Ask Slashdot: Best Camera For Getting Into Photography? 569
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?"
Canon or Nikon (Score:4, Informative)
The Canon or Nikon entry level DSLRs...you can't go wrong, except for the fact they are made for really small hands seemingly. For a little more money, get the next step up from either of those brands so you get a camera body that actually fits average human hand sizes.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, for a newbie, I am not so certain that the difference between the brands (Sony, Panasonics... lots of them) are that great anyway. For a few hundred dollars you should get a decent compact.
Just remember to get a memory chip with some capacity. Look at price per capacity, but I assume a 4 GB should cost next to nothing these days, and it will keep more than a th
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Informative)
Two things to consider when trying to learn photography are 1) Interchangeable lenses and 2) Getting the largest possible image sensor you can get (Noise decreases with image sensor size, not with megapixels).
Micro four thirds (or similar formats from Sony/Samsung) have a larger sensor than a typical point-and-shoot. So they work better in low lights and generally have a higher Signal-to-Noise ratio.
Olympus EPL line is a pretty good and cheap micro 4/3 camera. Sony makes their NEX series which are the full blown APS-C (DSLR) sensors squeezed into a small camera. Olympus and Panasonic both make micro-4/3 cameras, so the lenses are easier to come by. Also they can use adapters for various other kind of lenses. On the flip side, the micro 4/3 sensor is only 60% or so in size compared to a DSLR sensor.
All the above also have pre-set modes to increase/decrease brightness, contrast etc. -- they are useful to start. Once there you can set the camera to full manual and learn the physics part of photography. I've been told that Samsung makes the easiest to use interface , but I have never used it.
Panasonic Lumix LX5 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Interesting)
this is the best advise i've seen so far... the best camera to start out with is one that will always be with you.
WTF moderators, why did this get a low score?
OP, unless you're dedicated to becoming a photographer and don't mind carrying around a DSLR all the time, you'd be better off carrying a small compact point-and-shoot camera. get something in the $200 range(8-12MP, 3x optical zoom) they're all pretty comparable, but i've always been partial to the canon xilim or canon powershot series. my criteria was a camera OS that was usable as well as quick and responsive. i've spent time in several stores testing various brands for what i felt were important features: power on to shutter ready; switching capture modes; the ability to turn off startup sounds/animations; size or a pack of cigarettes; sd card. once you've got narrowed you choices down to a couple/three cameras, go to http://www.steves-digicams.com/ [steves-digicams.com] and compare your impressions against someone whose tested many evices.
IMHO, if you want to learn how to take photos, you do it by taking pictures. don't get an DSLR. don't get a micro 4/3. you can graduate to these later, when your comfortable taking pictures. don't buy a camera that you haven't actually touched and toyed with.
1) carry a camera with you all the time.
2) take lots of pictures. if you get a one good picture out of 20-36 exposures, you're doing well.
3) not every picture is sacred. capturing the moment with all it's flaws is better than to miss the moment.
4) keep taking lots of pictures
5) don't be afraid to edit out crap images
6) learn the various functions of your camera(night shot, red eye/no red eye, flash/no flash, etc)
i take between 6000-10000 pictures a year(the camera is with me all the time). i replace my camera every year or so(depends on how beat up it gets).
and i get surprisingly good images from a stupid little canon powershot. i have a lot of reject images, but i also more than my fair share of keepers. eventually i'll get a fancier camera, but in the meantime i'm looking at a new refresh(canon s100 is looking sweet) for my daily shooter.
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:4, Informative)
2) take lots of pictures. if you get a one good picture out of 20-36 exposures, you're doing well.
Your advice is good - although I'd add a few comments:
1. Digital cameras have made it easy to shoot hundreds of pictures in hopes of getting one good one. The problem with that is people never learn composition, lighting, etc. - things film forced you to consider due to cost and limited exposures per roll. Sure - take lots of pictures but read up on the basics of exposure and composition - learn the rule of thirds. light zones, etc. Experiment with different settings - aperture, shutter speed to see what happens. Look at photos and decide what you like about them. Learn to look behind the subject - 30 photos with a branch growing out of someone's ear doesn't do you much good. Ultimately, it's the brain behind the lens that makes the difference.
2. The biggest advantage you get from a dSLR is depth of field - but it's not worth it if you leave your camera at home. I have a number of dSLRs and a bevy of lenses; but 80% of the time it's a 5 year old Canon point and shot that I have on me, simply because fit early fits in a pocket or briefcase.
3. Consider a ruggedized point and shot - one that you can take to the beach or in a pool. Buy extra batteries. Buy several smaller memory cards instead of one really large one. You can swap them out and if one dies you don't lose everything.
4. Don't get caught in the hype over megapixels or zoom length. Every name brand point and shot today has a good quality sensor and lens that will work just fine for a hobbyist photographer.As with any hobby, some people spend more time measurabating over specifications than actually enjoying the hobby.
5. Visit some photography web sites. I like Fred Miranda's site (fredmiranda.com) - posters will give good advice and critiques of your work, no flaming or gear wars; just a group of people interested in photography.
