Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
You're going to need Skill, which is currently sold out everywhere. :(
Start with an DSLR.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/25/engadgets-holiday-gift-guide-2011-digital-cameras/
If you just want to snap pics, go for the lumix. If you want low light photography, I'd go for the s100.
Buy a cheap digital SLR, cheapest you can find, and then invest your money in lenses as you progress.
I'm in the same boat, did some research on dpreview.com and other sites and found that the olympus sz-30mr is a compact camera with an optical zoom found on more expensive dslr's or dslr-like cameras, is about $300 - $350 less than the dslr's, and will fit in your pocket or in small bag that you can carry around your wrist. I ordered it earlier this week.
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/
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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Canon - PowerShot ELPH 300 HS 12.1-Megapixel Digital Camera
Model: PowerShot 300HS
5x optical/4x digital zoom
2.7" color TFT-LCD display
1080p HD video
Face detection
This one has one of the best overall positive customer reviews of any camera oout there and it is $229
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
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.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
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.
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
I bought a Canon T3i several months back. It takes great pictures and my photos get compliments. Couldn't be happier!
If you don't think you will get really serious about photography, then skip the DSLRs.
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 around all the time.
If you want some of the more custom controls, such as manual focus, you will be looking at the higher end of the Nikon Coolpix range, or the Canon PowerShots. I personally have been looking at the Nikon Coolpix P7100, and while it is not a small camera, it is also not a huge camera, but it has a great feature set and a slightly larger sensor than the pocket sized cameras.
All of that to say that you really need to decide what features you are interested in first, then you can start doing full research. I found Digital Photography Review to be a good reference.
Just start taking pictures with your camera phone.
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.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
As someone who just purchased an entry-level DSLR, I was in much the same boat. After many, many hours of research, I finally ran across a little gem on in a forum post. It went "any recently made DSLR will be good enough for you."
So stop worrying and pick any brand of entry-level DSLR. Same the money on the camera to pick up the lens and filters you'll need/want down the road. They're where the real cost is, anyway.
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.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
You can never go wrong with a Canon point and shoot. I would look in to an older G series on the used market if you want a bargain. The G9 model and up are absolutely fantastic cameras for the money.
As a geek, you will not regret the 1000fps high-speed video, and the burst modes help make up for low skills. It's no dSLR, but it's awesome as a mid/high (depending which model) P&S, which sounds like what you want.
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.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
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.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I have the Canon 1000D It has all the functions a newbie could want, has 10 megapixels (the 1100D has 12 I believe) and of course is a DSLR.
I have a friend who exhibits photography and he told us this was the best camera for a new amateur. When you get a camera, you will want to play with the buttons, features, ISO, aperture, shutter speed and eventually you may want to buy a 200 or 300 mm zoom. As an Example, I have had mine for less than a year and from knowing NOTHING I now take lunar photography and just purchased a 1000mm reflecting lens... about the most extreme lens anyone I've showed it to has ever seen! :) But, of course the 1100D and 1000D have a 'full auto' setting. Point and click. The pictures are fantastic.
And best of all, unlike normal digitals, DSLR's hold their value for resale far better.
My sister is big into photography, and she kind of passed on the hobby to me. I am not nearly as hardcore as her, but I was looking for a decent camera I could take good looking photos with. I could creatively experiment with it, and i could also rely on it to take quick good looking photos. I did not want to be burdened with a massive camera body or a set of lenses, but I wanted some versatility.
After a bit of shopping, I found my way to the Panasonic Lumix LX5. It's great. Compact. ($370) I take it everywhere when I travel or when I want to snap a few shots of my friends. I don't take it to the bar, mind you, but I do take it to picnics, sports, etc. I walk around town with my ipod in my ear and experiment with some artsy shots too.
There is also a great book called The Photographer's Guide to the Lumix LX5 published by The White Knight Press. It covers all of the basics of photography and how to manipulate the camera with all of it's functions. A PDF version is available for under $10 through the publisher's website. I am partial to the Lumix LX5, but honestly all of the cameras that are covered by that publisher would fit your requirements in my opinion. (Except for the Leica, $$$$$)
Lumix LX5, Fuji Finepix X100, Canon Powershot S95, Nikon Coolpix500 (a bit bulky)
Other than the quality of the sensor and the photographer, there are two things that contribute to a photo looking "good": lens diameter (collects more light) and number of lens elements (fewer is better). Going from a pinhole-sized smartphone lens to just about anything else is going to be a major improvement. Personally, I use a Canon DSLR (mostly because I like Canon, and it fit all of the lenses from the 35mm system it replaced), but I also carry a Panasonic Lumix "super zoom" point/shoot. It takes great photos (and video), and still fits in a pocket (it was better than the point/shoot Canons of the time). Their micro-4/3 systems with interchangeable lenses are also good. These systems (I've also heard good things about Sony's) offer a pretty nice quality/price balance between traditional point/shoot cameras and DSLRs, too. But as others have said, you should probably bulk up on your photo knowledge, too. Understanding stuff like shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, rule of thirds, etc. can go a long way to making better photos, even with a smartphone camera.
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
If you go with Nikon, the Auto Focus lenses tend to be higher since the motor is in the lens, rather than in the body. So if you plan on having 10 lenses, you add additional cost to each lens.
I have a Nikon D3100 and love it. It great for easy point-and-shoot as well as full manual.
The Canon T3i is a fantastic choice if you can afford it. It would be my choice if money were no object.
The 4s is finally to the point (in terms of noise and dynamic range) that I think it's stilly to think about getting any other consumer compact.
As another poster said the best camera is one you have with you, and since you will probably always have a phone... also something to consider is that over time more features will be added to that "camera" in a way that simply is not true of other normal consumer cameras.
Other than that the only other real choice is what you said you do not want - a "serious" camera like the Sigma DP-2, that takes pictures that have amazing quality but require you to really be more serious about the photography.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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/
Get a Canon Powershot SX150. It's about $200 if not less online. I got myself a Canon Powershot SX110 a few years ago for the exact reason you describe. The SX-series is one of the least expensive digital camera lines that allows you full manual control over ISO, aperture & shutter speed, which allowed me to learn the practical differences amongst the various combinations of settings. You also get a nearly ridiculous stabilized zoom range of about 20-250mm (12x), which allows you lots of flexibility in composition. Unfortunately the camera doesn't tell you the focal length so you'll need to learn to read the zoom bar to do the conversion in your head, but the info is stamped in the EXIF metadata within the JPG. I've since stepped up to an entry level SLR having discovered I like photography as a hobby, but the great thing is that the SX remains useful as a compact camera. You won't want to lug the bag everywhere. Another plus is that the SX's run on 2 AA's so if you get some nice NiMH rechargeables you're set for general use and in a pinch any drugstore at a vacation destination will get you running again.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm Scroll down a bit for the section for Casual Photography.
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.
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
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.
It's not really camera, it's you. My friend is photographer and takes better pictures with Nokia 2110 that doesn't even have a camera than me with Canon Hypermax Red 4K Turbodigital Pro+. It's the moments to grab, not technology. No camera makes you a better (or worse) photographer. I found that iPhone 4S + Instragram works best for me.
I was in the same boat 4 months ago, a nikon D7000 was the right choice for me.
Sturdy, pocket-size compact with 1-lens-fits-most needs, GPS, etc.
$210-250, incl S&H, from Hong Kong [via eBay].
in 25 easy steps:
at The Online Photographer
I recently went through a similar exercise. The vast majority of the opinion was to focus on a canon or a nikon. I ended up getting a sony alpha due to the very, very fast continuous shooting (10 fps) and video (60 fps hd), at a similiar price to the CaNikons (~1000). Downside is less lens availability; however i'm likely only to own less than 3 lenses. Ever. When doing your evaluation, I'd be sure to include this with the big 2.
you have skill with a camera. This guy has some good points about the cost of a camera. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm
I did some fabulous Photography when i got my first Point-and-Shoot from Kodak. It had a manual mode, that allowed me to control some of the basics like aperture, focal length, exposure time up to very high values, ISO (i think).
I got very creative and made some photos that i still marvel at today, even though i now have a professional DSLR with a collection of quality Lenses. So what hugely matters in my opinion is imagination, a camera that gives you a good degree of control, and a mindset of focus on the subject(s) and framing thereof, no matter your environment, even at the risk of looking like the stereotypical Japanese tourist.
If you decide to go DSLR right away, i would recommend the APS-C models of Canon and Nikon that you can gradually extend with better (upwards compatible) lenses.
Happy shooting.
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.
You can't know what you want before you try something out, so get something you will like even when you've figured it out, at minimal cost.
Nikon D80 (~200USD on ebay) + Nikon 50mm f1.8 AFD ~100USD (optionally Nikon 35 f1.8 AF-S DX or Nikon 35 f2 AFD for more crammed indoor)
Then, for good looking photos of family, you need a flash and you need to bounce it off some white surface to diffuse the light, so, get e.g. Nikon SB-24 or SB-25 that have plenty of power, for about 60USD second hand on ebay. If you really want to push it, get a pair of Cactus V4 TX+RX (~50USD) for reliable off camera flash triggering. To do it a bit over with studio like photos, get also dual mode reflective/shoot through umbrella for about 20USD and a Manfrotto flash stand (these are studio priced at about 100USD but worth it).
To make the flash work, it needs rechargeable AA NiMH batteries, around 2011 there is one sort that kills others for flash usage, the Sanyo XX 2500mAh. Don't even think about other batteries. And a charger, something like MAHA 8xAA.
Am I the only one who thinks questions like this one don't belong here? Go to a consumer's website or a decent website about cameras and leave Slashdot for the News for Nerds and the Stuff that Matters.
-- Cheers!
It sounds like you just want a good point-and-shoot camera. I suggest something in the Canon SX line. I have an SX130is that does everything a novice would need. Good resolution, good image quality, and a decent optical zoom. I've owned a couple in this same line (one got left in Vegas). A brand new one will run around $250, or you can usually find last year's model for under $200. I got both of mine on sale for around $170. I've looked into the bigger SX30 or SX40, but for that price you might as well buy a cheap rebel DSLR (which is what I'll get next time).
You want an SLR to change lenses, get high quality lenses, and be able to screw on filters. You also get a standard hot shoe with these, so you can attach larger offset flashes.
You want the time between pressing the button and the shutter snapping to be as short as possible. Film cameras are instant, digital cameras often have some lag. Some cheapo and phone cameras have over a second of lag, totally unacceptable.
You want an all-manual mode. You'll need that if you're actually interested in what F-stops and shutter speeds do, and what they can do to give you exactly what you want in your photo (control over depth of field for example).
Don't go just by pixel count for digitals. All else being equal, a larger CCD means a higher image quality, higher pixel count on the same size CCD means lower quality.
My parents bought me a film SLR when I was a late teen. I learned a bit about taking pictures. When the early, crappy by today's standards digital cameras appeared I got one because I hated to wait for film to develop. At my home we've had a series of point and shoot digital cameras, some good and some not so good. A little over a year ago I bought a used Nikon D40X DSLR just to see if the larger, more full-featured camera would work for me. I knew it would be less convenient to carry than a point and shoot, and a custom battery might also be a problem, but I figured if the experiment failed I could resell the DSLR without much loss. I love my D40X! I can shoot hundreds of photos in a week on one battery charge - 1 charge during a 1500 photo 10-day trip recently. When I turn on the camera it's ready to shoot immediately - no lens motor moving around before it's ready. The focusing system is better in my opinion. A zoom lens zooms by hand, which I prefer to the buttons on the camera. Besides the bulk I have a lens cap to deal with again - still odd. I miss being able to record the occiassional video because the D40X doesn't do video. But to recommend something I would have to know you. A DSLR is costly and bulky, but the results are very good, but if you won't bother to use it then it's of no value. Decide what you'll use most frequently and take photos! I wish I had my D40X while my son was growing up.
Or the rough Nikon equivalent of the P300 if you can give up RAW support (but it's a nice option to have.) I have a Canon S90, and my friend has an S95. I have another friend (pro photographer) with a Canon G10 (in addition to dSLRs.) He pointed out to me that the best camera for taking pictures is the one you take with you, and for me lugging around a body+lenses was just going to be too much of a pain. The S90 fits into my jeans pocket if I need it to, and a coat pocket or cargo pocket with ease. It has a lot of options, including manual focus, manual aperture control, and shutter speed. It's not quite as versatile as a dSLR, but it's got more than enough features for me, and when I'm lazy I can throw it into auto and take great pictures. Don't let the 10 megapixel image sensor fool you -- it's as much or more about sensor size than it is about megapixels. Basically by using a larger image sensor, you have lower pixel density, increased area to focus the light on, and the end result are pictures that have less noise. It's also better in low light -- I used my S90 inside a lit cave on a tour type thing (there was dim lighting) and was able to get decent pictures without the flash on the low-light setting while hand held. If I'd had a tripod I could have set the shutter speed to stay open longer and gotten spectacular shots.
