Yes, everyone will disagree. Haven't you learned anything from all this advice?
I would add that you should still continue as if you are shooting with film! Even though you can now (or will be able to) fire off hundreds of shots for nothing, don't! The height of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result! Still think about what you are doing and compose each shot as if you were paying for it.
Post processing, or manipulating your images with computer software (such as Photoshop) is a whole new ball game and it IS one of the reasons you should switch to digital, but a steep learning curve indeed. Try and take the best possible images you can in the camera, just as you do with film. Go and do a Photoshop course and learn what can be done to improve your already excellent images!
Don't be persuaded into buying a full frame camera until you understand the difference between FX and DX and then make your own decision. Just remember that DX is much cheaper and will give you the same (or better!) results at your point in the learning curve. Someone mentioned buying a body with an auto-focus motor, but don't waste your money until you know why you would want one.
I started in digital photography with Kodak's first 1 megapixel offering and I thought it was amazing.
The best combination I have owned in terms of quality results and value for money was a Nikon D3300 with a Tamron 16 - 300 zoom and I have taken some award winning (at my local camera club) images with that.
I now have a Sony A7 III with a 24 - 240 zoom and I wonder why!
Nikon's E3700 doesn't have interchangeable lenses, its a nice camera in the "Coolpix" range.
To start off, you should consider an APS-C format (Nikon's DX) rather than the full frame FX format. It gives excellent results and is smaller and cheaper!
I'd go with a D3400 with the kit lens (18 - 55) which is excellent quality. Read Ken Rockwell's review here:
https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3400.htmThe D5600 isn't any better, it offers a flip out LCD for the extra money. Something never used once the novelty wears off!
Once you have used it for a couple of years, you will have a better idea of your needs going forward and you won't have spent a ridiculous amount of money.
Your other lenses will fit and certainly be usable, but the Sigma may have trouble with automatic controls. But hey, that's why they have manual modes, isn't it?
Although I suggested a portable hard drive, I use an old netbook computer, an eMachines e350 which is quite worthless these days, but makes an excellent portable hard drive. It has Windows 10 installed (cut down version) and I upgraded it to a 300 GB hard drive. It has a SD card reader.
I use 32GB SD cards in my camera which hold about 1400 images and I copy each to the netbook each day, plus keep the originals on the cards. The netbook battery is good for several hours and can be plugged in to charge anywhere. Comes in handy for checking emails (where there's WiFi) too!
Of course, if you're wealthy, just buy a Hyperdrive.
Thanks for that list. Some people seem to think that you have published a recipe and they may not like the dish you cook! When I'm cooking, I use the recipe as a guide and I may make changes due to my own interpretation and taste.
I would think that if I have an image that is good enough to submit to my local camera club for evaluation, then I would run through your checklist and see how it meets those criteria. I might note some glaring omissions and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. But if it meets a few, it'll probably be well received.
No-one has mentioned that monitors all use sRGB (except for very expensive "professional" ones) and if you try and display aRGB it gets converted and ends up a bit greenish and less saturated. Also, printers ALL work in CMYK and convert the input sRGB (expected) into CMYK using the installed colour profile.
There is no point at all in setting your camera to aRGB. You should use sRGB for everything and if you are really nitpicking, use a colorimeter to generate a new profile for your monitor and then do the same for your printer - using a colour chart displayed on your re-profiled monitor. It took me about a week and many dollars worth of printing paper to do this and it really isn't worth the trouble.
Ken Rockwell explains the reasons why in a particularly erudite fashion:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
If I use a 100mm lens with an APS-C sensor, it has the same field of view as a 150mm lens with a full-frame sensor, right? So if I now use my 100mm lens with a full-frame sensor and then crop my image down using the ratio an APS-C sensor would have given, will I see the same image? I rather think I will!
If my full-frame sensor has 24 megapixels and my APS-C sensor also has 24 megapixels, the 100mm lens with the APS-C sensor will give a higher resolution image. Any comments?
Get a Sony A7 Mk3 and you can shoot auto-ISO forever! It goes way up to over 200,000 and still noise free! I can see why Sony didn't bother to include a flash.
100 replies and 100 different opinions! That's what makes photography such a great hobby.
On the A7 III in manual mode (which is probably the same as the A6500), the knurled wheel in front of the ON/OFF switch adjusts the aperture, the knurled wheel by the mode setting switch (where your thumb sits) adjusts the shutter speed while the ring below "DISP" adjusts the ISO. The settings are all shown in the bottom of the LCD. You can set any combination you want and the light meter - also at the bottom of the LCD - shows how much under or over exposed you are. (In terms of EVs)
Read what marvellous advantages the upgrade will confer upon you before bothering, and Google it to see what things might go wrong. I did a firmware upgrade on a Nikon a while ago (not the D500) without checking, just assuming it would be a "good thing" and after that my Sigma telephoto lens wouldn't auto-focus. I had to send the lens to Sigma and pay $150 for a firmware upgrade to it before it would work again. And the Nikon upgrade made no noticeable to my camera at all! I wish I hadn't bothered.
MT Shooter wrote:
Why would Sigma be of help? You need to buy a Nikon F mount to Sony E mount adapter, Sigma does not sell them.
Well, nobody makes a Nikon F to Sony E-mount adapter that works properly, so I thought maybe Sigma could modify my lens mount to any of Canon (use MC11 adapter) or Sony itself - or even Sigma AS, but it seems they are not very interested. I just wondered if anyone had any dealings with them along these lines. I am in New Zealand and they don't seem to be represented very well here.
I have a Sigma 150 - 500 with a Nikon mount and I'd like to use it on a Sony E-mount. I tried emailing Sigma but no reply. Any ideas?