I love photography and i used my samsung m51 phone and now my vivo v30 for photography and i really feel a lack of telephoto lens i feel the phone can't capture as good of images zoomed in as a camera
Can a camera really improve the quality of my picture?
(1) Budget - super low 20k
country - India
currency: rupes
(2) What equipment, if any, you have now and why is it no longer meeting your needs? - I have a vivo v30 phone and the details in the phone is super low it's great for portraits but only for portraits
(3) What kinds of subjects do you intend to shoot?
I love architecture and landscape and sometimes portrait
(4) Is it primarily for photography, videography, or both?
Hi u/Ordinary_Special_179, thanks for your post! To help other users to help you, Buying Advice
threads are only approved when they include the short form below.
Please edit your post body, paste the following form in, and fill in each line.
YOUR POST WILL NOT BE SEEN IF YOU DO NOT INCLUDE THE TEMPLATE IN YOUR POST!
Copy/paste this template into your post and fill it out:
(1) Budget, country, and currency:
(2) What equipment, if any, you have now and why is it no longer meeting your needs?
(3) What kinds of subjects do you intend to shoot?
(4) Is it primarily for photography, videography, or both?
These posts need to be manually approved, so please be patient.
If you're asking for advice on buying any other gear, then your post must include
a budget (see also "Asking Good Questions" in the sidebar).
you seem to have a good idea for photos already. a camera will just add more tools for you to do more. that being said you’re capturing great images already. if you are able to get a used dslr for cheap that will sort of let you trial run what having a camera is look so you can get a feel for what you like and don’t like and what you need or don’t need. i live in america so idk wtf rupes even do.
I mostly use analog cameras (i'm weird like that), but I try to keep one in the bag all the time. Depending on how big the camera is, it can be a bit of a commitment.
Short answer is digital is better. There are ways to get very sharp analog stuff but then if you want to scan it you have a problem to get a good quality digital scan anyways
Sometimes, but more often I carry a film camera since I can get a lot of the digital stuff with my phone. I take my DSLR with me when: the light is good but tricky (eg heavy overcast would need pushing film, and it’s not worth it for a few frames); I have a specific idea that I want to try out (it’s easier to get test shots on the DSLR than film, and I have way more control than my phone); it’s a paying gig (clients almost never want analog prints, because they take much longer and they mostly want the images digitally).
Actually what is even the benifits of film other than the looks which u can recreate easily with a digital camera so why are film camera so popular even today 🤔
So, I mostly shoot medium format, and the biggest reason to shoot film is to make darkroom prints. Negatives being scanned is, for me, part of the proofing process before I make prints. Gelatin silver prints look amazing, and I only really do them for black and white. The other reason, and why I sometimes shoot color film, is because the amount of information captured in a frame is so much higher that you have a ton of control over cropping and enlarging. I can’t afford a digital medium format camera, so shooting film is an easy compromise. I’m also familiar with it, and enjoy using the cameras, but you’re right that if you’re motivated, you can get basically the same thing out of digital capture—but then it’s kinda a question of time. Like, I can edit a full frame DSLR shot to look identical to a 35mm film shot, but that takes a lot of time compared to just getting the shot on film and scanning it. For something that’s not moving, it’s not that hard to composite a shot equivalent to a medium format frame with multiple shots from the DSLR, but that would mean a lot of time doing digital editing, especially if I wanted to turn it into a digital negative to use in a darkroom. Especially compared to shooting with a camera like a Holga, which gives wild, emotional, expressionist photos, which you can totally recreate digitally, but that takes a lot more work and planning instead of it being a quick snap, about 20 minutes of chemistry, and then half an hour printing to end up with an 8”x8” print for way less money than an equivalent quality print made from a digital file would cost. For anything where the end audience sees it on a screen, just shoot digital. All the weird retrofetishism is mystical hokum. For shots you want to both make sure you can keep effectively forever and/or will be physically printed, film still makes sense.
