great video, you might want to showcase the pictures, cameras and lenses that you are referencing in a future video, for better context and storytelling
In the early part of your video you touched on photographic critique. This was something I learnt from watching a year of judging at a photo club. To sum up it's all about finding out what in photos are likely to appear to strangers. In my second year in the photo club I entered 8 competitions and got a placing in 3 of them. When I bought my first DSLR in the film camera days I got it for an airshow so bought a zoom lens to go with it. When I got my photos printed I was disappointed in the sharpness at maximum zoom but being in the days before internet reviews I was unaware that Canon made 2 grades of lens at the time and would not have got the lens I got had I known. Its unfortunate zoom top end lenses cost what they do and technology has not brought their prices down like what has happened camera body technology.
@@petercreagh8797 I would love to have a photo club locally. Another photographer and I are trying to start one. It would be wonderful to just hang out and talk shop and learn from each other.
I think I need to upgrade my camera, but a cheap old fart. My D300 is almost dead, my fall back go into the weather beater, D7000 just had cardiac arrest. Where should I go next? D500.? My lenses are ok mostly DX but I have a nice 70-300 full frame. So I won't break the bank too much if I need to jump to full frame. I'm an opportunistic shooter, but mostly landscapes, street, and the rare critter. Enjoyed this video, thanks
Thank you for your comment! I also shot for years with a D300 and then shifted to the D700. It was my first full frame. That was 2009 and I still have it 350,000 shots later. Amazing camera. Landscape is one of the few situations where moving from a smaller sensor to a larger one makes sense I think. Note: these are just my opinions based on my past experiences. That being said there are DX cameras in the mirrorless family now that are very capable without breaking the bank and with the FTZ adapter you can adapt most of your old lenses to the mirrorless system. That being said however the D500 is a spectacular camera as well if you want to stay in the DSLR family.
The only issue with these lenses>camera debate is that if people are taught how to use a more advanced device, they can be as good if not better than their operation instructor. If you're talking about an artist with 0 experience in cameras but has that artistic mindset, they're 9/10 a tech beginner and have 0 clue in how to maximize the in-camera settings/features. Anything can become a lens, people pay for the convenience or looks of a lens. Ofc if considering money out of the equation, everyone would utilize the latest and greatest of that specific use case camera and capture well with a cheap lens with feature set of macro/zoom/prime etc. We are so advanced now in software editing, it's not how it was 10 years ago. Editing can emulate exact replicas of another lens/look with any ordinary lens of the same FOV.
Look, I think examples of both where upgrading the body is a good idea for instance I'm in GFX and the new GFX 100s ii has a completely new sensor in it and has much better auto focus so this is one example where it was worth the upgrade but in general terms it's better to upgrade lenses but if your auto focus in your old camera is not much chop then it might be better to upgrade the body. It is horses for courses.
Absolutely! I just thought sometimes shifting to a new lens first might make sense and then when you go to that new body you have a really nice piece of glass coming with you. But for sure when a really good sensor improvement comes out it should for sure be considered as well. Thanks for watching!
If you are going to stay with the brand you have, sure better glass is always a better option, and if you do again stay with that brand and a few generations later they have anew feature you NEED like better auto focus or something then that glass will have been a great investment.
@@DAVE_WHITE You’re so right. When I went mirrorless it was like changing brands due to the mount changing. Luckily my first camera came with an adapter and I was able to adapt my favorite older lenses and not have to buy everything immediately.
@@Huffoto Same here I did the slow transition to nikon mirrorless at first because I had lots of glass and nikon dslr models for many years. Then I seen other companies Mirrorless had real autofocus compared to my Nikon Mirrorless. I grabbed a little Sony 6000 at the time (2014) and was blown away by the auto focus that it had compared to the sad try Nikon had in their cameras for Autofocus, Long story short I now have 3 sony cameras and all lenses that I need for all of my shooting from close up work to wildlife am covered from 17mm out to 900mm.
@@Huffoto I do a lot of sports portraits and wildlife I need that critical focus that Nikon still does not have. even the little a6700 has adjustable focus for all modes on how sticky you want it to be for birds animals people etc etc
@DAVE_WHITE I shot with Nikon Dslr for 10 years covering sports and you had to shoot a bit more than you wanted to get the shot due to the focus tracking not being great but now with these mirrorless bodies I have no problem at all. Especially after the firmware updates. The only lens I’ve had issue with is the combination of z7 and 28-75mm f2.8 in low light back focusing a tad. Otherwise it’s been worlds apart from my old Dslr cameras.
Yeah, I went from Fuji with top of range primes to Sony FF (A7CR 🫠) with less leading edge glass. An expensive lesson. Finding parity between FF and Crop optics is not dollar for dollar.
great video, you might want to showcase the pictures, cameras and lenses that you are referencing in a future video, for better context and storytelling
@@julian.torres thank you so much for this!
