The TPU Darkroom - Digital SLR and Photography Club

[KrazyT]

I'll go for a cheap DSLR with a 70-300 mm zoom, it's a good start.
For exact spec, choose the brand you like the more (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax ...)
Just think with Canon and Nikon, you'll get more stuff on the 2nd hand market.

Or go with a bridge, ggod choice too.
(but i like the changing lens idea in regards of what's you're planing)

 

[the54thvoid]

You'll need to spend several hundred dollars for a camera with a good zoom range. The principles of zoom change with sensor size and most phone sensors are 1.2/3". Most compact cameras have the same sensor size, which is what allows them to have large zoom ranges. The actual lenses are not zooming any closer, all that happens is the smaller sensor effectively crops the full frame image. A 1" sensor is the best option for a compact with a decent zoom, but you'll pay for that.

One caveat you'll need to understand is that good smart phone cameras all use AI and post-processing to make your photos look better. In many ways, a modest compact camera will give you a disappointing image next to a saturated, HDR tinkered jpeg out of a smartphone.

Also, if you want a camera to snap small objects at distance - i.e., birds- almost all compacts will let you down. Focusing is difficult, and image resolution of a moving object at range will be difficult on a small compact body. Like most tech, you get what you pay for, and in photography (moreso for nature, when you're not even meant to get close to the subject), the hardware becomes more niche, and more expensive.

The best compromise camera is the (non-compact, very expensive bridge camera) Sony RX10 MKIV. 600mm range with very good focus. 1" sensor. There's also the Pansonic FZ2000 (also a bridge, a bit cheaper). Otherwise, if you insist on compact size, the Sony RX100 VII (expensive), which has a 1" sensor but only a 200mm equivalent zoom.

Other folks may have better suggestions, but you get the idea. A top range smartphone camera with it's AI and in-built post-processing will give you better pics than most compacts. It's only when you realise you'd love to blow the image up to make a wall print, you'll understand why you need a full-frame (or at least APS-C) camera.

 

[Space Lynx]

hmm, I didn't want to have to spend that much, I think I am just going to keep the camera on my samsung galaxy, it does good enough, and it might even get better as I have 4 years of OS updates, so those might come with better AI, etc.

 

[KrazyT]

I mostly agree with @the54thvoid , but i think you can go cheaper.
Ex : A 250 $ DSLR (2nd hand) a Nikon D5200 for ex (on BH photo there in US) and a Nikkor 70 - 300 VR for 210 $.
It's an APS-C, so the lens become a 105-450, it's a good start without breaking the bank.

​

 

[the54thvoid]

I mostly agree with @the54thvoid , but i think you can go cheaper.
Ex : A 250 $ DSLR (2nd hand) a Nikon D5200 for ex (on BH photo there in US) and a Nikkor 70 - 300 VR for 210 $.
It's an APS-C, so the lens become a 105-450, it's a good start without breaking the bank.

​

Yeah - my mistake - I thought I read Space Lynx wanted a compact. Plenty of 2nd hand DLSR's out there.

Got to say though, the advances in autofocus leave the older models in the dust (my old 2nd hand 7DMKII was excellent, but soft compared to the newer RF bodies). I'm a Canon user, so can't comment on other bodies (had a Fuji APS-C - really nice images but still lagged in focus). I'm aware Sony had always had a great rep for autofocus.

 

[Ferrum Master]

I'm looking for specific recommendations and/or links. (USA)

Yes, I want something better than a phone because bird watching is a thing I do (I don't want super high quality bird pictures like posted here), but just better than my phone. I don't want to have to meet with settings, I want to leave it on auto and just point and shoot.

I am doing lot of nature related stuff, and while my camera phone is fine, I have had several situations where I wished I had a proper zoom.

Look at keh, I've seen good feedback for them, they test their used gear properly.

 

[de.das.dude]

hmm, I didn't want to have to spend that much, I think I am just going to keep the camera on my samsung galaxy, it does good enough, and it might even get better as I have 4 years of OS updates, so those might come with better AI, etc.

It does. I still have my A51 kicking about and it did get a lot of updates that make its image much better than its supposed to be haha. However, one thing which doesn't get better is low light performance.

but normal stuff for social media? more than good enough, i just posted a sample in this thread, last week i think.

 

[Aquinus]

hmm, I didn't want to have to spend that much

Just like building a computer, the first bit of information you should provide is what your budget is. I'm sure that there is a camera that fits into your budget, but the real question is will it be better than your phone. You don't need to spend almost $3,000 USD on hardware like I have to get decent pictures. Canon has released a lot of low cost crop sensor RF mount camera bodies. Some of the RF-S lenses can be had pretty cheap. An M50 and the 55-210mm RF-S lens would be about $850 which isn't bad at all given what you're getting. You could also consider buying second-hand which would likely be far cheaper than buying new.

