New to photography. Looking around and trying to figure out pro's / con's of mirror vs mirrorless for a non-professional photographer. Specifically, looking for something to take outdoor pictures. Something I can pack around and not need to worry excessively regarding use/abuse/dust/humidity. Thinking I want 70-200mm lens. And then either a doubler, or 400-600mm zoom. The kit that Big Sky just sold seems like it would have been a good set up to get started...

Thoughts for a duffer that likes to tinker ?

I have a Canon ML camera, the R6 and love it. Great AF. But for wildlife, I would maybe lean towards the crop body R7 for more reach. 70-200 is not likely enough reach for wildlife, unless maybe you pair it with one of the f11 600mm or 800mm primes

Ya know, probably being new to it you could pick up an entry level DSLR to learn on and not break the bank. Most people answering a question like this are going to tell you what it is they like and it simply can't be beat! Starting out that whay you'll probably find out what you like better. weather it really is or not depends on who you talk to. An entry lever body with a nice 55-300, or similar lens and a 150-500 say a Sigma would get you going. All really depends on who ya talk too!

I was wondering about the 70-200 versus something with more reach. Appreciate the input. Keep it coming.

I've been living with 3 lens and they pretty much cover all my needs. 85mm Macro, 18-105mm, and 55-300mm. Sometimes I wish I had a 500mm but I look at the prices for a quality lens that give edge to edge sharpness and I start thinking, I realty done need one.


That little Coolpix is a nice camera, it took the one picture.

A picture at 300mm

Pictures at 105mm

Cookie's been giving them some thought. She's presently packing a EOS-70D, a 5D and a 7D. Given the $$ in Canon glass, she'll likey stay with that brand. Criticisms from some Canon users she's chatted with are: the mirrorless are battery hogs, F11 600mm is weak early and late, and longer lenses don't focus close in.

Focus speed is great, images are sharp, eye tracking is good, 30 frame per second burst are possible, big lenses are compact and light, extremely quiet, and equal to about a 1200mm on a crop sensor. I suspect she will make the jump.

For wildlife, one wants the biggest glass he can afford. Doublers are a waste.

Cookie mostly relies on a 100 to 400 zoom as her bread-and-butter unit and a 500mm prime if she really wants to reach out.

Comparatively speaking, the new 600, 800 F11 Canon lenses are dirt cheap.

I think there may be two possibly three people that can actually see edge to edge sharpness but for most people I think it's overplayed. Of course if your a working pro it might mean something to you but most your customer's will be clueless about it. Thing newcommers should concentrate on IMO is focus, mettering and arangeing the photo in the frame. A perfectly exposed photo extremely sharp edge to edge lose's out to me every time, if I could even see those things, to a photo that tells a story. That is to me the difference between a really first class photographer and a new comer. My son's just getting going with it and one of the things he has a problem with it framing. He got a few photo's of a horse recently and there was more open space behind the horse than in front. Big mty nothing back there. I think a really important part is framing in the beginning. Give a really good photographer an entry level camera and after market lens and he'll take photo's to blow your mind. Give the bigginer a top of the line camera and high dollar lens and he somehow just can't quite get there. It's about like everything else the seceret to great photo's lies in the photographer, not the equipment. Read years aago in a photogrsphy magazine about those really expensive lens and never forgot it. Rather than the high dollar wide apperature lens get a much less expensive lens and put some light on the subect.

Lot of people rave about a 70-200 f2.8 lens but it's really an expensive lens. My own is a 70-210 Nikon f5.6. Much less expensive and if I add light to a photo that needs it serve's me much better for a lot less money. The 70-200 was at one time raved about as a walk around lens too, but I much prefer my 18-140 for walk around. Much lighter and wider at the low end and at the high end I can usually get closer.