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.
And get it in the form factor that works for you. A lot of people are going to recommend dslrs, but those are quite large, and you can get something like the olympus x1 with a decent sized sensor and still have it fit in a pocket, so that you are much more likely to actually have it with you when you want to take a picture.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
1. Something good that you will actually carry with you. The micro-four thirds system has a good ecosystem of cameras and lenses that combine being reasonably small with reasonably good.
2. If you go with a DSLR, get a good prime (fixed length rather than zoomable) wide aperture (light opening width - the thing that looks like f/x.y. Lower values of x are better). Both Canon and Nikon have excellent F/1.8 50mm lenses are very reasonable prices. The fixed length means that you'll have to work harder at composition rather than just being able to wing it, which I think develops good habits. They are also less likely to break (fewer moving parts) and are very sharp (having a fixed length makes it easier to create sharp lenses).
I may not have the option to take 3 frames in a second as an automatic feature, but the idea that the camera is "slow" is respectfully nutty. Clicking and holding the button down easily takes 2 a second, and if I'm wrong, no less than 1 a second. I mean good heavens man, how old was the P&S or what sort of SD card were you using to conclude that?
There are lots of things one can photograph without needing anything special. It's certainly possible to take a striking photo even with a cell phone. It can look good, if the conditions are right.
Now, that's assuming you don't have special needs. If you want to take photos in challenging conditions, you probably want to get a DSLR. Challenging conditions include: low light (that includes indoors), things that are very far away (say, wildlife photography), things that are very small, long exposures, when you want a shallow depth of field, and situations that require something better than the on-camera flash.
You can try to do most of that with a point and shoot, but even if you choose your composition wonderfully it still won't look very good. DSLRs produce much better results, and also have the huge advantage of being able to choose the lens. I think for most basic things the actual DSLR isn't all that important, as you already gain a huge amount of flexibility from just being able to use a different lens.
http://www.binaryemulsion.com/wordpress/gear/which-dslr-should-i-buy/
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.
Some of my best pics were taken with an all-manual Pentax MX with a broken meter. My main camera is a Panasonic Lumix with 6x optical zoom. It is small and light. Takes great macro shots, though is still suffers from shutter delay like most point-and-shoots.
Micro 4/3 is the best balance between point-and-shoot and interchangeable-lens cameras. DSLRs are more versatile, but I prefer a lighter camera.
One of my favorite cameras is a Canon RC-701, a pre-digital still-video camera with an incredible set of lenses. Too heavy for daily use however.
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.
It depends on if you would like to take good photos or store memories? My experience after owning and using various cameras ranging from cheap phone cameras up to a professional DSLR during the last 12 years, is that I use mobile cameras and pocket cameras for memories. But their small sensor makes them difficult to use in some situations, like low light or high contrast. DSLR's makes it easier to take stunning pictures, but their size/weight increases the risk that the camera is left at home and not used. In your situation, I would probably aim for something in between, like a Micro four thirds camera or a Sony NEX. Small enough to keep in a large pocket, large sensor that makes it easier to get shallow focus, and not as expensive as a pro DSLR. From there, you will probably notice how/when you are using it, and either be happy with it, or switch to a smaller or larger camera.
I'm not a decent photographer but I have a kid and some hobbies. I wanted to be able to document the growth of my son so I did a bunch of research on dpreview.com and bought a Panasonic Lumix LX-1. It was rated highest at practically everything. I was extremely disappointed with this camera. In low light situations, (school play, piano recitals), the pictures were practically opaque black while the lady standing in front of me with the point&shoot canon was getting far better pictures of my son than I was. So I switched to a Canon DSLR and have never been happier. Still, not a talented photographer but at least I can now get the pictures I want. I have gradually added a couple of lenses and an external flash. The Lumix still comes out for things like taking pictures of a car that I want to sell, or documenting a plumbing leak, or if we go for a little hike, we take the small camera.. But the Canon takes superior photos in every case.
They're are smaller than a common DSLR, but they perform better than a point a shoot, closer or even equal to DSLR's.
There is a system developed between Panasonic and Olympus called micro four thirds which I think it's the most popular, Nikon released recently a mirrorless camera line as well, sony and fujifilm also have for some time. I recommend you this site to get more info on the subject, it has a lot of reviews: http://www.43rumors.com/
As news cameras are came out this season, the previous models are getting quite cheap so you have some nice price tags now. GL for you choice.
Ok so from the information provided I will assume that the poster is not looking to make this a serious hobby. He's just looking for something that's a step up from the cell phone camera. While I agree that modern SLR's are very forgiving to new users there is a question of price. You may only have to pay 600.00 for an entry level camera and a kit lens but eventually he may want to get another lens. So let's assume that is not the way to go for a newbie who is only interested in shooting picture of family and friends. As it was stated by others you really can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon but Sony makes a decent camera and you shouldn't rule out Panasonic either. I think you should be looking at the "Prosumer" camera which hits the middle ground between a point and shoot (essentially your cell phone camera) and an SLR. Go over to DPreview.com and have a look at their reviews. Don't pay attention to the brand rather just find out what you want in a camera. Do a bit of research and contemplation before you buy or you may regret it. After you know what features you want have a look at the brands and compare what each bring to the prosumer market (prosumer = auto control and some some program settings) When you make your decision don't forget the used market. Sites like Adorama, keh.com and b&h photo have a decent selection of used camera's with quality ratings you can trust (most of my dslr stuff is purchased used). Here's a few examples of prosumer camera's; Nikon d5100, canon powershot, Sony cybershot and many more. At this level the quality of the major brands is usually consistent so brand loyalty is really not a factor. Good luck.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
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
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/
The Sony NEX C-3 or N5 are mirrorless large sensor camera -- the sensors are as big as you'll find on many DSLRS -- in a compact body. It's menu system is designed to be simple. You can use it as a pure point-and-shoot and still get DSLR quality photos, but the camera has most of the same controls you'll find on DSLR. It has an interchangeable lens system and is 16 megapixels. (Megapixels do matter if you plan to make prints beyond 8x10s.). There's no through the lens viewer, but that doesn't bother me at all. I've been taking photos since the era of the Nikkormat and do not miss viewfinders.
IMHO you would be remiss if you didn't look at and consider Pentax.
For most people a standalone camera in an unnecessary anacronism like a land line phone, a separate amplifier for you stereo, or an mechanical hard disk. For certain applications these things are useful, but to be honest even the iPhone sucky camera can do what most point and shoots can do. As the question indicated that this was not for hobby or professional, which means that we are not taking about shooting RAW and tweaking each photo, the we are talking about a point and shoot. And a camera phone is becoming a quite acceptable point and shoot.
Here is the thing about the modern digital point and shoot, as opposed to the film point and shoot. The key is the software and the sensor. In a point and shoot the sensor is tiny so they fact that one has an unideal lens does not matter. The picture the sensor is going to generate is crap . The sensors in most point and shoots in 35 square mm, which is not 35 mm which has twenty times the area. This means the light it can pick up is minuscule, andt the number of pixels that can be packed into the sensor without degradation is also minuscule. Most point and shots already pack pixels into the sensor at a density that defies reason, so that is not even an issue any more.
So we are left with software. The software is what converts the picture into something that will please the non-pro consumer. the software is the key. And this is what mostly differentiates one point and shoot from the other. How the software takes the noisy crap generated by the sensor into a picture. Whether tha picture is pleasing is a very personal choice.
So here is what I suggest. Go to the store and try the cameras. See which one's have controls you like. The way camera's operate can be quite different, so it is important to see what you like. Bring some memory cards. Take some pictures of the friend and family. Take the cards home and do whatever you will do want to do with them. See which camera is best for you.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If your smartphone ain't cutting it now, then it's very likely that you'll quickly tire of the majority of the consumer level point-and-shoots soon after you get one. The main things that hold back quality on cell/point & shoots are the lack of ability to override automatic settings and...LENSES. To really get a *noticeable* increase in image quality, you're gonna need a DSLR. Get a decent body, then invest in lenses as you progress.
ps - familiarize yourself with your camera's manual settings & how they affect the image ASAP
They bought out Minolta's camera division, so all autofocus Minolta lenses will work with modern Sony digital SLRs.
You average point -n- shoot has a cheap plastic lens that is just horrible.
Spend your money on the best lens you can afford. You want the fastest lens you can afford, the lower the F number of the lens the more light it will capture.
Most any of the lower priced models of either Cannon or Nikon will be just fine. As your skill in composition and technique grow you can move up to a better body and the lens will move with you.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
I've been doing this stuff on a semi-pro basis for some years now.
Any recent DSLR from Nikon or Canon will do great. Get something simple and shoot away. Later on, You can get technical but it really is besides the point. Take pictures of what moves you and make a difference for you. Don't sweat the technical stuff until later on.
TCAP-Abort
in 2007, I decided I wanted to get into Photography .. well to the extent of being able to hold a camera over a bug and get a larger photo. I went to extreme and bought a Canon Rebel XT DSLR. It came with a default lens.. and I bought a couple small things like a UV filter. It was easy to take photos with the auto and have them saved onto a sandisk CF card. I bought books, read and learned how to set it manually. It hasn't gone wrong at all and I have had some really intense photos that I have had printed and hung. You can make it as simple or as complex as you want. I think the current Rebel is around $600-$700. I'm not a professional, I just enjoy taking good quality photos of things I see that I enjoy.
It's still the case that digital camera sensors are far less capable than film: an $800 digital camera will be outperformed by a $100 second-hand film camera (eg Olympus OM-2). This is partly image quality, and partly sensitivity/noise (you can take a 2 year 'exposure' with film and see no noise, whereas most DSLRs can't exceed 30 seconds).
Part of the reason is that manufacturers of sensors tend to lie: a nominal "12 megapixel sensor" is really a "12 mega-subpixel-sensor", which has only 3M true pixels, and a major deconvolution problem too (see Bayer filter). So my advice would be to buy the best possible sensor you can get (perhaps the Canon 550D or Olympus XZ-1), and never mind the details of the rest.
Also, take a look at dpreview.com
The camera matters a lot less than the person taking the pictures. Take a basic photo class at an adult education center. learn the basics, ( exposure, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, megapixels etc..) what they mean and how they all work and relate. A little learning will bring a lifetime of better photo's
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
DPReview
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.
Go to www.kenrockwell.com and have all your questions answered.
I see a lot of comments that make no sense at all.
for one thing, don't be naive. Money does matter, a lot. A decent Zoom lens costs $1500+, not including the camera part. Stay away from DSLRs - they are for people who are willing to invest the time learning how to use a camera, They are also quickly becoming out of date, and probably will soon ONLY be used by professionals, much like film cameras were 10 years ago. The new fad is mirrorless. Nikon 1 line for example. But that still in the low end prosumer band.
What you want is a point and shoot. The nikon 9100 comes to mind. You do not have to think much about technical aspects, just point, and shoot (duh). It's in the $200ish range. It's small and fits easily in a pocket. Cannon has similar lines, I think its their G2 line. I know Nikon, not cannon, that's why I mentioned it.
DPReview (google it), while it has become more commercial (now owned by amazon) it still is a very good source of comparisons. ANd ignore people who say stay away from nikon or canon. There is a reason they are so popular. Yes you might find a fringe different brand thats good, but unless you plan on spending lots of time doing research, go with the popular brands.
BTW the thing that a DSLR will get you, is faster focus. at the cost of weight, and price. Even there a used D100 and a 50mm F1.4 lens on ebay in good shape will be in the $400 range, so if you are looking at semi-pro stuff, that is a cheap and great low light entry opportunity. but there IS a steep learning curve.
I am definitely not intending to get into a canon vs nikon war. When you start out, you pick one or the other then you make life time investments that tend to keep you in the same camp. either one is more than capable of anything you want to do.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Back in the day, people submitted genuinely challenging questions to this forum. Today, we are bombarded with dull queries that are best answered by Let Me Google That For You or Consumer Reports. I think this is even worse than “How do I securely erase hard drives so that first world governments with infinite resources cannot recover my porn and warez collection?” for the umpteenth time in that little novel discussion will ensue. We are talking about consumer-grade hardware here, and entry level at that.
