Starting photography as a hobby

[Allen]

I got the deal from Jessops with 2 lenses. It's a lovely bit of kit. Now I just need to learn how to use it properly!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Sony 16MP sensor in the camera has a very good reputation for low light image quality.

[Bobster]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a6300 < this is where it's at right now, coupled with the Sigma to Sony adaptor and their art range of lenses..

[TheAnimus]

Those Sony's are cracking bits of kit Bob, but at almost double OPs budget, I'm not sure it's worth it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Those Sony's are cracking bits of kit Bob, but at almost double OPs budget, I'm not sure it's worth it.

£1000 for one with a kit lens and an APS-C sensor. Way too much money - you can buy the original Sony A7 with the 28-70MM FE lens for under £900 now.

[neil.corrigan12]

If you're a beginner my suggestion is Nikon D3300. This camera is actually smaller than most of DSLRs but it has a solid photographic credentials just like others. This D3300 costs like more than $400 and has18-55-mm lens.

[FatalSaviour]

I got the deal from Jessops with 2 lenses. It's a lovely bit of kit. Now I just need to learn how to use it properly!

That's reminiscent of the order I started out in (and continued for quite some time!). Very much a case of buy a new lens, and then learn how to use it!

Was it the Pentax that you ended up going for OP?

I was in a fortunate position at the time to be able to do so, but to reiterate what others have said here, I've found that more expensive bodies make the shots easier to take (i.e. more/quicker control over flash/exposure settings etc), but it's the money spent on lenses which really make the shots 'pop'.

Wish you all the best with it - it really is a fantastic hobby!

[Allen]

Wow, haven't responded to this for a while... I started a new job a few months ago and am really busy with that at the moment!

Yes, I did get the Pentax K-50, and whilst it is a lovely bit of kit, I just haven't really had much time to go out and play about with it as much as I had liked. So I'm still using "auto" at the moment, which is producing lacklustre pictures. They look OK, they just don't "pop"!

Gonna try my first attempt and photographing fireworks tonight, got the opening of the i360 display. Will probably be really bad, but I gotta practice.

I guess my biggest problem is physical limitations and getting over shyness (being an introvert). It's difficult for me to get out there and start taking pictures. I'm thinking about joining the local camera club, but that will be a massive challenge for me... hope I can do it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Wow, haven't responded to this for a while... I started a new job a few months ago and am really busy with that at the moment!

Yes, I did get the Pentax K-50, and whilst it is a lovely bit of kit, I just haven't really had much time to go out and play about with it as much as I had liked. So I'm still using "auto" at the moment, which is producing lacklustre pictures. They look OK, they just don't "pop"!

Gonna try my first attempt and photographing fireworks tonight, got the opening of the i360 display. Will probably be really bad, but I gotta practice.

I guess my biggest problem is physical limitations and getting over shyness (being an introvert). It's difficult for me to get out there and start taking pictures. I'm thinking about joining the local camera club, but that will be a massive challenge for me... hope I can do it.

You might find the default colour processing on dSLRs to be that way - more natural and less "poppy" than cameras on phones and most compacts.

You have a decent enough monitor,so if you do some basic calibration for it,you can always fiddle around with settings in software.

You can do so in-camera too.

Also some tips regarding taking pictures of fireworks:

http://digital-photography-school.co...aph-fireworks/
http://photography.nationalgeographi...17_600x450.jpg
http://www.wikihow.com/Photograph-Fireworks
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fireworks.htm

Edit!!

Its the Eastbourne airshow this weekend too.

[horlock]

My only point is

Do you currently take good photos without a dslr?

I don't mean to sound rude but sometimes people (like me) tend to think that a good camera will take a good photo. For that reason I've spent quite a bit on camera kit and lenses - I've gone Canon by the way - but I still find it infuriating the way that I can walk around with a heavy camera and a bag of lenses, find a perfect shot and get home to discover that my wife got a better picture on her phone!

She has an eye for it and I don't. Don't get me wrong, I still get a better picture on my expensive camera than I get on my phone, but its horrifying how I don't see things that she does!

Doh- and now I check the date on the rest of the thread - sorry.

[kalniel]

I've seen worse thread revivals, don't worry, and it's a fair point

I think one of the key things here is the photography as a hobby statement - that implies it's a bit different from photography as a means just to get a good (or good enough) photo. Hobbies are, IMHO, not just about the end result, but about the enjoyment of using and improving your skills. Cameras which are more transparent and allow control of the various stages in producing an image are inherently better suited to photography as a hobby precisely because you will be learning exactly how aperture, focal length etc. affect the image. And in the software you will be doing the tone mapping etc. rather than just having a phone's black box take care of it all for you.

There's nothing wrong with a phone being that clever, but if you don't understand what it did then you haven't improved your knowledge and skillset, which as mentioned is one of the joys of having a hobby.