Like with music, I like old-school with photography. Black and white film, developed at home. I'm too lazy to enlarge in a dark room any more... I scan the negatives and process with photoshop.
The most fun for me is a rangefinder rather than an SLR. My manual focus Leica M6 loaded with the uber Leica 50mm f1.0 (yes...f1.0) lens is like nothing else for street photography at dusk. Speaking of which, somebody mentioned not needing "fast" lenses because wide apertures were ok. Wide apertures mean "fast" as it turns out. Very few lenses on the planet are faster than f1.0 for the 50mm format at least. I do agree though that with a longer focal length like 100mm, it doesn't typically require more than f2 or so to put the background pleasingly out of focus.
I do go practical for color photography. I used to upgrade continuously, but the high-iso performance of these bodies nowadays is so good, I don't need any more than my current Nikon D800.
As far as Nikon vs. Canon. Makes no difference. I've stuck with Nikon because it's too much hassle to switch lenses, but although they leapfrog each other on a regular basis, they are so good that unless you're a pro with a defined workflow that needs to fit you and your work in order for you to make a living, it just doesn't matter. Both make lenses and bodies that are fantastic. Personally, I'd go for the full-frame format. Pixels are bigger and have (at least as of a couple of years ago) better low-light performance.
Were it me, looking to get into this now, pick Nikon or Canon..whichever strikes your fancy. Here are the lenses that I'd get...
50mm f1.4. They are cheap, fast, and light. Teaches you to move your feet to compose, which is great.
Wide angle zoom. Something in the 12 to 24 range. There are typically two versions of these that are offered by the big two. I'd go for the cheaper, slower one. Yeah, there will be more pin-cushioning and barrel distortion with the cheaper one, and the low light performance isn't as good. But you use these thing for interior shots. Nobody that isn't pixel peeping will ever know or see the difference. This is the one area where a DX format is better though. Wide angle lenses are cheaper, faster and better (because of the smaller sensor, it's easier to design the lens, and because of the geometry, they get a natural field of view boost for the same focal length.) Still and all, I'd prefer the advantages of full frame and live with a stinkier or more costly wide angle lens. These wide zooms are required, in my opinion if you want to take interiors. Panoramics have their place, but most of what you'll want for print or display won't be panoramic.
A compact, lightweight (and cheap) zoom. Say 70 to 300mm. You use these things outdoors, or on vacation, and they don't need to be fast. The subject matter for most of these applications make any lens distortions meaningless.
If you really feel like it, a fast-ish long prime like 85 or 100. I do have an 85 1.2, but it doesn't get used all that much.
A couple of other observations.... First, DSLRs are fantastic tools to control exposure in creative ways. I think that many people would benefit from taking the camera off of "auto" or "program" mode. I leave my cameras in manual mode. I find it more ergonomic to first adjust aperture for the composition (meaning how much of the subject I want in focus) and use shutter speed for exposure because I don't tend to do lots of subjects where I want to induce motion blur, but you get very quick at judging a scene, knowing immediately what you want the aperture to be for it, and dialing up a speed that gets the exposure exactly where you want it. Why bother with exposure compensation when your exposure meter, along with knowledge of the scene tells you all you need to know. Bright scenery, dial down the exposure a notch and see what happens. I trust my brain more than any AI algorithm built into the camera. I'm not as much of a stickler on autofocus. Unless it's low-light with a slow lens, they tend to work fine for me.
Second, cameras and lenses are all fine and dandy, but Photoshop is where the magic happens. Develop a good workflow, and most iPhone shots can look pro (from an image quality perspective at least). For me, for the generic shot, it's start off with a medium setting unsharp mask. Then crop and down-res for the desired framing. Then a lighter unsharp mask (unless I totally screwed focus, in which case you have no choice but to fake the focus with over-sharpening...which never works super, but what are you going to do...). Then a levels adjust. The photoshop auto exposure correction is never optimal in my opinion. Adjusting the levels gives you complete control. Then finally any color correction or creative saturation enhancements. Black and white flow for me is very different though, and requires a full curves manipulation to be at its best...but that's partially because I'm more serious about black and white.
I've blathered off enough. Can anybody tell I'm trying to avoid a work task that I just don't want to do?
![]-[@n$0Ma☩!©](/data/avatars/m/0/675.jpg?1595235761){kind=avatar}
