[Closed] Camera purchasing advice - completely clueless

Take a look at this thread for some info on photography of artwork. Actual camera there will be lots of recommendations, but use a site like MPB, look for an older body such as a Fuji XT2 and pick some lenses 50mm generally for portrait/images of pictures. A wider lens for city/landscape and perhaps an all purpose zoom for 'other' uses.

Photo advice

Thanks I’ve found a thread in that link which is really helpful.

I would prefer a new camera by the way, as I don’t know much about them I would prefer it that way.

I guess it depends on how often you'll be using scenarios B and C?

i.e. if most of the usage is in the studio taking pictures of artwork or when taking pictures of the cities its specifically for work; as apposed to being in the city and mixing being a tourist and working.

Then you might be OK with getting something big and bulky and prioritise image quality or lens quality.

Where as if the city and landscape scenarios are more often and those trips are really your leisure, enjoyment time and you're trying to get some snaps for work while you're there. Then you may not be able to justify a heafty camera bag with a couple of lens.

I'd be looking at a small, mirrorless camera. I've got a Canon M50 which I like a lot, lots of different lenses available and the stock kit lens is fine.

like @lunge, i have a small mirrorless canon (m100 in my case)

got a few lenses now, but the 22mm stays on all the time, the macro is used when I'm getting arty, and I'm just about to buy a wide angle one for landscapes

If I need a long lens, I can put on the 100-300mm from my old dSLR (gives an equivalent focal length of about 450mm), which is old and massive. Weighs the camera down, so you'll need a tripod really.

unlike the dSLR, i can throw the mirrorless and 22mm in my pocket easily. It's a lovely camera, and re-awakened my love of a decent photo.

This is what I started with, https://www.argos.co.uk/product/9181236. Bearing in mind it's a good couple of hundred quid of lens thrown in, it's not a bad price.

Remember, it's not necessarily the number of megapixels, but the size of the sensor that matters
http://photoseek.com/2013/compare-digital-camera-sensor-sizes-full-frame-35mm-aps-c-micro-four-thirds-1-inch-type/

Then you might be OK with getting something big and bulky and prioritise image quality or lens quality.

Don’t want big and bulky.

I’d be looking at a small, mirrorless camera. I’ve got a Canon M50 which I like a lot, lots of different lenses available and the stock kit lens is fine.

I’ll take a look thanks.

This is what I started with, https://www.argos.co.uk/product/9181236. Bearing in mind it’s a good couple of hundred quid of lens thrown in, it’s not a bad price.

Wow that seems like a great deal and just what I would want I think. Why is mirrorless good?

Why is mirrorless good?

It produces a much smaller, lighter body most of the time. Many camera brands are making more and more mirrorless bodies too, so it seems to be the 'future' until there is a new thing that becomes the future in photography.

I took the plunge into 'decent' cameras 3 years ago and opted for Micro Four Thirds as my previous Canon 35mm SLR camera was too bulky for hillwalking and mtb. I bought a Lumix G80, which has terrific video capability and is competent for stills. I added a fast prime and tele zoom to the kit lens. It's still a bit chunky for mtb so I bought a 2nd hand GF5 body and tiny zoom lens, which is far lighter and easy to use. I now have two bodies and four lenses at considerable expense. About 80% of the images and videos I take could be done with a phone camera. The low light, long exposure, indoor, creative and telephoto images are way better than a phone could manage but very much in the minority. If I were to do it again, I'd just buy a high end bridge camera with a 1" sensor and built in fast lens. The Panasonic Lumix FZ1000, FZ2000 or SONY RX10 series are worth a look. If you don't need the zoom, both brands do rather diminutive large sensor compacts with fast lenses; Lumix LX100, LX10 or the excellent SONY RX100 series. All would be more than capable of capturing portfolio images. A sturdy tripod is essential for indoor work.

Why is mirrorless good?

a SLR has a mirror that flips up to allow light to the film (old days...). This obviously takes up a reasonable amount of space, and is a point of failure over time.

