Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
ktdintex
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:42 am

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by ktdintex »

To the original question: I wouldn't buy an SLR based on whether it has a built in flash. If it has one, great but I would rarely use it.

For indoor photos, especially of people, personally I don't point the flash directly towards the subject. I bounce the flash off the ceiling, or maybe a wall. A built in flash typically only flashes forward.

If you need a flash outside, the built in flash is typically too weak, and certainly much weaker than a dedicated flash unit.

In other words, I don't find a built in flash useful for anything. Indoors: can't aim it. Outdoors: too weak.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

lazydavid wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:06 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:41 pm Let's look at the crop-sensor dSLR Nikon line a bit. I have a D7500. It is what most people would call an "enthusiast" camera and very clearly fits in between their D500 and the D5600*. What's the difference between a D500 (clearly their pro crop sensor camera) and a D7500?

1) The D500 has Nikon's best autofocus system. Under many conditions, the D7500 can match it ... but in very challenging situations you will get more shots in focus with the D500. This from people who have tested them side by side with the same lens.

2) The D500 can take a vertical battery grip. This makes for better handling and battery life.

3) The D500 is more rugged. This is hard to quantify .... but it does seem to be beefier. I know the D7500 can definitely get wet and keep on ticking.

4) The D500 has dual card slots, the D7500 does not. You can mirror writes to both cards. I don't care about this ... but people doing wedding and such worry about a card failing and having no pictures to show .....

5) The D500 controls are a bit more flexible, though the D7500 is pretty good. One thing you can do with D500 that I'd love to do but can't on the D7500 is set a button to switch between focus modes. If I'm taking bird shots I want single-point autofocus for things like getting a songbird in the branches of a tree, but I tend to switch to group mode for birds in flight. I can switch fairly quickly with the D7500, but not with a single button push.

6) The D500 has a higher burst rate (10 versus 8) than the D7500.

Incidentally the D500 doesn't have PASM on a dial, but the mode button on the main dial lets you cycle through those settings -- you can shoot in P mode if you want for example.
This illustrates exactly why no one can agree. Going point by point comparing my old "Enthusiast" D7100 to its contemporary "Pro" camera, the D750, which actually came out one year later:

1) Both had Nikon's best autofocus system of the time, with 51 points, including 15 cross-type.
2) I have and use the MB-D15 vertical grip for my D7100. The MB-D16 grip for the D750 is laid out identically and uses the same battery trays.
3) This definitely held true in that generation, though the sealing on the D7100 is actually pretty good.
4) D7100 also had two SD card slots. I had mine set to write simultaneously to both, with one of them being an EyeFi card that automatically uploaded all my photos to Dropbox/Flickr as I took them. Sadly Eyefi is out of business and this function no longer works. :( It was REALLY cool though.
5) No experience in this area.
6) The D750 was faster, but not by much. 6.5fps vs. 6.0fps.

Ironically given some of the discussion in this thread, BOTH have PASM dials and built-in flashes. :D
The key thing there might be that the D7100 is a crop-sensor, the D750 full frame. So likely the D750 is a stop or so better in low light? And depth of field shallower for portraits and such. Some people think "pro" implies full frame.

But if you are doing wildlife then the extra reach of a DX is really nice.

With respect to 5), I would hate to go back to a camera with less controls than the D7500. So I want that many controls or more. But a lot of people buy mid to high end cameras and leave them on P mode I think ....
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

ktdintex wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:14 pm To the original question: I wouldn't buy an SLR based on whether it has a built in flash. If it has one, great but I would rarely use it.

For indoor photos, especially of people, personally I don't point the flash directly towards the subject. I bounce the flash off the ceiling, or maybe a wall. A built in flash typically only flashes forward.

If you need a flash outside, the built in flash is typically too weak, and certainly much weaker than a dedicated flash unit.

In other words, I don't find a built in flash useful for anything. Indoors: can't aim it. Outdoors: too weak.
+1 My experience exactly.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

jrbdmb wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:11 pm
tibbitts wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:52 am
miamivice wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:41 am Thanks all.

I learned a lot from this thread. Most importantly, I think I probably overrely on my D300 flash. I need to try using it without flash and learn how to do indoor photography with no flash with my D300. Then maybe the D850 will become more appealing.

Really appreciate all of the input.
Maybe, but carrying it and those higher-quality full-frame lenses definitely won't be more appealing. I've learned going from 6mp to 16mp on my crop bodies, lenses that made the grade at 6mp just don't come close at 16mp. You're making an even larger leap from 12mp(?) to 45mp. So to avoid a bunch of blurry pixels you won't just need full-frame lenses, you'll need really good full-frame lenses. So the cost isn't just the cost of the body, it's the cost of the very best lenses. Unfortunately some of the very best lenses are also often some of the biggest, heaviest, and of course most expensive. I really see built-in flash as almost a non-factor in choosing, no matter how much you use the flash.

You can't just change what you do with your D300 and get similar results because the low-light sensor performance, and dynamic range, isn't the same.
I know that camera companies are constantly upping pixel counts out of habit (and marketing), but how many people really need 45MP or more? Are blurry pixels really an issue unless you are routinely making poster-sized prints? Can anyone really tell the difference in a typical 4x6 print or on a typical 1080P display?
Everything looks good on an iphone screen or a 4x6 print :-)
Seasonal
Posts: 2700
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 1:49 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by Seasonal »

Nikon's list of pro DSLRs: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-produ ... al%20DSLRs

They show four, none with a PASM mode dial.

This is all clearly getting off track from OPs question. I think I'll go back to my general rule of not arguing definitions.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

Seasonal wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:19 pm Nikon's list of pro DSLRs: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-produ ... al%20DSLRs

They show four, none with a PASM mode dial.

