Ask Slashdot: Best Camera For Getting Into Photography?

An anonymous reader writes "I've managed to go my entire adult life without owning an actual camera. I've owned photosensors that were shoehorned into various other gadgets, but I've gotten to the point where the images produced by my smartphone aren't cutting it. My question: what camera would you recommend for getting into basic photography? I don't mean that in the sense of photography as a hobby or a profession, but simply as a method for taking images — of friends, family, and projects — that actually look good. That's a subjective question, I know, but I suspect many of you have a strong grasp of price versus performance. For example, when I'm picking a new video card, it's easy to figure out which cards are the best deals for a given price point — then I just have to pick a price I'm comfortable with. I figure a decent camera will run me a few hundred dollars, which is fine. But I don't have the expertise to know at what point spending more money isn't going to do me, as a camera newbie, any good. Any thoughts?"

Re:Canon or Nikon

[HFShadow]

He said "I don't mean that in the sense of photography as a hobby or a profession, but simply as a method for taking images" and you recommend an SLR? Seriously?

Make sure you have it with you.

[BWJones]

A good cell phone camera... honestly. The best camera you can learn with is one that you will always have on your person. The latest cell phone cameras can make some really beautiful images: http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2011/06/time-and-space/ [utah.edu]

When you are ready to go beyond framing and composition, then step up to a basic SLR like a Canon Rebel or a Nikon D40.

the best camera

[Imabug]

is the one that you carry with you.

for a photography newbie, i'm of the opinion that the specific camera doesn't really matter. They're all more or less the same anyway. what's most important is finding one that you'll want to carry around with you and use. the more you use it the less newb you'll become over time. you'll learn things and by the time you're ready to upgrade you'll know what to look for.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[spazmonkey]

You have to understand that for some the gear itself is a religion. They own dozens of camera yet take no pictures. The brand is the thing. Even if OP wanted an SLR, Pentax makes far better entry level/consumer SLR's, and there are other companies as well. The mantra of CANON/NIKON is due solely to the fact they are the only two companies that make full-bore pro level products costing many thousands. Not that that should be relevant to someone wanting a consumer camera, but for the brand worshipers, having one of those two nameplates is the single most important aspect of camera ownership.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not buy a DSLR unless you must have changeable lenses. Compare the weight of a DSLR to a fixed lens camera. The best camera to start out is the one that will always be with you.

Re:"that actually look good"

[Dan Dankleton]

That's a mantra that people keep trotting out... but when I went from point'n'click to an entry level SLR the difference in picture quality was huge. A great photographer can take great pictures with any camera. A poor photographer won't take better pictures with £5000 worth of equipment than they do with £500 worth. But for a beginner photographer, the difference between a camera phone and a reasonable camera is astounding.

Re:"that actually look good"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

On the plus side, it is asserted that "The secret to good photography is lots and lots of bad photography" and digital shooting has made lots and lots and lots of bad photography cost virtually nothing...

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

Point-and-shoots can't replicate the quality SLRs because of the lenses. A Rebel + $100 "nifty 50" 50mm lens cannot be duplicated by a point-and-shoot.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[nomel]

Point and shoots can't replicate the usability of an SLR either. The time between pushing the button and when the picture is taken is usually 4-10x longer.

Pentax K5 top gun

[bricko]

The K5 is one of the best DSLR on the market. Weather resistant sealed, great prime lenses, magnesium frame, 3 inch lcd on rear, Live View, best Dynamic Range on the market, several stops better than nearest competitor.. Wonderful feel in the hand.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[heathen_01]

The point is: The SLR that you didn't bring because its too much of a pain in the arse to lug around is infinitely worse than the point and shoot you did bring.

However, I do agree with you, the nifty 50 is an awesome lens.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[anagama]

Absolutely correct. I have a DSLR and a few lens which I love and I use when I'm looking to do real photography. But I also have, or had till I misplaced it, a small point and shoot camera about the size of an altoids tin. Of all the photos I have, I probably used that one for 90% of them. It would fit in a pocket, I had no qualms exposing it to potentially destructive conditions, and I almost always had it with me by keeping it in my computer bag.

Anyway, I'm really missing it and will need to replace it. I'd suggest looking at the reviews here:
http://www.dpreview.com/ [dpreview.com]

Panasonic Lumix LX5

[Wraithlyn]

I picked up a Lumix LX5 a few months back, I was basically looking for the best compact camera I could find. I've been very happy with it, it has a large sensor (1/1.63") for a compact, a decently wide angle (24mm equivalent), and bright F2.0 aperture. Full manual/shutter/aperture controls. Can even get some nice depth-of-field effects (ie, "bokeh"), something I've never really seen in a compact before.

I'm a firm believer in "the best camera is the one you have with you", this is what drove my purchase, as I'm not really interested in carrying around lenses. The LX5 takes great quality shots (including in poor lighting, I've even compared it head-to-head against some friends' DSLRs), and has all the manual options you could want to experiment with.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[penguinstorm]

The G series is f2.8 which is as fast as most of my good quality glass for the 5d. The zoom that comes with your crap-tastic budget SLR is probably a 4.5 - 5.6.

The S95/s100 is f2.0 which is fast.

