Gear stuff. (if you read) \ Cameras, 2023

(Picture mostly unrelated) 

It seems that most people, other than those specifically focused on photography, are using their phone as their “Primary Camera”.  Beyond the feel, which some are currently working on solving, there is the functionality that camera’s have which phones just cannot mimic.  

Regardless of the reasoning, if you are interested in buying a camera and you are not intending on spending the equivalent to a mortgage payment, here are some of my opinions and available options you may not have considered.  Whether this is for social media or other types of production, there is a huge amount of selection that is difficult to navigate and compare —which is likely why gear videos are so popular on YouTube these days.

Everyone is looking to spend the least but still be able to produce high quality content.

——

The current prices of the Fujifilm line have gone out of control (fairly recently), where cameras that were recently $250 to $600 have skyrocketed to $600 - $2500 based on popularity and lens selection. (Particularly the Fuji X system) If you are into the camera world, you likely have seen the rise in the Fuji camera’s and other compacts with viewfinders that, in whatever myriad of ways, mimic the Leica brand or have a similar form factor. Some, like Cannon, are actually developing in their area now with full frame offerings.  If you are thinking of buying a camera right now, I would suggest waiting a bit, or if you must, buying a lower end camera that can get you buy for the moment, as camera prices are currently falling more than many in the area would like to speak about.  While this is likely do to a drop in consumer pricing, I would predict these prices will continue to fall for the foreseeable future, at least into next year.  Not to mention, used gear is very much the way to go now if you are not in the high-end professional space, and even if you are, perhaps.  

——

Now you certainly are not going to get the level of detail as a Nikon Z9 with a common 10 year old camera, even a pro-body, but based on the compression of images on social media that is likely not as big a problem as your mind may make it out to be. For those just getting started, looking to do their own advertising or video media, or hobbyists: there exist a large selection just based on how fast the industry moves and how many previous pro-models exist on the used market.

I have a few reasons why I think this is true: 

1. You are not (as previously mentioned) going to have an issue with quality, most of the cameras in the last two decades can produce good to great work, particularly when we are speaking of lower priced (older) pro-gear. 
2. You can fix everything in post:  While you may not get great results out of camera, that are perfect, with AI noise reduction, Lightroom, Photoshop and other modern editing software and techniques —that is a fairly easy fix. 
3. The older glass available, due to the rise of mirrorless, gives you a look you would likely be trying to replicate in post, out-of-camera —diverging from the more sterile look of images coming from newer cameras and sensor technology. 

I am not going to go through all the options, go to DP Review (if it still exists)  if that is what you are looking for, I am just going to speak about what I have looked at, purchased and why —you can make your decisions from that.  Now keep in mind, I am working on a production company and need more cheap functional cameras than most, but I think if you are in the market for only one, these same reasonings for use-cases will apply to you at some level as well. 

—— 

Organized from Low End - High-end (more-or-less):  I have organized these choices from price to more pro function, 

DSLR’s: 

Cannon: 

Cannon 50D — all around, tough, smaller capable camera for a small budget.  Does video and has newer features, great color replication, look and capability for the cost — roughly $60-$80 at the time of writing, with a lens for $80-$120 depending on the lens, but kit lens from this series are pretty capable. 

Cannon 550D — Good Low light but not “weather sealed”, not a pro-body. 

Cannon 7D — all around, low budget, pro-body, good low light potential for the age of the camera, sensors 1.6 cropped, but fast camera with good video potential (Avengers and others have been filmed on it).  $150-$250

Cannon 7D Mark II  — sharper all around than the 7D, fast, good auto focus, about $300-$400 at the time of writing.  $300-500

Cannon 5D — Full Frame portrait camera, slow but great images, good if you are switching from film to digital, faster relatively.  Great image quality, excellent in everyday situations, not as much in low light but useable with skill.  $150-$250

Cannon 5D Mark II  — Full Frame (More Modern), fast for the time but not fast by modern standards, great image quality, good lowlight performance for these sensors, really tough camera, pro-body and weather sealed like the other full frame cannons of this era.  $250-$300

Cannon 5D Mark III —  Basically a better Mark II, better video and low light, a bit faster, more at the range of the 7D with full frame quality and editing options.  $500-$1200. 