6. Start saving money because once you get hooked...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A problem with DSLRs is that you wont have it with you when the photo opportunity presents itself.
For a compact camera, I'd look at the size of my pockets to find how big it can be and then find the one at that size with the largest sensor, not minding the pixel count as much as sensor size and see if I could afford that one.
Ability to shoot in some RAW format would be a definite plus also, in my opinion, in case I accidentally take a photo that I should be able to make look as good as possible.
RAW will let
Re: (Score:3)
As others have suggested, Canon products are great. For what I perceive to be your situation, a Canon pocket camera will be your best bet. You do actually get good images from them, and I say that with certainty as I have two pocket Canons, one DSLR and a couple dozen DSLR's at work, all Canon. I resisted the urge to get a pocket camera until a couple years ago, but since I did, there's truly no going back. Why? Because you always have it with you. A DSLR you will not carry with you very often, plain
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Informative)
SLRs are very forgiving to people who are inexperienced with taking pictures. So yes.
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Informative)
By virtue of the more complex optical path, the modular lens options, and the various other bits and bobs that SLRs end up with, they get big enough that 'bringing the camera' becomes a decision, not an automatic thing.
With the fairly impressive capabilities of contemporary point-and-shoots(yes, admittedly, the capabilities of SLRs have enjoyed the same technological improvements, only more so because they have more space and a bigger budget), you really start to hit the wall of diminishing returns pretty quickly(It takes surprisingly few good megapixels to spit out a butter-smooth 8x10, and a 2560x1600 display is only a smidge over 4 megapixels, and those are $1,000+ Serious Screens).
There are some genuinely ghastly point and shoots out there, to be sure, and the weaknesses of the entire genre will start to bite if you need low light performance, run into situations where you need a somewhat atypical lens, or are really serious about your manual settings; but it isn't hard to get a ~$100 P&S that'll happy-snap just fine, or a 200-250 one that will have a nicer optics package, some of the more useful historically-SLR-only features not removed from the firmware(histograms, RAW, some manual options), and generally compete pretty well with the low end DSLR and shitty kit lens of the moment...
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, despite being called "point and shoot", those small camera's usually aren't quite as fast as a DSLR.
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I do agree with you, the nifty 50 is an awesome lens.
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to kind of echo what you said, I like to have 3:
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
It's hard to learn about depth-of-field, manual focus, tough lighting situations/backlight, bracketing, aperture - shutter relationship, etc. etc. with a point and shoot. And by hard, I mean "not possible".
Those finest photographers in the world are using optics that are 100 times better than most point and click cameras today, regardless of how "primitive" you think their gear is. My grandfather took pictures with an old 1970s era SLR and has covers on Alaska and National Geographic magazines, because of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Why not take it to the logical extreme, and say that if he's not using a 4x5 and scanning it in (at a massive resolution), or a scanback (for landscapes), he's not interested in photography?
It's a matter of trade-offs.
There's specialized cameras - scanbacks, and large format film cameras. But these cost about as much as a small plane.
Heavy, expensive, good quality (especially in poor conditions - like low light or moving targets, or both) - there's DSLRs. You need to make 2 choices - what brand (Canon or Ni
I will let ... (Score:3)
... Cartier Bresson know.
Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot (Score:5, Interesting)
And the flip side is that the P'n'S that you bring to everything can never take a really decent photo.
Sorry, but utter BS.
I was once part of a photography club. The members would regularly have internal competitions. The winning entries were more often than not from high quality non-DSLRs. The photographers had years of experience, owned DSLRs, but ultimately found smaller cameras to be more convenient.
Technical aspects (camera features, optics, etc) do help, but they are merely one reason among many that you get good photos. Other factors are opportunity, photographer skill, and yes, the number of photos you take.
As someone once said:
Most of Ansel Adams's photos were crap. I know that because most of all photographers' photos are crap - you just see the good ones.
If you're buying a camera that will reduce the likelihood of you taking photos, then you're likely going to get fewer good photos than with an inferior camera with which you take a lot more photos.
To get to the rest of your comment:
The quality of the P'n'S image will limit what can be done, sometimes severely limit it. A DSLR camera will let you go further since the raw image is better.
Many non-DSLR's offer raw. This isn't 2001.
At this point I believe all DSLRs offer a .tiff or .raw format that the Gimp can work with, or an uncompressed .jpg format which is usually just as good as a .tiff.
First, almost all good point and shoots offer TIFF. When I bought my first digital point and shoot in 2001, all the "good" cameras offered uncompressed TIFFs.
But that's all irrelevent because: A TIFF format is almost useless. You simply have a huge file with no lossy compression. This does not give you the extra manipulation headroom that you get with RAW. The benefits of RAW do not carry over to TIFFs.
These uncompressed files give you all the detail that the camera actually saw.
Not true. Uncompressed TIFFs have less information than RAW.
Seriously, how did this comment get moderated up?
Re: (Score:3)
A decent photo is one that can you work with in Photoshop (or the Gimp, which is better for everything except a few types of professional work). The kinds of things you want to be able to do are cropping and rescaling, selective blurring of background distractions, selective sharpening with the "unsharp" capability, often some tweaking of colors. In this day and age, a photo is not finished until it has been photoshopped at least a little bit.