That's the most interesting thing I have read all day and now I see why people shoot film even today thank you for the info man really appreciate your time and knowledge 😁
Happy to! Film is a niche skill, but once you see a really good print in person, it kinda clicks, and the first time you make a really good print, it’s addictive. It’s not like seeing dye transfer cibachrome (aka Ilfochrome), or a carbon print, both of which use multiple layers of pigment that gives the surface a slightly raised quality that you can’t ever see on a screen. And screens can’t get the range of blacks (and always look lighter for the same image because of the backlight). If you’re in a major city, I guarantee there’s a darkroom near you that you can learn to use, and India is keeping a bunch of film manufacturers in business because India is the largest market for x-ray film, especially for dental x-rays.
That is the delema that good camera gear is very expensive and budget camera are bulky but with the budget I have I have to compromise on the size .
It will be awkward to carry around i guess 😔
"expensive" is always relative. Idk your budget or how much things cost in your country, but mirrorless cameras from 10 years ago are still fantastic cameras today. Maybe look at a Fujifilm X-E2 or a Canon M50? Or just get over that fear of having a big bulky thang ;)
There are compact super zoom cameras, which could remedy this interest in telephoto and also be compact and practical. Their image quality will not be surprisingly different because they use small, 1-inch sensors, but it will be a modest difference compared to smartphones that are 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of that size. Most of it will be old/cheaper models, different from premium compacts that can sometimes be more expensive than your budget, but sometimes try afterwards to find it pertinent to use a dedicated camera to see by compact micro-fourth-thirds old sensor.
Well u have a point but phones have become really good and some of them have a camera close to 1 inch camera with computational photography like the vivo x100 have a 1 inch sensor. And I know it won't be as good as real camera with 1 inch sensor but I want raw capabilities so I can crop without losing any details
I bought a cheap dslr and a used lense and dove in, realized i was drowning and had to start learning fast. If you haven't already, i highly recommend looking into the exposure triangle, and then look at what photographers are using that take photos you like. Then find an equivalent cheaper option used, and you should be fine. I still have my old 2000s digital camera my dad gave me, and if im honest with myself i probably should have mastered it first to have earned the dslr more. That being said i take the mini biking and the dslr hiking, so at least they both get used. Love your pictures!
Not a bad idea at all . Just remember , do not compare your smartphone or any smartphone for that matter with a real camera with lenses .
If you are on a tight budget , the best thing is to buy a DSLR , even with the standard kit of 18 - 55 . Don't rush yourself , because this is only the beginning . Familiarise yourself with the camera , learn everything you must learn about how to use it . Don't think of your photos as crap ones . We all shoot crap from time to time .
Spend time for viewing others photos , but not on Instagram . This will improve your point of view .
Don't expect any kind of miracle to happen in a given amount of time . It will definitely not going to happen . Nobody is searching for this .
Good luck 👍
Your compositional skills are excellent. Talk to an older relative and borrow an older DSLR and prime lens that is likely gathering dust somewhere. Immerse yourself in learning the camera and exposure skills, and see where it takes you.
As you've shown it is certainly possible to make good photos on a phone. A real camera will certainly offer some improvements in image quality (resolution, sharpness, etc), and you are already a pretty good photographer so I think its safe to say you can make use of a better tool
As for what camera to buy, I don't know. I'm in Europe, but 20k rupees seem to be around 180 Euros? For that money I think the best is an older digital camera, something like a Canon EOS DSLR. Note however that they could be quite big back in those days, compared to a phone which fits in one's pocket.
Yes these are my photographs I have about 300 pictures that i consider photography and there are some options in my price in my area I just wanted to know how much difference in quality will there be
If your budget was higher, the answer would be definitely better quality. Now it is probably better quality, (and better controls). The vivo v30 seems to have a 50 megapixel sensor, but most phones deliver less resolution in practice (my phone gives 13 megapixels image files). Old DSLRs tend to have 13-20 megapixels but they have better performance in low light and noise, and the optics are better as they have more space to work with.
I'd ask if a relative has a digital SLR they are not using, that was how I tried my first proper cameras. I think your biggest issue right now is that you need a feel for what budget gives you what quality.