Seriously, Mister Novice Photographer: if you are just that, you go to your local future shop, find the cameras that look serious (usually having sexy black cases, featuring bigger lenses, and not made with plastic) and fall within your budget. Does the word Nikon or Cannon appear anywhere on the one you like? Great. Buy that one. Then go read books that feature terms like lighting, focus, exposure, and composition— because those are the concerns that result in truly good photographs .
Next on Ask Slashdot: which MacBook Air is right for me?
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
All the photo purists here will start talking about the technical details of their favorite camera. The reason you take pictures with your cell phone is that you have it with you. If you just want good pictures and don't want to get "into" photography, a point and shoot camera will do. Plus, it will be small enough that you can carry it around have it with you when you want to take a picture.
Go to a store that lets you test the cameras, even if it is just there in the store, and take some photos. You can probably slip your own memory card into the camera and bring some photos home to your computer. See which camera you might like to carry and see how the pictures look on you monitor.
The one feature which I find useful if you are taking pictures outdoors is some sort of viewfinder. It doesn't have to be electronic. No matter what the manufacturer says the LCD is useless in bright sunlight. Being able to look through something that tells you roughly where the camera is pointed is useful. Even the viewfinder isn't a deal breaker if you are willing to practice shooting blind for while. Just take lots of pictures and pick the best one later.
I'm a pro photographer, and I have a couple of Nikon DLSR bodies and good collection of lenses that I use in my work. But my take everywhere camera is a Canon S95. The optics on the Canon are fantastic, it provides full manual exposure control, allows shooting in RAW, and it starts up and shoots faster than any point and shoot I've ever used. I've shot a few photos that have been sold for publication with this camera. The rule is: "the best camera is the one you have with you," and this little camera is the best value I've found for a camera that you can slip into your pocket and cary anywhere.
Note that they said the top three ware equal.
However, if you look at the sample images the lower noise and higher dynamic range of the 4s (not measured by the test) becomes apparent. Look for instance at the hedgehog in the no-flash still life...
The 4s is ALSO optimized to take pictures quickly, in under a second. I would say the cameras on the droids would be OK to replace a general camera with also but they are too slow (as is the camera in the iPhone 4, though that doesn't matter as the iPhone 4 camera is not as good as the 4s).
That's the problem with many camera reviews, they focus only on resolution but ignore many other factors important to a camera for use by real people. If it's going to replace a dedicated camera it has to be very quick to use or it's not a real replacement.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You really can't buy your way to better pictures unless what you have now is garbage. If you really want better pictures, you need to learn how to get the most out of a camera. A DSLR isn't going to help you if all you want is point and shoot. If all you want is point and shoot, you aren't going to get the picture quality you want. Don't look at a camera like a video card. YOU have to do at least some of the work when it comes to photography. Figure out what makes the pictures you take now look bad and figure out what you need for them to look better.
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. 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.
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS
If you want something in-between Point-and-shoot and SLR, look at the Canon S95. An important feature is that it takes RAW, which means you can alter exposure, etc. after you shoot. I don't shoot too often, but it takes great photos even low light at music shows or out with friends. It has a great weight too and is small enough to fit in your pocket.
As far as point and shoots the camera industry has gone down hill. Camera producers have gone the route of more megapixels is better. The result is more blurry images and noise. So if you are going to buy a new point and shoot buy something with a lower megapixel count. Also try to get something with as many manual controls as possible--- if you ever decide to grow as a photographer you WILL want these. Honestly the best point and shot out their today is the Canon G12. In general for point and shoots I'd stick with Canon (Nikon is rubbish for P&S). Fuji use to make some excellent low light point and shoots, but I think those days are gone now.
If the OP wants something to grow with long term any DSLR will do, but as others have suggested I would lean towards nikon or canon. This is primarily because they both have strong horses in the race, and are unlikely to ever pull out of the market. Also they both have one of the widest selection of lenses out there, and when it comes to DSLRs the lens makes or breaks the image quality. Expect to spend as much on each lens as the camera itself if not more. Also, a old 6 MP DSLR would do just fine-- I'll repeat again --- more megapixels does not mean 'better'.
As has already been pointed out, you may not want a SLR. I've been happy with the Canon G series, which has most of the features and quality of a basic SLR, except with a fixed lens. For something to actually keep with you, they are much more compact than any SLR, in fact smaller than the typical point-n-shoot from the days of film. You can use one like a point-n-shoot, or explore and learn with manual settings as you go on.
I occasionally borrow a SLR for some semi-pro work, and while I appreciate the overall quality and features (I did start with a fully manual film camera as a kid), it is always a little awkward. I feel the optical viewfinder is limiting compared to the swiveling display of some of the G series, particularly since I wear glasses. A part of this semi-pro work (publicity photos for an amateur theatre) is that a big camera makes you more credible, thus making the subjects give their best, but this is probably not an issue for you.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I thought that maybe I could contribute something to this question as a semi-professional photographer. When purchasing a camera, there are so many factors to consider. Before all else, you need to determine whether you want a point-and-shoot or a digital single lens reflex. To be honest, a high end point and shoot is capable of 99% of what a low-end digital SLR is capable of, and at less than half the size, it presents some real advantages. Point and shoot cameras to consider would be along the lines of the Canon G11. Once you move into digital SLRs, there are a lot of small things that you will not be told by the sales person. I am a Nikon shooter, so I can really only speak to that brand, although I am positive Canon is not much different. As you move from a low-end DSLR to a high-end DSLR, you will keep the majority of features, but you'll really see a difference in a few key areas. Firstly, build quality. The cheap DSLRs are made from plastic, whereas the higher-end DSLRs have a magnesium alloy body. Next, the autofocus system. Cheap DSLRs have a slower system with fewer tracking points, and as you move up the ladder, the systems become faster and more complex. ISO performance also improves as you go up the ladder, with the best performance being seen at the D7000 for a crop (DX) sensor, and the D3s for a full-frame (FX) sensor. A full frame sensor will always outperform a crop sensor in every way, although your zoom lenses will zoom a little further on a crop sensor, usually around 1.5x the stated focal distance on any FX compatible lens. Any Nikon DSLR below the D7000 lacks an internal focusing motor. This will make some of the nicest prime lenses Nikon makes entirely manual focus and almost impossible to use without a focusing screen - which, to my knowledge, no DSLR has from the factory. All of that being said, the best spot to drop your money is in your lenses. Specifically the Nikon Trinity: 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8 - This set will set you back almost $7,000 but is worth every penny if you want to get serious about photography. They will always be worth close to what you paid for them, and hardly depreciate. A camera body, on the other hand, is practically worthless within three years. This barely encompasses everything there is to know, but I am happy to answer any additional questions, just drop a reply.
" 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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My 2 cents, if you want good image quality (IQ) with a small pocketable body, and a camera that you can just turn on and leave in "auto" mode, either of these two will do (I have an LX3 that I've used for the last 4 years, and bought my wife an S95 - just before the S100 was announced, doh!).
There are subtle differences between both, the LX5 is not quite pocketable (too many protrusions), but IMHO has much better IQ compared to the S100 (I'm actually comparing the LX3 to the S95, but form factor and IQ are pretty much equivalent, except the LX5 has better zoom compared to my LX3). However, the S100 is more pocketable and has a higher zoom.
Both are cheap enough for you to start, and easy enough for you to learn to use, in case you decide not to move up to dSLRs, which are a whole different ball game in terms of price and useability. And to be perfectly honest, lense and chipset aside (which determines quality of JPGs, shooting speed, RAW output etc), the main other factor affecting IQ is the size and quality of the sensor, which, unlike the old days of changing file type in your camera/SLR, can't be readily changed. So, if and when you are ready to switch to dSLRs in 5 years time, you know what? Sensor technology will likely have changed again by then!
A good site is dpreview.com, that is my main go-to site for reviews.
I had a Canon Powershot point-and-shoot for a few years, then moved up to a Digital Rebel XS SLR. For image quality at reasonable viewing sizes (not 100% zoom on a huge monitor), they're more or less identical. Proper lighting, exposure, and white balancing are more important than the sensor. I see no advantage to a DSLR for daylight photography (fast shutter speeds), still shots (use a tripod), or generic vacation/group photos. P&S cameras can fit in your pocket, which is a huge advantage. They're also cheap.
The reason to go to an SLR is if you have a specific need that isn't being met. For instance, I like to take lower-light pictures indoors, so I like wide-aperture lenses. Macro photography also uses special lenses. I think SLR lenses also have shallower depth of field for nicely blurred backgrounds. You can also do weird things like tilt-shift or ultra-wide angle if you want to get artistic.
The biggest downside of SLRs is that they're big. Everyone else has said this, but I'll say it again but it's important. SLRs are not convenient. At all. They won't fit in your pocket. They'll tire your neck if you wear a camera strap. Carrying a second lens is even worse (they're typically 2.5in diameter at least, which is awkward in a pocket). They second-biggest downside is the price. All those neat lenses I mentioned above? Get ready to pay $500-1500 for just one of those on top of the camera body. Forget photographing birds or sports; you'll be paying the price of a car (not joking -- look at 600mm or 80mm lenses on Amazon). The lens that comes with the body is... less than stellar. There are cheap lenses, but they're obviously not as nice. Expensive lenses also usually have more limited zoom ranges.
The biggest downside of P&S is the control lag. Zooming is usually done electronically. The viewfinder is the LCD on the back, which has its own delay. It usually takes a moment after you press the shutter button before the picture is taken. If you want to take pictures of fast-moving subjects, this is a no-go. You're also limited to what the built-in lens can do. In my opinion, at the $100-200 price point, an SLR lens won't be much better than the P&S.
My advice is to get a mid-range P&S, then learn the basics of photography and see what you can do. Focus on using the program, aperture priority, and shutter priority modes, and set your white balance manually. Turn the flash off (except in direct sunlight -- counterintuitive). If you're still not satisfied after several months, then get an SLR, but realize that you'll easily spend >$1000 to get what you want.
Visit the
...iPhone.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/11/16/annie_liebovitz_recommends_iphone_as_snapshot_camera_of_today.html
For those who don't know, she's an American portrait photographer known for such iconic photographs as the 1980 portrait of John Lennon and Yoko Ono with Yoko laying on the floor and John, nude, against her in a fetal position and as chief photographer for Rolling Stone in the 1970s.
http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/best-digital-slr-camera.html First step what photography style: Action/Sports, Macro, Portraits, Landscape, ...
I think it's probably the Casio Exilim series. I have an EX-V8, it's very small, fits on my belt. I'm quite satisified with it. I bought one a few years ago. I have an SLR but I never carried it except when I specifically went somewhere to shoot photos. And I didn't want to take an SLR to a party lest I look like a paid photographer. But everyone would recognize me so I'd just look like a dweeb.
Some notes:
1) Ignore "digital magnification" - that's software based, like zooming in on a bitmap. Get high optical magnification. That's actual lens-based magnification. My Exilim has 7x optical magnification.
2) Shutter speed plus aperture size = amount of light reaching the sensor and creates the image.
3) Low light conditions: A large image sensor plus slow shutter speed plus large aperture = good low light ability. But, expect to use a tripod for these shots. Or at least resting the camera on a fixed object.
4) Big images - scenic vistas - what's necessary for this? Don't know.
5) Megapixels - more is better, but optimal amount? Dunno. I've got 8 megapixels. Never felt constrained by it.
Some unanswered questions but I wanted to raise some points that you might want to consider.
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.
Get the Canon T3I , with the basic Kit lens and a cheap $100 50mm (NIfty Fifty)
It's great, not hugely inexpensive, and you can always resell the T3I to a aspiring filmmaker.
It should run you about $850 or so maybe a bit more with SD cards and some extra batteries.
You can get super cheap batteries from various online stores as well as accessories like a battery grip.
It also shoots pretty good HD (1920x1080) video (30 fps and 24fps).
You can hack it with Magic Lantern.
(Warning Shameless plug)
We made a webseries with 2 of it's predaccessor, and we used the Nifty 50 to all of the closeups.
We shot the sword fight scenes with the kit lens (which isn't a good lens but it has IS)
It also took great photos with the 50mm on that we used to promote things.
