Looking to get into photography. You can hide the thread if its not supposed to be here but i read the sticky and it wasn't much help. Im just in need of either someone who can point me where to go or will answer some questions.
You can work on the most important aspects, which are subject selection, personal motivation, bravery, composition, and lighting, all of which have massive influences on your photos, but are completely disconnected from your camera.
Is this Ricoh GR actually a good plan or is this a meme idea? I've been browsing here for a bit and debating what to do going beyond my phone camera.
Am I going to be too restricted without a viewfinder, or with a fixed focal length? I mean... obviously I have these restrictions with my phone as well. I guess all I'd be getting is manual options. Worth the upgrade, or should I go with a DSLR?
DSLR would definitely be a better bet.
Also, quality is like 80% lens and 20% body. If you get a cheap DSLR kit, you can begin acquiring better lenses.
If you get a Ricoh, you'll just have to get a whole new set up once you want to upgrade.
Like everyone here said, go out and take pictures.
Yes, your phone will do. But, yes, obviously a DSLR or any camera with manual controls would be better.
You should also look at lots of pictures. And not pictures on here (for the love of God, 90% of the pictures on this board are shit). Either go look at/buy some books or just cruise around Pintrest for things you like.
Also, Digital Rev TV (youtube channel) is a great resource. They have a ton of tutorial vids that are actually entertaining (as opposed to some guy standing in front of a camera mumbling at you).
>Is this Ricoh GR actually a good plan or is this a meme idea?
Ricoh GR is one of the best affordable point and shoot cameras on the market. It has the same censor as most entry/mid level DSLRs cameras. There's no viewfinder or interchangeable lenses, though, but the photo quality is great.
It's small, too, so it's stealthy if you wanna do street photography.
Yes, you will have to get a new kit eventually if you want to upgrade, but, for a beginner, you don't need to worry about any of that.
Check out this thread if you wanna see what the Ricoh GR is capable of:
One of the main complaints of the first generation is that dust gets inside and can be seen on the photos. The second generation has better sealing/protection from dust.
If this is your first camera, I'd recommend just getting a second gen.
Fuji has a new camera coming out that is on par with the Ricoh GR. It has higher ISO capabilities and higher frames per second called the X70 if you want to go with Fuji.
Here's a comparison between X70 and GR II
You're dumb. It's literally standard practice in every half-decent photography 101 course ever, and for good reason. Black and white removes the distraction of color and forces you to concentrate on tone, texture and light. A fixed focal length means that you grow past the idea of "make things bigger and closer in the viewfinder" and into "how do i place these objects in a scene?"
I bet you've 1) never legitimately shot black and white and 2) haven't been "into" photography for longer than two years.
Nice condescending tone, dipshit. I get that, hence why I knew what you were talking about...but no one calls it "framing."
When critiquing a photo, you're going to hear "This photo has bad composition." Not "bad framing."
Guess I won't be offering my help in this thread anymore.
I have literally never heard them used interchangeably, but alright, whatever you say.
The only time I have heard "frame" used is in the context of "frame the subject" which means "use elements in the photo to frame your subject" which is not the same thing.
>I have literally never heard them used interchangeably
>The only time I have heard "frame" used is in the context of "frame the subject" which means "use elements in the photo to frame your subject" which is not the same thing.
It's okay, friend, you're new and probably misinterpreted what they said.
I guess for being as versatile as possible while not being as bulky as a DSLR.
I had a DSLR forever ago and always found myself having to go on trips just for the sake of shooting (which isn't a bad thing mind you, but if all the shots were shit the trip would feel wasted). I just want to shoot whenever and wherever nowadays.
So versatility and portability. I'd like to upgrade from my iPhone camera and get something that just encourages me to take pictures everywhere.
GR fits in a jacket pocket (about the size of a cell phone but much thicker), X100 is more of a neckstrap camera (noticeably smaller than a DSLR but definitely still not going to fit in any pockets). GR is 28mm and has no viewfinder, X100 is 35mm and has a hybrid optical/electronic finder. GR has a very customizable "modern" DSLR-style control scheme with lots of buttons and stuff, X100 is mostly of an oldschool knobs and dials type of control scheme. GR is a very unassuming all black camera that looks like a nicer version of any other point and shit, the X100 sort of looks like a classic rangefinder except uglier and cheaper.
They also both have sharpnesses and megapixels and stuff but the above are really the only important differences.
Hm, so as a beginner would I want that viewfinder badly? Likewise, would be twisting dials be more intuitive for manual use?
I guess those are the two points I'd be torn between. I'm not married to any particular focal length as I'd just be learning to work with whatever I get.
I don't disagree with the practice at all.
But buying a first camera where you can't change the lenses is dumb. There's no room for upgrading.
In fact, buying any specific camera for this is stupid. You can use literally any camera to shoot black and white at a fixed focal length. Just don't use the zoom.