Beginner time for a dslr?

jonny pallisey

jonny pallisey

Messages
17
Name
jonny
Edit My Images
Yes
hi All, iv been using the Canon A460 homebody type camera several years to take images of artwork [about 10k images per year] but this model doesnt stand the course,iv probably gone thru 5 or 6 and was about to buy yet another used one when it occured to me wouldnt a dslr be better? Is it a no brainer? Browsing ebay looks like loads of Sony A200 or the Canon 450d , which is better or is that an open ended question? Are these cameras quite noisy shutters? iv been used to an almost silent camera i dont want folk swivelling round and then angry when they THINK im taking photos of them you know what i mean. Most of the time im taking images outdoors of art that is 2x2ft size from about 6 feet distance . Many thanks for any advice i will take it all in .
 
It doesn't have to be a DSLR at all. I would think for your requirements you might be better off with something more compact. Every man and his dog will have an opinion on that. The point being that there are a huge number of cameras out there that might be more suitable.
 
Hi Jonny and welcome.

It's a long time since I had a Canon DSLR, I had the 300D, 10D, 20D and 5D. I do remember that the APS-C EF-S Canons had a particularly noisy shutter/mirror mechanism which I always likened to an anvil being thrown into a tin bath. I believe this was at least partly due to the more complex mirror movement these cameras had and for example the APS-C EF-S 20D was much louder than the APS-C but not EF-S 10D.

I've long since gone mirrorless for the many advantages and of course this can include silent shooting or at least quieter shooting. Note that silent shooting with the electronic shutter can lead to rolling shutter issues or banding under flickering artificial lighting but having said that some mirrorless cameras do have quite quiet mechanical shutters when compared to DSLR's and of course there's no mirror slap because there isn't a mirror.

The only advantages I can see for DSLR's these days are the OVF if you believe OVF's are an advantage and the fact that as DSLR's are arguably on the way out you may pick up a bargain but not so much as to tempt me as you can maybe get an older mirrorless camera and a lens used for under £200.

One camera I have which I think is underrated is the Panasonic GX80 which is an RF style mirrorless camera which can shoot silently. This is a Micro Four Thirds camera which has a sensor slightly smaller than a Canon APS-C camera which gives a crop factor of x2 whereas a Canon DSLR is x1.6. This means that a 25mm lens gives you an effective "Full Frame" field of view very similar to a 50mm lens on full frame or a 30mm lens on Canon APS-C. A kit lens (something in the 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 range) and a prime in the 17mm f1.8 sort of range or a 14 or 25mm on a Micro Four Thirds camera would be a good start, for me.
 
I recently went from a DSLR Nikon D810 to four thirds in as much as the panasonic G9, of which there are still a few new available. the latest is the G9ii version. This G9 has a switch on the camera to make it silent.
 
Honestly any modern smartphone will be able to match the A460 image quality and will be silent and discrete.
 
Gold said:
Honestly any modern smartphone will be able to match the A460 image quality and will be silent and discrete.
Click to expand...

But will be miles behind just about any camera made in the last 20 years from 1" through MFT and APS-C and on to FF. Plus of course the smartphone will have zero ergonomics and a decent one will possibly be more expensive than a superior (for photography) camera.
 
Last edited:
Possibly but always depends on lens/post processing/user skill. The latest computational wizardry is impressive. If the primary metric is size/noise then smartphones are strong contenders.
 