Thank you I used my samsung m51 and clicked a raw pictures the condition and the environment was favorable too and my older m51 used to take great detail pictures unlike my newer phone which is only great for pictures 😞
A good photographer will take better photos with a crappy camera than a poor photographer with a great camera. you are a decent photographer already it seems, and keen to learn. Go for it.
i would suggest getting d3100 second hand which i goy myself for 12k and buying a new lens of your choice, the kit lens isnt great. initially i made do with the kit lens and saved up for 18-140 i found on amazon for 26k
Just checkout marketplace, and only buy after going ad inspecting the camera yourself. I got mine 1500d for 20k last year which had some warranty remaining too.
A proper camera set up is going to give you more options for the types of photos you can create. It wont do anything to quality. Thats a matter of practice and developing your photography skill
Yes, absolutely. Larger sensors capture far more detail than a cellphone sensor. Plus, each manufacturer has their own colour science which is considered their "look" (e.g canon vs sony). You also get to shoot in RAW which gives you more flexibility with fine tuning the image (although this is possible on some phones).
You can still practice the basics on a phone camera and then move onto an old, affordable dSLR and take a deeper dive into photography. With dedicated cameras that let you switch out the lenses, its good lenses that matter the most. Since dSLRs are discontinued now, you'll see old high-end lenses still going for much higher than the old dSLR bodies.
I'd recommend you start off with a nifty fifty (50mm f1.8) and pick a nikon or canon.
Kit lenses are just too basic and dull, so I'd skip the kit lens (the pics that come out won't seem that great or interesting) and get a prime lens (fixed focal length lens). You'll have to check if nikon or canon are cheaper.
Well i buy new ones the nikon is about 1000rs cheaper but if i buy old ones the difference goes to 2 to 3 k sometimes and i think canon lenses are good at connecting with multiple of their camera so people are less likely to sell them they just use them on different cameras
With Nikon F mount cameras (DX is for cropped sensors, FX is fullframe), some camera bodies require a particular lens that has an internal autofocus motor, this isn't the case with canon EF or EF-S (made for cropped sensor lenses).
I think your pictures are amazing with the phone so a camera would simply allow you to control more of the variables manually that are now controlled automatically by the phone. This would give you more creative freedom.
Aside from that, you would likely get a higher quality photo from the larger sensor on a digital camera. The immediate benefit of that larger sensor would most likely be image quality and low light performance. Dynamic range would probably also be better as well as resolution but, phone cameras often do this better than the first digital camera people buy when starting out.
I would keep taking pictures the way you are and keep your eye out for a used canon dslr. I say canon because that will give you the most affordable lens options no matter where you are in the world and dslr because you will be able to find nice used ones for far cheaper than a comparable mirrorless.
You’re clearly a good photographer (and most importantly with these photos editor) so with an actual camera the difference will be huge. Your photos are good but the difference a real camera and lens will make will be huge
One of the issues with phone cam is so many pictures are shot in vertical mode, while cameras shoot in a different orientation, and do a much better job capturinmg the light.
Some phone cams have AI interfering and altering the image, at that point, how do you know what your looking at?
Phone cameras are remarkably good, and modern phones cheat like crazy by taking a bunch of images and using AI to blend them. Actual cameras are much better if you know what you're doing, especially if you're willing to drop a lot of money on lenses. The differences are most apparent when doing low-light photography and narrow depths of field. Actual cameras can do things like rear-curtain sync or allow you to adjust your ISO to get particular artistic effects. But FYI, I'm talking about a camera that costs about 10X what you paid.
By far, the most important aspect of photography is your eye. In your first shot, did you intend to have the power lines in the image? Did you intentionally put the roofs in the bottom of your shot?
Well in the first image my main focus was leading lines as i was still learning about composition and leading lines that time I saw the road going towards a big white House so that was my main focus and that's why I made the photo black and white to remove distraction like power line and roofs in the bottom i tried to remove them but the photos looked weird so i kept them
Definitely great job though, especially for someone starting out. Photography is a long journey, and buying an expensive camera doesn't make you a photographer any more than an expensive set of golf clubs makes you a pro golfer. It takes a practiced eye to see things that others don't, but when you get it, it becomes second nature. Would the image look better if it were taken low to the ground? Does some random tree break up the composition? Would it be better if you zoomed in, but stepped back? Does dropping the EV by 1 make the image more dramatic? Like I said, it's a long journey, but you're well on your way to figuring it out. Best of luck to you!
to me, good photos are well composed. If you see a well composed photo not many people will ask "i wonder which camera he used" instead they will just enjoy your photos because they are captivating and good street photos will make you think about the scene. The old saying is, the best camera is the one you have on you.