You can check out some photos here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phasefirefilms
Check out all the episodes here www.standardaction.com
It's a point & shoot but the combination of 12 Mpixels, Nikor lens and image stabilization in both still and video modes makes it 10 times as useful as any other P&S I've tried. Also takes 1080P video, fits in your pocket and costs less than $250. It can also do ricks like exposure compensation without burrowing 10 levels into a menu.
Ask yourself some questions:
How much do you have to spend?
How much are you willing to carry around?
How much do you want to learn about f-stops, ISO, exposure compensation, white balance, off-camera flash and the like?
Now, for the sake of argument, let's break down cameras into 4 categories: 1) smartphone, 2) pocket-size point-n-shoot, 3) over-sized point-n-shoot, 4) DSLR. (You've already said 1) isn't good enough anymore, although always having a camera with you is a tremendous advantage.)
Closer to 1 is cheaper and easier to carry. Closer to 4 gives more control.
Depending on your budget and what you're willing to carry to where you want to take the picture, you can spend a couple hundred bucks and get a pretty decent point-and-shoot that you can carry in your pocket. On the other hand, if you're willing to throw a couple thousand into it, you can rock a pretty decent DSLR that will pretty surely exceed your knowledge, time, and interest for a long time.
Here's what I did, three years ago when I found myself some extra money from a special project. I bought the (then new) Nikon D90 body, an 18-200 lens, a 1.8f 50mm lens, SB-800 flash, a good tripod, remote control, remote cabled control, UV filter and spare, two light stands, two cheap photo bulbs and fixtures, a spare sunscreen, a spare LCD cover, and sundry supplies like filter paper, gaffer tape, and gray cards. Oh, and a Lowepro bag. And a few books. Oh, and I already had ThumbsPlus, Photoshop SE, and some other various software, plus a couple of Picasa accounts and a Flickr account. Total cost around $2500. Never looked back. I've carried some subset of that almost any place of any interest that I've been for the last 3 years and taken thousands of pictures. And although I would have to call myself a hobbyist, my photos are primarily "family, friends, and projects". But here's what you have to ask yourself, kid, do you feel lucky? No wait, that's not right. Where did that come from? I mean, here's what you have to ask yourself, do you have the money, are you willing to carry it around, and are you willing and interested in climbing the knowledge curve?
On the other hand, nothing wrong with a point-and-shoot you can stick in your pocket. You can get some great pix with that.
Oh, and on the DSLRs, I think the D90 is perfect. The successor is the D7000, which also rocks. Cheaper than that in the Nikon line and I don't think enough functions are surfaced into dedicated buttons. Bigger than the D90/D7000 and although more controls are surfaced, and you get better sensor and body, the camera also gets bigger and more expensive. I've carried the D90 a zillion places, including backpacking, and I know I personally don't want a bigger camera, but I'm willing to haul the D90 around.
I'm a Nikonist by religion. I think they're better. That's why I have one. But other brands rock too. Take a look at Flickr by camera model. Every camera you can imagine, someone has taken some awesome pictures with it.
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.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
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
The AF/AE lock on some point and shoots will do pretty much what you're asking for.
Take it from a professional photographer (http://facebook.com/keysphotography)...Buy a Canon PowerShot. Get the cheapest one you can buy with optical "IS" (image stabilization). I'd shoot for the $130-180 price range. From the sound of your post, you aren't interested in donating a HUGE portion of your time and effort into learning how to make a photograph, and you are concerned about price. That's fine, but because of the former of those two, you will not see ANY improvement in image quality with price past about $150. Photography is ~95% about your abilities and ~5% about your equipment in everyday scenarios. That extra 5% of goodness goes a long way for pros who have already maxed out the 95% that comes from skill, but you are not those people. The extra weight, price, and bulk of a DSLR will only be a bad thing for you, because it will make you do the worst thing you can possibly do: Not bring your camera somewhere (due to laziness, fear of destruction, or lack of space, respectively).
I've seen others with newer lumix cameras and they suffer from similar issues. Pictures in anything other than full sunlight with ISO 100 are grainy and horrible. My friends with much cheaper point and shoots were able to get better looking pictures.
To this point, don't go *beyond* the Nex-3 or the A33/A35 cameras in price or complexity. The Nex-3 is about $450 and hardly larger than a typical pocket camera, it will be an amazing upgrade from a cell phone, without exploding in physical size. It has interchangeable lenses, although few (and expensive) -- the A33/A35 cameras are similar but take common Alpha Sony/Minolta lenses. Because of the new translucent lenses in this line of cameras, these cameras are significantly smaller than and shoot faster than others in this price range.
So now I'll answer the, "but it is Sony!". Yes, it is true that there is a great distain for all things Sony, and no they are not the market leaders in the SLR space... However, for an unbiased entry-level SLR, the Nex-3 and A33/A35 cameras are an amazing deal... and offer things that others do not for the non-discerning entry-level shooter.
Go to Best Buy and buy whatever the kid behind the counter tells you to. You'll get less misinformation than is contained in the /. thread.
It's painfully obvious most slashdotters know nothing about cameras and photography.
There once was a great photographer who went to eat at a famous restaurateur. After a great dinner the chef came to the photographer and said : "I have seen your pictures, you must have a great camera."
The photographer said : "Wow, this was the best meal I ever had, you must have a great kitchen."
Taking pictures is not about the camera.
If anything, I would go with the most simpelest of camera's. No zoom or other things to mess around with. It will force you to look at the subject and imagine what goes where.
Once you are able to do that, you will know what kind of camera will be best for you.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Focus (no pun intended) on the quality of the lens before you worry about Megapixels.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Back in the day, people submitted genuinely challenging questions to this forum. [blah blah blah]
So true. But thanks for finding the time to respond to a question so utterly beneath you. If only you could have posted this little gem earlier...perhaps we could have avoided all this ridiculous blather on such a mundane topic.
In fact, why not just have all threads in the "Ask Slashdot" section auto-replied with "Read a book, you idiot!" and summarily closed?
Seriously, Mister Smug Intellectual Elitist: get over yourself.
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.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
I've been very satisfied with my Pentax K-x. Great quality and the best part is that with a digital SLR like Pentax, Nikon, or Canon you can buy used 35 mm SLR lenses and get fantastic quality. Only thing it lacks is external audio input (you may want this feature if you are shooting a lot of video)
Start with an iPhone 4s or Android equiv (http://www.pcworld.com/article/241955-2/smartphone_camera_battle_iphone_4s_vs_the_android_elite.html)
Once you run into the limits of what that platform can do, then get a better camera. But by then you will have a better idea of why the phone does not work for you. If it is focus speed, go high end DSLR; if it is image quality, go 4/3rds or low end DSLR, etc.
For my chosen field (sports photography), a Nikon D300+MB10D w/ 70-200mm/2.8, 17-55/2.8 and SB-900 is entry level (sports photography) but comes at a high cost (as in $4-5k). For others, maybe a mirrorless system (4/3rds, Nikon 1, etc) would be a better option and a full system would cost less than one of my lenses.
You have a wide selection. Olympus XZ1 is a very good camera with a bright lens. The S series of Canon S95, or the new S100 will return very good results. I know little of the Nikon, but their new V1 is getting very good reviews. Steve Huff Photo and DigitalRev on YouTube have good reviews. The price might turn you off. The Samsung TL500 rates well, but not as easy to find Mirrorless cameras like the new Olympus pen cameras look hot. Lumix/Panasonic makes some fine cameras, and I would fill your needs. Read reviews of all the cameras, try to actually hold the camera before you buy. Don't get caught up in megapixels. There's a saying that the best camera is the one you have with you. Buy something that is convenient to carry. Take a whole bunch of photos. That's how you become a good photographer. Practice.
photosMy Photostream
I asked this question many moons ago, and at that point was considering only a 35mm film camera.
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/03/12/09/216255/best-35mm-slr-camera-for-beginners
The most popular answer of the time was a Pentax K-1000. There was a good discussion recommending I go digital (which I did in 2006 with a Nikon D-200). There was a recommendation to use exclusively slide film. Someone else pointed out to start with a lens system and then find the body you need- which I feel is great advice, but not something a beginner will really be able to use.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
You're mostly talking about casual photography? You just need to compromise between image quality and camera weight.
- Where are you going to take photos?
- When are you going to take photos?
- What you're willing to carry around all the time?
- What is really limiting factor with your camera?
- Wide angle / shooting in tight spaces?
- Want that cool narrow depth of field?
- Resolution / Color response?
- Low light performance?
- Missing that polarizing filter or other fancy stuff?
- Telephoto range / want to catch that seagull over that pier?
If you just want light camera you want to carry everywhere go for small point-and-shoots. Most mainstream brands have good enough products. And don't stare just megapixels, 10MPix is good and mostly enough.
If you're willing to carry few extra kilograms everywhere, then just go for DSLR! Nikon or Canon, doesn't really matter. Choose same brand your most friends have. Best image quality and versatility for the price.
Personally I chose low weight over image quality, after few year of carrying 35mm SLR gear around. Just too much extra weight when traveling around.
Now I have smallest waterproof camera I found (Sony DSC-TX5). Really amazing camera for it's size. Fits inside any pocket, shoots everywhere, anytime, even underwater and doesn't mind of little mishandling. Just perfect camera for casual photography. Has it's own problems and image quality isn't anywhere near DSLR. But hey, it's for my personal use and not for National Geographic magazine. Most of the time my friends have been amazed of the quality of photos taken with such a small camera.
If you don't really can't decide. Then just buy something, experiment with your gear and next camera will be "the right one" for you...
used nikon d50 and a 50mm 1:8 lens
You have two really great options:
Panasonic Lumix LX-3/LX-5 or Canon S90/S95. Average price $250 (USED).
The Panasonic LX is great for close-ups, low-light conditions, and manual controls. The Canon S90 wins on portability and simplicity.
Either camera is a winner.
The poster specifically said he doesn't intend to become a photo hobbyist. Thus any DSLR is probably more expensive and more weight than a good point and shoot. I have two Canon DSLR's a 5D for stills, a 550D for video and a Canon G9. The latter takes really fine pictures with reasonable light levels when I don't want to lug around the DSLR. If you find yourself caught by the bug there are many very good DSLR's starting at about twice the price of the G9/10/11. The other major brands have similar good offerings I am just not familiar with them.
I have a good point-and-shoot (Canon SX110 IS), but it is outperformed in every way by my new old Canon 400D DSLR. I bought the 400D kit for around 180 euro's which, in Electronics world, translates to about US$ 180. For about $100 I bought a 50mm prime lens to accompany it. That will be all I buy in terms of technical equipment for now.
You will need to learn a bit more about how the camera focusses, and about exposure and aperture settings, to get the most out of it. But even on automatic, it outperforms the point-and-shoot in every way except size.
I went like Canon IXUS v3, Canon Ixus 80, Canon EOS 500D (DSLR), got my first prime L lens some time later, then sold the EF-S lenses, then the 500D, got the EOS 5D II (which is very nice). Got some more L lenses. Got my own photo studio and studio lights, light formers, and then I took this picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aiei/6385882661/ Now I'm with Phase One 645 DF with a Phase One P25 (digital medium format). The DSLRs are great to learn about aperture and time variables. Oh and once you start with the lights, don't forget the light meter. I don't want to miss it. My friends are like taking 5 - 20 pictures with flash to finally get an approximately right lightning. A good picture is made of 60 % light, 30 % lens, 10 % camera.
Windoze not found: (C)heer, (P)arty or (D)ance
You are a beginner. Get a good point and shot. Visit a local camera shop.
Panasonic Lumix LX5
Bow before me, for I am root.
Well, wouldn't you know, David Pogue, of the New York Times, just published an article about this: Three Small Cameras Come Up Big in Photo Quality
dpreview.com has helped me buy each camera (4) and each lense (6) that I own. It is a valuable resources including in depth reviews that cover a full gamut of tests. Many people have already linked to that site and I have to say you should just visit it yourself. People can be extremely opinionated when it comes to cameras, dpreview gives quite unbiased reviews that are easier to sort through.
We need a basic price point. You're getting tons of advice, and it's all over the place because you haven't listed a price point. Also, I'd like to know exactly what you plan on using the camera for. Adult friends are different to shoot than children. Adults at evening parties are different to shoot than adults at the company picnic. Landscape is totally different. Also, what looks decent on a computer screen or a 3x5 print isn't what looks good as a 8x10.
