WHAT PHOTOGRAPHY TO BUY?
Often friends, acquaintances, and strangers are asking me this question. The answer can not be formulated in one sentence, so I wrote this article. Choosing a camera is a very personal solution that no one else can take for you. Which depends on your way of life, your temperament, what you want to shoot, how you want to shoot it, and last but not least what you're going to use. The technical requirements for an internet photo and photo print for the average page of a magazine are different. That's why I decided to write this article, which I hope will help the hesitant choice.
There is no universal camera. Just as there is no universal car. Different types and grades of cameras have one way or another disadvantage.
I will try to describe them. I think the sensor size is one of the most important things in the camera. And I will begin with the lowest class, those with the smallest size matrices (sensors).
KAMEROFONS AND COMPACT PHOTOGRAPHS
I put them in one category because they usually use the smallest matrices, such as 1/4 to 1 inch (diagonal).
When the matrix in a camera is small, everything in it is small. Both the lens and the flashlight. Correspondingly, the dimensions are small as well as the weight. This is the biggest advantage of this type of cameras. They are extremely compact and lightweight. They are in the pocket of the shirt or jacket. In a lady's bag. They are unpretentious, they do not look in the eye. When shooting with such a technique you are like an invisible hat. People around you do not pay attention, and you can do much less trouble taking pictures in places where removing a large black camera with removable optics would cause a scandal. In museums, churches, concerts, and other similar events where it is usually forbidden to shoot, the ban does not apply to phones and soap makers. It is believed that such a technique can not do anything more than a photo for personal use. Which is not always the case.
With a handset or a compact camera, we can do as good a technical picture as with any other technique. But not in all photographic genres and not under all lighting conditions.
Some time ago I had started to explore the possibilities of the phone to shoot in different photographic genres. The results of these experiments can be found in the article "Photography with the Phone". In general, the conclusion is that it happens almost for everything but much more difficult than with other techniques. With much more conventions. With much more pre-training and knowledge. And with a much higher percentage of worn-out footage.
The most unproblematic with such a technique are static objects that are well and fairly evenly lit. And the most difficult to shoot moving objects. Sports, wildlife, concerts, and overall footage requiring long, light optics and fast autofocus are impossible.
In summary, the advantages of this technique are - size, weight, price. That he does not impress others. And especially on the phone that it's always in you, it's always up to you.
The phone is best suited to such unpretentious footage for the family album, especially when we want our hands free and nothing superfluous to weigh in the backpack.
Disadvantages: Short optics, sometimes lack of zoom. High noise levels. Due to the small size of the matrix, more than 400 SDIs are almost unusable. Limited dynamic range - does not do well with strong contrasts, the light becomes very bright, the dark very dark. Autofocus is extremely slow and therefore it is problematic to shoot moving objects. In most cases. Still, if you decide to buy this kind of technique, make sure you have manual shutter speed, ISO, white balance, focus, and exposure correction settings. Stabilized optics. RAW format. These things are very helpful in certain situations. (See Photo Photos again on the phone again).
ULTRAZUM PHOTOPARATS
These cameras use the same small sensor sizes, but unlike the compact ones, the phones have a large zoom lens in front. 10-fold, 20-fold, 30-fold, even 50-fold approximation. This makes them very popular among a certain circle of users who do not have a lot of claims to the vision of the frame, and on the other hand they do not want to keep a set of lenses that constantly change. The ideal option for a tourist camera. Like the "ideal" could be put in quotation marks. Despite the numerous fans who consider this type of universal device to be, I would not personally buy such a technique. It's truly universal, but its versatility is a bit like a duck. The duck is the most universal animal because it can move in the air, in the water and on land. But in all three places it is worse than most specimens that only inhabit one environment.
Ultrasim models have the same disadvantages as compact devices. Flat picture. Narrow dynamic range. Slower and hesitant AF compared to DSPs. More noise at high ISO. The advantage of compactness and weight is also quite conditional, because most models are of the size of the base grade DMLP. The only serious advantage is the lens. It determines the higher price, but unfortunately it can not be used on another body. In case of damage to the camera, the lens also leaves.
And is it really such an advantage or the big range is more a marketing trick? 50 times the zoom is really a large range, unimaginable for DPL systems. But it does not replace the other optics. If we want a true macro (1: 1) lens, the big zoom can not replace it. It can not serve us as a psyche, nor as a tilt-shifting lens. Can not replace a light-weight lens. Not too wide-angle ...
The large range of the zoom lens helps us to frame from a very long distance as desired.
I think ultralight models only make sense for people looking for a great approximation at an affordable price. Or fast response at different focal lengths. For example, a certain type of reporter work in a newspaper or site where the photo quality is not magnified.