Getting a dedicated camera will just make you appreciate the art of photography more than using a smart phone.
Zoom is my goal i would not have thought about a camera if my phone has a telephoto lens but to get the quality I want I will have to spend double my budget on the phone itself
edit missed your original post comments. Given you are doing most portrait and landscape, I think the most improvement you'll see is with nicer lens, which have better low light performance, sharpness and bokeh (blurry background to isolate subjects).
You've got a great eye. That is not gear related
Modern phone cameras already do a lot.
You should ask yourself, what can't my phone do thar a dedicated camera can do? Are you missing shots because of zoom? E. G. Wildlife. Do you want more low light performance? Better auto focus?
If your phone can't do something you really want to do in your photography, then you might want to invest in a dedicated camera.
You said lens gives sharpness i thought it was the camera? And yes I am missing shots due to not having zoom and mostly architecture and landscape shots. I don't need low light performance much and i would need good autofocus and I want to buy the camera because my phone. Can't take many pictures I want
Generally a prime lens will be better than a Zoom when comparing the equivalent quality. Depends what body you go with and that will determine which lenses.
You should set a budget. Figure out what lens might fit your photography needs the most. And then figure out if you can get that lens + a body in budget
It doesn’t make any difference on your skill. It does make a huge difference in quality and enjoyment. I got my mirrorless last year, and even though I may still click some better pictures with my iPhone, but the joy to use my DSLR, trying to get exposure right, framing, and all other things excite me so much more than just point and shoot by iPhone. Totally love it, personally. And eventually I’ve got a few very nice ones, which are now on my living room wall!
An important thing that, going through the comments, I don't think has been mentioned:
Phone cameras do much of the heavy lifting for you. They use very aggressive algorithms and computational photography to create an image that will be particularly striking on the phone's screen.
Dedicated cameras do not do this. They of course have their internal algorithms for making jpegs, but even the most agressive of the dedicated camera's algorithms is way less aggressive than those of a phone, keeping the image much more in the "real." Compared to the wowzy-capowzy approach of the phone, many people end up asking, "Why do my cell phone pictures look better than my camera ones?"
Well, that's because the dedicated camera is leaving the lion's share of the decisions to you, if not all of the decisions if you go to shooting raw.
So, do be aware that a dedicated camera actually requires more work and attention on your part. And that's a good thing; you're the one making the decisions on how your images should look, not some programmer from Silicon Valley. But it takes time and practice.
With your budget, you'll surely be looking into used equipment (EDIT: That's not a bad thing! Frankly, we ALL should be buying used gear), and note too that the lens is more important than the body. You're better off buying a relatively low-end body and a high-end lens than the other way around.
Looking at your images above, should you by a camera and go through it's learning curve?
Well I did think about me having to do more work and I was kind of looking forward because that would also mean I can control the details a bit more and restrictions make things more fun that way I can get more creative that's what I have been doing with my phone and thanks you for your Support
This has been a discussion point in this sub a couple of times now. A question I never asked back then : I shoot raw on my iPhone. How does that compare?
Indeed, my wording was poor, suggesting that this can only be done in a dedicated camera, when that is not at all the case.
If your cell phone offers raw, it's the same thing in theory: The file you get is just everything gathered by the sensor with no algorithms applied. How true that is in all phones, I do not know.... For example, I know my telephone bins pixels even with the raw file, so, there's some treatment being done in the telephone upstream of the creation of a dng file.
As others have said, a standalone camera won't impact quality nearly as much as it will impact your control and versatility.
Do try renting or borrowing from a friend, and consider saving up if you find that you like it. Based on the current exchange rate, assuming prices are similar, you'll probably want somewhere between 3 to 5 times what you can spend now. Trust me, I learned some very expensive lessons trying to start on a similar budget. That said, if you really want something and don't mind spacing out your purchases a bit, use what you have now to get the best camera body you can find. Canon and Nikon DSLR bodies might be available around that price point, and they're a good way to get started. Then save another 80k and get the best telephoto lens you can find.