Basic: check out dpreview for a review of P&S cameras at various prices. You'll do much better with almost any basic P&S than your phone. Moderns ones can even take video. Cost $70-$200
More advanced: There are lots of more advanced P&S cameras that give decent manual control over the camera. My old Canon S5, for instance, has some pretty flexible features for exposure bracketing, manual focusing, etc. It has a great zoom range, and the "speed" of the lens is much better than found on cheaper models, i.e. the lens collects more light allowing for shorter exposure times. Modern ones can do full HD video too. Cost ~$175-$400
Advanced: Entry DSLR. The low end of this field has gotten crazy competitive recently. A Canon T3 (aka D1100) has the potential to curb stomp the other suggestions, but at a greatly increased price point. My Canon S5 has a 36 - 432mm equivalent zoom. The same lens for a Canon DSLR costs ~$480 after a $100 MIR right now. That said, the provided kit lens on the new models is actually acceptable, and the addition of a cheap prime lens (fixed focal length) like Canon's 50mm 1.8/f II lens is great. That cheap ~$120 lens will let you take photos of pets and children that no P&S could ever capture. With that two lens set-up, your total "reach" is a bit limited (no long telephoto), but it'll be good for general wide angle and indoor photography. Cost ~$500-$50,000.
Sure, the resolution is rather limited by today's standards, but you have the option of bringing many individual things into focus, or put everything but one thing in focus, or vice-versa. It's a new tech, but it's awesome to not have to worry about focus ever again.
https://www.lytro.com/camera
https://www.lytro.com/science_inside
I have one and it is quite a fun thing to behold. It has limitations, however. But those aren't so bad, really.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
One of the better photography sites. Check their user forums. Hit the "beginners questions" forum to start, then when you find a camera you think you might be interested in, hit the specific user group for that camera, and you can get opinions from people that actually have the camera. I've been on dpreview.com for years. Great place to discuss ideas, get opinions, reviews, tips, tricks. I've had cameras since the late 70's, starting out with my trusty ole Canon AE-1. Then in the early 2000's I started tinkering around with digital. Every couple years, I would sell what I had, and get a more complex camera, ending up with a Panasonic FZ-50 in 2006, and used it until May last year when I got my present camera, Nikon D-5000.
The market does not lack in selection of entry level cameras that can take pictures with minimum efforts from the "photographer". Sony has some good looking ones with okay lenses. Or any Canon compacts are good enough without looking too chunky. I don't like Nikon compacts, though I do like their pros, but it's a venue you can explore. My experience is different from yours. I shot a lot of compacts, but really hated that you have to hold it 3 feet from your face, and look into the LCD screen to compose. My friends laughed when I looked into the optical viewfinder, like the "old way". I decided to get serious about photography and after much research, bought a Leica M8 and a Summarit-M 35mm, both used for a total of $3800. Nearly everything you know about modern cameras is not present in this combo: no autofocus, no zoom lens, no auto mode of any kind, rear LCD screen is crap, battery life is subpar at best. But all the "old world" goodies are there: excellent lenses, instant feedback, excellent craftsmanship, big bright optical viewfinder, inconspicuous (my favourite feedback: "where did you get that toy camera?"). I am completely in love with the combo, and won't trade it for any DSLR. I don't say that you need a Leica to begin photography. But since you asked the question on Slashdot, chances are that you do care somewhat about photography. Most people don't come here to ask a $300 question.
Firstly, if you're into photography, Slashdot isn't the best place to go for advice. /.ers like to think they know about tech things but there is alot of strange and varied advice being posted. dpreview.com is the place to go.
You generally won't get good pics from a small-sensor camera. Additionally, 4:3 aspect ratio photos can be a PITA to print unless you have good access to 5.33x4" and 6x9" printers.
It is hard for me to say what is the right camera for you. But my general recommendation would be for the Sony Nex 5n with double lens kit, or better yet the Nex 7n if you're not too worried about cost. Few SLRs would take better pics than the Nex and they pose real problems with portability and not being allowed into many events. Besides, most people do not like having a big, black, heavy, click-thunking camera being pointed at them.
The camera doesn't make pictures to look good.
Worry more about learning how to take a good picture than what camera to use. When you know the basics of how to get best picture in different situations. Things like how to frame the shot for best effect, See how to use natural light for best effect and how and when to use flash to compensate. When you are familiar with this you can take good pictures with almost any camera and the brand and model choise is up what works best for you personally. Go to the stores and ask to handle the different caemras to see what fits your hands, how easy they are to use.
The optical viewfinder of a DSLR is much better in most circumstances than the digital display on the back of a camera. And your batteries last *much* longer if you don't have to use your sensor and display all the time. Many current DSLRs can use sensor+display as a viewfinder too, just like a compact camera, so you get the best of both worlds.
A DSLR is the easy answer to your question. But what do you want to do with your photography and what does that tell you about what you need? I have two types of cameras - one set that I use if I'm doing serious work, Nikon (D)SLR's with multiple lenses, external flashes, etc. / medium format Rolleiflex with filters, tripod, etc. These are my work cameras; my kit carried in a bag I find comfortable but certainly not portable.
For fun and art, I like a small versatile [quick] camera that I can carry around.
My old love was a film camera, a Rollei 35S, a brick the size of a pack of cigarettes, sharp optics with great bokeh. After trying a series of portable, yet satisfying (from the perspective of electronics that give me control of the image) digital camera, I settled on my new love, the Canon G12. The electronics give me the same control as a DSLR and they are more intuitive to use than many DSLR's. The camera's size is compact (not tiny.) I carry it on my belt, over my shoulder, or around the neck. I can compose shots on the LCD screen or, in bright light use the viewfinder. The D12 can be used in automatic modes or any number of priority modes (aperture, shutter speed, JPEG/RAW etc.) - so if you are trying to learn photography, you can grow into the camera.
I don't get the quality of image that I do from a DSLR or medium format camera. That said, the G12 optics are more than fine for prints up to 8x10 and all my web work. Have had a pro assume that a G12 image on the web was taken by my Rolleiflex 2.8F - it was cropped near square but the camera's quality sealed the deal. Because the camera is light and has stabilization built in, I can handhold down to a full second and avoid using flash. The zoom lens is more than adequate - keeps the weight/size down and optic quality up.
One last point. Because I can easily carry this camera everywhere, I get shots I would have missed because I didn't have my kit with me. If you are looking for a portable fun camera that gives you full control over your image (exposure, focus, and more), I recommend the Canon G12.
--- http://9is9.com "The bottoms of my shoes are clean from walking in the rain." - Jack Kerouac
Uh, the OP's right even if he's/she's harsh. Read the frickin post. This guy just wants a forum to brag his little photosensor gadgets. The video cards thing? Yeah. Great analogy. We'd make fun of you for asking that here.
Photography and related equipment questions DO NOT belong on Slashdot! There are dozens of sites that offer reviews, questions, answers, posts, and opinions. Go there and leave us computer geeks alone.
Photography opinions are akin to Religious opinions. Not to be discussed in polite company outside of their own circles.
Just a couple of thoughts:
Photography is about making images. The camera is just a tool in that process. Obsessing about gear can easily get in the way of making good images. I think train your eyes to see what is a good shot. Develop the skills in composition to pull what you are seeing into a great looking shot.
As to gear, I'd suggest initially just start with a couple of good quality fixed lenses. It makes you think about composition and build great skills. Once you have mastered them then move onto zoom. Starting with zoom means you just crop to the textbook proportions and end up with images that all look the same.
My photography is mostly landscape and travel and I use a Mamiya 7II - a medium format film camera. In limited situations digital is still not the best option and you need to work out what areas that interest you.
One last thought, my wife is an artist and takes fantastic photos with a small Leica. I think of the the underrated strengths is that it looks like a compact and when she takes a photo in a crowded location people do not even notice the camera.
And the flip side is that the P'n'S that you bring to everything can never take a really decent photo.
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. 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. 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. These uncompressed files give you all the detail that the camera actually saw. But P'n'S cameras generally only offer a lossy compression jpg format at around 85%, so the images you get from them are lower quality.
To go to the thread's original question, anyone getting into photography these days should plan to use two different cameras. A DSLR for things like birthday parties, graduation photos, and so on, which should be the best camera that one can budget for. And a P'n'S that is easy to carry around and cheap enough that you are willing to risk breaking or losing it so you can take it everywhere. So I think the real question is which one should you buy first, and I think that depends on what you will be doing first: Christmas tree photos of the kids? Or snapshots taken from your seat on the ski lift?
A little background is in order. I am squarely in the "pro-am" level of photography: I have sold a few photos but I do not aspire to be a professional. I currently own a one year old Canon Powershot P'n'S, a Minolta Z-1 DSLR that cost about $300 seven years ago, and a $1,500 Minolta DSLR (camera with $350 does-everything flash and other accessories). I carry around the P'n'S most of the time and even take photos with it sometimes. I take Z-1 on outdoor photo shoots at the beach, etc, and the really fancy camera only gets out of the house for safe events, far from sand, salt water, or other hazards.
Will
I recommend a Panasonic Lumix point-and-shoot with a Leica lens.
Panasonic is great with electronics and computers, and Leitz (of Germany) has been famous for lens quality for decades. By combining their experience they have hit the sweet spot of point-and-shoot cameras. I personally have all Nikon hardware, going back to film days. But a co-worker got a new Panasonic, and was able to take a macro-close photo that looked great on his large-scale monitor as wallpaper first try out of the box.
That's usability! He was pointing at a specimen on my windowsill, so the natural light was all wrong. He was working with fluorescent lights behind him, and the photo was great.
I also recommend buying a model a couple of price hops above the bottom end. Looking at a large optical zoom number, a good pixel count, and a lens with a wide opening, or low f-stop number. Contrarily, a wider lens, more able to shoot in dimmer light, will have a lower f-stop number. Quality lenses, low-light glass as they are sometimes called, often cost double or triple a lens with the same zoom capability, but a higher f-stop.
Canon or Nikon point-and-shoots will also work well to introduce you to photography, brand is less important than reading the manual, looking on line at reviews, DPREview is a good site for this, and talking with experienced photographers about how they did waht you admire.
I recommend the Panasonic TZ series. Latest model is the TZ10. : :)
Points in their favour
Awesome Leica lens for a P&S - 25mm to 384mm zoom, reasonably fast max F3.3(wide) -F5.9(tele), very sharp glass.
Resisted the megapixel race - generally half to three quarters of their competitors.
Latest model TZ has optional manual focus and aperture control. (PASM modes)
Built in GPS so you can tag photos with location.
The IA mode really lets you just point and click, and is a better photographer than 95% of the camera weilding public.
Very good HD movie recording
Pretty good image stabilisation
Downsides:
The ISO can't compare to a DSR. Personally I find the noise at 400 to be noticable, and 800 is really pushing it.
The built in flash is a little weak, and no hotshoe. (max range about 5 metres)
Pretty chunky for a P&S due to the big lens.
Oblig. disclaimer: I have a TZ7, and would love to upgrade to the TZ10 but can't justify it at the moment.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Probably heretical advice on Slashdot, but consider a film camera. Especially in America, you can pick up very solid used 35mm systems on the cheap, which will vastly outperform any digital you could get for the price. From what I hear from Americans on the internet, price and development of a 36 shot roll shouldn't be more than maybe $7 or $8 (less if you're bold enough to buy expired film). You'd have to shoot a good few dozen rolls before you hit the point where a digital is cheaper. The process of using it is rewarding as well. I have an Olympus OM-30, and it has a beautiful viewfinder, huge compared to my 400D DSLR. Manually focusing can take a little getting used to, but the connection you have to the picture is miles better than an arm-length screen-viewing compact digital. Then you get negatives, and have photos printed, and the whole process is very physical, a nice change from what you're used to these days.
Rereading your question, you do state quite clearly that you aren't looking at photography as a hobby, so this advice isn't actually very good for your purpose. But for anybody else reading this post, if you're at all interested, I recommend it! Hop on your local craigslist, look for Olympus OM systems, Pentax, old-school looking Canons and Nikons, just about anything. Research the camera, make sure it has aperture-priority auto-exposure unless you hate yourself, and go hog wild!
Lots of posters above recommend expensive cameras like DSLRs (>$600) or the Canon S100 ($430). My advice would be that the best camera is one you can carry with you, and that you can use easily. All of the major brands produce cameras in the $100 -- $150 range that will take excellent pictures. The current level of specifications for these cameras is easily illustrated:
"For $91, Nikon Coolpix L22 has a 3.0 inch LCD display screen, 12.1mega-pixel sensor, and 3.6x zoom lens (35 mm equivalent 37 â" 134 mm). Its features include built-in electronic Vibration Reduction and Motion Detection, Scene Auto Selector and Easy Auto Mode. It will fit in your pocket and weighs less than 7 oz. Powered by AA batteries, easily available anywhere."