A great photo is one that doesn't need any of that (except maybe cropping - which can be done on any photo from any source).
Learn how to use your camera, how to frame a shot, how to focus, how to use depth of field, how to choose and achieve the right exposure and take better photographs from the outset.
Feel free to post-process your photographs, and there are a lot of really nice pictures that have resulted from people doing just that, but please, don't pretend it's essential. It's not.
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry about that Nikon there. Your wife seems like a nice lady though :)
Honestly, just to put my two cents in on a topic that's probably already com up: Nikon, Canon...who cares. I shoot Canon because I've shot canon for my entire life because my grandfather shot Canon. Shoot what you can borrow lenses for.
I do think Canon's all electronic and physically larger lens mount is better, but not at a level which would impact 99% of the people who own one. (Including, incidentally, me.)
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Informative)
Canon G12 or whatever the most recent iteration of it is.
I normally shoot with a Canon 5d MkII and owned a G11 before when I was still shooting--shocking!--film, up until last year. Honestly, the average person couldn't tell the difference between the shots I took with the G11 and the 5d from a *quality* perspective. (I swapped for an S95 when I bought my 5d, purely for the smaller size.)
There are differences to be sure, and work I do with the 5d that could NOT be done with the G cameras. The most notable difference is the greater depth of field afforded by the full frame sensor and how I use it, but from an "I'm just taking pictures..." perspective the Gs are excellent and you can exert as much or as little control as you want with shutter and aperture priority modes.
MOST and by MOST I mean ALMOST ALL people who buy a Rebel wind up shooting with the kit zoom anyway. It's a crappy, slow lens and I'd argue that MOST people would be better off shooting with a G--which is also free from the dust on the senor problem--seeing if they like it and then deciding to move to a Rebel or a 60d or a 7d or whatever suits their budget.
You'll carry the G much more than you'll carry a rebel. Though it's not tiny, it's noticeably tinier.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, there are some really good small cameras out there. What eventually pushed me in to SLR land was constantly fighting the camera to do what I wanted. The interface on the little cameras is just not quite there when you start constantly playing around with EV compensation, manual focus, aperture adjustments, etc. Then of course the SLR really improves the low-light performance, shutter lag and continuous shooting. By then one's spent thousands of pounds instead of a couple of hundred for a high-end
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I have a Canon s95 as well and for the question that was asked (just taking pictures) it's a great camera. I bought it a few months ago when I needed a compact camera. Checked all the reviews and stuff.
As for the flash: my default is "off". I rarely need it on the s95. Even in a dark theater, most pictures are better without flash. I recently went to a show and most of the flashed images are too light. And I don't like postprocessing. The no-flash images were quite nice, but ofcourse with fast movements of
Re: (Score:3)
You should look at CHDK [wikia.com] and see if they come out with a version for your camera. It will probably enable raw mode, among many other features.
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Interesting)
Talking as someone who was heavily into amateur photography until a year or so ago, the main reason you see Canon and Nikon "worship" is because they are the only two manufacturers where you can start out with a very cheap DSLR at the low end, and migrate your way right up to the top levels in equipment without ever having to dump your current kit and replace it - you can achieve that steady progression by buying lenses and bodies individually, there is no point to reach where the previous level of kit won't work with the next.
It's really quite a nice position to be in.
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a myth if you buy entry-level Canon, buy an L-lens for your entry level Canon, then upgrade to a better Canon body. If you jump ship to Nikon, then you just sell your gear on eBay/Craigslist for not much less than you bought if for and start over. Good luck with that if you start with Sony.
There are adapters (Score:3)
I've got an Olympus 4/3 now and I'm now using the old Pentax screw mount lenses on that as well as on my 35mm K-mount Pentax. Why? The old 50mm makes everything look pretty good and a 350mm lens fills the role of an incredibly expensive 700mm native lens for the Olympus (reduced image area gives an effective doubling of focal length). I've only had the adapter for a week and haven't t
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
What you say is true in only two ways: 1) if you are only capable of taking pictures in the camera's 'automatic modes'. 2) if you buy lenses meant for anything less than for a full 35 mm sensor/film (what you are talking about with respect to consumer/pro digital lenses).
I have manual lenses that work just fine for me, but I do have to use them full manual. They are 20 or 30 years old, were purchased for 35 mm film, and work on film or digital Nikon cameras. Once you get to a certain point, it is the phot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suggested Canon/Nikon solely because you can't go wrong. Sure Sony, Olympus, Pentax, et. al. make some good gear, but it's a crap shoot. Plus, with Canon or Nikon, you can see if you like photography, buy some nice lenses, and if you like it, upgrade your camera body while keeping the lenses.
Then there's the whole used market advantage for Canon and Nikon. It's much easier to find good used gear for Canon and Nikon than it is the other brands.
Re: (Score:3)
The camera is important, the piece of glass it comes with even more so.
I have a Panasonic Lumix that I've used for 7 years now, and I was just thinking yesterday that I'm amazed how well it has held up. The megapixel count of other cameras keep climbing, but this Leica lens keeps me in the hunt.
