In the market for a camera to take high quality photos for Instagram, which one should I buy?

[Freida]

You are right of course but you went a bit technical which I know you know.
Of course D850 will make better stuff but OP wanted instagram and by the sounds of it he is a novice so most likely he won't utilise the power of D850.
Composition etc. is what makes photography an art form and no amount of amazing gear will compensate for lack of basic things.
I agree with you though.

I think the OP is trolling, so I hate to bump this thread.

I agree with your sentiments as they apply to the OP--good photography requires skill and experience. It is a mistake to think that better gear will necessarily result in better pics or that better gear can compensate for a lack of skill and experience.

However, your response is somewhat hyperbolic. Better gear *will* result in better IQ for a given subject, depending on how you define "better" gear. While the iPhone X has a decent camera for a phone, the IQ of the files is nowhere near that of a D850. This spring I went on a cruise with both a D850 (and Sigma 40mm f/1.4) and an iPhone Xs. I used an app for the iPhone that lets me shoot in RAW. The RAW files from the iPhone Xs were horrible (especially in anything other than really good light). I ended up impressed with just how good a job the iPhone Xs software does in creating its JPEG images.

The pro with an iPhone vs a novice with a D850 is an interesting rhetorical argument. It has its merits in pointing out that becoming a good photographer and creating compelling images is a skill that requires practice, dedication, and experience. But if the IQ of images produced with an iPhone were *really* as good as images produced with a better camera, then all photographers (once they reached a certain level of competence) would only be using iPhones. Which is a silly idea on any level.

Give a novice an iPhone X and a D850 with 200-500mm lens and ask them to take moon pics. The iPhone pics will be worse. Give a novice an iPhone X and a D850 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and have them take pics of a kiddo jumping into a swimming pool (assuming they are competent enough to move the dial on the top of the D850 to continuous release rather than single release and maybe change AF to continuous). The iPhone will be worse, even with the D850 in program mode. Give a novice an iPhone X and a D850 with a macro lens and ask them to take a picture of a ladybug really close up. The iPhone pic will be worse (though to be fair, depending on how macro you need to go, the iPhone can take pics reasonably close up).

For all of these examples, a professional with an iPhone X would struggle because the iPhone isn't a good tool for any of those applications (as well as others). It is not good for telephoto (especially extreme telephoto), it's not good in low-light (though it does an impressive job in software of making low-light JPEGs look decent), it's not good for action photography. A professional would have a better understanding of the limits of the iPhone and be able to work within those limits, but certain pics are not possible with an iPhone regardless of your experience/talent.

I completely agree that photographer skill is much more important than gear in a general sense. "Good" photos are most often a reflection of good composition, appropriate light, and the right combination of aperture and shutter speed for a given subject. Buying better gear doesn't magically change any of those variables--only skill and experience does.

It is silly to assume that better gear will automatically translate into better pics. But it is also silly to assume that gear doesn't matter at all. It can and does. But before buying better gear, it's important to ask yourself how *exactly* is your current gear limiting you and how *exactly* will a proposed purchase "fix" these identified problems. A novice generally can't answer either set of questions meaningfully in the way I intend them. "Making my pictures better" is not a meaningful answer in this context. What is the *specific" problem that this purchase will actually fix. Not marketing hype, but actual ability to fix.

Is it a "you" problem (I'm not sure why my images seem to suck, but they don't get enough upvotes) vs an actual gear problem (I like shooting in low light and my kit lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 always results in either underexposed pics or pics that have such a slow shutter speed and/or require such a high ISO that they are blurry and grainy, does it make sense to buy a faster prime lens (f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4) to fix these exposure problems?)? In the former case, throwing money at the problem is unlikely to fix it. In the latter case it might.

 

[kallisti]

You are right of course but you went a bit technical which I know you know.
Of course D850 will make better stuff but OP wanted instagram and by the sounds of it he is a novice so most likely he won't utilise the power of D850.
Composition etc. is what makes photography an art form and no amount of amazing gear will compensate for lack of basic things.
I agree with you though.

The OP will likely never see or respond to this thread again. Other people might though, who are also novices. Photography can be a huge money pit when you are starting out (and even later ).

The normal assumption is that the reason my photos suck is because I don't have the right gear. This is almost universally the wrong approach. The reason that the images of most novice photographers suck is that they are novices--they don't have the skills or experience to create compelling images. Yet. With time and practice that can change. Hence the usual advice to ignore gear and learn photography.

But on some level gear does matter. I would never advise anyone starting out to get a D850. That's crazy. But getting a cheap fast prime (like a 50mm full frame equivalent f/1.8 or f/1.4 depending on budget) can be very helpful in learning photography. It's a useful focal length and being able to easily see the effects of aperture can be eye opening and instructive.