This is all clearly getting off track from OPs question. I think I'll go back to my general rule of not arguing definitions.
The presence or absence of a dial with an explicit PASM marking is a trivial detail. It seems you are not interested in the key differences between different "levels" of cameras; I tried to give a few examples but ......

Dial markings are not why those cameras are labeled pro. It's not a definition question; it's what features the camera has. Pro cameras really do have different feature sets. Most people don't need a pro camera. To get back on topic, OP does not need a pro camera either, from what I see.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

jrbdmb wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:11 pm
tibbitts wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:52 am
miamivice wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:41 am Thanks all.

I learned a lot from this thread. Most importantly, I think I probably overrely on my D300 flash. I need to try using it without flash and learn how to do indoor photography with no flash with my D300. Then maybe the D850 will become more appealing.

Really appreciate all of the input.
Maybe, but carrying it and those higher-quality full-frame lenses definitely won't be more appealing. I've learned going from 6mp to 16mp on my crop bodies, lenses that made the grade at 6mp just don't come close at 16mp. You're making an even larger leap from 12mp(?) to 45mp. So to avoid a bunch of blurry pixels you won't just need full-frame lenses, you'll need really good full-frame lenses. So the cost isn't just the cost of the body, it's the cost of the very best lenses. Unfortunately some of the very best lenses are also often some of the biggest, heaviest, and of course most expensive. I really see built-in flash as almost a non-factor in choosing, no matter how much you use the flash.

You can't just change what you do with your D300 and get similar results because the low-light sensor performance, and dynamic range, isn't the same.
I know that camera companies are constantly upping pixel counts out of habit (and marketing), but how many people really need 45MP or more? Are blurry pixels really an issue unless you are routinely making poster-sized prints? Can anyone really tell the difference in a typical 4x6 print or on a typical 1080P display?
Wanted to add one point, in addition to really high resolution images, larger pixel counts give you more flexibility when cropping. So maybe you are doing some wildlife shooting and that bird is kinda far away, even with a pretty big lens. With a very high pixel count, you can crop a lot more and still get a very sharp image. The fewer the pixels, the less you can crop.

But yeah, the "need" for a 45 mp sensor is kinda unclear for most uses.
PugetSoundguy
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:46 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by PugetSoundguy »

Hey OP, I hear you regarding the convenience of the built-in flash.

My current Nikon SLR is the 7200 with built-in flash. I also have a separate flash unit (the small SB 400, which is great). No question the SB 400 is better than the built-in flash because it's way more powerful and can be easily bounced for indirect light. However, I still love the convenience of the built in flash for a bit of fill flash when I need it. If I'm going to be shooting indoors with flash, I always pull out the SB 400. But outside, sometimes I just need a bit of fill from time to time, and for that, the built-in flash sure is convenient.

If I were going to full frame, and wanted to stick with a Nikon SLR, I think I would go to the D750 despite its age. It's a great camera and as noted above...it has a built in flash.
tibbitts
Posts: 13279
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by tibbitts »

TN_Boy wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:17 pm
jrbdmb wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:11 pm
tibbitts wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:52 am
miamivice wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:41 am Thanks all.

I learned a lot from this thread. Most importantly, I think I probably overrely on my D300 flash. I need to try using it without flash and learn how to do indoor photography with no flash with my D300. Then maybe the D850 will become more appealing.

Really appreciate all of the input.
Maybe, but carrying it and those higher-quality full-frame lenses definitely won't be more appealing. I've learned going from 6mp to 16mp on my crop bodies, lenses that made the grade at 6mp just don't come close at 16mp. You're making an even larger leap from 12mp(?) to 45mp. So to avoid a bunch of blurry pixels you won't just need full-frame lenses, you'll need really good full-frame lenses. So the cost isn't just the cost of the body, it's the cost of the very best lenses. Unfortunately some of the very best lenses are also often some of the biggest, heaviest, and of course most expensive. I really see built-in flash as almost a non-factor in choosing, no matter how much you use the flash.

You can't just change what you do with your D300 and get similar results because the low-light sensor performance, and dynamic range, isn't the same.
I know that camera companies are constantly upping pixel counts out of habit (and marketing), but how many people really need 45MP or more? Are blurry pixels really an issue unless you are routinely making poster-sized prints? Can anyone really tell the difference in a typical 4x6 print or on a typical 1080P display?
Everything looks good on an iphone screen or a 4x6 print :-)
It sort of implies if you are buying a body with 45mp vs. say 20-24mp (still available in bodies with mostly similar features) that you care about the extra resolution, but even if the OP goes from 12mp to 24mp (on crop or full-frame), lenses that might have seemed okay on 12mp won't seem acceptable on 24mp. As for the need, although I try to fill the frame, there are times when after the fact I can see a different image inside an existing one, and wish I could crop my 16mp more than I can. But to do that I'd need both more mp and better lens resolution. Realistically people aren't buying these cameras for 1080P or 4x6 prints and while many don't need 45mp when they're using the entire frame, many can make use of those mp at times. More mp is by no means the most important consideration for most people, but if you're paying for it you want to have the lens resolution to match it.
Northern Flicker
Posts: 7251
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by Northern Flicker »

hi_there wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:52 am Hi, OP. I personally would prefer not to carry around a full frame DSLR and flash for most of these uses, given the size and weight of the equipment. It's also distracting for family and friends when you pull out a huge camera, and this tends to change the way your photos turn out - so usually, the smaller the better.

It's true that an external flash will give you more power and flexibility. However, unless you're hitting the wall of what you want to achieve with the internal flash, then maybe the portability is more valuable then functionality.