So yeah, the default answer is often going to be "Nikon" or "Canon," but this fairly inexpensive Lumix has never let me down, and I am continually impressed with its photo quality, even at only 4 megapixels.
They're u
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with non-SLRs is that they seemingly all suck when it comes to turnaround time between pictures, and their autofocus is universally slow -- if you have ever had experience with manual focus. A decent 35mm film SLR from the 80s with TTL exposure control, IMHO, outperforms pretty much every point-and-shoot when it comes to how quickly you can retake a previously set-up picture. Most of them, at least with experienced operator, will outperform even starting from scratch (focus way off, aperture/iris way off, etc).
Entry-level SLRs seem to be really a class above point-and-shoots, especially that you regain control of the focus adjustment and aperture. This really is a make-or-break when taking multiple pictures of the same subject, like you often do (bits are cheap!).
Re: (Score:2)
What about the "superzoom" class of cameras? You can get cameras in this class with excellent lens systems (but not swappable) and with control over aperture. They just don't have manual focus.
Really bad response to original problem (Score:3)
" manual zoom, which is much faster and accurate"
Come on, you are advocating use of a camera for manual zoom to a person who said explicitly they do not want to photograph as part of a serious hobby or profession?
That makes NO SENSE. People who are not seriously into photography DO NOT WANT to manually focus a camera, DO NOT CARE about a critical point of focus. You guys are ill-serving this poor questioner with confusing responses like this, which will in the end deliver unto him a bag of frustrations.
Re: (Score:3)
I have the HS20EXR and would recommend it as an entry level in a heartbeat. The manual zoom alone is worth it. It is really odd around the edges if you look closely, so if any of the following are deal breakers for you, stay away.
The tripod mount thread is plastic, no idea why. Worse, it is right next to the battery cover, so you can't leave a quick release plate on all the time.
Manual zoom is not on a discreet range, so it can be a bit tricky at times.
You will be able to shoot in most low light situations
Re: (Score:3)
The submission mentions "price versus performance", and for that reason, even though I'd like to own some SLR, I still stick with my Canon Powershot (SX100, was ranked "superzoom" when I bought it for its 10x optical zoom). And I'm still happy with it. Point-and-shoot + manual modes/settings for experienced users + CHDK firmware mod [wikia.com] for (lots of) additional features. IMHO. if you go for CHDK support you'll definitely get a decent camera at a decent price, with the added feature that if you really get into i
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm seconding the opinion of Powershot + CHDK. It's a great combo for learning the basic-to-intermediate topics - composition, exposure, ISO, focus, basics of RAW processing, long exposures - and still allows to shoot "idiotenkamera" when there's no time to set things up.
When the Powershot stops being satisfactory (primary limitation: poor color matching), get a middle-shelf 2-3 years old used EOS, a couple decent lenses - a set that combined will give you focal lengths between 15mm and 200mm, and the essentials: tripod, basic filters, remote. This will get you into "advanced" with combining focal length, aperture, time and ISO to limit depth, get motion blur exactly where you want it, reflect flash from surfaces, use focal length for artistic effects and not just cropping, play with manual focus etc.
Note you CAN do most of this with a compact+CHDK, but... only if you know what you're doing. The interface is way too clunky to use it for -learning- the advanced stuff, things you do by a twitch of wrist in SLR require navigating two menu levels down and using the +pad for entering numeric value in CHDK.
Still, it's good 2 years of learning using the compact till you should think about switching to SLR.
Re:Canon or Nikon (Score:4, Interesting)
Testify, brother. It's all in the glass. I'd be happy with better lenses on a lower-model body. My wife bought a Canon kit with body, 50mm, 18-55, and a 75-200 (IIRC). My kodak DX6490 - at 4MP and a Zeiss lens - takes sharper pictures than the Canon 18-55 (which crapped out recently - autofocus she no work no more - and not worth fixing). The latency is a PITA though. I wish digital cameras had a "just take the damn picture" mode, using the last settings and don't-worry-about-the-focus. I'll rely on depth of field when I need to get the shot NOW.
Fuji X100 or Canon S100 (Score:3)
Some thing like a Fuji X100 or Even canon S100 is good to get familiar with all the fun stuff, shutter, aperture priority, macro etc. Also no interchangeable lens means you can slowly break into how costly this hobby can be. Good lenses cost upwards of $1000. Good SLRs upwards of $2000-$3000
Engadget just did a review (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/25/engadgets-holiday-gift-guide-2011-digital-cameras/ [engadget.com]
If you just want to snap pics, go for the lumix. If you want low light photography, I'd go for the s100.
Re: (Score:3)
I've owned a Canon s95 for a year, and that's the precursor to the s100, and I give it a solid thumbs-up for these reasons off the top of my head:
- Affordable in that once paid for, you don't need more accessories, mostly. Well okay I bought an eye-fi card and love the wireless workflow it brings.
- blue-jeans pocket-able
- on 'Automatic' every photo 'works' and looks good. Great for n00b owners with little time
- nice manual controls for when you have more time to play and learn.