Thing is I think starting out especially, get closer to entry level equipment and learn to shoot photo's then you can work your way along as you learn. Most under used camera I own any more is my Nikon F5. Film camera I paid about $1600 for years ago and it really was way over my head. Most used camera would be a good point and shoot but just haven't found one that holds up for me. They are small and light and stay out of the way well when not in use. When I want something special I have my Nikon D7000. And I don't believe the name on the camera actually matter's. I like Nikons for no other reason than they are what I started with, Nikon FG film, and I'm used to them. That D7000 is a step above entry level but takes better photo's than I can normally do. But then I don't photograph things for a living so how perfect does it really need to be.

Funny thing about camera's, there are actually people around that much prefer film even today yet digital has pretty much blown film away. I like film but don't like paying and waiting on processing so got my first computer and printer when I got my first digital camera. hard for me to find film processing today when I do get the wanna go backs!

Go look at camera's and find a mid range down to entry level that you think you like and get it! Use the money you save on a decent or less printer to process your own photo's and to go get them in the first place. Kinda like fishing rods. If I spent the money on a high dollar rod and reel, I couldn't afford the gas to go use it!

Well mentioned printer's. I started with an HP inexpensive one and it worked fine up to 8x10 for a long time. Today I have a Cannon Pro 9000 and a Cannon iP100, small printer. I can print pretty much any size photo I want. When I was printing a lot, I knew my 9000 well enough to print huge landscape photo's, like maybe 13x40! My iP100 I think it's up to 8x16 I've done with it. BTW, both of these are old printer's that were never top of the line but worked fine for me.

Here ya go. Looked on B&H Photo and found this, might work for you. Canon EOS Rebel DSLR with18-55 and 75-300 lens kit and carrying case for $549! I would think it would make a good starter kit. Fairly simple and inexpensive. Now, DSLR or mirror. I don't have a clue about mirrorless cameras other than it seem's they are pretty expensive! I think point and shoot are mirrorless and many much less expensive. Money you save is gas money to go take pictures! Oh yea, don't forget to get some type photo printer also! If your anything like me you'll tire of 8x10's and want a 13x19 printer and if you have the money a 17" printer or who knows, maybe more. My nephew got a pro model Canon 24" printer! He has more money than I do and more space in the house!

I use a Nikon D7100 and have been good with it. I wanted to upgrade to a full frame once and called CL but the guy just said forget it you need to go mirrorless. For me that's not a good option because I'd have to essentially start all over. There's nothing wrong with a decent DSLR either Canon or Nikon. I chose Nikon because the lens are interchangeable from many years back.

I use two Nikon FX DSLR's (D600 & D810) with a variety of lens. If I was buying another camera it would be a good secondhand Nikon D850, simply because I already have the lenses to suit. However, if I was new to photography and starting from scratch I'd probably go mirrorless. In the end, it doesn't really matter which you choose because image quality between mirrorless and DSLR is virtually the same.

Problem with the 70-200 lens. Not wide enough on the low side or long enought on the high side.

As I recall this was done at a field trial break away with my D7000 and Nikon 55-300 lens. Set iso up around 900, gives more shutter speed at lower light and seems to better stop motion without blur. These dogs were really hauling the mail! Dogs were centered in the view finder and cropped in photo edit.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/hUboHJuh.jpg?2[/img]

Both digital camera platforms have their pros and cons. But, just because all the marketing, sales, and even manufacturing efforts are going toward mirrorless doesn't mean that a good DSLR is no longer a good DSLR. The biggest advantage I see in mirrorless is the weight. That's me, though - I don't shoot video so whatever bonuses mirrorless cameras have in the space are moot. Most mirrorless cameras are much lighter and quieter than DSLRs, but those aren't issues with me.

IMO, all recent DSLRs are capable of all the image quality one could want. You need to figure out what features you want vs. what features you are willing to pay for. After you've narrowed it down, put those bodies in you hand and figure out what feels best to you.