I found the above information at DPReview.com which has some terrific comparison tools as well as detailed reviews of many brands and sizes.
The most important part of photography is not the camera but the eye, the mind, and the heart of the photographer. Learn about lighting, perspective, and composition before you worry about gizmos.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
What type of pictures do you want to take? Close up or far away? In sunlight or in the shadows? Subjects standing still or in motion? What's your budget?
Photography is both an art and a science but each aspect covers a wide spectrum of technological requirements.
So says Ken Rockwell:
Your Camera Doesn't Matter
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
I'd have to agree with him. Many beginners get too caught up with gear. I'm not a "pro" by definition, though I have won photo contests and my work has been published dozens of times. All of my work was done using "cheap", "inferior" cameras.
I've had this camera something like 8 years. Never even considered upgrading (though I do have a JVC MiniDV palmcorder which does amazing stills at 32x optical/800x digital, it's too bulky to fit in a pocket and getting my Dell laptop to behave itself for long enough to offload via Firewire is a pain in the arse), it only holds a 2GB SD card (enough for 1700 full definition 6MP shots) but I've never managed to fill one between weekly offloads. Cost me £70 when I bought it, you could probably get one for £15 these days without too much effort. Higher resolution cameras obviously are available but for those higher resolutions I would say look for a CCD sensor rather than CMOS - CMOS cameras are easy to spot. They're cheap.
When it comes to the point of replacement, I'll be looking at another Kodak compact or given the funds, a full-framed DSLR; most likely an Olympus or a Nikon since I have a collection of film power telephoto lenses (450mm-2400mm) I'll never be able to sell and I know they'll still fit the digital bodies.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.
Rockwell attracts lots of haters due to the fact that he's opinionated, blunt, and it's always possible to come to a different conclusion given the same set of facts.
However, he's never too far wrong and he's easy to understand.
Go to his "recommended cameras" page. Read the intro for useful general guidelines. Read the other sections for other target audiences. But the section you want is http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm#pocket
Photography is all about the lens. The reason most people's photography looks terrible is because of small, cheap lenses with low light gathering ability. So you end up with poor resolution, blurring, low contrast, etc. If you buy a camera with interchangeable lenses(SLR), you can always upgrade to a better, faster lens. But if you buy a cheaper camera with a fixed lens, it's imperative that you get one with a decent lens. My opinion is that you have to focus on the size of the aperture (f stop, small number is faster/better) versus a wide range of focal lengths. Generally, in cheap lenses, a wide range of focal lengths comes at the expense of aperture size. In SLR's a 50mm f2.8 lens($85) is the standard starter lens, but you can get faster, much more expensive, f1.4($300) and f1.0($800) lenses. An f1.4 lens is twice as fast as an f2.8 lens, which is twice as fast as an f5.6 lens, etc. Many crappy point and shoot cameras have slow lenses that can only go to about f5.6. Try to find a good wide angle with a low f-stop, maybe f2.8ish. Zeiss, Schneider Kreuznach, and Leica make great glass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed
When my friends come to me with these questions (I'm the guy with thousands of dollars of pro-sumer camera gear), I always start with questions. What about your current "camera" is not cutting it? What kind of shots do you want to take that you can't? Based on the answers, I try to recommend something.
My basic suggestion to someone who's looking to take photos of "family and friends that look good" is to go with a decent point and shoot. I'm slightly familiar with the Canon S95 which is a highly regarded camera. The Canon G12 will help you learn photography a bit better giving easier access to the various bits that go into exposure. But it's less portable. There are similar cameras from other manufacturers, but I know Canon.
I'm basically on board with the posters who are saying "hold off on the DSLR". Sure, used correctly it will get images you can't with a compact. But are you really going to learn to use it to it's abilities? And are you going to carry something that can't fit in a shirt pocket (S95) or jacket pocket (G12)?
However, if your problem with your current "camera" is that you want to take lots of low light photos (dark interiors or night time on the street), you need to consider at least an "EVIL" camera like the Olympus Pen or other micro-4/3's setups or a DSLR.
And if you are taking photos of rapidly moving subjects (kids sports), you should consider a DSLR as the focus and shutter lag are so much better on these more expensive cameras.
But I'm not really convinced that an entry level DSLR with an 18-55 kit lens is automatically better for most people than a decent point and shoot.
Dude, If you cannot google on your own, and have to ask hereon how to buy a pt and shoot camera.. I hope you know how to wipe your own back side. huh?
If you want to take some nice pictures when you're out doing stuff, and don't want to make a big production of it, the Canon S95 is a great buy right now (less than $300 on Amazon). It's recently-discontinued, and replaced by the S100, but for the money it's really hard to beat. It's got a sensor that's a bit larger than most compact cameras, and has lots of manual control if you really want to learn about photography.
Will you get better pictures with a $500 DSLR? Yeah, no question. Will the DSLR be more responsive? Oh, yes. But if the size of the thing is an issue, you'll get great results with the S95. And you won't be out tons of dough, so you can get the DSLR when you need it.
I've got a Canon G12, which is a similar camera. A little bit longer zoom, a fantastic flip-out screen and a viewfinder, and some other goodies, but it is larger.
Now I want a DSLR, for better creative control, better low-light performance, and better action shots. But I won't ditch the G12. I don't always want to stand out as "that guy" with the bigass camera.
Anyway, check out the S95. Others have mentioned it, but I wanted to emphasize it. Back when I was learning about cameras, I wondered why anyone would pay $420 (as it was at the time) for 3.8x zoom and 10 megapixels when I could get 20x zoom and 14 megapixels for the same price. The thing with lots of zoom is, you need to reduce the sensor size to allow those long focal length lenses to be a reasonable size. I borrowed a Canon "superzoom" for a while, and was dismayed by the image quality. Putting fewer megapixels onto a larger sensor is way better. That, and they put an excellent bit of glass into the S95.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
... Cartier Bresson know.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well, actually, let me explain my reasoning, because your idea is perfectly good *if* you're advising someone who really has an intent to get into photography as a serious hobby,
I think the original poster is merely saying that he's someone who finally decided the snapshots he was getting from cellphone cameras and the like weren't satisfactory. He went his whole life without ever owning a single-purpose camera, so it doesn't sound to me like he's expressing an interest in learning all about interchanging lenses and carrying a lot of gear around.
He just wants to take a more presentable photo and is finally ready to spend a few hundred bucks, if necessary, for a dedicated camera to get them. I'd say one of the Canon Powershots would be an excellent fit for him. Going with a cheap SLR, by contrast, just adds complexity and a need for separate lenses which I don't think he's really going to need or want.
When you take a photograph the most important factors on its quality are lighting and composition (did I mention quality of the equipment? Nope).
If you have good lighting pretty much any camera with standard settings will produce decent images.
The composition of your picture is the 2nd most important factor (where to locate the subject on the frame, evaluating different points of view, paying attention to what is actually in the frame).
My suggestion is that you buy the simplest camera you can find and invest the money the geekdom here are suggesting in a course of introduction to photography.
When I read all the above comments I can only think of those people that carry a very expensive camera wherever they go and then take a night picture of somebody with flash on (I think flash should always be turned off as factory default: flash is to be used only if you know what you are doing).
Recently I was in a birthday party, and the best pictures (as praised by people attending on the day) were taken with my mobile phone (against people bringing they P&S, some of them very fancy, and DSLRs).
What did I do? I asked people to get close to the window and then I closed the translucent curtain, thus I got a natural soft light that gave lots of character to the portraits I took (HTC phone, you don't *need* an iPhone).
Other people with their expensive cameras were battling with settings, flash (putting subjects with their back to the windows in a very bright day) etc.
If you want good pictures and are a newbie it is much easier to do so if your camera is simple and you concentrate in the basics.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If you're looking for a good DSLR that won't run you up into the $600+ range, I would suggest going with the Olympus EPL-1 DLSR. It's small, modeled after the old Rangefinger cameras, and has a very forgiving Auto feature as well as foregoing the traditional physical viewfinder for an easy-to-use digital one. The on-board filters and effects are expansive, as is the layout, which is easy to navigate and operate. All in all, this is a great camera that I myself purchased when I was first getting into photography. I'm relatively sure that you can find a nice one either in new or refurb condition on Newegg or any other technology retail website for a maximum of $350.
I have to agree. Which camera to get is much less important than "take lots of pictures." Some things like composition and editing you can learn on just about anything that takes a picture. True, there are advantages to larger sensors, interchangable lenses, etc. But for a first camera, get something you will carry with you and take lots of pictures. I still miss shooting film on a manual camera. Once you get the hang of it, it's fast and simple. There are still lots of good films, though fewer than there used to be. And nothing digital (under a few grand at least) comes close for image quality. But, and this is a big "but", the one advantage of digital photography is it's easy to take tons of pictures, toss out the bad ones, edit the good ones and learn a ton about composing shots. A typical digital camera stores 100s if not 1000s of photos, and once you upload them you can resuse the card. Compare that to 35mm where 36 exposures was the best you could get without loading your own canisters. Also, editing is a snap. Picassa is free and does a nice job with cropping and red-eye reduction. Gimp or Photoshop will let you do things that take years of darkroom experience to do and without building a darkroom in the basement. While the equipment matters, it matters more to an experienced photographer. Until you get the basics down, composition is way more important than say depth of field. So get a decent point and shoot digital and start taking pictures. Lot and lots of pictures. Read a few books. Take the time to edit and critique your shots.
Later, you'll likely realize the limitations of that camera and want to upgrade to a micro 4/3, DSLR, or perhaps even a classic 35mm SLR. Then it's time to start worrying about technology and features. But by then you'll know better what you want for the kind of shooting you do. And you can keep the digital point and shoot as a "carry camera."
The screw mount lenses used up to the late 1970s can fit on the Pentax K-mount cameras with a relatively cheap metal ring.
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 tried the macro bellows out, but the magnification should be up to 16x.
You can get good lenses cheaply if you are prepared to put up with them being fully manual.
Well, you set the bar so low, it's difficult to to know how to add any useful observations. Virtually every digicam these days will address the most egregious technical faults (focus, exposure, motion blur). So just buy something, start snapping away to your heart's content, and maybe you'll learn what the heck it is you want. It's difficult to envisage what you might find satis/unsatis -factory, or how spending any particular sum on gear might resolve that. For what it's worth (I suspect not much), I don't like digital cameras, and still use film gear.
I had a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ5 (I think the current model is the LZ7) which I liked very much. They run about $150 and have a Leica lens, above-average optical zoom, and take pretty good pictures. Actually my brother recently bought a different one from the Lumix line on woot that has a touch screen and 8x optical, which he really likes.
I suggest a 35mm film camera, and a darkroom.
The magic will seduce you forever ;)
I got an iPhone 4... Takes surprisingly good pictures when lighting and conditions are good, but falls down quickly to crap unless you really know what you're doing. I recommend having a smartphone with a good camera in it, you always have it with you, so you can save your life and take pictures whenever you want.
I got a Sony DSC-W100. That camera can do everything, quickly and efficiently. It won't work with very bad conditions, however, you'll cope with most of what might want to do. It's small enough to carry around, but big enough to have a very potent lens. It's still "big", that said, so you have to make the real choice to bring it along with you. And I do recommend to have a carrying case for it, because it tend to open by itself (buttons are very sensitive)... even more bulk! This is my second choice, this is the camera you want to bring whenever you think you might need it, or don't want to bring out the arsenal.
Then, I got pro cameras, Canon 50D, 1D4 and 1VHS. I usually tug them around with me whenever I have a pro photo shoot, however, due to the bulk, I don't ALWAYS bring them with me. These do take a dedicated bag, with your lenses, and potentially an external flash. I would recommend a 7D, or a Rebel T2i and up, they do work well, and they will provide the extra "edge" you might want to have. Please do wait for specials, though, and do consider Sony and Nikon's offerings, it's well worth it.
One thing to know... doing a pro shoot means having a studio, lighting, and "ideal" conditions to take a perfect picture. Any half-decent camera will be able to take great shots. One could pun by saying it's like shooting pictures in a barrel ;) -- Once quality is attained, what cameras and lenses offer you is the simplicity, efficiency, repeatability and ability to take a perfect picture in imperfect conditions.