Thanks for the info! i guess i want to know is [in perfect light conditions] are dslr images generally much BETTER than the A460 will ever be ? For example do the colours really pop? I realize that the shutters last a very long time on the dslr as opposed to the el cheapo cameras. Re iphone well i dont have one im still using an older phone as no need for one generally but the images iv seen taken by an iphone look very ordinary to me , To my eyes they dont pop
 
Mirrorless cameras are going to be the quietest especially if you use the electronic shutter. To gain the most out of your photos you will need to edit the RAW files or at the very least learn how to customise your JPEG settings in camera.
 
jonny pallisey said:
hi All, iv been using the Canon A460 homebody type camera several years to take images of artwork [about 10k images per year] but this model doesnt stand the course,iv probably gone thru 5 or 6 and was about to buy yet another used one when it occured to me wouldnt a dslr be better? Is it a no brainer? Browsing ebay looks like loads of Sony A200 or the Canon 450d , which is better or is that an open ended question? Are these cameras quite noisy shutters? iv been used to an almost silent camera i dont want folk swivelling round and then angry when they THINK im taking photos of them you know what i mean. Most of the time im taking images outdoors of art that is 2x2ft size from about 6 feet distance . Many thanks for any advice i will take it all in .
Click to expand...
Forget about getting a cheap camera that doesn't last, it will cost you more having to keep replacing it. I still have a Nikon D300 that I bought around the year 2010 and still works like new. (don't use now it just is kept in a Peli airtight case) No one takes any notice of a camera shutter click or at least I have not noticed in all the 40+ years I have been taking photos , The only thing I avoid of taking photos of children and rightly so. generally wait until they are out of the way no matter how long it takes. Even been thanked by parents for doing so.
If you want to be more discreet in taking photos go for a four thirds type camera smaller and less lightly to be noticed. the lenses are much shorter as well and I find photos as good as a full frame camera.
Having been a keen Nikon fan up to recently I am/have swapped over to Panasonic since buying a DC TZ-95 compact and and a Panacoinic HC-X1500 camcorder, so naturally went for the Panasonic G9 four thirds camera recently bought. Still holding on to the Nikon D810 as a backup as well
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
What sort of failures have you had? Did all the cameras fail in the same way at roughly the same point?
Click to expand...
When mine have failed they either say "lens fault" or the images are white/over exposed . Im really grateful for the answers iv gotten on this forum,its saved me wasting time/money going forward on something that wont fit the bill. I slid into taking all these artwork images by a backdoor route,i mean i had to get on and do it but gave little thought up till now to the equipment needed .
 
realspeed said:
Forget about getting a cheap camera that doesn't last, it will cost you more having to keep replacing it. I still have a Nikon D300 that I bought around the year 2010 and still works like new. (don't use now it just is kept in a Peli airtight case) No one takes any notice of a camera shutter click or at least I have not noticed in all the 40+ years I have been taking photos , The only thing I avoid of taking photos of children and rightly so. generally wait until they are out of the way no matter how long it takes. Even been thanked by parents for doing so.
If you want to be more discreet in taking photos go for a four thirds type camera smaller and less lightly to be noticed. the lenses are much shorter as well and I find photos as good as a full frame camera.
Having been a keen Nikon fan up to recently I am/have swapped over to Panasonic since buying a DC TZ-95 compact and and a Panacoinic HC-X1500 camcorder, so naturally went for the Panasonic G9 four thirds camera recently bought. Still holding on to the Nikon D810 as a backup as well
Click to expand...
This is interesting stuff . The main reason i was bothered about the shutter noise is that because iv been using such a low rent camera the only way i could get nice clean images is to use it outdoors on days where the lights perfect. Iv no garden as such so was forced to cart the artwork somewhere public and get on take my shots and of course folk are passing by .I now realise that if i got a better camera AND invested in some decent lighting this would be a much better option . Cheers for the info.By the way why do you hang on to a camera if you are never going to use it again? is it like putting an old pushbike in the garage?
 
Would y"all say that the colours of images improve as you go up in camera quality? This Canon A460 can get [what i consider] really clean images if i shoot in perfect light outdoors but the colours dont ever really pop i mean nobody has ever said "wow LOOK AT THAT " .

Another question, if i start looking around for some camera lighting so i can start taking my images indoors am i likely to be disappointed in that the clarity suffers compared to perfect outdoors light ? What would you budget for ?
 
jonny pallisey said:
Would y"all say that the colours of images improve as you go up in camera quality? This Canon A460 can get [what i consider] really clean images if i shoot in perfect light outdoors but the colours dont ever really pop i mean nobody has ever said "wow LOOK AT THAT " .