Note the s100 has better image
Cheap Digital SLR (Score:3)
Buy a cheap digital SLR, cheapest you can find, and then invest your money in lenses as you progress.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm gonna second this recommendation. You can get last year's entry level DSLR and a normal zoom as a refurb or open box for under $400 and it'll take better quality pictures than pretty much any current pocket camera model. If you're frustrated by modern smartphone cameras (which are on the low end performance wise as far as pocket-sized cameras go), most compact P&S models aren't going to be a huge improvement. The cheapest DSLR will make a night and day difference in terms of focus speed, focus accur
Make sure you have it with you. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Beautiful images... in thumbnail sizes... if the lighting is generous.
They are better than nothing in a spot, but if you're expecting to take photos, say on a trip or family photos, a good compact P&S will give you a better shooting experience and far better results, while still being pocketable. A decent compact with at least some manual settings is also a much better way to learn the basics than a smartphone camera.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to say that and carried a P&S with me wherever I went... Until the iPhone 4 came along. I've been really, really happy with the iPhone 4 camera never before posting images to Jonesblog from anything other than a dedicated camera until then.
A fading light shot is here: http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2011/10/evening-light/ [utah.edu]
and an indoor shot of the inside of an instrument is here:
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2010/12/gravity-probe-b/ [utah.edu]
To get me back in the point and shoot camera b
Re: (Score:3)
This.
The camera that you will have with you. Whatever that is. In the old days, we used to say "f/8 and be there." -- in other words, 90% of getting the portfolio that you want is having a camera at hand when the action is happening.
You need to ask yourself what exactly is the limitation of your current situation? Resolution? Low light capability? Control over focal length? And you also need to ask yourself how much more hardware you are willing to carry around all the time.
But really, understand exa
Snapshots? Canon SD. (Score:4, Interesting)
Canon Ixus (or PowerShot SD in the US) is a really easy and good snapshot camera. Cheap, too. If you point it at things and click, you'll get decent photos most of the time. They're also easy to carry everywhere.
That's the right sort of camera to learn composition and take pictures of everything and see what you can do with it and so forth on. Once you're sick of its limitations, go to a DSLR. Do not start on a DSLR, it's what you get second.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mm, you could be right there.
A second-hand older Ixus is cheap enough to do things like put CHDK [wikia.com] on it and get quite a bit of that fine control.
Re: (Score:3)
I loved my Powershot A620 with the CHDK firmware. Best point-and-shoot I've ever laid hands on.
The A620 also let you attach extenders so you could mount filters or other lenses in front of the existing hardware, which I did with a Raynox macro kit.
I even recorded video using the macro setup, though it has a very narrow DOF. Sample of a crested gecko baby here [youtube.com].
the best camera (Score:5, Insightful)
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:the best camera (Score:5, Informative)
You should at least pick a camera with the option of full manual control and a good picture quality in automatic mode.
When the last one sucks you quickly lose interest!
I would suggest one of the top of the line compacts of Canon or Nikon, new serves no purpose except poser status and maybe warranty.
I can strongly recommend the Canon G-series like the G10 or the Nikon P5000, others mentioned the Lumix series but I hate their low-light noise reduction.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why I have a Sony NEX. Small size, but giant DSLR-like sensor (APC-C actually better than some Canon DSLRs), 1080p stabilized Video that doesnt sucks. Manual controls and modern interface that even has simple tutorials (has a moder cpu with linux inside). Quality is great. All-metal.
Battery kind of sucks, but then I have an older NEX 5 model.
Decide on features first (Score:2)
Once DLSRs are out of the picture you have to decide what kind of optical zoom you are looking for. Up to about 10x optical zoom can be had on a reasonably compact camera, anyting over that you are likely getting into the mega-zoom class of cameras that are quite deep because of the monster lenses on them. I have a Panasonic Lumix FZ-18 with a 18x optical zoom and find that the camera really is just a bit too big to carry
Re: (Score:3)
Skip all the features...zoom is marketing. Go for image quality, which isn't measured by a feature listed on the box.
Annie Leibowitz sez (Score:2)
It isn't the camera (Score:2)
It's the person behind the camera that matters. Get some training, read and learn the basics, and most importantly, practice.
photo.net is a good starting point.
Books and buy used. (Score:2)
Start with some books on photography. "The digital photography book" 1,2 and 3 by Scott Kelby helped me a lot. This assumes you want a DSLR. You might start with a point and shoot. There is a great market for used photography gear. Buy used and learn as you go.
Olympus isn't too bad. (Score:2)
Olympus' "Four-thirds" system is supposed to be great for n00bs at giving better color toward the fringes of the image, though it gives more noise at higher ISO levels. I use the Evolt E-510 and it's pretty decent. There's a "micro-Four-thirds" system that's supposed to be better but I have zero experience with it.
A cheap P&S around US$150 (Score:3)
Fujifilm, Canon and Panasonic all make fine point & shoot cameras that will get you decent results without too much futzing about with the settings.
I recommend going to a proper camera store and playing around with them for a bit to see which interface(s) you prefer, and buying that one. Don't get too caught up in megapixel numbers or video resolution specs, concentrate on the one you think you'll actually use.