Good luck, and have fun! It's well worth it!
Yes I crossed the streams - sue me. I've been photographing with a DSLR for almost twenty years now, yes I know the difference between a zoom and focus... I have a number of primes that I use, some old M42 manual FOCUS lenses that cannot AF because of the adaptor...
But whichever side the argument really originated from is irrelevant to my point, which is that he would not care to control either. He simply wants to take "good pictures".
The sad thing is that no camera maker apart from Apple(!!?!?!) is trying to meet this guys needs. Every other camera maker on the planet is build a camera for a brain dead moron, or for tech tweakers like yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Please re-read the original post, and then re-read your words. GP is correct. Almost all SLRs today have an autofocus option even though their lenses are manual zoom.
Sure they have AF. But when challenged on recommending a DSLR the person I was responding to gave as a reason that it has "manual zoom". This is something that again, the original person asking DOES NOT WANT OR NEED.
On camera selection, I would recommend a used Canon Rebel DSLR for its great price-to-performance,
And I would say you are as thick as the brick that camera weighs as much as. A guy who is not really into photography is simply not going to carry that camera anywhere. It's never going to be handy when he needs it. As a result he will grow to hate and despise it. Despite the fact that it's a "nice camera". It's like giving someone who doesn't really care about driving a tricked out ricer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While you can get the best camera, with all the tech bell and whistles the BEST THING you can acquire is to learn the skills of lighting, composition, framing, color, and so on. I am a social worker at an orphanage in Beirut, Lebanon. We currently running our second class with the kids on photography, using it as a vehicle for self expression and creativity...allowing them to share their voices and lives with people all over the world. The cameras we have are not the best, all of them are second hand point and shoot digital cameras. Through working on the basic skills of photography the children have been able to take some amazing photographs ( Dar el Awlad Photo Club, Through the Eyes of a Child) that don't even appear as if a child had taken them. So it doesn't hurt to get good gear, but even with less than ideal equipment you can come up with great photos if you know what you're doing and have a good eye.
but I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of manual control compared to the 35mm Minolta SLR
The fact that you used to shoot with a DSLR puts you in a totally different area of experience than this guy. He has no history of such large and bulky systems, and there's simply no need for that when so many pretty decent cameras are so small... anyone not really interested it in as a hobby simply will not put up with a camera that cannot fit in a jeans pocket.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's not the camera; it's the operator. People have taken amazing photos with much more humble devices than we have today.
That said, it really depends on how much you want to spend and how much you want to lug around.
The best camera is that one you have on you when the "Kodak Moment" occurs. The fancy DSLR at home doesn't do you much good if you don't have it on you.
An entry-level DSLR is good if you want great resolution and control. A decent Point & Shoot is good too.
Check DPReview.com and its discussion forum for more info on cameras and general opinions on photography.
Have you considered an iphone? The photo quality is really good and the latest is 8 megapixel. You won't leave it behind, and given the price points of cameras, not a bad deal if you are talking about taking pictures of family and friends. If you want to take a larger variety of pictures and you need more features, like optical zoom, try the Canon PowerShot ELPH 300 HS. It is fast, simple, and cheap.
"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?"
If you want to stop spending at couple of hundred, go with a quality smartphone or a small point and shoot. If you consider spending more than 300, you should wait, get comfortable fiddling with the settings of a point and shoot (take a class), and then buy an Cannon or Nikon DSLR. Beyond that, it does not make sense to burn $600-$2000 on a device you are not committed to lugging around.
" 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." Reading that, I do not think you should buy a D-SLRs at this point. I have a Canon Powershot SX20 IS and I have handled a few D-SLRs belonging to my friends.
1. D-SLRs are quite bulky - You can't walk into every party/gathering with a D-SLR. I have receive comments like "Oh! What's that? A camera ?! " And of course you can't move around easily, leaving it somewhere - It will always be on you.
2. D-SLRs can be tricky. It will take some time for you to learn all the settings - and would you really have the time to to mess with all this while things happen around you ? (I remember an incident - I changed to a telephoto lens on a Nikon at an event as the stage was far and the normal lens wouldn't zoom so much. Then my friend suddenly started serenading his wife nearby and of course I missed capturing the moment properly - telephoto lens won't take the best closeups.
3. D-SLRs usually need more than one lens (you will need to buy a telephoto lens, then perhaps a macro lens as you go along). And lenses don't come cheap.
I am an amateur photographer and I own a Canon Powershot SX20 IS, bought a year back. The major reasons: Less bulky than D-SLR, Super-macro mode( minimum focusing distance of 0 cm! ), 20X zoom, my confidence that I won't have the patience to change the lens to suit the scene, my confidence that I won't invest in extra expensive lenses. Being a little flighty, it is well suited to taking shots of whatever I feel like - sometimes it's a bird in the sky, the very next moment a beetle crawling in the grass; and it does have manual mode in case I ever have the leisure of setting each parameter on my own.
To tell the truth, this Powershot is still bulky (it might not have a heavy lens, but it is 0.500 Kg, so almost as much as an entry level D-SLR) but I tolerate it for the great zoom and super macro capabilities in one lens.Frequently, my photos have been mistaken for D-SLR shots - so it depends on the photographer and the post-processing software too. Few photos I took recently with a borrowed Nikon D-SLR came out so well that I almost wished that I had bought it instead, but then I remembered the weight, the pain of adjusting exposure, aperture,etc and that these couple of good photo came from a bunch of twenty bad ones.
I suggest you go for a decent P&S - I've seen photos taken with a Canon IXUS and they look pretty good. (Try out in the stores which zoom capability you need). Perhaps you could borrow a friend's D-SLR for a month (yes that long!) and see if it suits you. Since you have only used mobile cameras till now, maybe you will be happy with the quality of P&S photos. I still believe it is a good idea to start with a simple camera so you learn from all the bad photos you take - and then when you are sure it isn't your ability but the camera's limitations that are restricting you from taking better photos (you start complaining about exposure or ISO range), go for the D-SLR !
She is looking at getting a micro four-thirds as she isnt a hardcore photographer. We are headed to japan soon and want to take some decent holiday shots whilst there.
I was looking at the Olympus EP-3 or similar but I'm concerned about the shenanigans going on at Olympus HQ affecting our camera aftercare. Any thoughts?
When Minolta (and then Konica/Minolta) designed their first DSLR, they stuck with the existing lens mount from the Minolta Maxxim series of auto focus film SLR. When Sony bought the Minolta camera business, they kept the Maxxim lens mount. Thus, you have the option of buying whichever Sony body you want with a single lens to start you out, and go to town among a large number of used lenses later on if the spirit moves you.
The Sony anti-shake (and auto-focus) mechanisms are ensconced within the body, unlike Nikon and Canon, so you don't lose any cabability among a large stock of older Maxxim lens going back to 1985.
Luke, help me take this mask off
iPhone 4s works according to ArsTechnica tests:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/guides/2011/11/can-the-iphone-4s-replace-a-real-digital-camera-for-many-yes.ars
http://www.panavision.com/userfiles/image/Dean%20Semler%20Tower%20of%20Babel%20Original.jpg
But if you can't afford that start with a 3CCD miniDV
The Canon Powershot s95 is a compact camera with all the amazing gadgetry of its physically larger big brother Canon Powershot G12. You bring the s95 anywhere. With a G12 or a DSLR you don't look professional at a party, just silly... And you don't carry a DSLR or G12 in your breast pocket next to your phone. Also, the s95 has an under waterhouse that you can dive with to 40 m, use on the beach, in a blizzard, or even a sandstorm.
www.google.com/search?q=Canon+Powershot+s95
Apparently there is an upgrade, s100, which I know nothing about.
But if it is two-third as good as its predecessor I'll recommend that too.
www.google.com/search?q=Canon+Powershot+s100
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_s100
I started out in 2004 with a 5 megapixel 5x optical zoom rugged looking HP-917. This model has a Pentax lens.
The problem with point and shoots (as of a couple of years ago) was time delay with the shutter action. I also came to dislike the non-AA cell custom battery. The end came when I cracked the LCD display. I cracked the LCD display by shoving the camera in a pants pocket during a roller coaster ride. HP was leaving the camera business, and no repair was available. If I could have bought the display on the Internet I would have repaired the camera. But, I can't find the replacement display.
For my second "more serious" digital camera the top priority was the fastest shutter action, second priority the ability to do high speed (slow motion) photography. I settled on the $400 Casio Exilim. The camera is delivering on a number of technical image creation tasks. It is not the emotional artistry I was trying for when I was much younger and shooting film. Rather, I am trying for relatively few images, well framed, and well lit, with the distractions strategically avoided. The only accessories the Casio needs are 8 extra batteries (the flash eats batteries fast, my camera might have an unusual problem with the flash) and a tripod for best results when doing technical and high-speed photography.
The first benefit of the Casio is when photographing people, the quick shutter response captures fleeting facial expressions. The camera has a large back panel lcd display. If a picture looks good right after I shoot it, I keep it. I credit the camera here: the big display really helps with editing. For making sets of photos of people or things, it is easy to re-shoot each item in the set until I get a good photo. Another advantage of the Casio is there is plenty of zoom lens capability, and adequate flash power so I can back away about 10 feet and get the balanced feel of a classic portrait perspective.
The second thing the Casio Exilim does is 210 frames per second high speed video. At the beach I have put the camera on a tripod, cranked up the zoom, and photographed waves, surfers and birds in flight. A high speed movie of my dog documents the onset of canine arthritis. I can see how he has changed his running movements as he ages. A surfer filmed at high speed is fascinating to study. You can see all the beautiful wave development and body re-balancing that go into a surfer's ride.
The third thing about the Casio Exilim I like is it does acceptably well for close up technical photography. I photograph circuit boards, computer internals, science projects, and details about automobile repairs. The Casio does not allow electrical trigger and it does not have an external flash connection. At the dentist's office the dental tech took a pretty good photo of my teeth; I can print the photo reversed left for right, tape it to the bathroom mirror and floss with a photo reference.
Point and shoot, focus later. www.lytro.com
The camera is actually the least important piece of equipment when it comes to "taking images that actually look good". Any digital SLR will do fine. Unless you need movie capability, I'd strongly suggest getting one of the slightly older models for cheap on ebay, and save the money the more important stuff (listed below) Pick the brand that your friends use. Then you can borrow equipment from each other. (If you don't have friends that are into photography, then go with Canon or Nikon. That's the most likely brands your future friends will have.)
The absolutely easiest way to make "good-looking" pictures is to have plenty of background blur. For that you need at least an APS-sized sensor, and a lens like 85 mm f/1.8. Here is a picture i took a few years ago with a 350d (very cheap today) and a 100 mm f/2. No special lighting, just an overcast day. The background was actually pretty boring in real life, but once it's blurred it looks good.
The easy way to take good-looking indoor pictures is to have one, or preferably two, off-camera flashes. These will cost you about $200 each, plus $70 for a radio sync. Place them on top of a book-shelf and aim at the ceiling. Now you can shoot at iso 400 (any cheap old DSLR works) and because the light is diffused from the ceiling, you get good light in most of the room. (You can also do lots of other cool stuff with off-camera strobes.)
Last: Get a book that explains the basics of photography. It's not that difficult, but there are a few tricks that will help you a lot if you know about them. $50 spent on a book will make a lot of difference for your photos, while an extra $50 spent on the camera body will make no difference at all.
All DSLRs manufactured during the last five years are decent enough for beginner to ambitionist level.
Hint: spend your money on lenses, not the camera body. Though: a standard zoom lens set will do the trick, like 18-55/55-200 or the like. Depends on what camera you get, but the idea is always the same. You'll start buying more anyway ;)
Workshops bring you in contact with others, and you can learn from them. There are very good workshops, some even backed by podcasts which are free; Leo Laporte would be one, then www.tipsfromthetopfloor.com another; there are numerous other ones.
Most important: enjoy and have fun! That's what it's all about.
You have to declare yourself as the "artist" or as the hardware collector. If you want to collect the gizmos and shoot thousands of meaningless pictures, it doesn't matter what you buy, seriously. ;) Well, no. The more expensive -- the better.
If you want to take photos that matters to you or others, it doesn't matter what you buy, seriously ;) Well, no. Actually, the cheaper -- the better.
But if you really serious about learning and become a better photographer, go and buy any decent film camera. There are plenty of them new or second hand, and cheap.
Ask questions at http://apug.org.