 

[Clix Pix]

One thing I think which is helpful to novices and experienced photographers alike is the technical advances of digital photography, especially where we can take a shot and then immediately get a quick idea by looking at the histogram and a small version of the image on the camera's LCD screen so that straightaway we have an idea of whether or not we hit the mark and achieved what we had wanted or if we missed the boat on exposure or composition and since we are still right there at the scene, if it is feasible, can make necessary adjustments and corrections and then reshoot right then and there to maybe get what it is we had wanted in the first place. That was not possible in the film days when shooting a roll of 35mm film. Using a Polaroid back on a medium format or large format camera could provide some clues and help in composition and exposure once the Polaroid was developed in a few minutes, but this was not by any means an exact science. In studio shooting it was helpful in ensuring that the lights were set up correctly. Even so, any of that was not nearly as useful as being able to instantly "chimp" the image in living color on a digital camera's LCD screen.

Yes, gear matters -- but so does developing knowledge and skills with a camera and learning which lenses will do the best job in order to achieve a specific effect. I daresay that these days most people start out modestly, either with a P&S or a cell phone and then they buy their first DSLR or mirrorless camera and a couple of lenses; as their skills develop and they realize more what they want to shoot and how to shoot it, that's when they start eventually investing in more sophisticated camera bodies and better quality lenses. I still remember the day many years ago now when I realized that, gee, maybe I was ready to finally move on to a Nikon D2, having spent a fair amount of time with the D70 and the D200 -- and this was after already having had years of shooting with film and using SLRs prior to ever touching a digital SLR. Digital imaging was a whole ballgame, and it not only involved learning how to use the camera most effectively, it also included the additional learning curve of how to edit and process images in the computer. The days of shooting a bunch of film and dropping it all off at the lab to be picked up a day or two later for review of contact sheets and then choosing just specific images to be printed by the lab had quietly slipped away.....

 

[bunnspecial]

As this is a Hieveryone thread, I will suggest a Leica M9 with a 35mm Summicron.

It might go a bit above the budget, but I'm sure a few days on Wall Street will recover that and it will look Oh-so-good in his private jet.

I'll also just throw in that taken "selfies" with a DSLR or other ILC is not exactly easy in my experience...any smartphone is a better choice.

 

[Clix Pix]

What, not a Leica M10??? (I think that's the latest and current model, isn't it?) Oh, and surely he will need more than just one Leica lens...... 35mm Summicron for starters, sure, but he'll want more than just that one fast lens to add to his camera bag, too......

Oh, and speaking of camera bags -- now THERE's a whole 'nuther area of discussion which he, our OP, probably hasn't even considered!!! Just wait until he finds himself caught up in the mystical and frustrating search for the ABSOLUTELY Right and Perfect Camera Bag!!!! That would be another thread in itself! Those of us who have closets filled with....um, yes, camera bags of all sizes and descriptions that have come into our hands along the way during the Search for the Holy Grail could have a field day with THAT one!!!!

 

[bunnspecial]

Sorry, I'm out of touch, yes it should be an M10 and not an M9. Forgive me! Don't forget also to cover it in animal skin to your taste for the maximum "bling" factor.

I quit counting how many camera bags I had a long, long time ago...and I still have bought two this year. The funny thing is I do actually use a lot of them depending on the situation. I've been enjoying my Nikon FB-5 lately, which IMO is one of the most intelligently designed bags/cases ever made but is also quite large for what it holds(1 body+3 additional lenses) and also only really works well if you're using F mount primes 200mm and shorter on an F or F2 body.

 

[Swampbaby985]

Ok thanks. I was going on a private jet and fancy cars and was going take pics to post on Instagram and needed a camera for that.

I'm not a bragging kinda guy......but

 

[Laird Knox]

What, not a Leica M10???

Leica M10 for Instagram? Seriously? They should be shooting the Phase One IQ4.

 

[akash.nu]

If instagram is the target for your images, then save your money. The images are going to be scaled down and/or compressed. Even if they were not, the image quality will be largely lost on the audience who will be viewing them on a phone.

Keep using your phone.

Exactly this.

 

[bunnspecial]

Leica M10 for Instagram? Seriously? They should be shooting the Phase One IQ4.

Kind of bulky-if I wanted ludicrously expensive MF digital I'd go with a Hasselblad X1D.

 

[Laird Knox]

Kind of bulky-if I wanted ludicrously expensive MF digital I'd go with a Hasselblad X1D.

Portability is nice but 50MP is nowhere near enough resolution for elite Instagram photos.

 

[bunnspecial]

Portability is nice but 50MP is nowhere near enough resolution for elite Instagram photos.

Fair enough. What about the new MF Fuji at 100MP? That's the best of both worlds, although still at a 50MP deficit relative to the PhaseOne.

 

[kenoh]

Sorry, I'm out of touch, yes it should be an M10 and not an M9. Forgive me! Don't forget also to cover it in animal skin to your taste for the maximum "bling" factor.

I quit counting how many camera bags I had a long, long time ago...and I still have bought two this year. The funny thing is I do actually use a lot of them depending on the situation. I've been enjoying my Nikon FB-5 lately, which IMO is one of the most intelligently designed bags/cases ever made but is also quite large for what it holds(1 body+3 additional lenses) and also only really works well if you're using F mount primes 200mm and shorter on an F or F2 body.