So, I think if you find an internal flash to be useful, then just buy the best camera subject to that requirement. Nikon still makes cameras with internal flash because users still find them to be useful. All 2021 Nikon cameras will probably give excellent results, so I would not be too picky about getting the most high end equipment.

"I use my camera for:
- taking pictures of my family, both indoors and outdoors
- indoor pictures of building infrastructure (boilers, lighting, windows, etc)
- outdoor pictures of buildings
- outdoor pictures of parks and community spaces for our homeowners association
- landscape photography
- travel photography"
1. When taking pictures of people, having the path of light from flash to eyes nearly parallel to the axis of the lens is what leads to redeyes. A flash bracket to mount the flash further away from the lens than a built-in flash or shoe-mounted flash is the solution.

2. When doing closeup/macro shots, a shoe-mounted or built-in flash pointed at the subject will illuminate the top of the lens barrel and part of the subject, creating a large shadow across the subject. Again, a flash mounted off camera on a bracket is the answer.

3. A shoe-mounted flash will support attaching a diffuser to get diffuse, low contrast light, instead of the harsh shadows from direct flash lighting.

4. A separate flash is more powerful, so you can be further from your subject.

As long as the camera with built-in flash has a socket to plug in an off-camera flash and tripod socket to which to attach a flash bracket, the camera will not become a limitation for future creative aspirations if your photographic interests broaden. A shoe-mounted flash only helps with the 3rd and 4th point. If you get serious with the techniques and creativity associated with lighting, you will still want a flash bracket or other off-camera lighting even if your camera has a flash shoe.

Lastly, the flash sync shutter speeds of the camera matter also. When doing fill flash in bright sunlight, you need the flash to sync at fast shutter speeds.
Last edited by Northern Flicker on Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:43 pm, edited 6 times in total.
My postings are my opinion, and never should be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any particular investment.
iamlucky13
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by iamlucky13 »

stimulacra wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:57 am What's the aperture or F-stop range on your current lenses?

If it's like F 3.5-5.6 (kit lens range) you'll need a tripod to keep the camera steady or crank the ISO way up.

If the shutter speed is slower than 1/60 you'll probably have noticeable camera shake in most of your shots.

Getting a fast 35mm or 50mm prime (like 1.2 or 1.4 f-stop) will give you much more leeway to shoot indoors with available light.
Fast lenses are great for indoor shooting, as well as simply for offering wider apertures when shallower depth of field is desired, but it impresses me how much we can get away with cranking the ISO up these days.

For example, in typical indoor lighting levels (around 100 lux), if I'm using F/5.6 with a wide angle lens, I will usually shoot somewhere between 1/16 at ISO 1600 or 1/60 at ISO 6400, while trying to balance motion blur with noise. I wouldn't do a large print at ISO 6400, but I think I can potentially get away with an 8x10, depending on the subject matter. This would be for personal use. I don't try to sell any of my photos.

This is on a 10 year old crop sensor DSLR - similar era to the D300. The newer full frame sensors can do 2 or maybe even 3 stops better - It blows me away to think about the idea of shooting indoors, with a slow lens, and 1/500!

The other thing that blows my mind is I can get a 1" sensor point and shoot like the Sony RX100 that matches the ISO performance of my SLR, has a F/2.8 lens, and fits in my pocket.
quantAndHold
Posts: 5423
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by quantAndHold »

miamivice wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:41 am Thanks all.

I learned a lot from this thread. Most importantly, I think I probably overrely on my D300 flash. I need to try using it without flash and learn how to do indoor photography with no flash with my D300. Then maybe the D850 will become more appealing.

Really appreciate all of the input.
Functionally, the D300 is still a fine camera (I used to have one), but the sensor is from 2007, which is the Stone Age as far as sensor technology. By modern standards, its abilities in low light are super limited. Every interchangeable lens camera on the market today, down to the most basic consumer model, will have a sensor that is light years ahead of your D300. Actually, your phone probably has a better sensor, too.

If you really are looking to do a lot of low light photography, you might indeed want to upgrade to get a newer sensor. But there are a lot of very good cameras that will give you what you want without going to the cost and weight of a professional full frame DSLR.
Yes, I’m really that pedantic.
stimulacra
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by stimulacra »

iamlucky13 wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:20 pm
stimulacra wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:57 am What's the aperture or F-stop range on your current lenses?

If it's like F 3.5-5.6 (kit lens range) you'll need a tripod to keep the camera steady or crank the ISO way up.

If the shutter speed is slower than 1/60 you'll probably have noticeable camera shake in most of your shots.

Getting a fast 35mm or 50mm prime (like 1.2 or 1.4 f-stop) will give you much more leeway to shoot indoors with available light.
Fast lenses are great for indoor shooting, as well as simply for offering wider apertures when shallower depth of field is desired, but it impresses me how much we can get away with cranking the ISO up these days.

For example, in typical indoor lighting levels (around 100 lux), if I'm using F/5.6 with a wide angle lens, I will usually shoot somewhere between 1/16 at ISO 1600 or 1/60 at ISO 6400, while trying to balance motion blur with noise. I wouldn't do a large print at ISO 6400, but I think I can potentially get away with an 8x10, depending on the subject matter. This would be for personal use. I don't try to sell any of my photos.

This is on a 10 year old crop sensor DSLR - similar era to the D300. The newer full frame sensors can do 2 or maybe even 3 stops better - It blows me away to think about the idea of shooting indoors, with a slow lens, and 1/500!

The other thing that blows my mind is I can get a 1" sensor point and shoot like the Sony RX100 that matches the ISO performance of my SLR, has a F/2.8 lens, and fits in my pocket.
I'm a huge fan of Sony's 1 inch stacked sensor. I have the ZV1 at work an it's a gem. The RX10 is a lot of fun too if you're into bridge cameras, same 1 inch sensor but in a DSLR-like body with a great zoom range.