Another question, if i start looking around for some camera lighting so i can start taking my images indoors am i likely to be disappointed in that the clarity suffers compared to perfect outdoors light ? What would you budget for ?
Click to expand...

The colours should be as they are on the subject.
All cameras recording JPEG images will process the image in some way, and all do it in a slightly different way.

If you want a particular look, you will need to get some software and learn to use it, preferably from RAW images from a camera.

If people say "Wow, look at that" to your colours on an image, but did not say that looking at the original artwork, then you have overcooked it.
A good example of that is the false effects you get from over doing HDR, which gets it a bad name, when properly used it is only detectable on close inspection.

The Canon Axxx cameras were not good, especially compared to the older Axx cameras. We stopped using them at work (school) and changed to Panasonic as image quality and reliability became issues.

An inexpensive Lumix G3 and 14-42 lens would give you far better results for little cost (assuming there is sufficient light etc), for +- £100 (in the UK) and last many years, and there are dozens of alternatives depending on location and budget.
 
Sangoma said:
The colours should be as they are on the subject.
All cameras recording JPEG images will process the image in some way, and all do it in a slightly different way.

If you want a particular look, you will need to get some software and learn to use it, preferably from RAW images from a camera.

If people say "Wow, look at that" to your colours on an image, but did not say that looking at the original artwork, then you have overcooked it.
A good example of that is the false effects you get from over doing HDR, which gets it a bad name, when properly used it is only detectable on close inspection.

The Canon Axxx cameras were not good, especially compared to the older Axx cameras. We stopped using them at work (school) and changed to Panasonic as image quality and reliability became issues.

An inexpensive Lumix G3 and 14-42 lens would give you far better results for little cost (assuming there is sufficient light etc), for +- £100 (in the UK) and last many years, and there are dozens of alternatives depending on location and budget.
Click to expand...
cheers for that info,jus browsed the g3 on ebay looks plenty there to choose from. It shows how out of touch i am,i mean nobody on here is saying DSLR you wont go wrong.How wrong i was! it a bit like iv been pedalling a pedalo every day for years,smiling while im in it when someone told me about this other sleeker boat with a tiny electric motor . told me not to buy that one with a oak planker 10 horse evinrude as its old-hat overkill Well not quite but you get my drift. Anyhoo thanks for the extra info!
 
jonny pallisey said:
This is interesting stuff . The main reason i was bothered about the shutter noise is that because iv been using such a low rent camera the only way i could get nice clean images is to use it outdoors on days where the lights perfect. Iv no garden as such so was forced to cart the artwork somewhere public and get on take my shots and of course folk are passing by .I now realise that if i got a better camera AND invested in some decent lighting this would be a much better option . Cheers for the info.By the way why do you hang on to a camera if you are never going to use it again? is it like putting an old pushbike in the garage?
Click to expand...
Good question about hanging on to an old camera. First of all mirrorless cameras are now the rage and old DSLR's arn't selling. Second is more sentimental, a great pal of mine suggested upping froM the D200 to the D300 as we had the same gear etc. He passed away a few years ago now but this D300 reminds me of him. I have advertised it before with a lens but no takers and doing P/X just isn't worth it.

So why am I changing from Nikon to Panasonic? it is a question of weight mainly due to my age, and what the Pan.G9 offers. the menu is huge far to big to put on here.
LINK
G9 maNual

being a 4thirds camera the lens is double mm size. IE 12mm in Full frame is 24mm. The kit lens is a 12-60mm Leica Elmart lens that has its own stablisation working in conjunction with the camera stablisation.

find it on here " https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk"

You say about decent lighting. do you mean flash or LED . for flash i recently bought a Godox V860ii i(0) the (o) donates which make of camera it works on . for I used a CN--160 LED for lighting.