EOS M50 Mark II

24.1 Megapixel (APS-C) CMOS sensor with ISO 100-25600 (H: 51200)DIGIC 8 Image Processor with Auto Lighting Optimizer Improved Dual Pixel CMOS AF and Eye Detection AF (Still/Movie Servo AF support)4K UHD* 24p and HD 120p** for Slow MotionVari-angle Touchscreen LCD Convenient for Vlogging and...

www.usa.canon.com

RF-S55-210mm F5-7.1 IS STM

RF-S telephoto zoom lens Outstanding telephoto coverage with APS-C sensor cameras Excellent image qualityOptical image stabilization Minimum focus distance of approx. 28.7 in./0.73m. with a maximum magnification of 0.28x (at 210mm focal length) STM (stepping motor) focus drive for smooth, quiet...

www.usa.canon.com

Edit: An advantage of going right to something like the RF mount gives you options for upgrading as well should you want to invest in more glass or different camera bodies as time goes on.

 

[Chomiq]

Just like building a computer, the first bit of information you should provide is what your budget is. I'm sure that there is a camera that fits into your budget, but the real question is will it be better than your phone. You don't need to spend almost $3,000 USD on hardware like I have to get decent pictures. Canon has released a lot of low cost crop sensor RF mount camera bodies. Some of the RF-S lenses can be had pretty cheap. An M50 and the 55-210mm RF-S lens would be about $850 which isn't bad at all given what you're getting. You could also consider buying second-hand which would likely be far cheaper than buying new.

EOS M50 Mark II

24.1 Megapixel (APS-C) CMOS sensor with ISO 100-25600 (H: 51200)DIGIC 8 Image Processor with Auto Lighting Optimizer Improved Dual Pixel CMOS AF and Eye Detection AF (Still/Movie Servo AF support)4K UHD* 24p and HD 120p** for Slow MotionVari-angle Touchscreen LCD Convenient for Vlogging and...

www.usa.canon.com

RF-S55-210mm F5-7.1 IS STM

RF-S telephoto zoom lens Outstanding telephoto coverage with APS-C sensor cameras Excellent image qualityOptical image stabilization Minimum focus distance of approx. 28.7 in./0.73m. with a maximum magnification of 0.28x (at 210mm focal length) STM (stepping motor) focus drive for smooth, quiet...

www.usa.canon.com

Edit: An advantage of going right to something like the RF mount gives you options for upgrading as well should you want to invest in more glass or different camera bodies as time goes on.

It also locks you out of 3rd party AF lenses.

 

[Space Lynx]

It does. I still have my A51 kicking about and it did get a lot of updates that make its image much better than its supposed to be haha. However, one thing which doesn't get better is low light performance.

but normal stuff for social media? more than good enough, i just posted a sample in this thread, last week i think.

night mode on my galaxy a54 is insanely good. i just can't zoom otherwise it all fails. main reason I wanted a regular camera again is for zooming. its no big deal though, I already decided I am not willing to spend that much on this hobby and it doesn't seem to be worth it unless you drop a good chunk on it. plus the added hassle of having to travel with a big camera.

for now i will just continue to admire this thread... maybe in the future I will join it

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

night mode on my galaxy a54 is insanely good. i just can't zoom otherwise it all fails. main reason I wanted a regular camera again is for zooming. its no big deal though, I already decided I am not willing to spend that much on this hobby and it doesn't seem to be worth it unless you drop a good chunk on it. plus the added hassle of having to travel with a big camera.

for now i will just continue to admire this thread... maybe in the future I will join it

Amazon.com : B07PM1ZWVL

This and a small tripod might be your easiest route

 

[the54thvoid]

My mother-in-law bought us a plant that is meant to attract butterflies. After one year of failing, it's now working.

Taken with R7 + 24-105mm lens.

 

[de.das.dude]

My mother-in-law bought us a plant that is meant to attract butterflies. After one year of failing, it's now working.

Taken with R7 + 24-105mm lens.

View attachment 314705
View attachment 314706

someone must have posted the location on butterfly instagram recently.

 

[the54thvoid]

It was a tik-tok butterfly frenzy.

 

[Space Lynx]

My mother-in-law bought us a plant that is meant to attract butterflies. After one year of failing, it's now working.

Taken with R7 + 24-105mm lens.

