full frame vs. APS-C vs. M4/3 really only matters with weight, low light sensitivity, and to a slightly lesser extent dynamic range.

Given the same pixel count and good light, 20Mpx in full frame will not enlarge any more than 20Mpx in a phone camera. If you think that unlikely see some of the stuff done by David Bailey with a Lumia 1020. What matters is if you want to push the light levels. With the same exposure (aperture, shutter speed, and ISO set) a low light image in full frame will always look better than the same image with a smaller sensor camera - the pixel count might be the same but the pixels are significantly smaller (inverse square law applies) and so the light gathering potential is reduced accordingly. Similarly the dynamic range is affected with smaller pixels, although some of the camera manufacturers are getting amazing DR with smaller sensors (well according to their specs anyway.)

I have a full frame Canon and with 2 or 3 lenses + a x1.4TC gives me gives me a focal range or 12 - 560. When I get it right the image quality is superb. Bu it is bulky, and gets heavy after a time, and needs a comfortable back pack or similar. When I have to travel really light I have a Panasonic G8 M4/3 in a small camera bag, or pockets at a push, the camera + 3 lenses cover from 18-600 and bulk and weight are a fraction of the full frame - but low light imagery has very noticeable noise. The colours also seem to be less bright with low light.

The APS-C mirrorless cameras are starting to look very attractive to me, and I tested the Canon EOS M5. Very nice it is too although overpriced in my opinion. Also no point getting smaller mirrorless unless you get the dedicated lenses - a 100-400 full frame lens is still bulky and heavy whether fitted to a full frame, or APS-C with an adapter.

Good luck, and as always, whatever you decide there will a better option released somewhere between 1 day and 3 months of you parting with your hard-earned!

Blimey! 10 pages on Manual!

Can someone explain to me why Americans don't have many cars with manual gear change? Is it because using a stick shift is just too difficult to cope with - or is it because it makes life easier so they can concentrate on driving on busy roads? Technology is there to make life easier (well most of the time) and we can revert to lower technology when we choose to or the advanced doesn't work in a given situation. I can get a real-time position with GPS in seconds, I'm also old enough I can use a sun shot to get latitude - I know which I prefer :)

Wow! didn't realise this was such a dangerous topic, so at great risk will add my 5 pence worth :)

ISO really matters with film - the lower the ISO the finer the silver grains, so the better the resolution. Increase the grain size, will allow lower light levels to be captured because grains are bigger, but with less grains the resolution will be less. With enlargements from film there is a very noticeable difference between same-size enlargement from ISO100 and ISO800 for example - and the fall off is non-linear (inverse square law applies to grain size where double the size of the grain for more sensitivity reduces the area coverage and hence resolution by a factor of 4.)

With film of course you fix your ISO for the next 20 or 36 frames the moment you put a film in and you can only adjust Aperture and/or shutter speed to control exposure.

One of the greatest benefits of digital cameras is that many of the constraints of film no longer apply in the same way and ISO is an example.

With a digital sensor the pixel size and total pixel count remain the same no matter what ISO is selected. Digital ISO is therefore an electronic adjustment of sensitivity. Make it lower and it allows more light to be 'gathered' for given Aperture and shutter speed, and vice versa.

So the resolution doesn't change as 24Mpx is still 24Mpx. The downside is that increase ISO to very high values and the 'gathered' light is insufficient to determine exactly what the pixel is recording - is it red , blue, green etc and we get Noise

The best analogy I ever read was visualise each grain or pixel as a cup:
with film we change the surface area and hence the volume of the cup, and pack more or less in. The'volume' of light captured changes accordingly and so does the resolution depending how tightly packed they are.
With a digital sensor the surface area never changes, we just change the 'volume' of the cup. Resolution is unchanged, but quality of recorded light increases or degrades.

Who cares?

I use most of the camera settings - aperture and shutter priority, and manual as needed.
Typically I use Aperture as I want to control DoF on a landscape or a portrait. I keep an eye on shutter speed to ensure it is reasonable to reduce camera shake (using the rule of thumb it should be equal to at least 1/focal length of lens as a starting point) and let ISO take care of itself.

Similarly with fast moving subjects - birds, aircraft etc I fix shutter, and keep an eye on aperture.