As there is no need for that now (no film...), you can just turn the sensor on an off with a shot

So - Canon mirrorless cameras have same sensor as their dSLRs, but can be a lot smaller. (some other brands don't have the same sensor as their SLRs; do check). Smaller body needs smaller lenses, so they brought out a new range. But you can you the original with an £20 adaptor from ebay

One consideration; old[er] SLRs were often made of metal for resilience (my old one is magnesium). Heavy, but indestructible. Modern cameras - inc SLRs in the consumer end - are plastic. If you want something to last you have to spend a lot now.

but the M100 from Argos is good. Not completely up to date (but the M200 didn't add that much difference). Just remember there's no view finder. It's all through the LCD (or the app on the phone, so you release remotely).

But - it's a cliché i know - the best camera is the one you have with you. And the size of the M100 and 22mm is really that small to take everywhere. A dSLR isn't

Why is mirrorless good?

As opposed to SLR cameras that traditionally have mirrors. Mirror down, light gets passed to the viewfinder. Then you press the button, the mirror flips up out of the way (for a few hundred ms) revealing the sensor.

The problem with this is that while an optical viewfinder is good, you can't use the screen as a viewfinder, nor can you record video. Also, the moving part is quite expensive to manufacture and will eventually break. Some mirrored SLR cameras do allow you to fix the mirror up so you can still get videos/video viewfinders.

Of course almost all non-SLR cameras (inc the one on your phone etc) are also 'mirrorless' in that they don't have a moving mirror. What Canon they really mean when they're trying to sell you a 'Mirrorless' camera is an SLR-style camera (lenses you can change, manual controls etc) without the mirror so it can be smaller, cheaper, lighter, video capable etc.

I think I should upgrade my old dSLR body to a mirrorless one. It might see some use...

So what she needs to be do is take really high quality pictures that really show colours accurately. Also the ability to take pictures of her artwork for limited edition prints would be good.

OP, a few Qs may be useful

1. What size art/prints?

2. What PP software will she use to extract RAW, correct colour, tone, distortions etc?

3. How will you be calibrating monitor?

I’ve made digital archives of artist’s work and they are very particular. I am also. You’ll ideally need a monitor profile that matches that of the image bureau.

Any DSLR or decent mirrorless system should do. Prime lens. 50mm or 100mm. I use 50mm. Daylight LED lamps or outdoors in flat sunlight. Tripod. Larger works than A3 I tend to send to an archivist who has a rostrum camera, digital back, lighting, the works...

At home for small paintings I just use a Pentax MX-1 compact which has excellent lens/sensor combination and shoots RAW. But a prime lens and bigger sensor is usually the best answer. You really don’t want a wide angle lens. In fact anything other than very good prime will normally degrade/unfocus the image towards the edges. Again, a lot depends on the size of the original art.

If she’s planning to also use the camera for wifi, video etc then other things come into play. I’d usually recommend having a camera setup just for photographing art. An older DSLR (ie Canon 5DMK2) with a low shutter count, a 50mm Prime on the front, a decent tripod and you’re set.

Mirrorless with decent prime will work too. But be prepared to pay for good glass.

Use the phone for the other stuff.

Just remember there’s no view finder.

That true on the small cameras but many of the DSLR style mirrorless cameras do have a traditional view finder, my M50 certainly does and my mayes Pentax does as well. They also feel like a "real" camera, albeit smaller and lighter,

OP, a few Qs may be useful

Answer to 1 - up to around A1.
Other answers - no idea what you’re talking about. We are just buying a computer for her to work on and got a reasonably colour accurate monitor on the way (not a professional one) but that’s it at the moment.

but the M100 from Argos is good. Not completely up to date (but the M200 didn’t add that much difference)

Pity it’s out of stock!

@b230ftw

try here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS-M100-Mirrorless-Camera-with-15-45mm-22mm-Lenses-/362524551152

@lunge

it won't be a traditional viewfinder. It'll be a small LCD showing the same as the back panel. Not dissimilar I grant you, but there are definitely differences between an EVF and OVF

no idea what you’re talking about. We are just buying a computer for her to work on and got a reasonably colour accurate monitor on the way

2. What PP software will she use to extract RAW, correct colour, tone, distortions etc?

ie she’ll need post-processing software (ie photoshop, or open source ie gimp) to extract the RAW (essentially the ‘lossless’) data and convert to whatever optimised file format. To also correct lens-distortion and have the work ‘square’ as intended. Also to adjust saturation levels, and match/fine-tune the chroma and tone of the original.

