter are the same. So if your dad's Nikon was at a lower ISO this is because he has the aperture and/or shutter set differently and not because of differences in the camera.
Click to expand...

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/30/you...r-the-difference-between-f-stops-and-t-stops/

:) op should ignore my tongue in cheek comment/link for snerkler
 
Last edited:
Rhyswh said:
Ok, so his lens could have been able to get as low/big as f1.4 meaning he could have a lower ISO. Makes sense. How come there's 2 different minimum numbers? Does it depend on the amount of zoom used or something?

My computer doesn't have a card reader unfortunately and it's one of the older massive SD cards! Will get my dad to post me the cable.

I don't even know what a full frame is but sounds great lol

I'm torn, part of me thinks I'd be daft not to upgrade whilst I can! Also I like new shiny things.....

I would also like to take some video footage which the Sony doesn't do.
Click to expand...

The 2 minimum numbers relates to the aperture at each end of the zoom range - bigger aperture at the shorter focal length.

Full Frame refers to a camera with a senor approx the same size as a full 35mm film negative (36mm X 24mm). Yours & your dad's cameras are crop sensor cameras with a sensor that covers about half the area.

You won't get a lot of money for your existing gear - I'd be inclined to treat it as the base of a system and gradually build up. However if you aspire to Nikon or Canon then you'll be better off selling ASAP. Alternatively if the Tamron gave reasonable images then I'd be inclined to flog the other 2 lenses and look for a couple of decent lenses with fixed focal length and a Sony alpha 58 body (not expensive used) which will be a big step up from the A300.
 
Rhyswh said:
Ok, so his lens could have been able to get as low/big as f1.4 meaning he could have a lower ISO. Makes sense. How come there's 2 different minimum numbers? Does it depend on the amount of zoom used or something?

My computer doesn't have a card reader unfortunately and it's one of the older massive SD cards! Will get my dad to post me the cable.

I don't even know what a full frame is but sounds great lol

I'm torn, part of me thinks I'd be daft not to upgrade whilst I can! Also I like new shiny things.....

I would also like to take some video footage which the Sony doesn't do.
Click to expand...

Yes, the number range means that the lens has a variable aperture. The smallest number ("widest" aperture) will be at the lens' widest focal length. As you zoom in, the widest aperture available reduces. Better lenses have fixed wider apertures so you don't need to worry about that changing. The suggestion above to buy the 50/1.7 is a very good one. That gives you a fast aperture for gathering light meaning faster shutter speed/lower ISO as well as much sharper results when stopped down a little too.

We all like shiny new toys but you'd be better off investing in a few books or just spend some time reading online. Once you understand the exposure triangle you will learn how all 3 settings (Shutter Speed, Aperture, ISO) are directly linked so changing one means at least one other also has to change to compensate if your light doesn't.
 
Last edited:
I've got a good grasp of the triangle and how each change effects the others. Currently learning about long exposure shots but need to get myself a tripod first. I feel like I have the basics of using a camera sorted and want to go on to learn more. I guess I just want to make sure I have something that's not going to hold me back in the near future.

Side note - I like the idea of a long exposure shot of lets say a small waterfall with a narrow/short depth of field. Obviously this means having a long shutter speed and a wide Aperture setting, even with the lowest ISO there would still be too much light in daylight. I know you can ND filters to take long esposure shots but is there different gradients/darkness? How dark do they go?
 
snerkler said:
What comment's that? :confused: My post was supposed to be helpful and sincere (y)
Click to expand...

I meant my own adding the fact that t stop differs from f stop and I'd the transmission of light whereas f stop is size of aperture

This info is beyond the OP, but I thought it would actually suggest different lens will vary settings at same f stop
 
Rhyswh said:
I've got a good grasp of the triangle and how each change effects the others. Currently learning about long exposure shots but need to get myself a tripod first. I feel like I have the basics of using a camera sorted and want to go on to learn more. I guess I just want to make sure I have something that's not going to hold me back in the near future.

Side note - I like the idea of a long exposure shot of lets say a small waterfall with a narrow/short depth of field. Obviously this means having a long shutter speed and a wide Aperture setting, even with the lowest ISO there would still be too much light in daylight. I know you can ND filters to take long esposure shots but is there different gradients/darkness? How dark do they go?
Click to expand...
In theory as dark as you want as you can stack the filters, however the darker the filter/more you stack the more risk of colour cast from the filter(s). I have a 10 stop filter (which is pretty strong) and in 'decent' daylight, ISO 100 and f8 it gives me approx 25-30s exposures. Shooting at f2.8 would give you around a 3s exposure. On a really sunny day you'd be looking at less than 1s. You might want to look at a 16 stop if you're wanting to shoot at a wide aperture on a sunny day and want long exposure.
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
I meant my own adding the fact that t stop differs from f stop and I'd the transmission of light whereas f stop is size of aperture

This info is beyond the OP, but I thought it would actually suggest different lens will vary settings at same f stop
Click to expand...
Sorry, you quoted my post so thought you were referring to mine lol. As you were ;:p
 
I had a quick look and that makes sense. I'm into computers so will use a monitor as a reference. Just because 2 montiors are 1080p doesn't mean they will be the same quality! I assume the t stop will be down to quality of production/material used in the lens? Or is it more complicated than that? Always willing to learn!
 
snerkler said:
In theory as dark as you want as you can stack the filters, however the darker the filter/more you stack the more risk of colour cast from the filter(s). I have a 10 stop filter (which is pretty strong) and in 'decent' daylight, ISO 100 and f8 it gives me approx 25-30s exposures. Shooting at f2.8 would give you around a 3s exposure. On a really sunny day you'd be looking at less than 1s
Click to expand...