Well, if we went with the M9, then they wouldnt need so many filters as the M9 produces pics SOOC with the look that instaposters want... so maybe you were onto something.

P1 IQ4, Hmm, does that have wifi and an app for your phone? thinking workflow here...

 

[Laird Knox]

P1 IQ4, Hmm, does that have wifi and an app for your phone? thinking workflow here...

Shouldn't elite Instagramers have minions for that? I would be more worried about finding a selfie stick for the IQ4.

 

[kenoh]

Shouldn't elite Instagramers have minions for that? I would be more worried about finding a selfie stick for the IQ4.

Minion for that too no? can you imagine trying to hold that on a selfie stick at the Grand Canyon!?!?

 

[tizeye]

Sony just upped the Instagram ante. They announced the a7rIV with 61MP and a host of other features. No Instagramer is complete without it!

 

[bunnspecial]

Well, if we went with the M9, then they wouldnt need so many filters as the M9 produces pics SOOC with the look that instaposters want... so maybe you were onto something.

Oooh, good point.

I don't make a habit of browsing Instagram(or really even visiting there) but occasionally see stuff my girlfriend does on there.

I recall once a while back seeing a photo someone else had posted that I guess was supposed to "look like" it was taken on film since it had edge markings.

There was a big problem with it, though, which probably only someone who's a bit of a film nerd or a past/present film shooter would have caught.


The frame markings looked like pretty standard Fuji transparency film markings for medium format film-something I know well after shooting thousands of rolls of the stuff. The problem, though, is that they were edge coded "RVP100", which is Velvia 100. This is a relatively new emulsion(probably came out in the mid-2000s) and like all forms of Velvia is known for its contrast and over the top color rendition. I've not shot a lot of Velvia 100(I mostly shoot it in 220, where I have a bunch of still in-date film, although I also have a bunch of 120, 35mm, and even a box of 4x5 in the freezer), but have a whole lot of experience with the original Velvia(RVP) and the new Velvia 50(RVP50). I even have some experience with abomination known as Velvia 100F. With or without edge markings, there's no mistaking the look of Velvia.

By contrast, the Intagram filter showed a low contrast, grainy, and off color image-in other words typical Instagram fodder. I think I may have even seen a B&W one along the way! (of course, it still had the distinctive Fuji transparency film yellow-orange edge markings).

 

[kenoh]

Sony just upped the Instagram ante. They announced the a7rIV with 61MP and a host of other features. No Instagramer is complete without it!

61mp driving the need for more storage and more horsepower in my computer.... thank you but not right now.... I have an extension to build

 

[Laird Knox]

Oooh, good point.

I don't make a habit of browsing Instagram(or really even visiting there) but occasionally see stuff my girlfriend does on there.

I recall once a while back seeing a photo someone else had posted that I guess was supposed to "look like" it was taken on film since it had edge markings.

There was a big problem with it, though, which probably only someone who's a bit of a film nerd or a past/present film shooter would have caught.


The frame markings looked like pretty standard Fuji transparency film markings for medium format film-something I know well after shooting thousands of rolls of the stuff. The problem, though, is that they were edge coded "RVP100", which is Velvia 100. This is a relatively new emulsion(probably came out in the mid-2000s) and like all forms of Velvia is known for its contrast and over the top color rendition. I've not shot a lot of Velvia 100(I mostly shoot it in 220, where I have a bunch of still in-date film, although I also have a bunch of 120, 35mm, and even a box of 4x5 in the freezer), but have a whole lot of experience with the original Velvia(RVP) and the new Velvia 50(RVP50). I even have some experience with abomination known as Velvia 100F. With or without edge markings, there's no mistaking the look of Velvia.

By contrast, the Intagram filter showed a low contrast, grainy, and off color image-in other words typical Instagram fodder. I think I may have even seen a B&W one along the way! (of course, it still had the distinctive Fuji transparency film yellow-orange edge markings).

Wait, you are saying people post fake photos on Instagram?!

 

[kenoh]

Wait, you are saying people post fake photos on Instagram?!

What? are you suggesting all those young people don't own Lamborghinis?

 

[steveash]

What? are you suggesting all those young people don't own Lamborghinis?

Just to be clear, I do own all the cars in my instagram photos (and most are shot from the window of my private jet) however I'm afraid nobody takes me seriously because I didn't use the 400MP Hasselblad H6D-400. The shame of it.

 

[adrianlondon]

As this is a Hieveryone thread ....

I'll also just throw in that taken "selfies" with a DSLR or other ILC is not exactly easy in my experience

 

[someoldguy]

Been following this for a while and I think you've all got it wrong . The OP should subcontract the photography to a poorly paid menial . It's done all the time . This way the OP can be assured of being in the pix .

 

[sananda]

I think I have some photos on Instagram taken with my M9. I feel like you're making fun of me!!

 

[kenoh]

I think I have some photos on Instagram taken with my M9. I feel like you're making fun of me!!

Not at all, I love the M9, I have one myself and adore it..... even in 2019 - serious