3. How will you be calibrating monitor?

ie I share/borrow a hardware calibrater (‘Spyder’) with my local image bureau

Here’s some about monitor calibration

https://www.creativebloq.com/advice/how-to-calibrate-your-monitor

It sounds a lot of faff but I taught myself over about 12 months in the early days, via internet and trial and error. DPReview is a good forum worth checking out.

Eventually you can get to the point of batch-processing work, designing custom actions etc which can speed things up if she is a prolific artist/has a large body of work to digitise.

Not bothered about an optical viewfinder. Never had one so won’t know any different!!

Here’s an invaluable tool when comparing cameras

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison

If you do choose a mirrorless + kit lens you can always try it out and then get a prime lens if the kit lens isn’t up to scratch for art reproduction

local image bureau

What’s one of those?

^ Usually a company specialising in digital reproductions and fine art/giclee printing.

Random example: https://kleinimaging.com

The accurate colours thing - not sure what those are photos of mind... as an interim measure if your phone is relatively modern it should have a RAW file mode. Cameras on phones and consumer cameras over process to ****. The Instagram look. Shoot in RAW and you have more chance of sorting in post. Of course that brings up your monitor's colour rendition (is it calibrated? -there is zero point in having images that are colour corrected to look ok on your computer only to send them to someone else to print where they are pants) and also the light source. Mixing light sources and colours and using some horrible in camera auto white balance setting is a recipe for horribleness.

For taking photos as you describe (the accurate colour bit and photos of art be that painting or sculpture) your biggest issues are the post processing and the light source. If £500 is the budget you might well be better spending the money on an Adobe CC account (so that would be photoshop and/or Lightroom or looking for other cheaper software that does roughly the same thing) and some cheap studio lights or maybe a light cube. Probably a polarizing lens too to sort out and manage the reflections off the work than will be one of your main issues.

And a tripod so that shutter speed can be taken out of the equation (you can throw the F stop right up with a corresponding increase in shutter speed and make focus across the object less of an issue) and also repeatability is easy.

Then get a cheap as chips Nikon 3100 second-hand with the kit lens to sort you out for the moment. The camera is probably the least important part of the setup. You'd be hard pressed to lose money on a 3100 if you wanted to sell it on at a later date to buy the trinket, sorry camera you are after.

No - it's not what you asked for, but for the primary task as described it'll get you the best results. All these compact mirrorless jobbies mentioned previously would be nice enough if the idea was to have a slightly better camera than your phone in you pocket or manbag but imo they are an irrelevance to helping you fulfil the brief as you describe on the budget to hand.

as an interim measure if your phone is relatively modern it should have a RAW file mode.

I’d (respectfully) seriously advise against selling art prints that have been taken by a phone camera, RAW or not. For practise/familiarisation with the process/making thumbnails for online catalogue (in lieu of camera/prime lens for capturing the archival/master file) it could work, I’ve done it myself. Decent starter guide here:

https://willkempartschool.com/how-to-photograph-your-paintings-with-your-iphone/

(Again, only recommended for interim/thumbnails)

compact mirrorless jobbies mentioned previously would be nice enough if the idea was to have a slightly better camera than your phone

respectfully, I would disagree with that. The sensor in a Canon mirrorless is identical to the sensor in the dSLRs of the same age. So the M100 has the same sensor as an 80d; both have a Digic6, with 24.2MP. The 80d will come with more AF points, better waterproofing, more memory (for a better fps rate), better screen, and an innate ability to put L lenses on. None of which is needed for taking photos of art work. The actual innards are the same; the end result will be the same. Look at the sensor size link I posted earlier; a decent Canon mirrorless gathers 15x more light than a normal compact camera, which is itself a lot better than a phone camera

A prime EF-M lens is as good as a consumer EF or EF-S lens. It won't be as good as a L lens, but you will be able to put one on - if a) you want to and b) you've got the budget. If you want, buy the excellent EF 50mm, but it will be a focal length of ~75mm on either a consumer dSLR or a EOS-M.