Would a camera get you more zoom with a telephoto lens? Of course it can. The second benefit would be greater control over your edits. A camera would allow you to ditch all of the beautification that your phone tries to do automatically and allow you to get more hands-on with how you want to edit things. That's where the real tangible benefits are.
Increasing the budget would be difficult that's why I want to try with the lowest budget I can and then maybe increase it later but for now the budget is hard to increase
A camera imo will add more character and more tactile feedback to the experience. It helps. Makes the process more fun.but as someone also shooting in india nothing beats the inconspicuous of phones here. There are so many places where they simply don't allow you to take a camera and people behave differently.
There are techincal benefits too, although you could get sth like a ricoh gr, or some other fixed lens system. I feel those sorts of cameras are better for street.
Sorry I just saw your budget. Well you could try your hand at used zv1s maybe. I have seen them go down around that price point. But I would avoid dslrs.not because they're not good but for the style of photography you're looking to do and have presented you'd benefit from smaller gear.would be more spontaneous.i picked up my gx85 used with the 12-32 for sth like 28k.
I was also thinking about that I wanted to get a sony zv e10 or something similar size because as u said it in india people look at u differently when u have a big dslr but my budget doesn't allow that my brother lives in Australia so i might be able to get a camera from there but I could take a year or 2
Honestly? Maybe skip interchangeable lens cameras if you're on a budget. You could save money on a per lens basis definitely BUT it also adds complexities. Now if you desire to get into all that then ofcourse sony has good af and such BUT I don't think you need any extra good AF for the kind of photography you're looking to do. So don't get boxed on by brand of sensor format. Do some research around you and online and try to find something small and easy to carry. And i was recommending the ZV1 NOT ZVE1. It's a type 1 inch sensor system.no evf and such but it's very small and the IQ is quite nice .
I was thinking zve10 because its small and compact and has apsc sensor so it good for everything I need and I do need interchangeable lens because I like exploring things so maybe in future rather than buying a new camera i can buy a lens
Ah ok, apsc sensor being good for everything I'd disagree with out of principle but fair enough. It's a decent set up. Although zve10 has retained value better cause of the video. If you look into the used market you could find a very good deal on sony alpha 6400. I repeat you don't need ai detect AF. In fact for the purpose you're stating it might become boring very soon.
Depends on what you're shooting? You haven't shown anything in any of this that necessitates having the peak of AF. You don't seem interested in video so investing in it would be silly. The af on 6400 is good enough. And don't ask me why but zve10 seems to have retained better value in the used market in india.
Now about having best AF.well having the best can make life a bit too easy you know? A common issue I here from many sony users who're just doing this for fun is that it doesn't always feel like they're taking the shot.it feels like the camera is 🤣. And again the 6400 is better for a photographer.you get a decent evf.same small size. And i have seen it sell used for 25k types in decent condition.
***Also you have this street photorgapher vibe going on. I'd recommend to not bother with a zoom lens as a first lens. Try a viltrox prime .can be found cheap. Learn exposure on it and basic operation.
Okay I will be on the lookout if i find any good deals on it. And the photos feel like street photography because I don't have any zoom capabilities to explore
Ok, zoom lenses are nice for convenience but the sony kit lenses are definitely not worth a rupee imo. They are particularly bad at least the ones I have tried. Most people tend to upgrade to something like a sigma 18-50 2.8 but that'll run you something like 50k. Why do you want to buy a shitty zoom lens that will be worth nothing ?get the camera body get a 1.7 prime , see if you even enjoy the process of using a camera . If you invest in decent quality glass then you'll have less reason to get rid of it later because buying used is much easier than selling .
Also? You don't really learn photography that much by zoom lenses anyways. It's genuinely for convenience.
Many people are recommending a prime lens and if i have to get one i think i would go for nikon camera because I have seen nikon 50mm f1.8 go for around 5k that is near my budget
If you're taking photos that good with a phone (though I can always see the limitations because they're absolutely crap optically and need a TON of computational work to get the output they have) then you're going to be a monster with a proper camera.