Of course comes the question of camera straps I can highly recommend ones by Peak Design. The quick release is truly amazing and takes up to 8000 lb strain so no fear of it breaking
 
Last edited:
re-decent lighting , im thinking of taking my pics indoors in future so id need lights. Would you say ,in general,that taking pics of an object outdoors in great light gets better results than indoors with good led lighting?
 
jonny pallisey said:
re-decent lighting , im thinking of taking my pics indoors in future so id need lights. Would you say ,in general,that taking pics of an object outdoors in great light gets better results than indoors with good led lighting?
Click to expand...
Most LED lighting is not bright enough, so yes.
 
A modern DSLR/mirrorless will give the potential for better pictures. Bigger, better sensors give more detail and less noise. Better lenses give more detail and less distortion.

The advantages of mirrorless are mainly associated with fast moving subjects and getting exposure/focus right first time. That doesn't really apply so much with stationary art. You might not see many benefits from a new mirrorless over a 10 year old DSLR. The sensors are pretty much the same. Mirrorless are generally smaller and lighter if you need that.

The colours depend on how you edit them. You can set up most DSLRs/mirrorless to give a picture out of the camera that has a particular look. The cameras have built in profiles that can be modified to do what you want.

You can do post-processing to do the same thing (and do it better) but that takes more time.

If you want to do it on the cheap, I think a used DSLR is the way to go for what you are doing. The cameras and lenses are really cheap and you can get pro-level gear for the same price as a basic new mirrorless machine. Then spend some money on lighting and a tripod.

If you don't care about the money and are looking at wider photography, a mirrorless might be better.

One important question is what are the pictures being displayed on? Unless you are doing giant prints, or interested in examining great detail, you don't need vast amounts of megapixels.

Another thing is to consider getting a prime lens in addition to a standard zoom. At the ranges and subject size you are looking at, a 50 or 70mm (on full frame) prime lens will give you sharper pictures than a zoom.
 
Seems to me your limiting your photographic work on one thing other peoples quote "images of art work" unquote. I don't quite get why you don't use a camera to make your own artwork,( whatever that means). Unless you have a vision disability whereever you look one can make something from it . Many specilise in street photography, others may be on architecture . not forgetting landscape -portraiture- still life- etc. etc.
remember it is not the camera that takes the photo it is the nose behind it that does.
Posting ones efforts on a forum such as this will attract comments and ideas good or bad, and possibly some helpful advice. Everyone sees the same thing a bit differently .
 
realspeed said:
Seems to me your limiting your photographic work on one thing other peoples quote "images of art work" unquote. I don't quite get why you don't use a camera to make your own artwork,( whatever that means). Unless you have a vision disability whereever you look one can make something from it . Many specilise in street photography, others may be on architecture . not forgetting landscape -portraiture- still life- etc. etc.
remember it is not the camera that takes the photo it is the nose behind it that does.
Posting ones efforts on a forum such as this will attract comments and ideas good or bad, and possibly some helpful advice. Everyone sees the same thing a bit differently .
Click to expand...
i drifted into being an unlikely artist myself about 5 yrs ago and so had to take decent images so i could post them online to help sell my work. Other artists have since got me to take images of Their art too and latterly run their online presence thats why im now taking about 10k shots per year [although im only using about 1k [the best] . The comments iv gotten on this forum have helped me a great deal,im absorbing them and so glad i joined
 
Erty said:
A modern DSLR/mirrorless will give the potential for better pictures. Bigger, better sensors give more detail and less noise. Better lenses give more detail and less distortion.

The advantages of mirrorless are mainly associated with fast moving subjects and getting exposure/focus right first time. That doesn't really apply so much with stationary art. You might not see many benefits from a new mirrorless over a 10 year old DSLR. The sensors are pretty much the same. Mirrorless are generally smaller and lighter if you need that.