For bodies, I can only speak from my personal experience and my personal needs. I shoot for fun, but also get paid to shoot portraits and cover events. I shoot 100% manual, so I need to be able to quickly change aperture and shutter speed setting, and sometimes ISO settings too. That rules those bodies where you can do one or the other, but not both. I don't have time to go into menus to changes settings - I need dedicated wheels and buttons for everything. Also, I need a body that has an autofocus fine tune feature (what Nikon calls it) so I can tweak the AF of a particular lens to the body. Not all have that. If you are going to shoot in Auto most of the time or have time to make changes in the menu, even the most basic DSLR will work.

I like full frame bodies because I don't like to deal with the crop factor during events. Also, full frame bodies handle low light and high ISOs a little better. For 90% of most everything, either will get the job done.

Looking at some of the longer lenses you mention in the Nikon line-up, I have the 70-200 2.8, 70-300 VR, 200-500, and an older 300mm f4. The 70-200 is a great range for tighter spaces - events come to mind, and especially with the 2.8 version vs. the f4 version. When outdoors 200mm at the longer end is often not enough reach, but that 2.8 aperture is appreciated when the sun drops low. The 70-300 VR is simply superb. It's incredibly small and light compared to the others, and when the light is decent it really holds its own. It's my choice for "walking around." The 200-500 is a different category of reach (obviously). It's great as long as you're willing to carry it. The 300mm f4 has it's own set of limitations, but working within those can produce great images for a fraction of the cost (used).

In a nutshell, if you're going to shoot in Auto, just grab what feels good and invest in some decent lenses. Or, if you're not even really sure you want to keep changing lenses, Google some of the "superzoom" cameras that are out there. They have great reach, can focus crazy close, have decent image quality as long as the light is good, and no changing lenses. And, some of the older versions like the Canon SX30 or the Nikon equivalent can be had for around $50 on Ebay.

awesome, nice shot!!!

I think the choices will depend on your budget, amount of usage, and end use. The tracking, face/eye recognition seems to be better with the new mirrorless bodies. The Canon R7 on a lower budget looks interesting for wildlife. I do not know how well the 600/800 mm lenses will focus at f/11 in low light when critters are active.

This photo was taken with an S 6900 Nikon point and shoot, about $300. Only bad part is I've been having mechanical problems I think far to soon but I also think the photo quality is fine. Have a Canon point and shoot I got at about $300 also and it didn't last either but took really nice photo's while it did. My grand daughter wanted to get going in photogrophy and was going nuts with her cell phone. gave her a Nikon D5000 I had and she never used it the first time, kept using her phone. I think don't spend much on a camera for a kid. Get them a cell phone and when they are ready to move up they will. In the mean time if they are really serious they can go with you and borrow your DSLR!

[Linked Image]

The R7 with 32 MP sensor allows for a lot of pixels on target and will tolerate a fair amount of cropping. With the new ML cameras, most folks can get by just fine with the 70-200 f4 version. The RF 100-400 is a really good lens and will take a TC

Canon R6 with RF 800mm F11

Taken with Canon R6 and RF24-240

Mirrorless cameras are battery hogs. They have the benefit of having less moving parts so they don't suffer from shake as much. They are cutting edge and much more expensive.
DSLR's do have more moving parts but that can be largely overcome by secure mounting on a Monopod or tripod.
Either one is going to suffer from obsolescence from year to year. It's always been that way. Technology marches on. Both can take stunning pictures with the right person driving and using good lens'. It's hard to beat good glass and that $16K Canon lens is going to take some breathtaking pictures if you can afford it and use it properly in good light.

Look for a used Nikon D200 (or similar). It has a sealed metal body that will accept virtually every F-mount lens Nikon ever made. Start with a kit lens and go from there. Buy quality, but used, gear in excellent condition.

ML cameras are not as easy on batteries as DSLR but I routinely get 700+ photos on a single battery while photographing sporting events.

Something that seem's to seldom be mentioned. Give an average photographer a top of the line camera and he will take some really nice photo's. Give a great photographer a bottom of the line entry level and he will smoke the guy. having the latest and greatest equipment will not overcome skill!