For pocketable I'm really enamored with the Ricoh GR III. You get APS-C sensor image quality and it fits in any jacket pocket.
nigel_ht
Posts: 1997
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by nigel_ht »

JD2775 wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:49 am
snackdog wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:24 am Unless you need telephoto for wildlife or something the latest smart phones, especially the iPhones, are putting DSLRs out of business. They take great photos in almost all lighting conditions.
Tell that to a landscape photographer who relies on long exposures. Try doing that with your iPhone
https://iphonephotographyschool.com/long-exposure/

https://iphonephotographyschool.com/liv ... -exposure/

https://nocamerabag.com/blog/long-exposure-iphone

You know what else an iPhone is good for? Google.
Shalom Aleichem
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:55 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by Shalom Aleichem »

rob wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:38 am A popup flash is almost useless (depending on brand can be used to fire other flashes which is why I left "almost" in there :-) )... In most cases your better off without it. That may not make sense initially but IMO it's just true. If your new to SLR's - make sure you are going to carry the gear and have a reason otherwise an iPhone is better.
I would say helpful for daytime photography if you need fill flash. In that case there's nothing better - if it's noon and you're at Sea World with the kids (or the park or wherever) and you want to shoot them but the shadows make your images look bad, nothing better than the built in flash. I say nothing better because it is the right tool for the problem and in that scenario you don't need a fancy flash - just some fill light.

For the OP - I'd ask what do you need a camera for? I've been shooting for a while. Any camera you buy nowadays is better than you are (and me and nearly everyone who is not a famous photographer). The autofocus IQ is amazing, there are more MP than you need (unless you are really bad and have to crop or unless you are printing full wall size images.

If you NEED a flash on your camera for a nontrivial number of your pictures, and you are not prepared to bring a whole set up (multiple flashes, reflectors, etc), then you need a built in flash. That means no professional camera. I don't remember if the 850 has a flash on it but it is arguably the best production camera in existence today. If you are looking at spending coin on a camera though, SLR is the past and mirrorless is the future. If you are looking at a full frame camera you will need to buy full frame lenses. If you are going to need to update all your lenses (full frame), you are NOT going to want to do it all over again in 5 years when SLR is no longer supported and should consider going mirrorless. I shoot Nikon D800E (Love it) and bought Z7 (technically great but the autofocus is terrible and I regret buying it). I'm not sure Nikon mirrorless autofocus is ready for prime time, but the Nikon lenses are universally recognized as unambiguously better than Sony and their mirrorless lenses are often thought better than Canon. It's a hard time to make the switch because if you are looking at full frame you have to buy new lenses, and if you are buying new lenses you have to consider SLR vs mirrorless.
JD2775
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:47 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by JD2775 »

nigel_ht wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:13 pm
JD2775 wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:49 am
snackdog wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:24 am Unless you need telephoto for wildlife or something the latest smart phones, especially the iPhones, are putting DSLRs out of business. They take great photos in almost all lighting conditions.
Tell that to a landscape photographer who relies on long exposures. Try doing that with your iPhone
https://iphonephotographyschool.com/long-exposure/

https://iphonephotographyschool.com/liv ... -exposure/

https://nocamerabag.com/blog/long-exposure-iphone

You know what else an iPhone is good for? Google.
I wouldn't trust that an app can replicate the quality of what a DSLR could do in this use-case. That said, I did not know those apps existed. Cool.
retire2022
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:10 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by retire2022 »

miamivice wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:26 am Thread for those that are familiar with high end SLR cameras....

I have my eye on a professional SLR camera, likely the Nikon D850 but also considering the Canon 5D Mark IV camera. One thing that I have discovered is that neither professional-grade camera has a built in flash.

Currently I use a Nikon D300 with a built in flash and use the flash for about 1/2 of my shots. Virtually all indoor photography I use the flash for along with some outdoor photography as a fill in. I do not wish to carry an external flash around with me, so I am concerned that the Nikon D850 is not the camera for me.

I use my camera for:
- taking pictures of my family, both indoors and outdoors
- indoor pictures of building infrastructure (boilers, lighting, windows, etc)
- outdoor pictures of buildings
- outdoor pictures of parks and community spaces for our homeowners association
- landscape photography
- travel photography

Appreciate any comments about whether the absence of the built in flash is a deal killer for the Nikon D850
Are you a strobe person?

You could get a used Profoto Acute or new one for 15K or 16K

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/pack ... 3535404793
iamlucky13
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by iamlucky13 »

stimulacra wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:53 pm
iamlucky13 wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:20 pm The other thing that blows my mind is I can get a 1" sensor point and shoot like the Sony RX100 that matches the ISO performance of my SLR, has a F/2.8 lens, and fits in my pocket.
I'm a huge fan of Sony's 1 inch stacked sensor. I have the ZV1 at work an it's a gem. The RX10 is a lot of fun too if you're into bridge cameras, same 1 inch sensor but in a DSLR-like body with a great zoom range.

For pocketable I'm really enamored with the Ricoh GR III. You get APS-C sensor image quality and it fits in any jacket pocket.
If I pull the trigger, I'm probably going to give Canon's G7X a try. They reportedly buy the same sensor from Sony. I'm familiar with and like Canon's user interface for point and shoots, it costs less, and has a slightly more versatile lens. I think the downsides compared to the Sony is the lack of super high speed burst mode and on-sensor phase detect autofocus, and a very slight disadvantage in sharpness.

