Camera for an amateur

[MV123]

I am a budding photographer exploring the huge realm of Photography.
I have for quite a while on a compact camera (Nikon A900) and now I know all the basics, and am thinking of getting myself a DSLR.
Should I think of getting a D5600 or D7500? Or should I wait for the release of D5700?
As they say that image quality of D5600 and D7500 is similar, only the former is less easy to handle...
Or, even, should I buy a Canon like 80D or 90D?
I am open to all options as I was using a compact camera though would prefer a Nikon or Canon.
I mainly do bird photography.

Cost is also a factor...
I live in India

Thanks and Regards,
MV

---

Arise, awake and do not stop until the goal is reached.

[pschlute]

The only advice I would give is to go and try all these cameras out. There is nothing like holding a camera to get a feel of how one handles versus another.

Of course it may not be practical depending how far you live from a "real" camera shop.

[Manfred M]

No one can really answer this question other than you.

I don't know the Canon line at all so cannot make any suggestions there.

All of the cameras that you are considering will take comparable images, so when it comes to picture quality there won't be any difference. Where there is a difference is in more advanced functionality and handling. Specialty techniques are generally going to come with the higher end bodies. The 5000 series will often require the user to make settings changes through use of the menu whereas the 7000 series will often let you access these functions via on camera body buttons, so you can access these functions more quickly.

The main advantage if the 7000 series versus the 5000 series is that the 7000 series can support the older "D" type lenses that require an autofous motor in the camera body, rather than the newer G and E series lenses that have built in autofocus motors.

At a high level, DSLRs are on their way out and are being replaced by mirrorless cameras; the Z50 is the first of this new generation. Because the lens sits closer to the sensor, these lenses offer superior performance to DSLR ones.

If you are looking at other companies, both the Sony and FujiFilm mirrorless are highly rated as well, but again, I do not know these lines at all.

The important thing to think about is where you will be going with your photography as camera bodies get replaced, but lenses will outlast quite a few bodies.

[xpatUSA]

At a high level, DSLRs are on their way out and are being replaced by mirrorless cameras

namaste,

For bird photography, the magnified manual focus function found in mirror-less cameras would be an advantage, especially if they are standing or sitting. An EVF helps in that regard.

[Polar01]

Just a couple of things MV123, about cameras and lens, as Manfred stated more and more are going to mirrorless, which have their own special lens or an adaptor to be able to use older lens. Think of a camera and lens like this the lens are the jewels, and the camera is only holding them until you get a new holder (camera). The other point is you state "and now I know all the basics", no you do not, I have been shooting over 14 yrs digital and still learning the basics.


Cheers: Allan

[pschlute]

namaste,

For bird photography, the magnified manual focus function found in mirror-less cameras would be an advantage, especially if they are standing or sitting. An EVF helps in that regard.

Agree with that. But it is wrong to say that it is the preserve of "mirror-less" cameras. My SLR has a Live View function. I can see the image at 100% view on the rear LCD screen. Manual focus on an SLR was never easier.

[rpcrowe]

I have shot with Canon DSLR cameras for twenty-years and then switched to Sony mirrorless cameras and have not regretted that switch.

I don't know what price range that you are considering but, earlier the problem with Sony mirrorless cameras was that there were not any reasonably priced long focal length lenses; a long lens is a pretty hard requirement for bird photography but, recently there have been a lens introduced for the Sony mirrorless APSC (crop format) cameras that could be quite a game changer!

This lens is the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 which is available in for pre order in the USA for $949 U.S. dollars. Combined with the Sony A6400 APSC sensor camera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM5qhtff_FU this would be an excellent bird setup with an equivalent 150-600mm focal length for just under $2,000 USD Which would also include a kit lens forevery day shooting...

Sony also has a 70-350mm lens for APSC cameras which provides a 105-525mm equivalent - for $998 USD. I have one of these lenses and it does an excellent job on my A6400...

[xpatUSA]

Agree with that. But it is wrong to say that it is the preserve of "mirror-less" cameras. My SLR has a Live View function. I can see the image at 100% view on the rear LCD screen. Manual focus on an SLR was never easier.