I only use manual when A or S priority doesn't give me what I want - a 20 sec f2.8 exposure for a night scene; an aircraft if I want motion blur in the propellers, etc. In these cases the need to specifically set aperture and shutter speed in manual mode, means I need to set ISO also to get what I want

My view is a modern camera is not unlike a car: 50 years ago (from personal experience) you had to use the choke, accelerator, gearstick, clutch, wave your hand out of the window to indicate, to get from A to B. Similarly a camera - you HAD to understand the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO (or ASA as it was then.) Nowadays the modern digital camera can do as much as or little as you want. My greatest challenge has always been composition. A modern digital camera is almost liberating in that it frees me to focus on the most difficult part (for me.)

Or as an renowned expert I once saw said 'always using a digital camera in manual mode is a bit like having a car and running alongside'

Please flame courteously

I came across this during a search for other things and couldn't resist passing it on,

https://petapixel.com/2011/09/20/hilarious-customer-reviews-for-the-sigma-200-500mm-lens-on-amazon/

on a separate topic with going to Iceland: make sure you take a bit of thick polythene or similar to put your bag on.

Many of the prime photo locations are very wet underfoot (something to do with melting ice :) and even if you wear your bag at all times it can still get wet when you put it down to access equipment. If you go to the ice beach, and another location I can't remember, watch the waves for a few minutes to gauge the size. Also look behind you to make sure you have a run out escape route. Push your tripod well into the sand. I personally saw a guy with very expensive camera setup, grab the tripod and kit and run straight into an ice block and fall. Everything - man, camera on tripod, camera bag on his back, completely submerged in large wave for several seconds. Apart from being literally freezing cold, all his kit potentially ruined with salt water. If in these type of locations take turns, with the other acting as a lookout if possible.

Icelandic sand is volcanic and VERY abrasive - so avoid putting bag down on sand in very windy conditions, and stand tripod in shower in hotel to clean up.

Also based on expert advice, I took a large microfibre cloth, a few 10mg silica gel packets, and a large zip up poly bag - the type advertised for compressing clothes in a suitcase. If your camera gets damp with spray drift a quick wipe, put in the bag with a silica gel packet, and dry as new in a short while.

By chance I also took a photo vest and DSLR eveready case on a belt. One of the best things I did as left equipment bag in the car and just carried camera + tripod + 1 extra lens. The belt was much more useful than the vest (had to unzip superwarm parka to get to it) so have since bought a lens bag to suit 70-200mm with hood on for the belt.

Also took screw in ND filters. I know they are not as versatile as square filters but are much easier to carry in a pocket.

Iceland is stunningly beautiful in so many places, but can be rugged and very exposed (there are virtually no trees). A few simple precautions can make it a wonderful holiday.

Invariably with fast action, I use burst shooting, with auto focus tracking in the hope that out of the 8 or 10 frames then one or more are good. Nothing worse than catching the magic moment only for it to be just off focus.

I don't know about Nikon, but with a Canon EOS 6D full frame shooting RAW + JPG has big implications when using burst. When shooting data is saved to the internal camera memory buffer then transferred to SD card when the shutter is released OR the buffer is full - no big deal with single frames. With burst, if the shutter is held down, the shooting stutters as the buffer is emptied leaving room for another frame. If the shutter has been released, during that transfer process no more frames can be taken until the buffer is empty (when red recording light on Canon goes out)

Here's the thing - for RAW+JPG each exposure transfers twice as many files and the extra size of the JPG. It definitely reduces the number of frames before the camera stutters AND the transfer takes noticeably longer. With a crop body camera the frame rate is usually higher so the buffer filling will happen sooner.

To test this for your camera, just take burst photos of a watch or clock with second sweep hand. Start shooting at 0 sec (say) and keep going until it slows or stops burst shooting. Do this for RAW, RAW + JPG, and maybe JPG on its own. A look at the times on the frames will tell you the maximum usable burst elapsed time; how many actual frames per second; and also the delay on the first frame. With the 6D full frame, even with the shutter half pressed for the first frame there is a noticeable delay before the exposure is taken (so called shutter latency.) The difference in number of frames was substantial - with JPG on its own the camera never slowed down for 15+ frames, with RAW I could take about 8 - 10 frames, with RAW + JPG it was down to 6 ish(25% less!) This may make all the difference with high speed action. I've also tested a mirrorless cropped body DSLR for this and it was like lightning by comparison - but that's a debate :)

Remember also that RAW has an embedded JPG just so the camera can display the image on the review screen as converting every RAW in real time will take forever (it's also used by Windows apps such as FastStone Viewer for the same reason.) For me that's a bonus because a free, very fast utility QuickJPGfromCR2 will automatically extract all the embedded jpgs on a Windows PC in batch.

