(Feel bad hijacking the thread like this, yet eating up the advice!)
I think it was almost 10 years ago (already?) It's an SX-60 and it looks like they do an SX-70 now. Frankly, I haven't been using it much recently. The photo editing software I use didn't handle the lens properly at wide angle so I'd have to convert to tiff with Canon's software, which was annoying. I think the newest version might be ok. The new "AI sharpening" seems to help, but of course isn't as good as the real thing.
I'll try to put a couple of examples on the photos I took thread to show you but my photo library is on a different computer. The zoom really is awesome, though. Better than binoculars.
The camera I currently have is a Canon PowerShot SX60 HS. I like it for it's relatively light weight, long rechargable battery life, 65x zoom lens, and while I use the viewfinder for landscape and wildlife, I like the swivel display for macro shots where I can't get my head where I want the camera to be for the shot. Bought it used for a under $300, the most I spend on toys for myself. picture quality isn't as good as with better cameras, but I'm mostly happy with the results.
The one on the left is a 3 years old EOS I purchased with the subpar 'telephoto' lense.
Lil Powershot on the Right is the 2004 gem I got so many great shots with. Lightweight and the lens did the job beautifully.
Bit the dust in 2015. Miss that camera. But can't part with it. (Please tell me I'm not the only one)
Seems as though the EOS model just doesn't have a better telephoto lens. Do I hafta go EF model (?) to get one?
Haresfur, did you get that PS recently?
(Feel bad hijacking the thread like this, yet eating up the advice!)
I think that if you took this photo then technically you're off the hook...
The one on the left is a 3 years old EOS I purchased with the subpar 'telephoto' lense.
Lil Powershot on the Right is the 2004 gem I got so many great shots with. Lightweight and the lens did the job beautifully.
Bit the dust in 2015. Miss that camera. But can't part with it. (Please tell me I'm not the only one)
Seems as though the EOS model just doesn't have a better telephoto lens. Do I hafta go EF model (?) to get one?
Haresfur, did you get that PS recently?
(Feel bad hijacking the thread like this, yet eating up the advice!)
I used my daughter's entry-level Canon dSLR over the weekend and the *clunk* of the mirror seems outrageous... way more pronounced than my old film Nikon. I am sure it's picked up by the telephoto. But I enjoyed it enough that now I'm looking at an entry-level mirrorless. Would vastly prefer one with controls you can set by feel rather than booping a button 14 times until the display says what you want it to say, but I'm sure those are fiction.
Excellent point. I had a little Canon powershot back in the day, didn't know they've come so far. I do appreciate a 35 mm SLR, perhaps with a smaller zoom. Wanting to stay 'mid-range' not lense heavy. The shots I've posted here lately are from my cell (with some serious PS touches) Very grateful for this info!
I have a Canon EOS Rebel T100 DSLR. One reason I wanted a DSLR instead of other digital cameras, is that they have a true, through-lens viewfinder like my 35mm cameras do - I never liked taking photos by looking at the little screen on the back of the camera. It has auto settings for shutter speeds, aperture, ISO/ASA, pre-sets for landscape, indoor, portrait, etc. and auto-focus, but all of those features can be manually overridden, as if you're using a 35mm. The EOS Rebel cameras start around $400.00. from what I've seen, and they are light and relatively small. They usually come with an 18-55mm lens - which has modest zoom and macro capabilities, but not telephoto. Canon telephoto lenses for the Canon EF cameras start around $200.00, knock-off are less obviously, but they may not have auto-focus capabilities. I generally keep a Canon 50mm. lens on it.
Most of the people I know who are more "serious" about photography - or happen to be professional photographers - use Nikons for digital photography.
