[Aroy]

Originally Posted by condor

Folks, your thoughts pls ?

I have a Nikon d5200 which is about 6-7 years now, with less than 10k shutter count. However, I have not been using it much. The trips have come down, no functions etc, I dont do street photography etc. So should I hold it, or sell it ? I have a slightly old Canon Powershot P&S which I can use for some shooting, apart from the iphone that I use for quick/incidental pics. If I feel the need in future, I could get another compact camera later.

Sell all your cameras, while you still can get some price, otherwise even Kabariwala will not take them.

In most case an iPhone is a better option for casual photography. The latest ones have excellent low light capability and a host of functions not available in DSLR.

[mohansrides]

Guys…. I need some advise / opinions.

I currently run with a full frame mirrorless Canon body and 5 lenses

A 50mm and a 35 mm f/1.8 primes. A 15-30 f/2.8 Tamron and a 24-105 f/4.

I am seriously considering rounding out the collection by buying the trinity of RF lenses (while selling my current two zooms).

This is because:

1.) Ultrawide - The Tamron is razor sharp; but it is difficult to handle. I have to use an adapter which makes the already long and heavy lens even longer. Plus it’s bulbous front element means I can’t use filters on the front. Finally I read some reports that the lens is more of a 16-30 as the focal length is closer to 15.8 at the low end. This may seem like a small thing. But a single mm of focal length equates to huge coverage; most of us know this.

So I am thinking of getting the RF 15-30 f/2.8 which will solve all of the Tamron’s shortcomings; at a hefty price of course.

2.) Regular - The 24-105 I have now is an f/4. An f/2.8 just sounds so appealing. This is just lust. Most people would argue that an f/4 is just fine for the most part.

3.) Telephoto - I really want the RF 70-200 f/2.8 because I think I can get nice candid shots of my family without getting close to them. But it’s an expensive lens and I wanted some opinions on what else can be shot with that focal length.

I don’t foresee myself wanting huge focal lengths beyond 200mm as I don’t do wildlife or birding. If anything I am typically a wide angle buff and love people photography a lot.

Please do let me know all of your thoughts.

Thanks.

[iamahunter]

Originally Posted by mohansrides

Guys…. I need some advise / opinions.

3.) Telephoto - I really want the RF 70-200 f/2.8 because I think I can get nice candid shots of my family without getting close to them. But it’s an expensive lens and I wanted some opinions on what else can be shot with that focal length.


Thanks.

This is "beast" of lense and has multiple uses. Portraits, automotive, wildlife etc.
At 70 its not as wide but it does the job well (don't expect a wide landscape, a focused one, yes good, but not wide).
Even at 200 it is not as zoomed in as you would want for something like bird photography, but where this lense shines is the sharpness of the photo. you can easily crop it out.

I have rented it on multiple occasions and the photos are mind-blowing. Sharp subject and a soft dreamy blurred background. If one is wandering into the world of Canon "L" lenses, this should be the first "L" lense that one should get.

However IMHO its a totally professional lense and a lot more than required for a personal use. Would suggest to get it if you plan to get into professional photography or have some extra funds sitting ideal. (photography is super expensive as a hobby).

[ajay_satpute]

Originally Posted by iamahunter

This is "beast" of lense and has multiple uses. Portraits, automotive, wildlife etc.
At 70 its not as wide but it does the job well (don't expect a wide landscape, a focused one, yes good, but not wide).
Even at 200 it is not as zoomed in as you would want for something like bird photography, but where this lense shines is the sharpness of the photo. you can easily crop it out.

Awesome lens it is. I have used it on couple of occasions and once as an official wedding photographer for a friend's wedding. The output of the lens is mind blowing. Photos look professional straight out of the box. The downside is that it is a very heavy lens and you need strength and patience to carry it for hours, if needed.

I have not tried non-human photography yet with this lens, but I am sure it would be equally great.

On a different note, I have not used my DSLR much in last 2 years. Mostly due to covid and then the fanstastic camera setup on my mobile phone. Photos clicked with mobiles serve the purpose of social media viewing really well. But if you want to print and create a full blown poster, you still a need DSLR like quality, in most cases.

What is the future of DSLR cameras, I wonder.

[Aroy]

I love prime lenses, even though I have a 16mm-85mm zoom on my Nikon, but for size and IQ the 35mm prime beats the zoom. Primes are compact, faster (lower f ratio) and in general less expensive, and give excellent out-of-focus background at f1.8. Here is my list that can replace zooms for most occations :

. Super wide, 16mm/f2.8.
. Wide 24mm f1.8
. Normal 50mm f/1.4
. Portraits 85mm/110mm f1.4.
. Long shots/portraits 200mm f/4.