Nikon: 

Nikon D700 - Pro model, great in low light, fast, tough camera.  Older but still very capable.  Other than the portrait color science I would put it above the Cannon Cameras for the year, which is tougher would probably fall to the cannons, nearly, but you will still get 500,000 to 1mil shutter count on these rigs.  $250-$500 

Nikon D7100 — Great sensor for low light, fast and small form factor Nikon for a pro-model.  Not as good of lens selection as Cannon, but you shouldn’t worry about that anyway.  $200-$500  

Nikon D3 - Great camera, great sensor, low light and for speed, not huge amount of megapixel count, but doesn’t matter, great images.  Super strong,  $250-$350

Mirrorless: 

Mirrorless is still somewhat expensive, but there are some reasonable options to consider if you are looking for a capable compact.  I have had the Sony A6000 - a6400, love those cameras —and I have tried the Cannon M50, great camera.  I, personally, own the RX1R II, purchased before the prices went up, not sure if it is worth it for the average person, but it is great to travel with (but buy lots of batteries).   Lenses for the RX1R are more expensive if you do not have other Sony Cameras, perhaps better to go with one of the FujiFilm fixed lens cameras or others in the X series. 

Cannon M50 - Great camera, small form factor, expensive, great quality, a bit sterile and over sharp. 

Sony a6000 - a6600, great cameras, not weather sealed other than the a6600 (I believe) but pretty rugged for the build.  Good option for traveling and occasional use.  $250 - $600 

——

Not going to get into the micro four thirds selections, you will have to take that task on yourself, just not my world, but I will link some of those with reviews that shoot these more regularly. 

Sony
RX1R II

https://www.sony.com/za/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1rm2

RX1R II Professional Compact Camera with 35mm Sensor | DSC-RX1RM2 | Sony South Africa

Lets contextualize a few things: 

1. I am only really speaking to photo people here, and perhaps people that work with occasional video —as that is less my area, you will want to look up some of those specific articles/videos that are speaking specifically to “video people”, who are certainly a different bread.  However, you will likely find at least the 5D Mark II and 50D as suitable choices for video as well. 
2. All of these are not going to give you the quality and dynamic range of “modern cameras”, but you should know that already.  What they will provide you is work equal to that of professional work 10 years ago, which I would say, looking back, holds up. 
3. Most of these prices will likely stay about the same or go down, but in the short term these bodies/lens will hold their value quite well.

----

Understanding Camera Optics and Lenses.

Lenses are like the eyes of your camera. They determine what you see and how you see it. Just like how each person has a unique perspective on the world, every lens has its own unique characteristics and strengths.

Imagine you're standing in the middle of a crowded street, and you're trying to take a picture of a building across the way. You can use a wide-angle lens to capture the entire scene, including the people and cars in the foreground. Or, you can use a telephoto lens to zoom in on the building and isolate it from the surrounding distractions. Each lens will give you a different perspective, and it's up to you to decide which one is best for the moment.

It's like choosing a pair of glasses. Do you want the glasses that let you see everything in the room, or the ones that focus on the details? It depends on what you're trying to achieve. Just like how different glasses can give you a different view of the world, different lenses can give you a different view of the scene in front of you.

But lenses aren't just about perspective. They're also about capturing light. Think of it like a chef using different ingredients to create a dish. Just like how a chef needs to balance different flavors and textures to make a dish taste just right, photographers need to balance different aspects of light to make an image look just right.

The aperture is like the seasoning in a dish. You can add more or less seasoning depending on the taste you're going for. In the same way, you can adjust the aperture to control the amount of light that enters the lens. A wide aperture lets in more light, which is great for low-light situations, but it also creates a shallow depth of field. A narrow aperture lets in less light, which is great for bright situations, but it also creates a deep depth of field.

Shutter speed is like the heat in a dish. You can increase or decrease the heat to cook the dish faster or slower. In photography, you can increase or decrease the shutter speed to capture motion or freeze it. A fast shutter speed freezes motion, while a slow shutter speed creates motion blur.

ISO is like the texture of a dish. You can make it smooth or grainy depending on the style you're going for. In photography, you can increase or decrease the ISO to adjust the sensitivity of the sensor to light. A low ISO creates a smooth image, while a high ISO creates a grainy image.