There you go poiduck - ask a simple question, and open a huge discussion :)

Not a Nikon user, but your current lenses seem to overlap a lot. Unless there is a huge benefit of portability from choice, or image quality, the 18-55 is redundant? Also the 55-200 has a lot of overlap with the 18-140 and is slower. Again don't know about image benefits or otherwise. Assuming no real benefits of those lenses I would p/x both for a good 70-200 f2.8 and if the budget stretches, to a x1.4 teleconverter. More compact total kit, coverage from 18 to 340mm which I think will fit your needs.

Then you have 18-140 f3.5 'walkabout lens'; 50mm f1.8 'when nothing else will work in this light...' ; 70-200 f2.8 (with x1.4TC 100 - 280 f4) for sports.

Remembering of course that your 3300 and 7200 are x1.5 cropped bodies which have a further zoom effect so you have in effect:
27 - 210mm, 75mm f1.8, 105- 300 f2.8 (147 - 420 f4).
If you use both bodies at a sports event then the 18-140 on one and the 70-200 (with or without the TC as appropriate) gives huge coverage. If you are not practised with hand-held you may need a monopod for the 70-200 especially if you use the x1.4TC.

If you are not aware yet of the cropped sensor factor there are many articles on the effective zoom effect such as this breif one http://pixelpluck.com/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-camera/

Surely for the current generation of younger people coming to photography it is not the complexity of learning about the technology, but that a DSLR or even CSC is too big and heavy for a selfie stick?

i mark most of my stuff like that with a dymo labeler with name, international phone number. and email if room. And it has worked with someone who picked up a charger by mistake, and once when I left something in a cafe. Bottom line: if someone wants to steal it nothing you do will prevent it, but for honest people it worked for me.

I recently bought the EOS M5 with 18-150 (29-240 equivalent) lens as a backup body for my EOS 6D. I see some reviewers are not over enthusiastic but I think its a really good camera. Things that set it apart from the 6D apart from full frame (and 7D mostly):

much lighter, very good Electronic Viewfinder, loads of focus points, high burst frame rate, touch screen, and brilliant focus positioning with the touch screen when using the EVF (an improvement on the GX8 'cos I don't re-select focus points with my nose when using EVF - no comments about nose size please :) ). Also found there is virtually no latency when shutter pressed and image is almost instantaneous** so great for sports/ wildlife/ grand children. Also included EF -> EF-M adapter if you already have Canon lenses. Downsides? - Probably overpriced but what isn't in our hobby or profession, no 4K, probably not as good as the Sony, not as advanced as GX8 but a great camera as far as I'm concerned if your a Canon user. If not a "locked in" Canon user then the GX8 with 14-140 (28-280 equivalent) is a really great M4/3 compact system camera. I expect the Olympus M4/3 are also excellent but have no experience of those.

From my own experience I think there are 3 main factors affecting weight: how much metal vs. plastic is in the body - more metal then I assume better stability, but of course more weight; Also sensor size of interchangeable lens cameras it tends to affect weight in that smaller sensor = smaller body = less weigh and M4/3 is smaller than Canon/Nikon cropped body, is smaller than full frame. Finally sensor size affects lens size and weight. An example being the Panasonic 100-300 (200-600 equiv) lens being only a 1/3 the weight and 1/4 the size of a full frame 70-200 (admittedly with smaller aperture)

Finally, whichever camera you eventually buy, the one you really should have will be released next month!