Definitely subjective, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Canon S100 (Score:5, Informative)
It's a newer camera, great mix of features (including 1080P video and GPS geo-tagging). As a professional photographer, I'm a Canon fan-boy. (Nikon is good too.)
DP Review is a great geek-compatible site for camera reviews, here's their take:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canons100/
Re: (Score:3)
I can second this. I've got an S95 (previous model) and love it. Full automatic to full manual mode and fits in your pocket. Has the sensor of the low-end Canon SLR's - much better than the sensor used in many point-n-shoots. The S90 was also very good, but only does standard video, not HD.
I bought it after owning a Canon S230 for 8 years. I loved that one so much (built like a tank, and got some great shots out of it) I got the S90, then upgraded to the S95 shortly after. Find one of those if you don
I was in the same boat (Score:2)
This guy has some good info (Score:2)
What I did... (Score:3)
If you want a bit more options than a simple point and shoot, but don't want the full complexity of a DSLR, go for the middle and get a long-zoom point and shoot.
They have the options (aperature, shutter speed, ability to optically zoom to 300mm+ ranges) that the DSLRs have, but without the inconvenience of carrying around a bunch of lenses.
Then once you're comfortable, step up to a consumer level DSLR.
I have a Sony H5 for essentially kicking around with (and that I learned on), and a Sony A55 with an 18-55/F4 kit lens, a 55-200mm zoom telephoto lens, and a 35mm/1.8 prime lens for low-light situations, when I want to try to get really good pictures. Carrying around all that is usually impractical, so I only bring it when I purposefully want good pictures, and not just snapshots.
I'm by no means a good photographer, but I've been very happy with the results of both setups.
One thing really matters: shutter delay (Score:5, Informative)
If you want good pictures of children. It is really only one thing that is important and that is the delay from pressing the button to taking the picture.
I got a D40 from Nikon just when they released it four years ago and have gotten tons of great pictures with it.
It has a rather small sensor and not that many functions, but the shutter delay is measured in milliseconds.
Panasonic LUMIX DMC TZ-10, -20 or (sans GPS) -18 (Score:2)
Sturdy, pocket-size compact with 1-lens-fits-most needs, GPS, etc.
$210-250, incl S&H, from Hong Kong [via eBay].
This question has been asked, and answered... (Score:2)
in 25 easy steps:
at The Online Photographer [typepad.com]
You're not ready for a DSLR. (Score:3, Informative)
Those recommending otherwise aren't thinking this through. You've gone your entire adult life without a camera. You're used to your camera substitutes fitting in your pocket and that's how you should start with a real camera. The idea otherwise, that you will be instantly alright with carrying a DSLR is folly. You don't have the habits for a DSLR, you won't feel right, etc. My point is, you won't use it. It'll sit on a shelf. Sure as hell it'll take great photos the day or two you mess around with it, but after that, shelf time. I've seen it too many times before.
Start small. Grab a good point-and-shoot. I recommend a Panasonic Lumix with a wide-angle lens, high optical zoom and GPS. In particular, the DMC-ZS10. I'll admit I don't personally own one, but a friend of mine just picked one up and I've been amazed by what he's been able to pull off with it. That's the way to go. If not that camera, one like it. Something that will fit in your pocket - so you can make a habit of having it with you.
Then after a couple years after you've become used to a camera as a separate object, and have experience with having an actual camera, you'll have both the habits and the knowledge required to choose something better, whether that is another point-and-shoot or a good DSLR.
DSLR is the way to go (Score:3)
As long as you don't need a camera that fits in your pocket, a low-end DSLR is probably exactly what you're looking for. Even a lowly $400 Nikon D3100 has a sensor size and resolution that camera fanatics could only dream about 15 years ago. And if that's out of your price range, you can do much better shopping refurb or used equipment (I paid ~ $250 for a D40x two years ago when I was in a similar situation as you).
Why DSLR? Because it (1) has a big sensor and (2) compatibility with hundreds of lenses. Bigger sensor = more light captured = easier to take good photos with less skill. And even the low end Nikon lenses give pretty good results with the new VR (vibration reduction) feature. Seriously, my photo quality went way up when I ditched the cheap pocket cam. I'll never go back.
Get an 18-55mm lens (probably will come with the camera) and a 55-200mm lens (around $120 online), and you'll be set for just about anything except low-light and indoor sports photography.
In terms of brands, I went with Nikon just because I was familiar with them, but the Canon stuff is functionally equivalent.
Lots of things you can buy. Don't. (Score:3)
From what you've said, it sounds like you're dangerously close to being bitten by the equipment bug.
Don't.
Every amateur photographer goes through this phase - thinking "if I only owned X, my photographs would improve immeasurably". Some never get out.
Every photographer who is in this phase is wrong.
What you need to do is learn about composition and light. Get to the library, hit up Amazon and learn about what makes a good photograph. Expect to take tens of thousands of photographs while you're learning - and accept that you'll never stop learning. Accept that of the thousands of photographs you'll take, possibly 5-10% will be halfway decent and maybe 1-2% will be so good you'll seriously consider having them printed to put on the wall.