The prime lenses are much easier than carrying 3 or 4 bulky zooms, and you get much better IQ. Regarding versatility of zooms, that is debatable. Yes in tight space a zoom is lifesaving, but how many such occations does one face? In my experience stitching is as good as a wide (for static objects). I even stitch group shots with perfect IQ (Microsoft ICE is what I use. It is free, easy to use and has a lot of options).

[zurura023]

Originally Posted by mohansrides

Please do let me know all of your thoughts.

If you kind of think about a lens and then think about how you would use it, you’ll always try to fit some use cases. I would rather advise to think and list your cases and then see which lens to use. I smell a severe bout of GAS here.

The 70-200 though is a gem of a lens and a real pleasure to use. People do report of their percentage of useable photos/keepers going high with it. Shooting portraits with it is fun. But do consider that when you go for such a shallow DoF the facial features and flaws with it are highlighted and you need good light and make up to really make someone pop.

The Tamron 15-30 is a really nice lens. The filter deficiency can be solved by getting the filters behind the lens. Albeit getting them in and out is not as easy, it can solve your purpose if you want to save money.

I would still recommend not to spend such a load in one shot and rather use the money in travelling for a shoot or for a different experience in photography.

Cheers,
G

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by ajay_satpute

.........................

On a different note, I have not used my DSLR much in last 2 years. Mostly due to covid and then the fanstastic camera setup on my mobile phone. Photos clicked with mobiles serve the purpose of social media viewing really well. But if you want to print and create a full blown poster, you still a need DSLR like quality, in most cases.

What is the future of DSLR cameras, I wonder.

In most cases a good Mobile Camera (iPhone, Samsung etc) are much better than a DSLR - always awailable, social media compatible and sheer size. In hands of a novice, cell phones are a boon.

But there are a few cases where a DSLR trumps :
. Dynamic range - easily 12 bits vs 8 bits of cell phone. So you can recover shadow details and highlights much better.
. Out of focus background. No cell phone can beat the OOF of an f/1.8 or f/1.4 optics. AI tries, but fails to take care of details - notice how there is a cutout around head shots, individual hair are smudged and the effect is a bit off.
. Long range - 200mm+. Cell phones have yet to catch up at this end.

In short there is a future for interchangeable cameras - DSLR or Mirrorless, but for a limited audience. Most will use cell phones for their day to day shots.

[Amrik Singh]

I had always preferred DSLR over Mobile Phone Camera until -
Visiting Caves at Ajanta and Ellora, deep inside dark Cave, I could not see a thing on DSLR Screen while Mobile Phone Camera produced fairly good Pictures. Not using Tripod and Flash for DSLR, I could not go down on Shutter Speed or Aperture. Only option left was to go up on ASA. Juggling the dials in dark, I felt it convenient to use MobilePhone Camera.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Amrik Singh

I had always preferred DSLR over Mobile Phone Camera until -
Visiting Caves at Ajanta and Ellora, deep inside dark Cave, I could not see a thing on DSLR Screen while Mobile Phone Camera produced fairly good Pictures. ...

Phone is not the only competitor. I remember being delighted to find how Mirrorless/EVF, with a 1.4 lens, was like turning the lights on!

Of course I take pics with my (rather poor) phone camera: pictorial notes, and yes, when it is the only camera I have with me, but I generally hate mobile photography. the ergonomics to me, are impossible. I cannot even hold the thing comfortably.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Aroy

In most cases a good Mobile Camera (iPhone, Samsung etc) are much better than a DSLR - always awailable, social media compatible and sheer size. In hands of a novice, cell phones are a boon.

But there are a few cases where a DSLR trumps :
. Dynamic range - easily 12 bits vs 8 bits of cell phone. So you can recover shadow details and highlights much better.
. Out of focus background. No cell phone can beat the OOF of an f/1.8 or f/1.4 optics. AI tries, but fails to take care of details - notice how there is a cutout around head shots, individual hair are smudged and the effect is a bit off.
. Long range - 200mm+. Cell phones have yet to catch up at this end.

In short there is a future for interchangeable cameras - DSLR or Mirrorless, but for a limited audience. Most will use cell phones for their day to day shots.

You forgot to add another very important point in favor of dedicated cameras:
- your mobile phones will soon gather dust in the lens assembly and over the sensor thus rendering photos taken even in the brightest of light quite blurry.
You can't help it because the phone is always in your pocket or in your hand being exposed to dust, getting knocked around.

[Amrik Singh]

No doubts !!! The Mobile Phone Camera is good enough to take daylight photos. The Flash is generally not able to picture anything beyond 10 feet from it.
Even in daytime, when in Zoom mode, it is difficult to hold it steady in hand.

[Samfromindia]

Originally Posted by Aroy

1. Shoot in RAW full resolution.
2. Process RAW images using Nikon NX-D software, available free from Nikon site.

I don't agree with the 2nd point. Its always better to use Lightroom or Luminar AI/Neo for culling, editing & exporting workflow rather than a proprietary software like Capture NX-D. Yes the Nikon software offers some unique proprietary features like active D-Lighting and ability to see focus points, but its far more laggy and offers a much lower subset of features compared to what full blown editors like Adobe gives. Besides if you learn the workflow, you can continue using it even if you switch cameras to Canon, Sony or any other manufacturers.

