2 ms·

Great advice. It would be fun to see a behind-the-scenes of how some of these photos were taken > But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year o

Great advice. It would be fun to see a behind-the-scenes of how some of these photos were taken > But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras. The iPhone camera really is fantastic for what it is (economies of scale are an amazing thing) but you're not wrong. Doing this sort of photography work on an iPhone is more about the challenge than the capabilities. One of the interesting things about photography is that so many capable cameras and lenses have been produced over the past couple decades that you can stop by eBay and pick up some truly capable gear for relatively cheap if you do your research. It's tempting to get pulled into the world of modern full-frame cameras and the latest glass, but the truth is that an older mirrorless camera combined with some known-good old glass will produce amazing photos.

formerly_proven 5y ago
This is even true for digital gear. At base ISO, cameras like a D7100/7200 have as good image quality as it gets for that class, and you can pick those up for cheap. Even fairly high-end, high-resolution full-frame cameras can be had for less than 500 quid (e.g. D800) and those still have outstanding image quality; there really wasn't a whole lot of major improvements in image quality in the last ten years when you control the light (i.e. don't need high ISO). Things get expensive if you want... ... best low-noise performance (needs sensor from the last ~five years, older stuff usually has color shifts and other issues which are not easy to fix) ... video ... mirrorless ... fast AF (especially if you also want mirrorless) ... all of the above
- kuschku 5y ago
  Not even necessarily – the Sony a6300 retails around 300 bucks used, which gives you 4K30 or 2K120 video at 8bit. It’s an APS-C mirrorless with fast AF, and its low-noise performance is (although a few years out of date) excellent for its price. And in real-life circumstances it’s better than a Google Pixel.

formerly_proven 5y ago

This is even true for digital gear. At base ISO, cameras like a D7100/7200 have as good image quality as it gets for that class, and you can pick those up for cheap. Even fairly high-end, high-resolution full-frame cameras can be had for less than 500 quid (e.g. D800) and those still have outstanding image quality; there really wasn't a whole lot of major improvements in image quality in the last ten years when you control the light (i.e. don't need high ISO). Things get expensive if you want... ... best low-noise performance (needs sensor from the last ~five years, older stuff usually has color shifts and other issues which are not easy to fix) ... video ... mirrorless ... fast AF (especially if you also want mirrorless) ... all of the above

kuschku 5y ago
Not even necessarily – the Sony a6300 retails around 300 bucks used, which gives you 4K30 or 2K120 video at 8bit. It’s an APS-C mirrorless with fast AF, and its low-noise performance is (although a few years out of date) excellent for its price. And in real-life circumstances it’s better than a Google Pixel.