To add to this, I have a Canon Powershot which is a small camera with an insanely powerful zoom. Something like the equivalent of a 1300 mm lens on a 35 mm SLR. The main trade off is that it has a small sensor like the old pocket digital cameras that were popular before cell phones. That means that photos aren't nearly as sharp as with a camera with a bigger sensor, but are pretty good if there is enough light. Sometimes I regret buying it but then again I wanted to be able to take wildlife photos and you always need more zoom than you have. And it is important for me to remember that the camera you have with you takes much better pictures than the one you leave at home because it is too bulky.
Excellent point. I had a little Canon powershot back in the day, didn't know they've come so far. I do appreciate a 35 mm SLR, perhaps with a smaller zoom. Wanting to stay 'mid-range' not lense heavy. The shots I've posted here lately are from my cell (with some serious PS touches) Very grateful for this info!
A little more context: digital cameras have a sensor that captures the image (instead of film). A sensor measuring 35mm would be equivalent to the old ubiquitous 35mm film cameras in terms of the way a given lens will behave. 35mm is considered "full size" for a digital sensor, but many cameras have smaller ones, which is not only less expensive, but allows the lenses to be smaller and lighter as well. The major camera manufacturers generally ofter a choice of full sized or "cropped", which is about two thirds the size, and offer a set of lenses optimized for this (like the "DX" lenses on my Nikon)
Cameras without interchangeable lenses are generally a fair amount smaller, and use correspondingly significantly smaller sensors. This allows compact zoom lenses to be built in without adding too much weight, at the expense of image quality.
To add to this, I have a Canon Powershot which is a small camera with an insanely powerful zoom. Something like the equivalent of a 1300 mm lens on a 35 mm SLR. The main trade off is that it has a small sensor like the old pocket digital cameras that were popular before cell phones. That means that photos aren't nearly as sharp as with a camera with a bigger sensor, but are pretty good if there is enough light. Sometimes I regret buying it but then again I wanted to be able to take wildlife photos and you always need more zoom than you have. And it is important for me to remember that the camera you have with you takes much better pictures than the one you leave at home because it is too bulky.
Uh... out of all that I caught "my dSLR because it has the feel of the 35mm film cameras I grew up with - the ergonomics, buttons instead of all menu-driven, tons of choices for lenses, and being always ready to shoot instantly, with the satisfying click when I take the photo." I can do pretty good with the basic lenses that generally come with cameras, but the telephoto option is definitely a need. I'll do more research. Appreciate the advice!
A little more context: digital cameras have a sensor that captures the image (instead of film). A sensor measuring 35mm would be equivalent to the old ubiquitous 35mm film cameras in terms of the way a given lens will behave. 35mm is considered "full size" for a digital sensor, but many cameras have smaller ones, which is not only less expensive, but allows the lenses to be smaller and lighter as well. The major camera manufacturers generally ofter a choice of full sized or "cropped", which is about two thirds the size, and offer a set of lenses optimized for this (like the "DX" lenses on my Nikon)
Cameras without interchangeable lenses are generally a fair amount smaller, and use correspondingly significantly smaller sensors. This allows compact zoom lenses to be built in without adding too much weight, at the expense of image quality.
Now that digital has matured there are tons of options for capable cameras out there, it's kind of overwhelming. I like my dSLR because it has the feel of the 35mm film cameras I grew up with - the ergonomics, buttons instead of all menu-driven, tons of choices for lenses, and being always ready to shoot instantly, with the satisfying click when I take the photo. But I have the "crop" format sensor (DX in Nikon parlance) which results in much less weight and bulk, especially in the lenses.
More recently mirrorless cameras are all the rage, also available in full and crop format versions. These are great at shooting video as well, but there are tradeoffs with the focus capabilities and battery life (but getting better all the time). When you look through the camera you're actually looking at a tiny monitor, so resolution, brightness, and lag can be a factor. They tend to be smaller and lighter than their dSLR counterparts. The software tends to be much fancier on mirrorless cameras, with things like eye detection for focusing. The popularity of mirrorless cameras makes for nice deals on used dSLR gear :-)
There are also capable cameras with non-interchangeable lenses, which are even smaller, lighter, and less expensive, though not really expandable. Whether this is important is just a personal decision - do you like the idea of having multiple lenses which excel in their own ways, or would you prefer to not have to ever change lenses? These cameras generally have smaller sensors than those with interchangeable lenses, which limits things like how shallow depth of field you can achieve, and how large you can enlarge an image before it gets soft.