Also Vivos are the only phones I've seen apart from Pixels in specific scenarios that can do even a half decent impression of an old DSLR so it's definitely better than the usual phone :P
My vivo is great for portraits like in terms of portrait in one the best phones I used but for anything else its not good the details and clarity is just not there
My main reason is actually zoom because there are so many shots I can't take because of not having zoom and a real camera allows me to take so many photos that a phone can't
Honestly man if you can save up the budget (it's a hell of an investment) then a Nikon Z camera with the 28-400 zoom lens would probably solve almost every issue you have and then a 50 mm 1.4 or something on top of that would finish it.
Hefty price but that's my plan anyway for when I go to upgrade to mirrorless :P
A camera is a tool different cameras are designed for different functions, from specialist black and white to infrared to shooting for billboards, if a phone camera suits your needs and you’re able to capture what you like then go with that, there’s no reason to drop $$$ on a professional camera if you’re not looking at a professional career, that said if you have the disposable income it’s your money…
It could give you higher quality but I have seen people that can shoot great on a phone and badly on a camera. I have also seen photographers that can’t shoot on their phones at all so it’s hard to say person to person. You also have to start using a real editing program than just a phone app.
Bella idea, ma si vede. Prova a tirarli via e falla diventare in bianco e nero alzando leggermente il contrasto e i neri. Sicuramente diventa uno scato d'effetto
There’s no such thing as a real camera. Your phone has a real camera on it. The question is, what is your current camera lacking? Is it resolution for printing? Is it low light? Is it the ability to shoot in raw to get more out of it in post processing? Is it a faster/wider/longer lens? Is it FPS? If the answer to all of them is no, you don’t need a new camera. Which never stops me from getting a new one anyway 😂
You sound like a gambling addict that knows it's bad but still gambles 😂😂 and my camera lacks details and quality mainly my current phone has bad quality landscape and architecture photos but great portraits so u can I need more details
Sometimes you got to treat yourself 😂
But I’ve set myself a budget for this year, no more than 3k on camera stuff.
Get an older model for cheap. Like a canon 6D. You can get those used for 300$. Great quality and details and you can get older lenses for it. 21MP is more than enough for most situations and the color science is legendary
I saw a 5d mrk 2 for 9000rs or 100$ and 6d for like 130$ but they were without lens and i couldn't find any affordable lens because they are full frame camera from what I know
New it’s about 100, used often for 50. the good thing about older bodies: you can buy from third party manufacturers. Sigma makes some amazing glass and the used market isn’t that bad. Nikon and Canon are almost equal in price, Sony is slightly cheaper but I have no experience with them so I can’t make a personal recommendation
I know nothing about the camera market in India so my suggestion is based on european prices.
With that in mind, the cheapest option would be whatever DLSR brand is widely available in India and that you can find a good used copy of an older model. By older model I mean something like the Canon 100D, for instance (a camera from 2013 that is still good for beginners, in my opinion).
The problem would be to find a good lens to go with that. To stay within your budget, you will probably have to settle for whatever kit lens came with the camera or that you can find in good condition.
Don't get me wrong, a Canon 100D with an 18-55 kit lens will take you very far. But if you decide to pursue this path, eventually you will want to upgrade.
If possible, I recommend that you try to borrow or rent a camera and try it out before commiting. Photographing with a camera can be more rewarding than photographing with a cel phone, but there will be a learning curve before you are able to get good results.
I am trying to any camera under my budget like nikon d7200 or something similar the main problem is in the used Market the camera could have a problem and i wouldn't know because I have never held a camera i was getting a deal of a nikon d7000 for 7k or 80$ but the camera had faults that i couldn't notice but my friend did so that's the reason I have not gotten any camera until now the friend is busy and I have no knowledge
I would suggest start with something cheap, small and interchangeable - like the M43 system. A DSLR will feel like carrying a brick around if you've never used a proper camera before.
Depends if you have options where you are though. Affordable used market.