I stand corrected. A good few years ago, I tried a Nikon D90 and seem to remember a bit of finger-poken to get the live view. Probably a lot different these days ...

[Manfred M]

I stand corrected. A good few years ago, I tried a Nikon D90 and seem to remember a bit of finger-poken to get the live view. Probably a lot different these days ...

One button push to go to LiveView on the D90 and several pushes on another to magnify the image. Same on all the other Nikon DSLRs around the house.

[pschlute]

Jut two presses for me ..one to enter LV and one to change the zoom to 100%. Beats split prism and all the modern gizmos for perfect focus. Does of course depend on a still camera and subject most of the time.

For close focus stuff I find I focus by moving the camera forwards and backwards and leave the focus ring alone !

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA I stand corrected. A good few years ago, I tried a Nikon D90 and seem to remember a bit of finger-poken to get the live view. Probably a lot different these days ...

One button push to go to LiveView on the D90 and several pushes on another to magnify the image. Same on all the other Nikon DSLRs around the house.

I stand corrected some more and am now feeling quite small. Have to say I prefer my Panasonic magnified manual focus to all the other Nikon DSLRs around the house, by the sound of it.

[DanK]

Not being a bird photographer, I can't say anything about the value of a magnified view with manual focus for that application.

I use a magnified view in live view for static macro all the time, using a DSLR. Works very well. My current DSLR (5d Mark IV) gives me a choice of a bunch of different views that will appear when the magnification button is chosen. I think they are 2x at center, 4x at center, 8 x at center, 10x at center, and 100% at the AF point if you have used AF. To move the magnified area, you push the toggle on the back. To change magnification, you rotate one of the two wheels. I currently have mine set for 4x as the starting point.

However, I can see how this might not be optimal for bird photography because it's easier to see an EVF in daylight.

I'll throw in one complication. The amount of "reach" you get with a given focal length--a critical factor for bird photography--is not actually a function of sensor size. It's a matter of pixel density. If you have a FF camera and a crop sensor camera with the same pixel density, use the same lens, and crop the FF image to the size of the crop-sensor image, the two images will be the same, including the same number of pixels on the subject. It happens that crop sensor cameras usually have greater pixel density, hence the greater reach. For this reason, if bird photography were my primary interest, I would opt for an APS-C camera with a relatively high pixel count.

[xpatUSA]

I'll throw in one complication. The amount of "reach" you get with a given focal length is not actually a function of sensor size.

Taken per se the statement is arguable. Although I do get the point about pixel count, I'm not convinced that it defines "reach". Others may also have a different definition of "reach", perhaps involving framing, e.g. subject bigger in the frame equals a greater reach.

[davidedric]

There are also plenty of bird photographers using smaller sensors, micro four thirds in particular. There, you get a different set of trade offs where greater reach at smaller size becomes easier.

[DanK]

Taken per se the statement is arguable. Although I do get the point about pixel count, I'm not convinced that it defines "reach". Others may also have a different definition of "reach", perhaps involving framing, e.g. subject bigger in the frame equals a greater reach.

True, but that notion of reach isn't very useful, it seems to me, because if your definition is only what is in the viewfinder, then one can always crop the FF image to get the same "reach" as that obtained by a smaller sensor, regardless of the specific sensors.

But to be more precise: if the issue is how much detail you can obtain with a given focal length when displaying the image after removing it from the camera, smaller sensors provide more detail if and only if they have higher pixel density. This is the sole reason I still use my old first-generation 7D sometimes. Now that I have bumped my FF from a mark III to a Mark IV, the difference in pixel density is smaller, but it isn't trivial. If I want to maximize the pixels I can get at long distances or in macro that is close to 1:1, the 7D gives me more.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA Taken per se the statement is arguable. Although I do get the point about pixel count, I'm not convinced that it defines "reach". Others may also have a different definition of "reach", perhaps involving framing, e.g. subject bigger in the frame equals a greater reach.

True, but that notion of reach isn't very useful, it seems to me, because if your definition is only what is in the viewfinder, then one can always crop the FF image to get the same "reach" as that obtained by a smaller sensor, regardless of the specific sensors.

Apparently, a consensus definition of the word is quite hard to find:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/focal-length.html

... not unlike "exposure", "resolution", etc.