My walk around lens on my Nikon 7000 is an 18-200 Tamron but saw one the other day I think I'd rather have. 18-300 Nikon, didn't even know they had that! I like pretty wide telephoto's, eliminates the need for a lot of lense's, and need to keep changing them. I don't really think you'll find any big advantage to what ever brand you buy. I shoot Nikons because I pretty much always have! I have a nephew that shoot's Canon and he can tell you all the advantages but I suspect he does because he always has also!

This brings up a good point--one's idea of what a "walk-around" lens is. With the D7000 crop factor that 300mm high end would be a whopping 450mm telephoto! You'd need a tripod for that. Not my idea of a walking around lens.

Really depends on your subjects. My favorite "street walk-around" lens is 85mm/1.4 @ full frame.

Take a look at what 1 minute's wife has done over the years. I believe she use's a Canon DSLR mirror camera and her photo's are great. It's not the tool, it's the mechanic! She either has a gift with a camera or has worked at it hard to get to where she is. Mirrorless or mirror? I'd definately go the older mirror as I can get one for a lot less money and lense's are everywhere. Learn to use it and you might never get the urge for a mirrorless after looking at the price tags! Comming from a guy that knows nothing about mirrorless but is perfectly happy with his DSLR!

One thing not mentioned here is that with a camera like the Sony A7 IV you really might find that you don't need all those big lenses. It is phenomenal how much you can "blow up" a photo taken with these cameras and still have razor sharp detail. They have a super-fast ability to write at 60 frames per second on HD video, so moving targets like birds flying for example, can be recorded in video and then you pick out frame by frame the best photo. Yes, they are harder on batteries, but that is what they make spares for. The biggest downfall about these cameras for me is the ridiculous degree of complication. These are not user friendly at all and you can plan on spending considerable time getting oriented to the workings of the way over-complicated device. Hope this helps someone out there.....M

Edit: I would also add that one thing which drives me crazy about expensive, so-called "high end" cameras like the Sony A7 IV is that they are not water or weatherproof at all....get caught in the rain one good time where it suffers a serious soaking or drop it in a stream or pond and it is pretty much finished. That's a lot of money to be so fragile for me.

Printing again and this time around probably won't do many small photo's. So fat the smallest one I've one is a 7x14. Mostly doing 8x16 and larger Biggest I've done is 12x24, had to buy roll paper to get there. Did some 13x19's from a point and shoot I recently got, photo's came out great! I think a guy would be well off to consider what he plans to use the camera for. Myself I'll stick to my DSLR and point and shoot. Thinking about doung a 13x39 with my DSLR. Tell you this about 13x19 photo's, they take up wall space in a hurry!

I can easily walk around with Cookie's 500 prime that is essentially an 800 mm on a Canon 70D crop body. It's heavy, but its length and weight contribute to hand held stability. Sort of like a 15 lb 45-90 Sharps versus a featherweight composite stocked 22 LR. She has a newer and much lighter 100-400 zoom, and I'm nowhere near hand held stable with that unit.

As to prints, that's where pixel count comes in. Detail gets rough if one gets below about 250 pixels per linear inch for a print.

How do you figure pixel count?

Don:


With my Windows system: right click the image or the image file name, click the "properties" option, then "details." A ton of data comes up on the source of the image including pixel counts on the x and y axes as well as the "dpi" or pixels per inch.

One can alter the "dpi" count with photo processing software to change image size without revising any of the image data itself.

I'll bring in an example shortly.

Edited:

The box below this image is just a small portion of the metadata itself from an image file called BarkPileWeasel.