In the early part of your video you touched on photographic critique. This was something I learnt from watching a year of judging at a photo club. To sum up it's all about finding out what in photos are likely to appear to strangers. In my second year in the photo club I entered 8 competitions and got a placing in 3 of them. When I bought my first DSLR in the film camera days I got it for an airshow so bought a zoom lens to go with it. When I got my photos printed I was disappointed in the sharpness at maximum zoom but being in the days before internet reviews I was unaware that Canon made 2 grades of lens at the time and would not have got the lens I got had I known. Its unfortunate zoom top end lenses cost what they do and technology has not brought their prices down like what has happened camera body technology.
@@petercreagh8797 I would love to have a photo club locally. Another photographer and I are trying to start one. It would be wonderful to just hang out and talk shop and learn from each other.
My 24-70 f/2.8 is a great lens. It's a Tamron EF mount.
@@tonykeltsflorida I had one back in the day with the Nikon F mount and it was a really nice lens.
I think I need to upgrade my camera, but a cheap old fart. My D300 is almost dead, my fall back go into the weather beater, D7000 just had cardiac arrest. Where should I go next? D500.? My lenses are ok mostly DX but I have a nice 70-300 full frame. So I won't break the bank too much if I need to jump to full frame. I'm an opportunistic shooter, but mostly landscapes, street, and the rare critter. Enjoyed this video, thanks
Thank you for your comment! I also shot for years with a D300 and then shifted to the D700. It was my first full frame. That was 2009 and I still have it 350,000 shots later. Amazing camera. Landscape is one of the few situations where moving from a smaller sensor to a larger one makes sense I think. Note: these are just my opinions based on my past experiences. That being said there are DX cameras in the mirrorless family now that are very capable without breaking the bank and with the FTZ adapter you can adapt most of your old lenses to the mirrorless system. That being said however the D500 is a spectacular camera as well if you want to stay in the DSLR family.
The only issue with these lenses>camera debate is that if people are taught how to use a more advanced device, they can be as good if not better than their operation instructor.
If you're talking about an artist with 0 experience in cameras but has that artistic mindset, they're 9/10 a tech beginner and have 0 clue in how to maximize the in-camera settings/features. Anything can become a lens, people pay for the convenience or looks of a lens. Ofc if considering money out of the equation, everyone would utilize the latest and greatest of that specific use case camera and capture well with a cheap lens with feature set of macro/zoom/prime etc. We are so advanced now in software editing, it's not how it was 10 years ago. Editing can emulate exact replicas of another lens/look with any ordinary lens of the same FOV.
Look, I think examples of both where upgrading the body is a good idea for instance I'm in GFX and the new GFX 100s ii has a completely new sensor in it and has much better auto focus so this is one example where it was worth the upgrade but in general terms it's better to upgrade lenses but if your auto focus in your old camera is not much chop then it might be better to upgrade the body. It is horses for courses.
Absolutely! I just thought sometimes shifting to a new lens first might make sense and then when you go to that new body you have a really nice piece of glass coming with you. But for sure when a really good sensor improvement comes out it should for sure be considered as well. Thanks for watching!
@@Huffoto all good 👍
If you are going to stay with the brand you have, sure better glass is always a better option, and if you do again stay with that brand and a few generations later they have anew feature you NEED like better auto focus or something then that glass will have been a great investment.
@@DAVE_WHITE You’re so right. When I went mirrorless it was like changing brands due to the mount changing. Luckily my first camera came with an adapter and I was able to adapt my favorite older lenses and not have to buy everything immediately.
@@Huffoto Same here I did the slow transition to nikon mirrorless at first because I had lots of glass and nikon dslr models for many years.
Then I seen other companies Mirrorless had real autofocus compared to my Nikon Mirrorless.
I grabbed a little Sony 6000 at the time (2014) and was blown away by the auto focus that it had compared to the sad try Nikon had in their cameras for Autofocus,
Long story short I now have 3 sony cameras and all lenses that I need for all of my shooting from close up work to wildlife am covered from 17mm out to 900mm.
@DAVE_WHITE I told someone the other day if I didn’t shoot Nikon I would shoot Sony. I love how they render color and their video.
@@Huffoto I do a lot of sports portraits and wildlife I need that critical focus that Nikon still does not have. even the little a6700 has adjustable focus for all modes on how sticky you want it to be for birds animals people etc etc
@DAVE_WHITE I shot with Nikon Dslr for 10 years covering sports and you had to shoot a bit more than you wanted to get the shot due to the focus tracking not being great but now with these mirrorless bodies I have no problem at all. Especially after the firmware updates. The only lens I’ve had issue with is the combination of z7 and 28-75mm f2.8 in low light back focusing a tad. Otherwise it’s been worlds apart from my old Dslr cameras.
Yeah, I went from Fuji with top of range primes to Sony FF (A7CR 🫠) with less leading edge glass. An expensive lesson. Finding parity between FF and Crop optics is not dollar for dollar.