The 22mm EF-M lens is an excellent prime lens, has a focal length of 35mm, and ideal for the OP's wife's work. https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-m-22mm-f2-stm/review/

respectfully, I would disagree with that. The sensor in a Canon mirrorless is identical to the sensor in the dSLRs of the same age. So the M100 has the same sensor as an 80d; both have a Digic6, with 24.2MP. The 80d will come with more AF points, better waterproofing, more memory (for a better fps rate), better screen, and an innate ability to put L lenses on. None of which is needed for taking photos of art work. The actual innards are the same; the end result will be the same. Look at the sensor size link I posted earlier; a decent Canon mirrorless gathers 15x more light than a normal compact camera, which is itself a lot better than a phone camera

A prime EF-M lens is as good as a consumer EF or EF-S lens. It won’t be as good as a L lens, but you will be able to put one on – if a) you want to and b) you’ve got the budget. If you want, buy the excellent EF 50mm, but it will be a focal length of ~75mm on either a consumer dSLR or a EOS-M.

The 22mm EF-M lens is an excellent prime lens, has a focal length of 35mm, and ideal for the OP’s wife’s work. https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-m-22mm-f2-stm/review//blockquote >

All maybe perfect true but you missed my point.

ANY camera, be that your mobile phone, a mirrorless canon, a DSLR or an Sony A7rIV can only take an image of the thing in front of them. My point was the OP is being misdirected into spending his budget all on a camera when what he (or rather his wife) first needs to do is control the light, control the camera with a tripod and then control the image in post. If there is money left over then sure spunk it on a jazzy new camera. Until then it will still be a rank amateur shot regardless of the camera. The camera is not the weak link or make or break tool in this scenario. A cheap dated DSLR+lighting+filter+software > new wizzy mirrorless camera for this purpose.

 

All maybe perfect true but you missed my point.

none of which I commented on. My rebuttal was the (to paraphase) 'mirrorless cameras are similar to compacts and rubbish'. Which is wrong.

...compact mirrorless jobbies... slightly better camera than your phone

But yes, a decent tripod and lighting system would be very useful in addition. So the camera and lens on the link I recommended was £300. Leaves £200 for those.

Which is wrong.

OK.

But I'm still not sure I agree. I have been blown away with what the latest generation of cameras in phones can do. For me (and I appreciate it is just me) the middle ground between the latest camera phones and the control and lens adaption of a DSLR (and now their mirrorless equivalent) is not somewhere I'd ever bother going. But then if I'm going out to take photos seriously I've got a full on tripod, a bag of filters and lenses and a day to kill. If not, I'm prepared to allocate exactly one back pocket to the cause. There is no middle ground.

Leaves £200 for those

Well that's the annual CC account paid for.

^ +1 petec.

Also, I aim to photograph my work between f8 and f14 depending on situation. Lenses differ so take the time to find the optimal for your setup. Usually in the centre of your aperture range as a rough guide. Use a tripod and remote shutter release (or short self timer) for best results.

Recommend she has a good read through this guide:

https://www.artistsnetwork.com/art-mediums/oil-painting/how-to-photograph-a-painting-step-by-step/

Hope that helps, I wish her all the best with her business.

the middle ground between the latest camera phones and the control and lens adaption of a DSLR (and now their mirrorless equivalent) is not somewhere I’d ever bother going.

Depends what you define as ‘middle ground’ (and upon what criteria)

DSLR at the ‘prosumer’ level seem now only to have price and lens choice to their advantage. The latter is a closing gap and the former may well be the same at some point soon as older models wear out and mirrorless becomes the new ‘normal’. I say this as a DSLR user. Never had a mirrorless but I have a great (if old) compact which far outperforms my iPhone in a many ways. ie f1.8 f2.4, 1cm macro, internal ND filter etc. Impressive. The colour is excellent too. I bought it as a camera to take subject reference pics for painting.

https://www.tomsguide.com/uk/face-off/dslr-vs-mirrorless-cameras

Fair enough, everyone's different. And I used to be the same back when I got my 30D, in 2006(?).

Then kids come along, and rather than lugging a massive camera bag/tripod/big lenses etc, I can now throw in a small camera, couple of small lenses, small Ultrapod, and theoretically take the same photos

The phone has a decent camera (42MP, four different cameras, complete manual control, all that jazz), but has nowhere near the quality and depth of the mirrorless's photos (or even the 15 year old dSLR with 8MP). Which is why - despite some very good landscapes with the phone - I want an 11mm for the camera.