View attachment 314705
View attachment 314706

we have hummingbird feeder in ours to attract hummingbirds, we also have a butterfly one, but it seems to attract dragonflies instead

 

[Aquinus]

I managed to get within 30-40 feet of a GBH. Normally they're stupid easy to scare off, but I was able to follow this fella through a community garden.

Edit: Now that I'm pixel peeping and being a little more mindful when post processing images, I'm noticing the differences in quality between my 24-105 ƒ4 L IS USM and my 100-400mm ƒ5.8-8 IS USM. The 100-400 really softens the image unlike the 24-105 or the 50mm ƒ1.8. I'm really wishing I had the 100-500 right now, not so much for the extra 100mm of reach or wider aperture, but the quality of L series glass. The 100-400 was nice to get going, but I'm starting to feel like I'm outgrowing it.

 

[de.das.dude]

I managed to get within 30-40 feet of a GBH. Normally they're stupid easy to scare off, but I was able to follow this fella through a community garden.
View attachment 314793
Edit: Now that I'm pixel peeping and being a little more mindful when post processing images, I'm noticing the differences in quality between my 24-105 ƒ4 L IS USM and my 100-400mm ƒ5.8-8 IS USM. The 100-400 really softens the image unlike the 24-105 or the 50mm ƒ1.8. I'm really wishing I had the 100-500 right now, not so much for the extra 100mm of reach or wider aperture, but the quality of L series glass. The 100-400 was nice to get going, but I'm starting to feel like I'm outgrowing it.

wait what. i thought they are too daft, i find flamingoes easy to scare off lol.

most daring are those damned painted storks lmao. they dont give a shit.

he isnt fat, just fluffy ok?

extendo

first one was taken recently, from a moving boat, the last two are from 2019 ish when i was still amateurish

 

[Aquinus]

first one was taken recently, from a moving boat, the last two are from 2019 ish when i was still amateurish

I don't remember who said it, but a YouTuber said something to the effect of, "the difference between an amateur and professional photographer is that the latter can monetize their work."

Edit: I've used Adobe's generative fill to alter this image. Can you tell what was changed?
Edit 2: I'll upload the original image once we have some guesses.

 

[the54thvoid]

I've seen it being used for landscape stuff. Scary, tbh. AI in general is a bit of a bummer as it can create images that people never took. I've not checked but adding the butterfly would not be filling things in (unless it was poorly composed, or intentionally done so), in which case the wings could easily be done by inference. The main flower is focused more toward the back, but the middle is mostly in focus. The front edge is blurred. The flower on the right has blur on the petals closest, and is tack sharp on the farthest. But the centre is very blurry. To my mind, it looks focally wrong - but without knowing the exact focal plane, it's not possible to tell.

The background is easy for AI to fill. But If you've given us a test, then I'll stick with the right hand side flower.

If the whole things is fake - that wouldn't surprise me, but then you said it was filled not rendered.

Curious to see the original.

 

[Aquinus]

This is the original. I used it to remove the grass.

 

[the54thvoid]

Ah...

I inferred from your post, you added imagery. It was 'generative fill' that gave me that impression. I'd call that more of a 'magic eraser'.

 

[KrazyT]

tbh, i like the grass on the front ... but it's well done !

 

[Aquinus]

Ah...

I inferred from your post, you added imagery. It was 'generative fill' that gave me that impression. I'd call that more of a 'magic eraser'.

Generative fill is what Adobe calls this feature. I'm just using their verbiage. FWIW, I did try different prompts and managed to give a female friend of mine a beard. Completely changed her face, but man oh man did it work.

tbh, i like the grass on the front ... but it's well done !

I do too. I just thought it was a good way to test out how well it would handle it. The only artifact I noticed was one particular edge of the butterfly's wing that didn't come out quite right, but even still it turned out quite well. You hardly notice the artifact. I need to take another image, like one of a lake, and try adding a boat or something.

 

[the54thvoid]

@Aquinus - you're probably right about hanging on to my current set-up for now. Went to a 'Safari' Park near me. I'm sure it's tiny compared to most places, but it has an enormous eagle there. The Stellar Sea Eagle. Caught on R7 and RF100-500mm.

324mm actual (518mm equiv) 1/1000s ISO 1000 f7.1

Heavyiest eagle in the world.

 

[de.das.dude]

@Aquinus - you're probably right about hanging on to my current set-up for now. Went to a 'Safari' Park near me. I'm sure it's tiny compared to most places, but it has an enormous eagle there. The Stellar Sea Eagle. Caught on R7 and RF100-500mm.

324mm actual (518mm equiv) 1/1000s ISO 1000 f7.1
View attachment 315387


Heavyiest eagle in the world.
View attachment 315388

i am always amazed at how BIG these birds are :O