Photography is a very personal experience, so it's a good idea to play around with different types of cameras and see what makes you excited to go out and take photos!
Uh... out of all that I caught "my dSLR because it has the feel of the 35mm film cameras I grew up with - the ergonomics, buttons instead of all menu-driven, tons of choices for lenses, and being always ready to shoot instantly, with the satisfying click when I take the photo."
I can do pretty good with the basic lenses that generally come with cameras, but the telephoto option is definitely a need.
I'll do more research. Appreciate the advice!
Hail Photog Wizards: I've been a shut-in ever since Covid 2020 and my Mom fell in fall of '21. I've been in caretaking mode ever since. Now that she's passed, I need to get out of the stay-close-to-home rut and get out again. Photography is a lot like having a dog. It compels you to go out and explore. Is there a thread for Amateur Photographer advice? I'm not into tons of equipment and competition, just a lightweight, basic camera with a decent telephoto lens. Something I can get creative with beyond a cellphone. I had a Canon Rebel back in the mid 2000's with a midgrade t-lens and was able to get some great stuff. My current replacement doesn't seem to be cutting it. I'm ready to hit the local Camera store (exchange, knowledge, sales, etc.) Would love to get suggestions on (affordable) updates on models and lenses. - The Aperture Amateur
Now that digital has matured there are tons of options for capable cameras out there, it's kind of overwhelming. I like my dSLR because it has the feel of the 35mm film cameras I grew up with - the ergonomics, buttons instead of all menu-driven, tons of choices for lenses, and being always ready to shoot instantly, with the satisfying click when I take the photo. But I have the "crop" format sensor (DX in Nikon parlance) which results in much less weight and bulk, especially in the lenses.
More recently mirrorless cameras are all the rage, also available in full and crop format versions. These are great at shooting video as well, but there are tradeoffs with the focus capabilities and battery life (but getting better all the time). When you look through the camera you're actually looking at a tiny monitor, so resolution, brightness, and lag can be a factor. They tend to be smaller and lighter than their dSLR counterparts. The software tends to be much fancier on mirrorless cameras, with things like eye detection for focusing. The popularity of mirrorless cameras makes for nice deals on used dSLR gear :-)
There are also capable cameras with non-interchangeable lenses, which are even smaller, lighter, and less expensive, though not really expandable. Whether this is important is just a personal decision - do you like the idea of having multiple lenses which excel in their own ways, or would you prefer to not have to ever change lenses? These cameras generally have smaller sensors than those with interchangeable lenses, which limits things like how shallow depth of field you can achieve, and how large you can enlarge an image before it gets soft.
Photography is a very personal experience, so it's a good idea to play around with different types of cameras and see what makes you excited to go out and take photos!
Hail Photog Wizards:
I've been a shut-in ever since Covid 2020 and my Mom fell in fall of '21. I've been in caretaking mode ever since. Now that she's passed, I need to get out of the stay-close-to-home rut and get out again.
Photography is a lot like having a dog. It compels you to go out and explore.
Is there a thread for Amateur Photographer advice? I'm not into tons of equipment and competition, just a lightweight, basic camera with a decent telephoto lens. Something I can get creative with beyond a cellphone. I had a Canon Rebel back in the mid 2000's with a midgrade t-lens and was able to get some great stuff.
My current replacement doesn't seem to be cutting it. I'm ready to hit the local Camera store (exchange, knowledge, sales, etc.) Would love to get suggestions on (affordable) updates on models and lenses.
- The Aperture Amateur
