Photography
c/photography is a community centered on the practice of amateur and professional photography. You can come here to discuss the gear, the technique and the culture related to the art of photography. You can also share your work, appreciate the others' and constructively critique each others work.
Please, be sure to read the rules before posting.
THE RULES
- Be nice to each other
This Lemmy Community is open to civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, photography. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted.
- Keep content on topic
All discussion threads must be photography related such as latest gear or art news, gear acquisition advices, photography related questions, etc...
- No politics or religion
This Lemmy Community is about photography and discussion around photography, not religion or politics.
- No classified ads or job offers
All is in the title. This is a casual discussion community.
- No spam or self-promotion
One post, one photo in the limit of 3 pictures in a 24 hours timespan. Do not flood the community with your pictures. Be patient, select your best work, and enjoy.
-
If you want contructive critiques, use [Critique Wanted] in your title.
-
Flair NSFW posts (nudity, gore, ...)
-
Do not share your portfolio (instagram, flickr, or else...)
The aim of this community is to invite everyone to discuss around your photography. If you drop everything with one link, this become pointless. Portfolio posts will be deleted. You can however share your portfolio link in the comment section if another member wants to see more of your work.
view the rest of the comments
The only ones missing IS are the 50mm and 28mm prime lenses, right? You may be able to find a higher end version of each of those with IS, but I included them as budget alternatives to the 35mm, which does have IS. Those two are only for if you don't like the lens that comes on the camera and want something short other than the 35mm.
Whether it's important to have IS really depends on the conditions you are shooting in and it's not usually a priority of short, prime lenses. I guess it's possible you could run into those, but it's more likely in low light scenarios with slow shutter speeds. If you are shooting in those conditions, you probably want a tripod, so you wouldn't need the image stabilization. It's usually more important on larger lenses.
Good to be thinking about these things when you get to buying one though.
Something I didn't mention before, you don't have to stick to canon lenses, you just may need an adapter. Sticking to canon made it easier for me to find lenses that would fit the R50.
I'm talking about that great Sigma lens that is Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary. I feel like I'd love to have it but since it and the camera don't have the Image Stabilization, it might be an obstacle, what do you think?
I'm not sure how much I'd be shooting in the dark, but probably quite a bit. Is it a big deal overall in your view?
I think both of those lenses are fine, but if the price isn't very different, I'd probably pick the one with IS so I have the option.
If you are really worried about needing IS, I suggest reading this article from B&H. B&H is also a good online retailer. 99% of the time I shoot in low light, I use a tripod, so image stabilization isn't necessary and can be detrimental. Have I tried shooting at low shutter speeds with longer lenses in the dark? Yes, but I always bring a tripod in the evening or for indoor portraits now. It's not likely you'll be able to hold the camera anywhere near steady enough in those situations, so you'll either want to mount it or set it down and set a timer.
Like I said, it's easy to get caught up in feeling the need to buy bigger and better equipment, but if you haven't touched it, you don't really know what you need. You need to get your hands on a camera and go shoot first. If you know someone you can borrow one from or if you can rent one for very cheap, it could be worth trying that first.
End of the day, we are considering an entry-level camera for a budget of $600. There are always exceptions that will allow you to go outside that budget and get more/better features, but if you buy big and don't use it, that's just more money spent for no gain.
My first camera was a Canon 70D at $1300. That's a high entry point, but I feel like it was a great purchase at the time. I made that decision after handling a DSLRs for 10 years because my dad always had them. One of those was a Canon 10D handed down to me that I shot on until buying the 70D, the other was a Canon 5D mark III. I was lucky to have access to those, but they were too much camera for me at first.
Before you go spending a whole bunch, commit to a budget that you will not abandon no matter what shiny thing you see (there are infinite shiny things, I know) and get your hands on something you can shoot with. You're overthinking things at this stage.
Canon R50 is good at $600. Canon R10 is better at $1000. Sony A6100 is good at $800. Sony A6400 is better at $1000. Fujifilm X-T30 II is good for $1000.
You can find even better (though older) cameras (particularly DSLRs) for sale second-hand from people looking to upgrade. Don't expect lenses this route because people tend to keep them, but a friend of mine just sold a Canon 5D mark III body for only $300. That's a lot of camera for the price.
Don't worry about lenses just yet, get your hands on a camera and shoot with the stock kit to see what you actually need. You may even be happy with the stock kit for now. Experts will push and push and push better equipment, but that's because they are working at a higher level and marginal gains or quality of life improvements are worth it when your work is photography. When you are starting as a hobbyist, as a beginner, those things are mostly distractions.
Reasonable advice all around!
Out of curiosity, do you personally think Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary is worth five times the price of the stock lens? I mean: does the quality improve proportionally?
Would the pictures generally also be about 5x better than the kit RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM?
I think the sigma lens is worth the price, but no, the more you spend the more the returns are diminishing. The photos won't be 5x better. The photos taken will depend a lot more on your skills than the equipment and may even be worse than a phone at first.
Eventually, they will be much better than a phone! An improved lens will generally give better clarity and color over a lower quality lens.
Also, what do you think about EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS? I was told it's one of the best lenses for ASP-C cameras in general. Would it be great with an adapter?