** delay on 6D, and probably most traditional DSLRs, for 1st exposure is very noticeable. To test your camera take a burst exposure of a watch/ clock with sweep second hand (or stopwatch on the web), press shutter for first when it touches an exact second. When the camera starts to slow you have filled the buffer so release. With this method you can find the delay on 1st frame, number of frames before buffer fills, realistic burst frame rate with number of seconds from 1st frame to last before it started to slow, and also how long you have to wait before you can continue (can't shoot again until buffer flushed to card, and red light goes out)

like most , I bought what I thought was the best price/ performance/ based on advice I could afford when I first bought a dslr. You already have good advice on go to a store. Also whatever you buy today as the best as you see it, will change the next time Canon/ Nikon/ Sony/ Panasonic bring out their next all singing, all dancing model.

The only thing I would add is get the body you want and the best 'walkabout' zoom you can afford and carry around. By that I mean 18 - 200+ lens. Don't bother with the typical 24-50mm kit lens. You will soon 'need' more lenses and the moment you buy an expensive extra lens you are hooked - as you don't want to loose money on the body and lens/es you have bought.

Also a 18-200+ lens will be a good all rounder while you make a long term decision on manufacturer and/or other lenses. Have a look at and try the Tamron/ Sigma lenses as well as manufacturer's own. I found when I originally started with dslr the Tamron was really good and a lot cheaper than Canon's own. Tamron and Sigma also 'leap frog' each other and sometimes OEM lenses as well so try everything you can.

Finally two points: especially for your first purchase, use your local store and go midweek not the 'rush hours'. you will typically pay a bit more than Amazon BUT they will be helpful and knowledgeable and not just box shifters. Also if you buy a separate body + lens you will often have room to negotiate a better price. And NEVER buy a used lens without testing thoroughly - when you start you want any problems to be part of your learning, not because someone unloaded a knackered lens on you.

Good luck and enjoy

as a regular visitor from UK (before retirement) when working in Reston, I have driven the Blueridge Parkway a number of times in several seasons. In October because of the fall foliage its beautiful and you may join a 'procession' through this amazing area. But here's the thing I found - and would love suggestions from others for my next trip - the views are incredible but I found it very difficult to get a 'wow' photograph. First thinking is a really wide angle to 'get it all in'. Problem I found was that the horizon was 'flattened' by the wide angle view and below the horizon ended up looking like a 'load of trees'. (Please don't beat me up on this - its an fabulous drive and the number of times I've been back confirms it to me - just looking for advise from an expert landscape photographer.)

Things I found that helped: get a phone app that shows sun direction and altitude, as shooting with a high sun has little variation in foliage colour, and into the sun reduces contrast and colour on 'big sky' images. Don't overlook the telephoto lens, as an interesting part in some detail can be better than a broad vista.

If anyone will lend me a Harley I'll run a recce trip and tell you the best vista points :)

I think Windows vs. Mac is more contentious than Donald Trump, or blood sports, or religion or ...... :)

my empirical testing confirms the article. My 17" Dell laptop is an i7 with 16GB ram, SSD + HDD and I naturally use it for photoshop when not at my desktop. I also have an 11" HP i5 with 8GB and SSD for less weight when traveling which sits in the drawer most of the time. I had upgraded the HP to a larger much faster SDD because it came with a pathetically small low performance drive.
It seemed a shame to leave it in the drawer so using a KVM i connected it to my 21" high res monitor for occasional photoshop work. To my surprise it was VERY quick and a few benchmark tests showed no real difference between the Dell i7 or the HP i5. Without disecting the processor speeds etc, I rapidly came to the conclusion the i5 or i7 or even twice as much memory made virtually no difference for my photo processing. The biggest measurable difference by far is the performance of the SSD.

I was put onto Topaz denoise by a professional photographer who had a passion for birds (feathered.) As they are often taken with poor light and wide apertures the background is completely out of focus. Any noise hits like a brick.

If using within Photoshop rather than standalone, his suggestion in such circumstances which works a treat: select the subject, and save the selection in a new channel. Use the selection to sharpen the subject (reduce the selection by a couple of pixels and maybe feather by a couple to 'blend' the sharpening. Then invert the selection to the background, open Denoise, and it will work only in the selected area. Works really well: sharpened subject, denoised background. THis example was taken with EOS 6D, Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm f6.3 (max aperture) 1/500, ISO 5000 (yes 5k) and was cropped to about 60 or 70% original size as I recall, high pass filter sharpening, Topaz denoise.

Like everything else, it takes a little practise, but once perfected is very quick.