So, I'm bowing out ...

[tclune]

I am a budding photographer exploring the huge realm of Photography.

Should I think of getting a D5600 or D7500? Or should I wait for the release of D5700?

To my mind, there are a few very important advantages of the D7xxx over the D5xxx line.

First, the D7xxx have pentaprism eyepieces that cover essentially all the photo field of view. The D5xxx is a pentamirror, which is much dimmer, and it covers a noticeably lower portion of the photo's field of view.

Second, the D7xxx raw format options include completely lossless files, while the D5xxx are significantly decimated. Bill Claff's excellent page provides an overview of most Nikon formats, although he hasn't reverse engineered the latest cameras yet. To my mind, this is huge, but will only matter to you if you shoot in raw and post-process your images.

Third, the D7xxx has much better motion tracking than the comparable generation of D5xxx cameras. This matters if you are interested in sports or bird-in-flight photography, for example.

Fourth, the D7xxx supports the full Nikon CLS flash system, including off-camera support. The D5xxx, as I recall, is limited to i-TTL support for on-camera flash.

Fifth, the last I knew, D5xxx support for auto-ISO was very basic. You could set a single minimum shutter speed to use. With the D7xxx, you can set different minimums for different focal lengths, which is most likely what you would want.

There are other advantages of the D7xxx, including greater control of the camera without having to use menus and being able to fine-tune the focus of your lenses. But these are of lesser value to my mind. The big advantage of the D5xxx series is that it has an articulated LCD, which can facilitate shooting in a crowd or getting shots that are low to the ground.

ETA: I forgot to include high-speed synch flash capability in D7xxx which is lacking in D5xxx.

FWIW

[Chataignier]

So much information...! I would add my few pearls of wisdom as follows :

Go for one of the new mirrorless (hybrid) cameras - that is the future, they are lighter, smaller and very high performance. I suggest an APSC sensor version to keep the costs reasonable. Full frame versions exist (Canon, Nikon, Sony) but are rather expensive.
I changed from Canon 70D to a Fuji X-T3 18m ago, mainly to reduce size and weight, and have been delighted with the results.
For bird photography look closely at stabilisation performance - at long focal lengths it is critical.
The Fuji range includes a 100-400mm lens (equivalent to 650mm appx full frame) with excellent stabilisation which would be ideal for bird photography.
Follow Peter's advice and try them out.
Good luck !

[Tronhard]

One of the major things to consider is the lenses you wish to use. For birds you want a fairly long focal length. For any DSLR that will involve a major outlay. So, at this point a question needs to be addressed.

What do you intend to create with your photos? These days most people seem to create material for web publishing or to view on digital devices. For those who do print, many choose not to create large, detailed prints.

If that is the case, and you wish to explore bird (and other photography), I would suggest considering the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV. This is a bridge camera - a hybrid between a compact camera (i.e. with a fixed lens), and a DSLR. Among the bridge cameras most have extremely small sensors - not much more than a high-end cell phone, but the Sony Cycbershot has a much larger 1 inch sensor. It IS smaller than a full frame or an APS-C DSLR camera, but you will get amazing optics and an extremely advanced sensor and other technologies all in one body and for a much lower outlay than buying the equivalent optics for a DSLR.

I would recommend checking out the reviews as follows:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/son...ot-dsc-rx10-iv
https://www.trustedreviews.com/revie...r-shot-rx10-iv

And multiple reviews on Youtube: for example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVizzzImEU

I have one of these cameras myself and can say it is an amazing camera, and eminently suited to wildlife photography and a lot more.

[William W]

One of the major things to consider it the lenses you wish to use. For birds you want a fairly long focal length. For any DSLR that will involve a major outlay. So, at this point a question needs to be addressed. . . .

Reads of much common sense. It's not really all about the camera, more about the lens(es)

I concur 100%: look at the project as tools fit for purpose.

Additionally you mentioned that you're located in India: I assume that was a purposeful statement, if so I further assume that attaining a range of gear might be either a) difficult or b) relatively expensive or c) both.

If these assumption are correct, then, my advice is to think carefully on Trev's advice and also if you want more specific advice re a particular make and model, give us an idea of your budget.

WW