We downsize images for posting, so its dimensions are 1920 x 1200 pixels which still displays well on most monitors. If it was printed it would be processed at 350 pixels per inch generating an image that was about 5.48 x 3.42 inches. Good enough for a card, but not a 19 x 12 inch wall hanger

I won't put it up, but another image on this unit is 5472 x 3648 pixels. Printed at 250 pixels per inch, that would make a great 21.8 by 14.6 inch print. Quality would be slightly better at 300 pixel per inch, but most shops will let us get by at 250. If one wants super detail, some printers are capable of 600 dots per inch.

Bit depth (24) is the number of colors available. With a 24-bit image, the bits are divided into three groupings: 8 for red, 8 for green, and 8 for blue. Combinations of those bits are used to represent other colors. A 24-bit image offers 16.7 million colors.

If one scrolls up and down through that box he will find all the metadata for each image including things like camera make, model, exposure settings, dates, times, his/her name, and perhaps GPS coordinates if one has that activated on his camera.

Posting such images to the web can be risky as many are revealing far more data about themselves than they realize. Running one's images through some other software and resaving the file may or may not alter or eliminate that metadata. That data is still attached to Cookie's images that we serve up though Postimage.org. We have no business secrets that might be revealed and have the GPS systems turned off, so we don't really worry about it.

As an example, here's the meta data for Thirtythirty's DenaliAurora image in the Photo Association thread.

Don't think I'm revealing any secrets here, as we're just showing his camera settings, but we do put out more about ourselves than one thinks.

One might note too, that there is an option at the bottom of the Details box to remove portions of the meta data. This was a big deal a couple years back when folks were image posting nuts. Few realized they were putting names and the precise locations of their kid's cutsie images out for all to see or exploit.

That metadata is not available when images are displayed via the forum because most websites revise or downsize images for display or rapid transmission. Again, however, that data may be available if one downloads the file from the hosting site.

Probably clear as mud and more than one wants to know.

Have a good one,

Do you own a mirrorless? My experience does not translate. Used a Canon R5 for the past few years shooting football games and I can easily shoot an entire game with one battery while getting 500+ shots. Canon 5D IV used prior and while it could get a few more shots/battery, I certainly wouldn't call mirrorless a battery hogs.

Something about mirorless and mirror people might not understand. They will both take picture's!

I had an 18-140 on my old D5000, my son has it now. Presently I have an 18-200 Tamron on a D 7000 that works great. Also have a 55-300 Nikon lense and 170-500 Sigma. Seldom use the 55-300 and even less the 170-500. For myself, getting something like an 18-200 makes mote sense than a 70-210, Have it and haven't used it in years. Has a lot better wide angle mm and pretty much equal on the long end. Ran into a guy a while back had an 18-300 Nikon. Migt be a good choice as it still has the 18mm wide end and adds almost 100mm to the long end and everything inbetween. Didn't pay much attention to how big it was. My 18-200 Tamron is smaall and light and does a good job.

Got this photo with 18-200 Tamron.

[Linked Image]


You might want to think about a Point and shoot camera, so have very long lense's on them. My most used camera is a Panosonic ZA 100 I got recently. In a holster on my belt and goes every where with my. Lense is 25-250mm.

Photo from my Panosonic.


[Linked Image]

I doubt there is any pros or cons to either. People just seem to want to chase perfection and as long as some manufacturer convinces you that this new strain will get you closer it will become popular. I have seen a lot of film photo's from very advanced armature's and pros years ago and if that was as good as I could get I'd have no complaint. The BS on mirrorless cameras is actually that. BS to get you to spend more money!

I had an F2.8 70-200 lens on my Canon EOS 5D. Fantastic lens....top shelf. But for wildlife, I needed more than 200mm. I traded it off for their newest 100-400 lens and that was a game changer for me.

I'm sticking with mirror for the foreseeable future.

Hint: Go to Ken Rockwell's website for an honest review of all the cameras and lenses. Good reading!

www.kenrockwell.com

Those 100-400 Canons are good lenses. Cookie has both the older and a newer version and they are her bread n butter units. As far as picture quality goes, they seem to be optically identical. Pretty handy, but on a crop body one often has too much glass if things come in close.