I'm probably miles out here but would it be as simple as using 2 10stop filters would mean you could only double the exposure time at the same Aperture setting? Is the colour cast something that is easily fixed in post processing?
 
Rhyswh said:
I'm probably miles out here but would it be as simple as using 2 10stop filters would mean you could only double the exposure time at the same Aperture setting? Is the colour cast something that is easily fixed in post processing?
Click to expand...
If you used two 10 stop filters that would reduce the shutter speed by 20 stops, so a lot more than double the exposure time. For example if without filters your shutter setting was 1/500, with 20 stops worth of filters your exposure would be 35 minutes :eek:

It depends how bad the cast is to how easily it is corrected. Of course you could do a custom WB in camera first.
 
Last edited:
if you are sure that you are serious about photography get the best you can afford and start there at the end of the day you can put it in program and start to lern
 
Rhyswh said:
I had a quick look and that makes sense. I'm into computers so will use a monitor as a reference. Just because 2 montiors are 1080p doesn't mean they will be the same quality! I assume the t stop will be down to quality of production/material used in the lens? Or is it more complicated than that? Always willing to learn!
Click to expand...

For want of a better example, some lenses seem to give a dim image in the viewfinder compared to others of a supposedly similar max aperture i.e. they absorb light internally. As suggested though, I would not worry about that and concentrate of f stops only. BTW moving from f2 to f2.8 - 1 stop - half the amount of light is being admitted through the aperture. Moving from f2 to f4, 1/4 the amount of light is admitted. So if correct exposure required 1/500th at f2 then the same exposure would be 1/250th at f2.8 or 1/125th at f4. So a 10 stop filter removes 10 stops of light.
 
ancient_mariner said:
For want of a better example, some lenses seem to give a dim image in the viewfinder compared to others of a supposedly similar max aperture i.e. they absorb light internally. As suggested though, I would not worry about that and concentrate of f stops only. BTW moving from f2 to f2.8 - 1 stop - half the amount of light is being admitted through the aperture. Moving from f2 to f4, 1/4 the amount of light is admitted. So if correct exposure required 1/500th at f2 then the same exposure would be 1/250th at f2.8 or 1/125th at f4. So a 10 stop filter removes 10 stops of light.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's been shown that not all f1.4 lenses are truly f1.4 in terms of light reaching the sensor for example. I'm not sure how they get away with this tbh.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah it's been shown that not all f1.4 lenses are truly f1.4 in terms of light reaching the sensor for example. I'm not sure how they get away with this tbh.
Click to expand...

Or in the example of the OPs kit, a 'superzoom' with f3.5 max aperture seems to give a dimmer viewfinder image than a kit zoom with f3.5 max aperture. Sadly I only have a couple of lenses of f1.4 max aperture, and the don't have the same lens mount to allow comparison.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah it's been shown that not all f1.4 lenses are truly f1.4 in terms of light reaching the sensor for example. I'm not sur how they get away with this tbh.
Click to expand...
Lens coatings reduce flare, which improves image quality, but at the cost of absorbing some light. Wide angle lenses are more susceptible to flare problems, so often have stronger coatings. It's quite remarkable how good some modern lens coatings are at reducing flare. The cost is reduced light transmission. It's easy enough to see with your eyes just looking at the lens. A long lens such as a 135mm will usually look quite clear, and you'll be able to look down the lens and see the various elements and iris inside. A seriously wide angle lens will sometimes be so dark, like sunglasses, that it's quite hard to see inside. The bonus is that you will be able to include the sun in a landscape shot without any (well, much less) of the horrible flare and ghosting that plagued wide angle lenses back in the film days of last century.

Note too that the number of elements in a lens reduces the light transmission. Some is lost at each air-glass boundary. A complex multi-element zoom will lose more light than a simple prime design of few elements and similar focal length.

Since aperture is defined purely in terms of the effective diameter of the objective and and the focal length and takes no account of number of elements, coatings, glass quality, etc., there's no question of "how do they get away with it", it's simply how aperture in terms of f-stops is defined. T-stops on the other hand describe the actual amount of light transmission. This matters in cine lenses since they want to be able to switch shots and manually controlled lenses without changing the exposure at all because when the shots are spliced together in editing even slight changes of exposure would be immediately obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top