I probably haven't given the Ricoh enough consideration due to the lack of zoom, which I use regularly. I have no doubt the Ricoh is sharp enough to crop fairly effectively, but I also find the difference between a 24mm and 28mm focal length equivalent to be significant for wide angle shots.
nigel_ht
Posts: 1997
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by nigel_ht »

JD2775 wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:53 pm
nigel_ht wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:13 pm
JD2775 wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:49 am
snackdog wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:24 am Unless you need telephoto for wildlife or something the latest smart phones, especially the iPhones, are putting DSLRs out of business. They take great photos in almost all lighting conditions.
Tell that to a landscape photographer who relies on long exposures. Try doing that with your iPhone
https://iphonephotographyschool.com/long-exposure/

https://iphonephotographyschool.com/liv ... -exposure/

https://nocamerabag.com/blog/long-exposure-iphone

You know what else an iPhone is good for? Google.
meh, I wouldn't trust that an app can replicate what a DSLR could do in this case
There are advantages and disadvantages between image stacking 30 one second stills and doing one 30 second exposure on a digital sensor. A 30 second exposure will generally get you more signal to noise. Image stacking, however, can give you a superior outcome if the algorithm can keep bright objects from blowing out. This is something you can do manually in post if you have the images to stack. Image stacking also lets you capture a long exposure effect when you leave your ND filters at home.

HDR is often done on DSLRs by exposure bracketing, merging and tone matching in post...something phones with more processing power can do natively.
User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 13091
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona
Contact:

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by Sandtrap »

TN_Boy wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:48 pm
tibbitts wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:18 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:38 am
Seasonal wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:28 am
TN_Boy wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:57 am

Ah, no. It is not marketing.
There is no official enforceable definition of a pro camera. There are some characteristics often found in cameras labeled pro, but it's not guaranteed, and there are cameras not labelled pro that can share many if not all of those features. For that matter, there are many pros who shoot with cameras not labeled pro.

A camera manufacturer can label any camera pro that it wants.
My point is, "pro" is not just marketing per your comment I quoted. There are real and important differences in the camera features. Certainly when I look at Nikon's line, for example, it is very obvious which cameras are aimed at more serious photographers.

Could you give me an example of a camera labeled "pro" by its maker that you feel is obviously not a "pro" camera by your definition?
I've never thought about it but I've almost never seen cameras labeled as "pro." If you read the marketing material you'll see "blah blah meets the strictest professional requirements" etc. but that's all I remember. It might be obvious to some people from features which are more suitable for professional use, but it's a spectrum. And there are a handful of exceptions for lenses that I can think of, like Zuiko or Tokina Pro lenses, that are indeed labeled "Pro." So what cameras are actually labeled "pro"?

The larger issue I think is that today's pro-based-on-features camera is tomorrow's amateur camera and next year's doorstop, so "pro" is really a point-in-time measure. That's somewhat true at this point for lenses as well.
I think pros look at things like weather sealing, auto-focus, physical controls, etc.

If you look at a maker's line, and the features in each camera, I think it becomes relatively clear which cameras are suitable for "pro" use in a given type of photography. Yes, there is some marketing at work, but if for example, you are doing action/wildlife photography for a living you know that you need certain features (and the availability of certain types of lenses).
Yes
Absolutely
I’ve had quite a few location shoots where I either was near a rough breaking seashore or had to stand in the water to get “the shot”. And, my gear has been wave swamped but fortunately not immersed. The Canon 5d and 1D series with the “L” lenses are weather sealed for this reason.

It’s no wonder that so many location photographs in adverse extreme conditions use the Canon 1D and the “L” lenses. (Or Nikon equiv)
From wars to summits etc. there’s a reason for this.

j🌺
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know
Lee_WSP
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:15 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by Lee_WSP »

Sandtrap wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:04 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:48 pm
tibbitts wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:18 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:38 am
Seasonal wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:28 am

There is no official enforceable definition of a pro camera. There are some characteristics often found in cameras labeled pro, but it's not guaranteed, and there are cameras not labelled pro that can share many if not all of those features. For that matter, there are many pros who shoot with cameras not labeled pro.

A camera manufacturer can label any camera pro that it wants.
My point is, "pro" is not just marketing per your comment I quoted. There are real and important differences in the camera features. Certainly when I look at Nikon's line, for example, it is very obvious which cameras are aimed at more serious photographers.

Could you give me an example of a camera labeled "pro" by its maker that you feel is obviously not a "pro" camera by your definition?
I've never thought about it but I've almost never seen cameras labeled as "pro." If you read the marketing material you'll see "blah blah meets the strictest professional requirements" etc. but that's all I remember. It might be obvious to some people from features which are more suitable for professional use, but it's a spectrum. And there are a handful of exceptions for lenses that I can think of, like Zuiko or Tokina Pro lenses, that are indeed labeled "Pro." So what cameras are actually labeled "pro"?

The larger issue I think is that today's pro-based-on-features camera is tomorrow's amateur camera and next year's doorstop, so "pro" is really a point-in-time measure. That's somewhat true at this point for lenses as well.
I think pros look at things like weather sealing, auto-focus, physical controls, etc.

If you look at a maker's line, and the features in each camera, I think it becomes relatively clear which cameras are suitable for "pro" use in a given type of photography. Yes, there is some marketing at work, but if for example, you are doing action/wildlife photography for a living you know that you need certain features (and the availability of certain types of lenses).
Yes
Absolutely
I’ve had quite a few location shoots where I either was near a rough breaking seashore or had to stand in the water to get “the shot”. And, my gear has been wave swamped but fortunately not immersed. The Canon 5d and 1D series with the “L” lenses are weather sealed for this reason.