Canon S95 (Score:3)
The S95 is fast, light, and cheap (especially since the S100 just came out) and takes very good pictures. It also gives you as much manual control as you want to start with - you can do aperture priority, shutter priority, adjust ISO, manual focus. And it will do RAW mode. Or you can start with just putting it on fully automatic and working on your framing and composition first (which you should do).
If you really get into it you can put a custom ROM on it which will give you even more control like manually specifying shutter speed and aperture at the same time (manual mode).
After spending some time with this then maybe you'll want a DSLR, but I wouldn't start with one.
From a turning Pro photographer (Score:3)
4 years ago I was in your shoes, wanting to take better pictures (of my kids primarily). I received a Nikon D40 as a gift, and have gone on from there to using all manner of cameras
There are lots and lots of tradeoffs to consider, unfortunately. Generally speaking the SLRs will set up, focus, and click much much faster than anything point and shoot. Larger sensors perform better, especially in Low light. See this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format [wikipedia.org]
You don't need the latest generation of DSLR to get started, and I don't really recommend that you start with a lot of features. There are a lot of things to learn if you get into it. I know you want to keep it simple, and every _photographer_ (as opposed to gearhead) wants their stuff to get out of the way so they can take pictures. Unfortunately there are a lot of decisions to be made, gear and otherwise with each click and making better decisions with more capable gear means better pictures. Pro pictures look pro for a reason.
Having enough gear to make those decisions is important, but learning what they are is more important. Things like composition and lighting, and how to bounce-flash when you can get away with it.
You can always buy gear on CL and sell it the same way when you have exhausted its limits. You can more or less try gear out "for free" with a deposit that way. Especially if you stick with "popular" (hence semi-liquid) brands/items.
With all that said, buy either a used D40 or D3100 off of Craigslist with a kit lens (or the canon equivalent), or get an Olympus E-P3, E-PL3, E-P1 or Panasonic GF3 (with kit lens). The new m43 bodies set up and shoot much much faster than previous "small" cameras and the m43 sensor is big enough to be "good". And they are a heck of a lot less bulky than the SLRs.
Fantastic deals on those today
http://www.43rumors.com/black-friday-brings-superdeals-on-e-pl3-e-p3-e-5-and-gf3/ [43rumors.com]
Sony NEX either C-3 of N5 (Score:3)
*** Pentax *** (Score:3)
Common question (Score:5, Informative)
I'm surprised that this question came up on Slashdot, but I regularly see and answer this question in other photography communities.
Use these two links to determine which camera to buy:
Snapsort [snapsort.com]
DPReview [dpreview.com]
There are a few things you need to decide:
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 . . . I figure a decent camera will run me a few hundred dollars, which is fine.
(emphasis mine)
You state that you don't want to get into photography as a hobby or profession, but you just want to take good family portraits? Good portrait photography is not really that subjective and is a combination of good lighting, subject isolation, and timing (for non-posed shots). A camera is just a tool, you have to gain some basic mastery of the tool in order to use it well. Dropping a few hundred dollars on a camera and leaving it in Auto / Program mode will not get you the photographs you're looking for.
Without more information, these are the suggestions I'd offer:
Non-DSLR, non-superzoom route:
- Canon S100 or S95
- Panasonic LX-5 or LX-3
Canon if you want more zoom range, Panasonic if you want better low light capabilities.
DSLR route:
- used Canon Ti1 or Ti2
- used Nikon D90
Pick up a 50mm f1/.8 when you feel limited with the kit lens.
Re: (Score:3)
+1 on this
As someone who used to sell cameras... (Score:5, Informative)
And these people need significantly different kinds of cameras.
People from the first group want fast shooting, small cameras with minimal fuss. 99% of these people buy point-and-shoot cameras. They might or might not be technical people. They will probably get their pictures developed at the drug store or just post them to their favorite web site. Red-eye reduction is more important to them than long zoom or the ability to manually do much of anything.
The second group want a zoom lens longer than the longest you have on hand. They want to take a picture of the nose hairs on Mount Rushmore and they want to count the feathers on baby bald eagles. They have plenty of time to get their pictures "just right" and they will pay more for professional grade media. 99% of these people buy DSLRs (or the closest things we had to them back then). You can sell a tripod to these people but they don't really care about facial recognition or red eye reduction because they aren't looking to take pictures of their best friends since they already know what they look like. These people are not necessarily anti-social they just see photography as being about remembering things more so than events.
So my advice is first figure out which group you fall into. Then you can quickly rule out a good chunk of the cameras on the market. And don't let someone tell you there is one camera that does both well, because that is a lie. There are small cameras with good zoom but they are nowhere near being equals to DSLRs, and no DSLR is ever going to fit into your pocket.
CHDK! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm amazed that noone has suggested this yet.
Get a Canon PowerShot. For one thing, they're great little cameras (I started out with one), but that's besides the point. We're on Slashdot here, after all.
The point is that you can make it a lot better with a firmware hack called CHDK [wikia.com]. It is loaded into RAM from the memory card without touching your original firmware, and gives you full manual control over your camera.
