Posted by freediver 5 days ago
I jest but you can actually get cool effects with the right projections.
Around flickr's prime I decided to write a little script that analyzed the EXIF of my photo catalog for actually used focal lengths and lo and behold they were pretty much centered around 50 mm. The fall-off to wider angles was pretty steep but for the longer focal lengths it only was pronounced after around 80 mm.
So, I got my self a fast nifty-fifty and I shoot it on APS-C (~80 mm) and full frame (50 mm) since. It is not quite telephoto territory but I'd say it gives you a result distinctly different from smartphone photography, especially the 80 mm.
https://www.lightroomdashboard.com/
(Turns out I love 35mm on my Fujis)
Ask any Leica M users (both film and digital). Normally they only use primes to achieve compact setup. Any Leica user is automatically a snob, right?
Joking aside, I have nothing against zoom. For travelling, usually I don't need anything beside 24-70. Not a really compact setup, obviously, so need to downsize the image sensor. On APSC it would be 16-55. Or on MFT, it would be... hmm 12-40?
There are the two Tri-Elmar-M lenses (16-18-21, and 28-35-50) which select between discrete focal lengths instead of zooming continuously :-)
Former Magnum and NatGeo photographer David Alan Harvey can get by with a cell phone.
I will say that shooting with a camera was way more engaging, active, exciting in the moment. And I haven't done studio photography in years. But I still take pictures that give people joy, and that's ultimately what counts.
f/8 and Be There:
I reluctantly joined them last year after selling my DSLR and lens collection.
I enjoyed my many DSLR years, but recently its become problematic :
1. The whole personal security thing, the world has changed and not in a good way. The number of places you can comfortably walk around with $$$ worth of camera kit in a bag ... LET ALONE take the camera out of the bag without needing eyes at the back of your head is decreasing FAST.
2. I got sick and tired of being subjected to secondary screening at airports in certain parts of the world where the security guys are not used to seeing a bag of DSLR kit and/or it being a country where they are "sensitive" about what long-lenses can be (theoretically) used for.
3. The whole insurance thing has become a pain the backside. Premiums constantly increasing, but more importantly, so do all the get-out clauses which means you struggle to find a policy that deals with the reality of traveling with cameras.
For my next trip I'll bringing the Tamron 15-30mm and a D850. That lens is crazy sharp and for getting a full 45MPx resolution picture you often need a very good stabilizer even at "normal" exposure times.
(That problem is pretty much solved for modern mirrorless systems. They have very efficient in-camera stabilizers.)
Quite heavy setup. But it covers 95% of my photographic style without changing lenses too often.
A third of my phone shots are bad because I didn't have a telephoto lens, and half of those are just garbage.
I have a soda can size 55-210 and I'm never using lightweight travel as an excuse to not bring it again.
I also have a 5D, and the 95% of the difference between the 5D and the RX-100 is the increased ergonomics, so if you aren't shooting seriously/professionally, you don't really have to bother with anything above a cheap, good Sony.
Anything you would recommend?
I personally think most brands' 70-200 f/2.8 delight more than any 55-210 'kit' lens, which is often f/3.5-5.6. This is just based on my experience and letting people who have never used an interchangeable lens camera take and develop shots.
If someone is serious and going to step up from a cellphone to do some of this, my advice is to not mess around with something cheap like the discounted old APS-C body and lens kits that are usually outperformed by a cell.
Get a recent mirrorless body with good IBIS, and buy a nice prime and a telephoto zoom. High resolution (40-60MP) bodies can enable some tremendous landscape or crop opportunities. Focus on what a dedicated camera does better than a phone - interchangeable lenses, incredible autofocus and high shutter speed action, bokeh and compression (lens dependent), etc. Full-frame 35mm vs APS-C is the primary decision you have to make, any kit you're getting is affected by it.
The physics of bigger lenses, quality of esp. the full-frame lenses, the quality of the large sensors are a real treat for even new photographers.
Figure out what you like on the cheap, and if you want to upgrade to a modern lens, you know what you're seeking for comparatively little money.
Technical version: Infinity focus is determined by how close the lens gets to the focal plane of the film or sensor. The various lens mount standards (some manufacturer specific, some widely genericized) specify the distance between the mounting flange and the focal plane. Mirrorless cameras can have a smaller flange distance than SLR's (because there's no mirror that has to swing through the space), and so you can optically adapt pretty much anything to mirrorless.
Optically being the operative word. You'll lose metering modes that depend on the camera getting info from the lens by either physical or electrical means. If you're shooting landscapes or product, this is unlikely to be a problem. If you're shooting action, you may want to disregard this suggestion.
EDITED TO ADD:
I haven't kept up with the mirrorless world since I bought mine, but if you're doing this get one where the image stabilization is implemented in the body.
I also brought a 85mm prime which has been a lot of fun, while at the same time I've been lugging around a 35mm prime and barely used it.