Choice of camera 2021

Te

I would believe there are many of you who photograph their gardens etc, I myself enjoy photography especially in our gardens, usually I use one of three camera’s I own but question being how many of you overall prefer using a phone camera especially given today’s lens technology as part of the latest mobile phones, although I don’t believe the latest cameras on mobile phones are a match for a DSLR camera

KT53

Mobile phone cameras have improved massively over the years and are convenient if you want to take photos to display on social media as they are instantly available.  I still use DSLR camera for almost all my photography for a number of reasons.  Image quality is still better, it's much easier to hold a proper camera steady than a phone at arms length, no delay on a camera between pressing the shutter and the image being taken, the near impossibility of seeing the screen on a camera in bright light.  I could go on.

steveTu

I went from an old SLR to a bridge and back to a (D)SLR - I just like the feel of the camera and cart it around with me most places I go (or went). The bridge was ok and had loads of nice 'effects' - but I'd rather have a camera that takes what's there - and if I want to add effects, I can manipulate the photos later.

I follow why people use phone cameras nowadays - just so convenient and the quality has moved on leaps and bounds. I'm not sure how that's achieved though with the lens and sensor size restrictions - I never read up on it as I never used the phone for anything more than snaps.

Not sure where I'll go next, as mirrorless seems vastly too expensive for me - but my DSLR still does everything I want so maybe that will see me out.

wild edges

KT53 said:

the near impossibility of seeing the screen on a camera in bright light.

This is the main problem I've found with cameras when it comes to outdoor photography. Getting a camera with a view finder has been so helpful, although mine is a mirrorless camera with a digital viewfinder.

The problem as I see it with phone cameras is that they rely on a lot of internal processing to compensate for the comparatively poor image quality from the lens/sensor. It's like taking a photo with an average camera and doing a lot of photoshop work to make it look good. It's great when it works and saves a lot of time but it will always let you down when the light conditions are less than perfect. Having said that they do have the advantage of being more portable and sometimes having a poor quality photo can be better than no photo at all. If you're really interested in photography, as opposed to just taking photos, then I think you'd hit the limits of what a phone camera can do fairly quickly.

steveTu

@wild edges

Is that a 'mirrorless' DSLR? If so, did you have a std DSLR before and how do they compare?

Loxley

Whipping out a phone is ideal for 'record shots', but you do get much better quality with a DSLR/mirrorless. In particular if you want to take a picture of a flower, and not have the background distractingly in focus - a long lens on a DSLR/mirrorless, especially full frame, will produce a nicer 'portrait'. Also you can mount an ultra wide angle lens and capture small spaces in their entirety. It can get expensive adding new lenses, but the cameras themselves are relatively cheap if you buy second hand.

steveTu

When I got my DSLR, I went for a non prime, all purpose lens (I know that's a bit of an anathema) and that's been absolutely fine for me so far (I don't find it an issue carrying the camera around). My daughter has a series of primes, but now she falls back on her phone more and more as it's a faff changing lenses on the SLR.

From what I've seen as well though, the software on the phones can give the 'depth-of-field' effect of the aperture settings on a DSLR .

One of the reasons I didn't like the bridge camera as much was the effect of the small sensor size on the DOF.

The only drawback for me with the DSLR is the weather. The camera body/lens I have isn't waterproof, so if the weather is threatening I have to cart around a camera bag as well.

Fire

I have a bridge and a recent second hand DSLR with a macro lens, both of which I am still getting to know. I am interested in learning about macro photography and can def'ly get more interesting close up pics with the DSLR - more 'professional' looking, though it's v early days for me. I have eye problems so can't peer at small screens and dials for long, or squint through view finders for hours, so I take pics and learn the cameras little by little. I also wear glasses which turns out to be a real PITA with bins and cameras. If travelling with a camera I swap to contact lenses.

I like the bridge for the random funky effects it knocks out. I still get a kick out of that, though it's nothing much to do with me.

As others have said, the phone is easy for snapping, easy on the eyes, easy to carry, impossible to see anything in bright daylight.

At home I swap between all three cameras. The question becomes what to do when travelling beyond home. I like to play with the DSLR but the bridge is more versatile.

- - -

Welcome to the forum @Te - it's been lovely to see your photos and your passion.

Te

Fire said:

I have a bridge and a recent second hand DSLR with a macro lens, both of which I am still getting to know. I am interested in learning about macro photography and can def'ly get more interesting close up pics with the DSLR - more 'professional' looking, though it's v early days for me. I have eye problems so can't peer at small screens and dials for long, or squint through view finders for hours, so I take pics and learn the cameras little by little. I also wear glasses which turns out to be a real PITA with bins and cameras. If travelling with a camera I swap to contact lenses.

I like the bridge for the random funky effects it knocks out. I still get a kick out of that, though it's nothing much to do with me.

As others have said, the phone is easy for snapping, easy on the eyes, easy to carry, impossible to see anything in bright daylight.

At home I swap between all three cameras. The question becomes what to do when travelling beyond home. I like to play with the DSLR but the bridge is more versatile.

- - -

Welcome to the forum @Te - it's been lovely to see your photos and your passion.

Thank you @Fire

Latimer

Phone cameras are definitely getting much better. Most of my pictures I've posted on here have been taken with a phone camera, but I'm very careful to frame my images to avoid messy backgrounds and, as with any photograph, it's all about the light. Knowing the limitations of any camera and then working around it helps enormously.

This year I hope to stop being so lazy and will break out the 5x4! 

KT53

steveTu said:

When I got my DSLR, I went for a non prime, all purpose lens (I know that's a bit of an anathema) and that's been absolutely fine for me so far (I don't find it an issue carrying the camera around). My daughter has a series of primes, but now she falls back on her phone more and more as it's a faff changing lenses on the SLR.

From what I've seen as well though, the software on the phones can give the 'depth-of-field' effect of the aperture settings on a DSLR .

One of the reasons I didn't like the bridge camera as much was the effect of the small sensor size on the DOF.

The only drawback for me with the DSLR is the weather. The camera body/lens I have isn't waterproof, so if the weather is threatening I have to cart around a camera bag as well.

Zoom lens quality is vastly superior to those available a couple of decades ago.  Back in the day, I had 28mm, 50mm, 200mm etc and the difference in image quality between those and an average zoom were very clear.  Not so much today, although a good prime will still always beat a good zoom.  I have one full frame DSLR which has a 24-105 on all the time and a crop with 18-250 which I use as a carry-round as it's considerably lighter.