The colours depend on how you edit them. You can set up most DSLRs/mirrorless to give a picture out of the camera that has a particular look. The cameras have built in profiles that can be modified to do what you want.

You can do post-processing to do the same thing (and do it better) but that takes more time.

If you want to do it on the cheap, I think a used DSLR is the way to go for what you are doing. The cameras and lenses are really cheap and you can get pro-level gear for the same price as a basic new mirrorless machine. Then spend some money on lighting and a tripod.

If you don't care about the money and are looking at wider photography, a mirrorless might be better.

One important question is what are the pictures being displayed on? Unless you are doing giant prints, or interested in examining great detail, you don't need vast amounts of megapixels.

Another thing is to consider getting a prime lens in addition to a standard zoom. At the ranges and subject size you are looking at, a 50 or 70mm (on full frame) prime lens will give you sharper pictures than a zoom.
Click to expand...
interesting info! many thanks for it . The pictures im taking are just to post online various places where artists peddle the wares . Iv not done any printing im sure that needs big money ,praps further down the road!
 
I'm not so sure that a DSLR makes all that much sense as a cheap entry these days. A few years ago maybe but mirrorless has been around for years now and some of the kit on the used market looks very reasonably priced to me and so much so that for me DSLR's make less sense by the day.

Just on the point of image quality, sharpness and lack of distortion and other nasties. I do think that sometimes it's nice to include some "nasties" in your photography. I often use old film era lenses on my mirrorless cameras because of the look they give.

Oh, and that's another advantage of mirrorless, you can mount just about anything from the film era via a cheap adapter. My favourites are I suppose my Minolta Rokkors although the early Nikons (Nippon Kogaku) are beautifully made.
 
woof woof said:
I'm not so sure that a DSLR makes all that much sense as a cheap entry these days. A few years ago maybe but mirrorless has been around for years now and some of the kit on the used market looks very reasonably priced to me and so much so that for me DSLR's make less sense by the day.
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

Plus they are smaller and quieter, and with M43 their standard zoom lenses are very sharp without having to use primes.
 
Sangoma said:
Fully agree.

Plus they are smaller and quieter, and with M43 their standard zoom lenses are very sharp without having to use primes.
Click to expand...

Although I have FF cameras I don't think I'll ever be without a MFT camera. For compactness in camera system that allows you to change the lens maybe only the Sony A6xxx series comes close but the MFT lens line up is arguably more attractive and on the used market some can be found at very reasonable prices. One maybe underrated lens I do like is the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 (28mm equivalent) which can easily be found used for just over £100.
 
Last edited:
jonny pallisey said:
The main reason i was bothered about the shutter noise is that because iv been using such a low rent camera the only way i could get nice clean images is to use it outdoors on days where the lights perfect
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you don't mean 'shutter noise' (the loud sound of a shutter) but you mean colour artefacts in the image? This is just 'noise' rather than shutter noise.

The small sensor will add more noise, all things being equal, a larger but low resolution image will be cleaner, but of course that needs qualifying by saying a newer sensor will be cleaner than an old one.
 
jonny pallisey said:
re-decent lighting , im thinking of taking my pics indoors in future so id need lights. Would you say ,in general,that taking pics of an object outdoors in great light gets better results than indoors with good led lighting?
Click to expand...
'Good' LED lighting is very expensive, cheap flash is better but scares off newbies.

A couple of speedlights, stands, softboxes and a trigger can be had for less than £150, you can possibly pick up a mains powered kit 2nd hand for similar if you're patient.
 
Phil V said:
'Good' LED lighting is very expensive, cheap flash is better but scares off newbies.

A couple of speedlights, stands, softboxes and a trigger can be had for less than £150, you can possibly pick up a mains powered kit 2nd hand for similar if you're patient.
Click to expand...
Had a look this morning on the EvilBay - there's some absolute bargains available in studio lighting. A full kit of 3 lights for less than the price of a single new one etc. @jonny pallisey you should pop into the lighting section for an idea of what is possible using proper lighting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top