But like any great chef, you need to balance these ingredients to create the perfect dish. You can't just add a bunch of seasoning and hope for the best. You need to taste as you go and adjust as needed. In photography, you need to experiment and adjust as you go to create the perfect image.

But no matter how great the ingredients are, you need the right tools to make it all work. Just like how a chef needs the right knives and pots and pans, a photographer needs the right lenses and camera bodies. But it's not just about having the best gear. It's about knowing how to use it to its fullest potential.

So, if you want to be a great photographer, you need to think like a chef. You need to balance different ingredients to create the perfect dish. You need to experiment and adjust as you go. And most importantly, you need to have fun and enjoy the process. Because at the end of the day, photography is about capturing moments and memories that will last a lifetime.

---

Why We Love Bad News

 

We really love bad news.  And not much else.  Or, is that what "they" would like us to believe? Notice that anytime you turn on the news you get bad news.  Not to say that there are not the odd, "puppy found" or "cat removed from tree" type stories, but, primarily, we get bad news: "guy killed wife", "black people rioting", "women scared to walk at night", "serial killer", etc. Is this really all that sells? And, is news that "sells" the news we really need to hear the most from? Short of the many sites that are focused on some niche subject mater, primarily, in my experience, we get bombarded with scare tactics and other oddities of the public --when most people and communities are doing just fine, lots of good things are happening and, most likely, the day to day is more boring and mundane than filled with action packed danger akin to a Hollywood movie. Also, I would rationalize that many "good things", positive things, are happening, regularly --at a higher frequency than those sensationalized stories. 

It's not as though I am the first to notice these things --everyone from comedians to social commentators to academics has stated as much.  George Carlin has many sets on manipulation of the public through the news --and often wrote bits that show peoples similarities and how few differences there truly are; Bill Hicks made similar claims, speaking about how the news didn't match his experience; Noam Chomsky wrote a book long ago that spoke about both the intentions behind and the methods with which the public is manipulated, and to what ends. Despite these informative viewpoints we continues, as a whole, to focus on the negative rather than demanding, from a consumer perspective, the positive and relatable news. Also, this would speak to the type of fictional television we are imbibing. CSI, Special Victims Unit, Serial Killer Documentaries, etc --all play on our seeming obsession with violence and the outliers in our communities, not the mean.  You are far more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a serial killer, but one does not see dramatized stories of the unfortunate vending machine killings or the, all more common, death by traffic accident --unless such are attached to some spiritual entity that abstracts the happenings from reality yet again. 

I think my point here, if I have one, is that "we" (operatively) need to make the conscious choice on what to take in, observe and construct our vision of reality on --and we do (as not to add to the trend and point out reality further). Whole services and applications have been created and frequented by folks that are trying to do just that.  I would love to see that happen more --for more of the outlying balanced media producers gain more traffic and more notoriety. And, again, there are a lot out there (I will leave some links bellow) but there are still more that could use the support and the links to their content to be more prevalent. There are a tremendous amount of authors that could use the traffic to help them rise above the fray a bit more, and to this point: there are many types of artists that we need to take more effort to ignore. Let this not mean that everyone successful is therefore a "sell out" and not worthy of being listened to or supported --just that most that come from large brands are and should be treated as such. Almost so much as generally, it being a good rule, that if someone has not separated from a large corporation that produces their content; or, they did not start from "grassroots" (to whatever extant) we should be more critical, at least, and likely avoid wasting the time all together. 

Contrary to my own feelings I have recently spent a bit of time listening to tracks from "popular" artists --confirming my feelings that most of them leave much to be desired, even those that were more niche in their beginnings. Now let me confirm to you that I have not done a double-blind, formalized study of these aforementioned phenomena.  So lodge firmly in your brain that I could very well be full-of-shit and these plastic-y artist are really just popular because they are the "best at their craft" or otherwise fit some important cultural narrative. But I am willing to bet that the truth is closer to: "They are shit!"; "Goat Boy"; etc. --than "Corperate entities have good taste, all-of-a-sudden." Ultimately, do what you want --but I think it better to support the few among us that have real talent. "Buy the best item", in other words, it will last longer; do the best thing, not that which is most expedient, it pays in the end; support the small business, they care about you, the corporation --not so much.