It’s no wonder that so many location photographs in adverse extreme conditions use the Canon 1D and the “L” lenses. (Or Nikon equiv)
From wars to summits etc. there’s a reason for this.

j🌺
Agreed. When your paycheck is on the line and you only get one or two chances, you'll pay a lot for redundancy.
User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 13091
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona
Contact:

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by Sandtrap »

Lee_WSP wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:26 am
Sandtrap wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:04 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:48 pm
tibbitts wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:18 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:38 am

My point is, "pro" is not just marketing per your comment I quoted. There are real and important differences in the camera features. Certainly when I look at Nikon's line, for example, it is very obvious which cameras are aimed at more serious photographers.

Could you give me an example of a camera labeled "pro" by its maker that you feel is obviously not a "pro" camera by your definition?
I've never thought about it but I've almost never seen cameras labeled as "pro." If you read the marketing material you'll see "blah blah meets the strictest professional requirements" etc. but that's all I remember. It might be obvious to some people from features which are more suitable for professional use, but it's a spectrum. And there are a handful of exceptions for lenses that I can think of, like Zuiko or Tokina Pro lenses, that are indeed labeled "Pro." So what cameras are actually labeled "pro"?

The larger issue I think is that today's pro-based-on-features camera is tomorrow's amateur camera and next year's doorstop, so "pro" is really a point-in-time measure. That's somewhat true at this point for lenses as well.
I think pros look at things like weather sealing, auto-focus, physical controls, etc.

If you look at a maker's line, and the features in each camera, I think it becomes relatively clear which cameras are suitable for "pro" use in a given type of photography. Yes, there is some marketing at work, but if for example, you are doing action/wildlife photography for a living you know that you need certain features (and the availability of certain types of lenses).
Yes
Absolutely
I’ve had quite a few location shoots where I either was near a rough breaking seashore or had to stand in the water to get “the shot”. And, my gear has been wave swamped but fortunately not immersed. The Canon 5d and 1D series with the “L” lenses are weather sealed for this reason.

It’s no wonder that so many location photographs in adverse extreme conditions use the Canon 1D and the “L” lenses. (Or Nikon equiv)
From wars to summits etc. there’s a reason for this.

j🌺
Agreed. When your paycheck is on the line and you only get one or two chances, you'll pay a lot for redundancy.
Yes.
2 camera bodies and lenses on thick shoulder straps if needed, on location shoots. There have been times when one camera has either failed for some reason or the exposure/settings went out of whack from bumping a dial or something else.
Also, redundancy with flash. The Canon Speedlights are pricey indeed when using multiples.
The most "reliable" redundancy on location shoots is having 2 photographers and 2 camera/flash setups each.
Also, have all gear setup and ready to go, and tested, before arriving on scene. Especially editorial and/or photo journalism where things happen unpredictably and very fast.
*Tip: if there are no locks on a dial, tape it down with a piece of black electrical tape, or gorilla tape (keep this in your bag) if the settings for that don't need to be adjusted during the shoot.
*Tip: put a thick "brocolli" rubber band at the base of the lens where it meets the body to help keep dust and water, etc, out of the camera to lens joint.
*Tip: if the lens hood is a poor design and pops off easily, put tape around that too.
*Tip: the fastest and most reliable "lens swap" on location is another camera body with the lens on it. (done).

(Back to topic)
OP
Actionably: would an upgraded camera and an excellent hot shoe flash synced to the camera such as a Canon with a canon speed light be enough for your needs?

j :D
Last edited by Sandtrap on Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know
hunoraut
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 11:39 am

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by hunoraut »

tibbitts wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:18 pm The larger issue I think is that today's pro-based-on-features camera is tomorrow's amateur camera and next year's doorstop, so "pro" is really a point-in-time measure. That's somewhat true at this point for lenses as well.
Great post.

The funny thing is, nobody in here is a pro photographer (i.e. primary source of income), but most will speak for what a pro need or don't need.

If you listen to what amateurs on the internet claim what they require for today -- triple slots, 1000 point 3d af, 80mp backlit organic sensor, etc etc -- it would not have been available to actual pros 5 years ago.

As an amateur with up to 50,000 frames snapped per year (atleast in previous non-Covid years), I never used the built-in flash -- not in the scenarios OP posed -- and rarely use manual flashes otherwise (mostly macros). But this experience is inconsequential. OP said he uses a flash all the time, and therefore what he/she needs is a flash. That seems straightforward.
tibbitts
Posts: 13279
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by tibbitts »

This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 13091
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona
Contact:

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by Sandtrap »

tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
+1
Good points.
Well said.

For all we know a Sony Cybershot with a good hot shoe flash might be perfect for most of the OPs needs.
Or an upgraded camera with an excellent hot shoe flash..
j🌺
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

Sandtrap wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:17 am
tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
+1
Good points.
Well said.

For all we know a Sony Cybershot with a good hot shoe flash might be perfect for most of the OPs needs.
Or an upgraded camera with an excellent hot shoe flash..
j🌺
In fairness, I think several of us have mentioned solutions that were not high-end dSLRs, suggestions which seemed quite on point.

Things got a bit derailed because of confusion about what a pro camera is. The OP is asking about a high-end camera. When people ask financial questions on this board, sometimes they get answers like "I know you asked about X, but you really should be thinking about Y." In the same spirit, regardless of what the OP is using NOW, given the stated uses and expertise level, a new "pro" dSLR is not only overkill, but probably a worse choice than several less expensive alternatives. Maybe that input was useful, maybe not. But you have to understand what a "pro class" camera is before understanding why such a beast is maybe not the best choice.

It's a matter of judgement whether or not people should get tangled up in "you use flash a whole lot, should you?" since the OP did ask for a built-in flash. But again, you ask a question on a board "I want to use X to do Y" it's not necessarily a bad thing to get feedback "Maybe you shouldn't be doing Y, maybe you should be doing Z."