Add to that the fact that there's no mirror-slap to introduce vibration, and you're going to have an easier time getting steady shots with a point and shoot. You still have to be careful, but I can reliably hand hold my s95 down to 1/8s shutter speed at every zoom length. I can do that with my 20mm f2.8 on the 5d, but not my 200mm f2.8 + 2x teleconverter (which makes a very light and sharp 400mm f5.6.)

I'm not saying I'm calling bullshit on your post, I'm just calling bullshit.

Also: I'd throw my 3200ASA concert photography from my 5d up against your shitty crop-sensor medium ISO shots and win any day for lower noise at all but the most insane enlargements. If you're going to spend all your time looking at photos through a loupe well, godspeed you black emperor.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[ShakaUVM]

"i get surprisingly good images from a stupid little canon powershot"

+1.

I went hiking in Yosemite with a friend a couple months back. I had my superzoom powershot, he had his four-digit DSLR. We ended up taking a lot of similar shots (hey, a bird!) and the images were pretty comparable. Some instances the powershot looked better. He was obviously much better at the macro / shallow depth of field shots. That said, it was possible for me to take a photograph of a waterfall while scrambling on hands and knees up a cliffside, but it was impossible for him to maneuver the DSLR into place safely.

I'm not saying DSLRs are bad or anything, but a lot of the things that you need to take good photos (exposure and shutter control, white balance, ISO control, etc.) can be done in most mid-grade P&S cameras. I've taken some really nice photos with my powershots, that I'd have otherwise missed since I wouldn't have been able to carry a DSLR around in my pocket.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

The micro-4/3 cameras have very large sensors and removable lenses in a point-and-shoot package. I have the olympus e-p1 with 17mm lens; it fits in my back pocket and takes pictures comparable to my canon digital rebel.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[crdotson]

No, what's lame is thinking that you can't learn the basics of photography (composition, lighting, etc.) without an SLR. Some of the finest photographers in the world used equipment 100 times more primitive than most point and click cameras.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[MightyYar]

Just to kind of echo what you said, I like to have 3:

1. A DSLR for the serious hobby stuff - being the obnoxious camera guy that everyone hates but later keeps pestering for photos :) This camera is purely optional, and there is no way you should get one unless it is your hobby.
2. One of those rare pocket cameras with a big sensor - currently my favorite is the Cannon S95. Remarkably good photos for this form factor - hardly ever need the flash. Even does decent video.
3. A cell phone. I'm serious... :) When my daughter first put her foot in her mouth as an infant, she was on the changing table and I had my cell phone in my pocket. Without the cell phone, I would have missed the moment. Sometimes the greatest camera in the world is the one you have with you!

Re:Canon or Nikon

[xystren]

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

I always get cR@p from my g/f that complains "why are you carrying that big heavy camera and bag"... But when I get the pictures, she never seems to complain. Quite honestly, if carrying a couple lenses (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, 50mm f/1.8, and a 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6, all basic kit type lenses) and getting tired from carrying a DSLR there are other things you should likely be concerned with - photography isn't likely one of them.

Quite honestly what the original post is requesting something that is better than a phone camera...Quite honestly, just about any compact point and shoot will be an improvement. It has more to do with optics rather than just specs (IE more megapixels doesn't always mean better).

The questions one really needs to know:

1. What are you planning on shooting? portraits, landscapes, fast moving targets (sports), etc.
2. Lighting conditions. Low light is a bitch to capture without the right equipment/settings. Most point and shoot with the on-board flash tend to blow out the subject resulting in undesirable results
3. Much of taking a good pictures has to do with composition and managing your depth of field (f-stop) and shutter speed. Many point and shoots don't have the manual settings to do this, and what ones do, you, the photographer, needs to be willing to learn how to use them and how they affect one other.
4. Size/weight - as much as I disagree with this being a primary factor, utility is important - a camera that one is not willing to use because it is too big or heavy is a useless camera for that person. Are you willing to carry a DSLR and associated equipment (lenses, tripod, external flash(s), etc.) IF not, a DSLR is not for you.
5. High-end equipment does not equal better pictures. Bad photos can be taken with the best of equipment, just as good photos can be taken with entry-level equipment (see composition note above). Knowing the limitations of what your equipment can and can not do. I know that if I don't have a tripod for many low-light conditions there usually isn't any point to taking the picture (underexposed, too blurry, or too blown out with just an on-board flash)

What you are shooting will dictate what equipment you need. If your wanting to learn about photography, but not take it to at least the level of a being a hobbyist, your probably not going to need a DSLR. That would be like having a high-performance Ferrari and only driving it at 15mph or less - in case like this, it would be for bragging right only, and not about the photography. A point and shoot (or point and pray as I like to call them) will likely be enough.

Taking good photos is entirely about compromise - there is not other way to put it. Learning on what to compromise on (think: composition) is what is important (ie: sharpness vs blur, depth of field vs bokka effect, picture with image grain (high ISO) vs getting no picture at all, are auto settings good enough vs. manual settings, etc.). Generally most of that can be accomplished with any camera that allows manual settings (control of aperture, ISO and shutter speed) but if your not willing to learn how those setting interact with your photography then there is not much point to having those settings - it will just make things to complex for the user..

Since the original post is coming from a camera phone, virtually any digital compact will be an improvement since you immediately have a larger sensor and a larger lens that will allow more light to to reach the sensor. Does (s)he need a point and shoot with manual settings? Depends, how much does (s)he want to step it up and how far (s)he want to take it in the future. But by the sounds of it, any point and shoot will do him/her just fine.