In an ideal world, I would get the EOS-R, but again I'd probably find I don't take it out anywhere near as much as the small one. Whenever I'm walking now (which is a lot), it's in the pocket. Generally even comes out on the bike with me.

I think you're going to end up spending a bit more or looking into the used market.
While any camera will get the job done / image taken, i'd be pretty pissed if i bought a print and it was grainy as it had been taken on a phone.

I happily use Adobe's photography package, Photoshop and Lightroom for a tenner a month
https://www.adobe.com/uk/creativecloud/photography/compare-plans.html?promoid=CZY71YPM&mv=in-product

Camera wise, a mirrorless camera to me is the way to go, couple it with a 35mm or a 50mm prime as both equate to roughly the view the human eye has. While the smaller sensors of APS-C cameras may 'crop' the image you can achieve (effectivley zooming in on teh image) you can work around that and take a step back.

You could get a used mirrorless and a prime lens then build a lens collection as you go to obtain a more complete set up rather than comprimising initially.

As convert said, in the wrong hands a top flight camera will only ever be as good as a phone camera, much like in the wrong hands a paint brush will never paint a masterpiece.

oh and lights and tripods.

Dpreview.com has huge amounts of info and guides too I think.

I was looking at getting an old DSLR to replace my RX100, I was able to compare images at different ISO in JPEG and raw, it's an amazing resource (I was surprised that and EOS 600 wasn't much better!)

i have a sony e mount mirrorless camera, and it is very nice, but the lenses are stupidly expensive compared to a nikon or a canon, so if you want a nice macro or something i might look at a nikon or canon instead, especially since third parties make decent lenses too

I was surprised that and EOS 600 wasn’t much better!

It is a very smooth image. Had one and was impressed with the file quality. Hated using it though, like a slippery little toy with user interface designed for another life form!

The thing about compact zoom vs DSLR - is how does something like the RX100 cope with fashion photography, creative bokeh, action/sports, archival masters, wildlife/birdwatching, macro etc? And the answer of course is that the big-sensor compact is still just a better quality point and shoot and so doesn’t need to be able to do all those things. iq still surprised me tho. For example to preserve this level of shadow detail when shooting contre-jour:

(RX100 MK1)

As less photography is printed these days and simply winds up on the web, I can see how the art of photography has changed. It’s become more of an ‘art of photoshop/image manipulation’ in the viewer’s eye? And in that sense, a camera phone is all you need to instagram. Another discussion.

art of photoshop/image manipulation’

Without a doubt; there's a women in the village here who does very nice photos of the scenery/plants/birds etc. Wins a lot of plaudits in the community. To me, a lot of them have been photoshoped to within an inch of their lives; they don't look 'natural'. They can look great - and possibly better than reality, but....it's not real.

I seem to have started an argument here. Calm down people!

If I buy a monster old SLR it will only be of use to photograph the artwork. The other 2 use cases are just as important. There is no way I’m lugging an SLR round San Francisco or New York, I’d be binning it after an hour or two. Cos it will be me carrying the chuffing thing I’ll bet. So you can recommend some knackered old beast as much as you like but I ain’t buying one.

Lighting for photographing the artwork can be bought separately - already looked into this, it isn’t expensive so you don’t need to worry about that. We won’t be photographing the artwork very often anyway.

Software, we will be using free stuff. Not getting Adobe as we wouldn’t be using it for anything else so would be a waste of money. Gimp should be ok.

I am swayed towards a Canon as you do seem to be able to get a lot of options for lenses.

My point was the OP is being misdirected into spending his budget all on a camera

I asked for a camera for about £500. Not £500 for a studio setup with software.

Not getting Adobe as we wouldn’t be using it for anything else so would be a waste of money. Gimp should be ok.

Gimp's ok. It's more photoshop than lightroom which is a shame. I've lost touch with the other free/cheap alternates but there are a few that are more lightroom like.

Intrigued by 'we wouldn’t be using it for anything else' though. Not sure what you mean by that. Surely every photo you bother to take (and keep) on something better than your phone you'll be putting through something? Otherwise I truly wouldn't bother. Not to shop the **** out of it, just to bring in from RAW and gently post process; crop if needed, and mildly correct.