In addition to getting features normally only seen on DSLRs (such as bracketing, saving in RAW, and a live histogram), you can write and run Lua and uBASIC scripts on the camera, allowing you to program it to do whatever you want (such as motion detection to trigger photo or video capture, sophisticated timelapse scripts, intervalometers, USB remote triggering, etc.). You can take exposures far longer than the factory limit (mine went from a max of 15" to 64 seconds with CHDK), or far shorter in fact, allowing you to take both very low-light or very high-speed photographs that were simply impossible with the camera as it came out of the factory.
You can even play games on the thing. It's ridiculous.
If you can really say no to all that on a simple compact, you can buy me a DSLR and I'll give you your geek card back.
A few ideas... (Score:3)
For a point and shoot I personally feel that the Panasonic TZ series is all the camera most people need. My mother is a skilled photographer and this is her carry everywhere camera and her shots often rival most of her DSLR shots, even some macro work.
Otherwise buy a Pentax, Canon, or Nikon DSLR, used even, and in the most basic range megapixel-wise even a year or two old model that can be had for a steal will outpace most point and shoots and allow you to learn and grow if you choose.
4/3rds cameras are decent but I've not seen enough to make the extra cost worth it to not go the TZ.
From a Photographer... (Score:3)
Light and Tradeoffs (Score:4, Informative)
Photography's all about capturing light. The less of it you have, the longer you need to spend capturing it. This leads to blurry images as most things move and your hands will shake too.
You can partially solve this by:
Using more natural light - Shooting outdoors in daylight (can lead to harsh shadows and doesn't really work for your stated goal of shooting friends and family who tend to gather indoors for things like parties)
Supplying more light - using a flash (with the risk of redeye). Redeye is caused by light bouncing off the back of the eye on to the sensor. The closer the flash is to the sensor, the smaller the angles involved and the worse this problem gets. A flash hotshoe lets you move the flash away from the sensor. Also, external flashes tend to be angleable so you can bounce the light off ceilings and walls to get a smoother fill.
Reducing movement - You can put your camera on a tripod but it's a pain to carry around and a lot of compacts don't have mounts. You can also ask your subject to hold the pose but this annoys friends and most people other than trained models can't really do it. You also lose all action/candid shots.
Using a larger sensor - A larger sensor gives you a larger area to collect light.
Giving the light a larger hole to come through - Apperture. The problem is, the wider your apperture, the shorter your depth of field. A lot of compacts abuse apperture to make up for their small sensors but you end up with horribly shallow depths of field.
Amplify the signal - Rather than collect more light, you can amplify what you do get (higher sensitivy - ISO). The problem with this is photons hit relatively randomly with densities based on the light of the image. In large enough numbers (usually due to time), they average out and you get a nice smooth image. In small numbers, they're broadly but not exactly distributed based on the image you expect to capture. Amplify this noisy image and you get a lot of noise in the end result.
A DSLR solves most of these issues by giving you a much larger sensor than compacts use, uses higher quality components like microlenses, has much larger glass for collecting the image, provides a mount point for a better flash and gives you the ability to fine tune everything to get the right combination of tradeoffs for the shot you want. They also tend to come with much better autofocuses so you get the shot you wanted rather than wait for the focus to hunt and give you the shot a second after the action. For that reason, most people will suggest DSLRs - your odds of getting the shots you want are dramatically improved.
However - The best camera you can ever own is the one you have with you. If a DSLR is large enough that you never have it at parties, too expensive to risk at the beach, don't leave in the trunk of the car when out for road trips, it's completely useless except for the couple of times a year you plan a staged shoot.
Many of us with DSLRs realise and accept this so we see it for the tool it is, accept it may get damaged but a damaged and used camera is worth far more than an undamaged and unused one so we get a decent bag, toss it in the trunk, accept the weight of lugging it and all the glass everywhere and always have it with us. If you're like most normal people however, and won't do the above, a DSLR's a very expensive paperweight that's kept safely at home. Keep all of the information from the start of this post in mind and then find the compact with the fewest tradeoffs that's still small enough you'll have it everywhere (smaller size usually means more tradeoffs).
That might mean one of those credit card style totally flat cameras with a folding optic that goes everywhere. That might mean a basic compact with a zoom that comes out of the body. That may mean a larger compact with a larger fixed zoom. Or it may mean a DSLR. The point is, not knowing you and knowing what you will or won't put up with carrying, none of us can tell you what the right camera is for you. The best we can do is give you pointers to what will minimize your frustrations with a camera (namely ability to capture in non ideal light) and then leave you to decide what balance of size vs. tradeoffs is right for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"that actually look good" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Well, the cost is the hours you spend going through your photos to trying and pick the best ones to keep. Sometimes it feels like more time is spent on labeling, categorizing and sifting through the photos than in the whole trip :-(
Re: (Score:3)
it's the sifting through the photos that is the learning experience. Even with film (which I exclusively shoot still after having bought and abandoned a 400D a few years back) I still throw away at least 90% of my pictures. Learn to keep only the best.