Personally I find using a camera with decent low-light capability and a fast (not necessarily real expensive) short prime for indoor use works a lot better than trying to use flash (proper use of flash requires some setup and skill) but heck, if someone wants to use on-camera flash all the time in low light, that's maybe okay. It's almost certainly not great, but they are not my pictures.
jamesez
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:39 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by jamesez »

Before you spend real money, rent the specific thing you're thinking of and give it an honest exploration. I've used LensRentals but camera stores that do rentals are still around.

I've rented things I thought I'd really love and found out I did not (Leica Q; Sony RX100), and stuff as a flyer that turned out to be the exact thing I was looking for (Fujifilm X-T4).
hunoraut
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 11:39 am

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by hunoraut »

tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
Not that it matters much, but the D850 of its day was the D700 as the high-end cameras. Highest end are the single digit models (D1/D2/D3) that you can drive a nail with.

A germane technological thing to point would be that OP might not *NEED* a built-in flash anymore, if using a flash back in those days as a necessity for exposure rather than artistic choice for effect (e.g. motion freeze). The better performance at higher ISO and the stabilization on lenses and/or sensors obviate the need for flash in most scenarios
iamlucky13
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by iamlucky13 »

tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
The OP's last response seemed to indicate they have received input that sufficiently answers their question and given them a plan forward, even though it wasn't the input they were expecting. I don't see much issue with the conversation evolving after that.

And it's not entirely derailed - we're still talking about photography and features of higher end cameras like the OP was looking at. We haven't reached the point of arguing politics yet...
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

hunoraut wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:09 pm
tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
Not that it matters much, but the D850 of its day was the D700 as the high-end cameras. Highest end are the single digit models (D1/D2/D3) that you can drive a nail with.

A germane technological thing to point would be that OP might not *NEED* a built-in flash anymore, if using a flash back in those days as a necessity for exposure rather than artistic choice for effect (e.g. motion freeze). The better performance at higher ISO and the stabilization on lenses and/or sensors obviate the need for flash in most scenarios
That's a good high-level point that while the OP's camera now has limited low light capability, modern ones are much better giving you different options.

But even with a 2020 vintage camera, you might need a somewhat fast lens for good indoor people shots. Low light and some movement. The standard kit lens are not that fast. Which is why I like a short cheap(ish) prime in those situations (not doing it often enough to want a serious portrait lens).

A second order problem, if you are not using a flash, you need to either understand what the automatic modes will do in low light (might not pick enough shutter speed when balancing shutter and ISO) or know enough about the semi-auto modes to set what you need. I think that people photography indoors is actually pretty hard to get right unless you have a really well lit setting. A pro hockey rink? Pretty good light. Mom's living room at night ... not as easy*! An on-camera flash kinda hides some of the problem, albeit with what I find are major downsides.

* Looking at some shots I took in such a situation a couple of years ago, I had a basic prime lens wide open at 1.8 and with a shutter speed of 125 I was up at ISO 4000 on my Nikon. You can drop the shutter speed a little but still. There is not a whole lot of light there. I had every lamp on I could!
But the shots still looked a lot better than they would have using an on-camera flash .....
tibbitts
Posts: 13279
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by tibbitts »

TN_Boy wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:29 pm Not that it matters much, but the D850 of its day was the D700 as the high-end cameras. Highest end are the single digit models (D1/D2/D3) that you can drive a nail with.
Maybe wrong but I thought the D700 wasn't available until 2008, making the D300 was the D850 of its day in 2007?
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:51 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:29 pm Not that it matters much, but the D850 of its day was the D700 as the high-end cameras. Highest end are the single digit models (D1/D2/D3) that you can drive a nail with.
Maybe wrong but I thought the D700 wasn't available until 2008, making the D300 was the D850 of its day in 2007?
I believe this was hunoraut's comment on the D850 and D700, not mine.
nigel_ht
Posts: 1997
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by nigel_ht »

jamesez wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:10 am Before you spend real money, rent the specific thing you're thinking of and give it an honest exploration. I've used LensRentals but camera stores that do rentals are still around.

I've rented things I thought I'd really love and found out I did not (Leica Q; Sony RX100), and stuff as a flyer that turned out to be the exact thing I was looking for (Fujifilm X-T4).
+1. It’s a little spendy but not as much as realizing your new $3000 camera isn’t what you actually wanted.
quantAndHold
Posts: 5423
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by quantAndHold »

tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
The modern equivalent of the D300 is the D500, which is half the price of the D850. Excellent camera, and is something OP might want to consider. Since OP never mentioned a need for any “pro” features (weather sealing, high burst rate, bajillion point super speedy autofocus, dual card slots, etc), I would actually encourage OP to save money and step down a step to the D7500, if they really want to stick with a Nikon DSLR. The D500 and D7500 have the same sensor, and the D7500 has a built in flash.

The D850 is an amazing, amazing piece of technology, but overkill for what OP is doing with a camera, and those massive 45 megapixel image files are...big. Really big.
Yes, I’m really that pedantic.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

quantAndHold wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:00 pm
tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
The modern equivalent of the D300 is the D500, which is half the price of the D850. Excellent camera, and is something OP might want to consider. Since OP never mentioned a need for any “pro” features (weather sealing, high burst rate, bajillion point super speedy autofocus, dual card slots, etc), I would actually encourage OP to save money and step down a step to the D7500, if they really want to stick with a Nikon DSLR. The D500 and D7500 have the same sensor, and the D7500 has a built in flash.