Especially with the 4K photo, which came as an opportunity in the latest models. The 4K photo is almost a video from which you can take a still image with acceptable photographic quality.
But this option is also available in the last-generation non-reflective and DSPDs.
OUTDOOR PHOTOGRAPHS
Non-inferior cameras use 1 inch to full-frame (fullframe) matrices. But most often APS and Micro 4/3. The combination of a relatively large area of the sensor, the reduced weight and size, and the optics changeover make this system so popular and preferred that in recent years it has successfully competed with the DSLR market.
The image quality in terms of dynamics and noise is the same as for DSLR because the same sensors are used. The lenses are (or at least should be) more compact, light and inexpensive. Because they are technically easier to do, with less material, and do not need to overcome, as in the DSLR, a cavity of 4-5 cm where the mirror is located.
Pelican in Lake Kerkini, photographed with a non-reflective camera and long optics. However, when choosing a long optics, the idea of lightness and compactness is lost to some extent.
With these types of cameras in recent years I've done my best footage. Not because they shoot better than DSLR, but because of their compact size, I prefer them more often for breaks, excursions and spreading just like that, without having to do any job, no specific task.
With a whale lens, a pancake, the device fits seamlessly into the jacket pocket. Because of the smaller diameter - and filters for this type of lens are cheaper. And because of the low weight, you can attach the telescope to a telescopic tripod that also fits in your pocket.
Non-mirror camera, tripod, kite lens, filters and remote - everything is packed in pockets.
The main disadvantage for me is the electronic viewfinder. I do not like watching TV. The vibrations and touch-ups of the screen make the eyes work longer. At a certain angle and sunlit, the screen is hard to see. But in certain situations, the electronic viewfinder may also be an advantage. Because you can see the frame (as an exposure) before you shoot it before you press the button. An electron-viewer is also a prerequisite for autofocus during video capture.
Other drawbacks in comparison with DPLPs are the slower (especially following) autofocus. Input delay. Cropping the image while tracking fast-moving objects. And slower access to basic features that DSPs are often output to buttons on the shell. But overall, for the large percentage of photographic tasks, this type of camera is a serious competitor to the mirror-reflective apparatus.
Roger Glover of Deep Purple. Due to the small size, I managed to bring the camera and the lens to the concert. The 200 mm lens (equivalent to 300mm) is less than 10cm long. The photo is at least 15 meters from the performers, from the fan zone in the audience, somewhere between 7-8 rows of people between me and the stage.
MIRROR-REFLECTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS (DSLR)
The mirror-reflective apparatus has the largest matrices of the ones listed here. They use APS and full frame sensors.
This also gives the best picture quality, such as detail, low noise at high ISO, a good dynamic range - that is, developments in both the lightest and darkest frames of the frame. Very good plasticity, volume and three dimensional feel on the stage and very good transmission of color shades and halftones. All this is a consequence of the large (physical, not pixel) size of the matrix.
The large matrix and the bright lens make it possible to focus on the subject and to separate it from the backside, which is in defoos.
(Of course, besides the DSPs, there are also medium format cameras with even bigger matrices, with even better detail of the image, plasticity and shades, but they have other inconveniences such as weight and size, slow autofocus and serial Mostly the high price, which is measured in tens of thousands, so I do not mention them.)
Because they have the biggest sensors that give the best picture, manufacturers use their cutting edge technology in this type of camera. Stronger bodies in the high price class - dusty and waterproof. With alloy and magnesium alloy bodies. Faster and more powerful processors, two card slots. Multipoint autofocus systems. Stabilization in the body (with some brands). Etc.
I think the SLRs are the best ratio between image quality, price and ergonomics. Other advantages compared to other systems are rapid and accurate aphofocus (this is especially important for the follow-up AF). Instant reaction when triggering the trigger. And the ability to see everything through the lens in real time. This makes them indispensable especially for fast-moving objects and photos in any but especially in critical light conditions. Of course, combined with the proper optics. The abundance of lenses is also a factor that does not matter. Most lenses may also be used in the bandwidth, including autofocus. And prices are not unbearably high. You can find a saved second-hand DSLR at a price of around 200-300 leva, lower than a new smartphone or a compact device.
The only disadvantage of the system is the higher weight and the larger dimensions. Which in certain situations attract the attention of the people we are shooting.
To sum up, I will say that the good picture does not depend on the technique used.
A nice photo can be done with any technique.
But with a higher-end technique, it will happen more easily. It will happen more often. We will work more confidently, more calmly and in more photographic genres.
PP. You may have noticed that there is no brand and model speech anywhere. On the one hand this is not an advertising article, on the other I think the brand is not critical, the type and the class of the apparatus is more important.