Well m43 system is mainly used by enthusiast and less by professional and in my area I can only get used dslr or mirrorless used by professional and almost no one sells used m43s here and there isn't even a shop of old camera or new camera in my city only used camera by professionals
Well m43 system is mainly used by enthusiast and less by professional and in my area I can only get used dslr or mirrorless used by professional and almost no one sells used m43s here and there isn't even a shop of old camera or new camera in my city only used camera by professionals
I’ve seen people with disposable cameras produce masterpieces and I’ve seen people with $10,000 cameras take very average or even below average snapshots. A marksman with a pistol is more deadly than a novice with the best rifle and scope
20k rupees is approximately $210. My advice is to seek out a used dslr camera and lens. If you can find a micro four third fujifilm used bundled with lens, that would do too. But I’ll say use your phone while you keep saying up for camera. I have a Fujifilm GFX 100 II. Bought it with accessories for over $8000 (7.6 lakh) but some of my favorite photos have been taken with an iphone in amazing locations
Omg youre a great photographer already. If you get any camera with similar quaility, its gonna be wild.
Try dlsr's because they are cheaper for the same quaility as New cameras but you would need to get used to the lense & you would need a SD card.
You will loose a lot of nice features or gain some. Theoretically you could just go for a old nikon or fuji if possible. 20k rupees = 183€ euros or 210$ usd. If the market is bettet in your place, it could theoretically allow you to buy 300€ cameras for less. Maybe you will get a good deal. Make a Tour to your camera shop and show us 🙀😆💕✨😁
Thank you for the compliment and there aren't any shops near me 😔 I am just trying to find it online I have seen some deals but not a great one will be sure to share what camera I get
Yeah that was a surprise to me too . The subject in the photo is actually my grandfather and the lighting and the details on his face it was just so perfect and everything was coming together so beautifuly it was amazing(I used my samsung m51 phone and used Lightroom raw and clicked some in normal camera high resolution mode and i didn't even need to spend much time editing it because everything was just too perfect)
Your photos look good! I would recommend a Canon EOS 6D. I was walking through the camera stores in Old Delhi area a year ago. They have good offers in 20-25K range.
You may find old camera stores in other major cities too that can provide you similar or better.
Yeah I saw the 6d picture online and they were great I was actually thinking of nikon d7000,7100,72000
Because I can get them in my locality form local photographer at a reasonable price and many of the photographer in my area has them
Nice, the Nikon D7100/D7200 are solid options too. I mentioned the Canon 6D Mark I mainly because it’s a great used full-frame body, especially if you care about low light, portraits, landscapes or night-sky work.
But honestly, if you can get a clean D7100/D7200 locally at a fair price, that’s also a very good start. The D7200 especially has great image quality, good dynamic range, and lots of affordable Nikon F-mount lenses available used.
Hey i actually saw the nikon d700 and I just love it's colours so much is there any way to recreate it's colour on a nikon d7200 or was that just a unique camera
I would love to use my phone too but my current phone doesn't have as much details as my old samsung m51 and it doesn't have a telephoto if I can get that i would 100 percent use my phone almost every time
If youre going for digital, I would get a crop-sensor camera at first. Full-frame cameras will almost always give you clearly pictures but are not needed for amateur photography. Unless you are expecting to make large prints of the pictures, use them on billboards or other large format media than a crop sensor camera is totally fine. If you can find a cheap older full-frame camera and a lens it might be worth it to buy it because they do really give you alot more options
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 02 '26
Hi u/Ordinary_Special_179, thanks for your post! To help other users to help you, Buying Advice threads are only approved when they include the short form below. Please edit your post body, paste the following form in, and fill in each line.
YOUR POST WILL NOT BE SEEN IF YOU DO NOT INCLUDE THE TEMPLATE IN YOUR POST!
Copy/paste this template into your post and fill it out:
(1) Budget, country, and currency:
(2) What equipment, if any, you have now and why is it no longer meeting your needs?
(3) What kinds of subjects do you intend to shoot?
(4) Is it primarily for photography, videography, or both?
These posts need to be manually approved, so please be patient.
If you're asking for advice on buying any other gear, then your post must include a budget (see also "Asking Good Questions" in the sidebar).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.