The D850 is an amazing, amazing piece of technology, but overkill for what OP is doing with a camera, and those massive 45 megapixel image files are...big. Really big.
From what the OP said, I think even the D7500 might be overkill. The D5600 is not *quite* as good in low light (difference is minor) and lacks the burst rate and autofocus of the D7500, but otherwise seems well equipped to handle the OP's needs.

That said, I'd suggest looking at mirrorless options. I would have liked to gone mirrorless when I bought the D7500, but none of the mirrorless options out there then had the kind of lens (including better bang for the buck 3rd party choice) options I wanted.

But a couple of years later, the mirrorless choices look better and better to me.
User avatar
SmileyFace
Posts: 6350
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:11 am

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by SmileyFace »

A mirrorless with external flash is going to weigh less than a DSLR with built in flash. And if you go mirrorless (whether it be Nikon, Canon, or Sony) you are investing in the future rather than the past. I just leave the external flash connected (have a compact one for when I want to stay light) during periods of time when I need it. You can pretend it is built in and just popped up ;)
User avatar
thecarrotfund
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:20 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by thecarrotfund »

I would HIGHLY recommend taking a class that teaches you how to fully use the features on the camera you have now, and then making a decision on what to purchase after you finish the course.
"not all storms are in the forecast"
quantAndHold
Posts: 5423
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by quantAndHold »

TN_Boy wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:35 pm
quantAndHold wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:00 pm
tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
The modern equivalent of the D300 is the D500, which is half the price of the D850. Excellent camera, and is something OP might want to consider. Since OP never mentioned a need for any “pro” features (weather sealing, high burst rate, bajillion point super speedy autofocus, dual card slots, etc), I would actually encourage OP to save money and step down a step to the D7500, if they really want to stick with a Nikon DSLR. The D500 and D7500 have the same sensor, and the D7500 has a built in flash.

The D850 is an amazing, amazing piece of technology, but overkill for what OP is doing with a camera, and those massive 45 megapixel image files are...big. Really big.
From what the OP said, I think even the D7500 might be overkill. The D5600 is not *quite* as good in low light (difference is minor) and lacks the burst rate and autofocus of the D7500, but otherwise seems well equipped to handle the OP's needs.

That said, I'd suggest looking at mirrorless options. I would have liked to gone mirrorless when I bought the D7500, but none of the mirrorless options out there then had the kind of lens (including better bang for the buck 3rd party choice) options I wanted.

But a couple of years later, the mirrorless choices look better and better to me.
I agree, the only caveat being that OP is used to the controls on the professional Nikon bodies. Switching to any of the 4 digit model numbers, including the D7500, is a definite step backwards in how easy it is to control the camera.

But yes, I also agree, unless OP is trying to get more use out of some lenses he/she already owns, it would be a good time to move to mirrorless.
Yes, I’m really that pedantic.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by TN_Boy »

quantAndHold wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:37 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:35 pm
quantAndHold wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:00 pm
tibbitts wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am This thread has gotten completely derailed. As far as we know the OP has an upper-mid-range 14-year old dslr with a built-in flash, 12mp crop sensor and a kit lens. The OP is considering upgrading to what today is roughly the equivalent camera. The D300 was more or less the D850 of its day, despite the sensor size difference - there just wasn't the range of models then that there is now. Built-in flash has gone away on many mid-upper model bodies in both sensor sizes so the OP is asking about that. Now everybody is talking about "location shoots" and "when your paycheck is on the line" and multiple flash setups that require a huge case for storing strobes, stands, umbrellas, light boxes, etc.
The modern equivalent of the D300 is the D500, which is half the price of the D850. Excellent camera, and is something OP might want to consider. Since OP never mentioned a need for any “pro” features (weather sealing, high burst rate, bajillion point super speedy autofocus, dual card slots, etc), I would actually encourage OP to save money and step down a step to the D7500, if they really want to stick with a Nikon DSLR. The D500 and D7500 have the same sensor, and the D7500 has a built in flash.

The D850 is an amazing, amazing piece of technology, but overkill for what OP is doing with a camera, and those massive 45 megapixel image files are...big. Really big.
From what the OP said, I think even the D7500 might be overkill. The D5600 is not *quite* as good in low light (difference is minor) and lacks the burst rate and autofocus of the D7500, but otherwise seems well equipped to handle the OP's needs.

That said, I'd suggest looking at mirrorless options. I would have liked to gone mirrorless when I bought the D7500, but none of the mirrorless options out there then had the kind of lens (including better bang for the buck 3rd party choice) options I wanted.

But a couple of years later, the mirrorless choices look better and better to me.
I agree, the only caveat being that OP is used to the controls on the professional Nikon bodies. Switching to any of the 4 digit model numbers, including the D7500, is a definite step backwards in how easy it is to control the camera.

But yes, I also agree, unless OP is trying to get more use out of some lenses he/she already owns, it would be a good time to move to mirrorless.
I don't know if the D7500 is a major step down from the pro lines .... it has two command dials, dedicated ISO and exposure compensation buttons, etc.

But from the information I've seen, I wasn't sure that the OP was actually using all the controls anyway.
tibbitts
Posts: 13279
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by tibbitts »

I don't follow NIkon so does anyone know what the two new NIkon dslr (vs. mirrorless) bodies to be introduced this year (2021) will be? I wouldn't buy a Nikon dslr without knowing that.
iamlucky13
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Should I buy a SLR camera without a built in flash?

Post by iamlucky13 »

tibbitts wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:40 am I don't follow NIkon so does anyone know what the two new NIkon dslr (vs. mirrorless) bodies to be introduced this year (2021) will be? I wouldn't buy a Nikon dslr without knowing that.
Nikonrumors.com has always done a good job of keeping up with the latest details like this, although lately there is a lot of low value filler content to sort through.
Post Reply