Originally Posted by DaptChatterjee

It's a no-brainer. Sell it while you still can. Nobody except antique collectors would buy a DSLR in a few years.

The D5XXX series has been discontinued by Nikon but there is some demand for it in India. So you can get a few bucks for it.

I got my D5200 for around 23K, a 50MM 1.8 for 8.5K and a Yongnuo manual flash for 5K. Altogether a 35K investment which can capture far better portraits than any mobile camera with creative use of flash. If landscape picture in bright daylight is all you are after, a mobile camera will do its job but then again you need to rethink your decision for getting a DSLR in first place.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by Samfromindia

I don't agree with the 2nd point. Its always better to use Lightroom or Luminar AI/Neo for culling, editing & exporting workflow rather than a proprietary software like Capture NX-D. Yes the Nikon software offers some unique proprietary features like active D-Lighting and ability to see focus points, but its far more laggy and offers a much lower subset of features compared to what full blown editors like Adobe gives. Besides if you learn the workflow, you can continue using it even if you switch cameras to Canon, Sony or any other manufacturers.
..........

Processing photographs is a two stage process.

NX-D (now NXStudio) is a RAW processing software with some photo editing featutes added on. As a first stage, you need to get the best out of your image, and that is using manufacturer's native RAW processor.

Lightroom and other purely image processing software come next (after you have extracted all that the camera recorded).

In my case I find that NX-D has all that I need (and a lot of features that I do not). For those cases where I need extensive photo editing and enhancements I use ON1 RAW, but that is rarely and only when I need large image size and photo editing/enhancing features.

[mohansrides]

Originally Posted by iamahunter

This is "beast" of lense and has multiple uses. Portraits, automotive, wildlife etc…its a totally professional lense and a lot more than required for a personal use. Would suggest to get it if you plan to get into professional photography..

Thanks. Yes, I am toying with the idea. It is a big purchase. But to be fair, very good pictures of family are things that serve the family well over time.

Originally Posted by zurura023

… I smell a severe bout of GAS here.

The 70-200 though is a gem of a lens and a real pleasure to use. People do report of their percentage of useable photos/keepers going high with it. Shooting portraits with it is fun. But do consider that when you go for such a shallow DoF the facial features and flaws with it are highlighted and you need good light and make up to really make someone pop.

The Tamron 15-30 is a really nice lens. The filter deficiency can be solved by getting the filters behind the lens. Albeit getting them in and out is not as easy, it can solve your purpose if you want to save money.

I would still recommend not to spend such a load in one shot and rather use the money in travelling for a shoot or for a different experience in photography.

Cheers,
G

GAS indeed!! I have been lusting after this lens and the RF 15-30 f/2.8 for almost 18 months now. I recently attended a wedding which made it worse. There were 6 guys in the crew. Two dudes were scuttling around popping everything with 85mm and 35mm primes on their Sony Alphas. One guy was shooting video of the wedding couple on the mandap. Another one was continuously shooting using with his 24-105 (or 24-70, as I couldn’t clearly make out). A fifth guy was flying drones over the crowd and the sixth person was this diminutive lady who had on a vest from which hung three massive camera bodies; all 5DM4s. She had the trinity of lenses and was going to town switching cameras and staking out angles. That 70-200 looked like the one she favoured the most of the three.

As I was watching the crew, my wife had this “you’re hopeless” look on her face.

But thanks to the both of you for tempering the urge. It is an expensive lens and one should not be cavalier with its purchase. The only thought that keeps nagging me is that camera equipment is not getting cheaper. Especially the R lenses from Canon. So if I end up buying this lens say 5 years from now, not only would I pay possibly twice the price; I would also have lost 5 years of photos that I could have taken of my circle of people as they go through their lives.

During this year’s Holi, Diwali and Ganeshotsav celebrations, I cursed myself for not having a long range zoom that would allow me to stay far enough and get my society people who were in the thick of the colours.

That said, the 24-105 I bought afterwards was used exactly once as photo opportunities dried up and my work piled on in the office. So there is total merit to he advise that the two of you are giving.

[subraiyr]

Now that we are discussing mobile vs DSLR again, i have a question for all folks here. Is there a genuine telephoto lens kit for mobile phones. I keep seeing some which claim 24X to 40X zoom - great for scenic photos, sports etc. Me and missus are planning to go to Kashmir during Christmas. Missus wants me to leave the DSLR as we might be roughing it out and with a kid our luggage is going to be quite large.

Any suggestions on potential solutions for telephoto lens for mobiles. Both of us have an iphone 13. So something that is compatible would help