Not £500 for a studio setup with software.

You also described yourself as completely clueless. Which would indicate no clue about lighting too. Happy to hear you are not.

Intrigued by ‘we wouldn’t be using it for anything else’ though. Not sure what you mean by that. Surely every photo you bother to take (and keep) on something better than your phone you’ll be putting through something? Otherwise I truly wouldn’t bother. Not to shop the **** out of it, just to bring in from RAW and gently post process; crop if needed, and mildly correct.

I’ve never done that to any photo until I want to print it out. Prefer to leave it as it is.

I’ve never done that to any photo until I want to print it out. Prefer to leave it as it is.

Ok. - so more of a point and shoot snaps man. Crack on then.

We won’t be photographing the artwork very often anyway.

If they are professional limited edition (archival?) prints then whether you photograph 1 or 1000, the same quality/lighting/post processing is required.

In that case, it may be more economical to take those big paintings to an archivist/bureau and have them photograph it on their rostrum camera - on the odd occasion you need it done/properly.

If it’s just canvas-prints, ‘home decor’ Etsy stuff then iPhone it, funny guy 😉 😎

The paintings we will be taking pics of won’t be massive BTW, I think maybe A1 is too big. A2 is probably biggest.
Taking photos of this stuff:

View this post on Instagram

The photos we want to take in cities will be lots of close to mid range distance to get all the details of a scene to paint later. We have been looking at how Richard Estes used to do his work and he took loads of pictures for source material for his artwork. My wife isn’t doing hyper realism (I personally would donate a leg to get a Richard Estes original!) but the technique she uses, or wants to use, is similar. These picture need to be GOOD to show decent detail and contrast/shadows as that’s what she needs for the artwork later on. So I’m thinking a camera with a nice prime lens for walking round the city will be perfect. Maybe that prime lens would be good for photographing the finish artwork too.

However when we aren’t concentrating on scenes for later artwork we would need some sort of adaptable zoom lens.

My wife could buy a top of the range DSLR as she has a decent payoff from her redundancy but we want to take small steps. We don’t know what will work out useful and what won’t, so want to buy decent kit which can be used for a variety of things. It might be that we find a good print shop locally that can photograph work themselves which works out better, or farming it out to someone else, we don’t know. Or it might not happen at all. I bought her a decent PC with a quality monitor which isn’t as good as pro kit but it’s a fraction of the price and will do 80% of what the pro stuff does.

We always look after stuff really well too so buying decent stuff means it can normally be sold for a decent amount if an upgrade is needed.

Ok. – so more of a point and shoot snaps man. Crack on then.

I just spend a lot of time getting a nice shot so I don’t have to do anything later!!

Recently had a landscape iPhone panoramic picture framed (of Yosemite valley) and the guy said it was an amazing picture. Turns out he is a pro photographer as well and asked me for a copy of it. So I must be doing something good!

Ah, the penny dropped. I was having groundhog day!

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/advice-needed-for-computer-ipad-for-start-up-illustrator-artist/

Turns out he is a pro photographer as well and asked me for a copy of it. So I must be doing something good!

Sell that bad boy! Limited edition? Open edition on canvas. If pro photographers want it, then the public would donate a leg!

I just spend a lot of time getting a nice shot so I don’t have to do anything later!!

Can only assume you have some sort of in-camera RAW-converter and lens-correction software then? And EXIF tagging? And how do you adjust the curves in the shadow details, or are you using some kind of clever grad filter, or HDR?*

Word to the wise - HDR could be dodgy as it’s essentially different frames combined and can throw up out some odd things, especially if trying to accurately represent colours as you say.

Can only assume you have some sort of in-camera RAW-converter and lens-correction software then? And EXIF tagging? And how do you adjust the curves in the shadow details, or are you using some kind of clever grad filter, or HDR?*

Or alternatively I just enjoy the picture I took and don’t scientifically criticise it for all its flaws.

Sell that bad boy! Limited edition? Open edition on canvas. If pro photographers want it, then the public would donate a leg!

I think it was just the stunning location that helped most of all. Yosemite valley has a knack of providing good views.