Ken Rockwell says it best:
Your Camera Doesn't Matter
Search the rest of his website for other info on the subject as well as more practical info for who is starting into taking pictures.
On a more practical side I got myself a Canon S90 (should be S95 nowadays). I would never carry a DSLR around with me and this one has a good (almost DSLR) manual mode. The auto mode works quite well as well. It is small enough that I carry it with me whenever I expect/want to take some pictures.
I strongly encourage you to use the www.dpreview.com website for a quick review of the cameras that fit in your range, along with usable examples of the photos taken by the cameras so you have a sense of how much quality to expect. The website contains a broad range of brands, levels, and types of cameras, and you would most likely find useful information on pricing and sources of cameras there for your choice. My personal recommendation would be a Canon G-series. They are portable enough, very high quality, offer beginners some automation and allow for growth, and take outstanding quality photos. As a starter camera it might be more than you expected to pay, but if you save a few extra pennies it might just be a super photo companion for those early photo adventures. I see others have recommended the smaller models, the S95/100 models, and they are also excellent, less expensive choices. Best of luck.
Looking at your question, it seems that you A: Don't need anything fancy like a DSLR kit with loads of extra lenses and bags that take a lot of lugging around. B: Do want something which will give you reasonable to good quality images; good in the sense that they are clean from camera "noise" and show a good latitude of exposure, and that affords some flexibility. I've been using photography since about 1984, and have had a variety of 35mm SLR and 120 roll film cameras, but found myself drifting towards film compacts and ultimately digital compacts. I'm willing to take a loss on the technical quality I'd get from DSLR for the carryability and lower price I get from digital compacts. Compacts also suit the type of photographs I want to take a bit better. I bought a Canon G9 about 4 years ago; it's got good flexibility of manual control, works reasonably well in low light, responds to finger press on the go button quickly, and there are geek firmware hacks available off the web, so its capabilities can be extended. I'm not going to update any time soon. Have a trawl through dpreview dot com and don't buy anything that's just new on the market, as the reviews may not be objective.
This is excellent advice. Buying a camera is easy and difficult for the same reason: they all work pretty well. For most of us, the difference between a cheap point-and-shoot and a fancy DSLR is actually rather small. The highest value is in having the camera with you, so it should be small and light. I used to use a bulky SLR in the days of film (a big brass Russian Zenit). It was fun and swapping lenses and filters around for different effects interesting. Now I have a compact digital with one lens (with zoom), and I take more photos. If you want to leave some room to experiment with the technical stuff, get a camera with a good manual mode, so you can set the aperture, shutter speed, etc. But honestly, I use these for maybe one or two in every hundred photos. I enjoy letting the camera figure out those settings, so I can spend my effort in composing the shot. I have a Lumix LX3 and love it, but there are many other good cameras out there. But as the parent says, make sure you hold a camera before buying it. Lots of menus are bad - you need to be able to find those buttons without even looking. And whatever you buy, practice with it lots.
Nikon DSLRs are nice. If that is too much, the Panasonic Lumix are a very good point-and-shoot options. Reviews will back that up and I am speaking from experience.
I found this site very helpful: http://www.dpreview.com/
Read just one of their reviews and you'll learn about all of the most important things to look for in a camera. Their camera database is amazing for narrowing down your options once you have an idea of your price range and what you want.
Honestly, as a guy who's been doing photography for over 20 years now and owns just about ever format camera there is in existence - slashdot is the poor place to ask. As is obvious everyone here is a techno-super-nerd who owns an SLR, thinks they know how to use it, and thinks its easy.
Given what you are looking for, an SLR would be a poor choice. Your not going to get anything in that vein for "a few hundred bucks". Dont get me wrong, if you really wanted to learn some photography (as in how a camera functions), an SLR is great. If you want to "just take good photos" (as was suggested) most point-and-shoots do this abundantly well and an SLR will set you back a tonne of money and provide you with 1000 features of which you need 10.
However, i personally think the best place to find such a beast (and im not going suggest one cause im not well versed in point-and-shoots) is dpreview.com (and sites like it). Get something with a decent zoom range, decent resolution, decent speed and a flash, and you'll probably be happy. The MOST important factor in this equation is $$$, the bang-for-buck ration of a point-and-shoot based on what your needs are are far in excess of what the SLR will provide.
On top of this though, go to a camera store and try a few point-and-shoots - they'll be happy to let you in most cases, find some that you think are nice then go check out how they review online.
It's not often i'd say i'd be annoyed at the slashdot community, but this time around the advice here is truly below par.
ANYONE who's suggesting this guy gets an SLR is an IDIOT. Read the question again, and lets go thru it line by line shall we?
- I've managed to go my entire adult life without owning an actual camera.
READ: I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH CAMERAS!
- 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?
READ: I take photos with a smartphone! I want to step up from that. Zoom, flash and resolution, thats all i need.
- 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.
READ: i want to point a little box at something and get a decent picture. I dont want to understand aperture, focus, iso, etc..
- 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?
READ: I HAVE NO USE FOR AN SLR, NOR DO I WANT TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY. Seriously people I have lens filters that wouldn't fit into "a few hundred bucks", the results you get out of a dirt-cheap SLR are garbage compared to the point-and-shoot you'll get for the same. Good example: canon 550d + kit lens's > "a few hundred bucks", and yet its pretty crappy bang-for-buck compared to a point-and-shoot you'll get for the same $. Sure, you can strangle a 550d with its kit lenses into giving you some good shots, but its not a place to start and it certainly not simple.
Hell, even a point-and-shoot for a "few hundred bucks" has some of the control you can get in SLR's these days, so if the OP finds those functions interesting enough to learn about them, they can start there - not at the SLR.
For the love of god I wish people here would get off the techno-power-nerd superiority complexes and stop looking down at things like point-and-shoot cameras because they believe them to be some lower form of life. For once actually read the question and get the idea of what someone is trying to ask.
Anyone who suggested an SLR, THIS MEANS YOU! get a firm grip on reality, actually look at what the original question was asking for and then go slap yourselves.
nobody gives a fuck about your stupid pictures
I have had several cameras during my lifetime, include several prosumer SLRs (Pentax, Minolta, and Canon), as well as several compact cameras (Contax, Nikon, Ricoh, others). Before a trip to San Francisco 3 years ago, I bought a Canon Powershot G9 and took over 500 pictures, because I carried it everywhere. I had taken one of my SLRs on previous vacations, but ended up frequently leaving it in the hotel, because it was too much to carry around (dinner, etc.).
I suggest getting a high-quality compact camera -- there are several from Canon, Nikon, and others. Mine fits easily in a jacket pocket, so I carry it around on vacation.
Since you'll likely have it with you all the time. Or in other words, it's not the camera you use but what you do with it :)
If your primary concern is snapshots, then a phone with a 3 MP sensor is adequate. They will take shots that look ok as a 5x8 electronic frame or a web page.
Paper printouts above the snapshot size push the envelope of phone cameras.
The problem with most point and shoot cameras is that you compose using an LCD screen -- difficult to do in full sun. Your hands are less stable than your head, so an eyepiece viewfinder tends to make for less motion blur.
Much of 'decent photographs' is composition, not equipment. One of the best pictures I took was with a Kodak Starmite box camera.
Previous poster commented about getting the entry level DSLRs from either Canon or Nikon. I'll add Olympus to that list. They have one that is weather resistant, and substantially lighter.
The SLR gives you:
* Sharper lenses. Prints 16 x24 that look good are easily doable with most lenses.
* Optical zoom.
* Larger sensor => greater sharpness, better low light behaviour.
* Viewfinder composition.
* Better autofocus.
* Faster response to pushing the shutter. (Important for active subjects like kids and squirrels.)
The Phone camera gives you:
* It's usually with you.
* It's very light weight.
*****
Taking decent pictures is far more than your equipment. Much of good picture taking is artistic, not technical. Google photography tutorial. The second thing is take lots of pictures and throw 90% of them away.
If you go with the DSLR, spend a week with the manual. Read 3-5 pages about a feature set, go out and take 100 pictures using that feature set. Repeat. Doing this will make you familiar with everything that the camera can do.
Look at hundreds of pictures. Which are good? Why? What should be different.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
Am I the only one who read that as "Best Camera For Getting Into Pornography" ?
I currently have a Canon Powershot SX20IS. I love it, but sometimes it is just a little bit too big to take some places.
The advantages are:
20x Zoom
Decent sensor size, decent quality pictures
I never have to mess with changing out lenses
Basic auto function all the way to manual function available.
If you are looking to take good pictures, stay within a decent budget, and not be forced to take a class to learn to use all the pretty buttons, then this is a good choice. The only catch with this camera is that it is not small or light to take everywhere with you. You will use it when you have a reason to, and likely store it when not in use.
--
Possibility #2 Cannon Powershot S95
The advantages are:
Small and lightweight, which means easy to put in your bag or pocket while out hiking, etc..
Decent sensor size, decent quality pictures
No changing out lenses!
Basic auto function all the way to manual function available.
Good price for the quality
Disadvantage:
Only 3.8x zoom
--
Possibility #3 Canon EOS
Advantages:
Full sensor, great pictures.
Full functionality if that is what you want.
Disadvantages:
Changing lenses takes time when you are in a rush, this camera is for experienced and knowledgeable photographers.
Big and bulky, requires a small arsenal of lenses which are quite expensive if made of good quality glass.
Class or some other education required in order to use this camera to it's full potential.
If you would like to see some examples of what these can do, a friend of mine runs www.coloradopast.com and has used a Powershot SX10(same as SX20 but with 10x zoom) and now uses an EOS. He takes some amazing pictures.
I'd start with http://www.kenrockwell.com/ where a guy who is a true independent provides reviews and advice on all kinds of cameras. He has great advice on the current best cameras, both point-and-shoot as well as DSLR. Oh, and if you decide to buy one, use the links he has because he gets sponsorship from vendors. His site is worth it and has become one of my goto places when buying a camera.
Now, for my part I will say that for a long time I had a Nikon D40 and a Kodak Z612. Both in the 6MP range they were fantastic cameras. The Kodak was my "carry most of the time point-and-shoot" while the D40 was my "take when I KNOW I'll be taking pictures" DSLR. Hell, if you can pick up this same pair of cameras cheap and used then they're one of the best combos you can get at the moment. I picked the Kodak specifically because it had a good lens; megapixels are nothing, storage is irrelevant... battery life was also excellent on the Kodak though used camera batteries instead of "gas station batteries". This meant that I had to have a few rechargeables lying around that I had charged.
I still have the Kodak, but the D40 is lost and lamented (broken beyond effective repair). I'll be buying again in the new year and am looking very seriously at the D3100, and as a point and shoot I'll probably go with Ken Rockwell's recommendation of the Canon S95 IS.
I'd say if you just want one camera, then again Ken Rockwell's suggestion is the Canon S100 IS. It's pricey but I've seen some of the captures and they're incredibly impressive. The S95 IS is cheaper and the quality is almost exactly as good (though a bit less flexible). Honestly though the key is not the sensors really... megapixels as I said are irrelevant. The key is a good lens... and for that you need to do some homework.
Hope this helps.
The best camera is the one you have with you...
DSLR models, as has been pointed out. are terrific cameras... My personal equipment bag holds one body, a couple of lenses, some filters, batteries, spare batteries, charger, remote, and a camcorder with its accessories... and only takes up the space of a small backpack...
That said, a "point and shoot" camera that can fit in your pocket, has at least a 7x zoom range, and will do perfectly acceptable video, comes in at around $300... whereas my favorite lens ran a little over a grand a half dozen years ago.
The slightly larger models with 10-25x zooms run a bit more, but still can be carried in a small case and have terrific sensors...
When I'm not toting a backpack full of gear, my favorite format is the "super zoom" camera that combine the best of both worlds, creative control of exposure, a very wide zoom range, and great glass... all wrapped up in a compact package.
What are you giving up from a DSLR? Not much really...
The P&S cameras are usually not as capable of taking extreme low light pictures, meaning that you'll be using a flash more often, they don't have specialized lenses for wide angle or telephoto, meaning only that you have to work within the camera's limitations.
Where they are less adequate is in technically difficult or artistic shots where the wide range of lenses and settings a DSLR gives you makes the shot possible.
The kind of shot for which photographic artists spend hours setting up that perfect exposure, and tourists get by firing off dozens of shots to stumble on one perfect frame...
The photographer is a hundred times as important as the gear though, if you're shooting a camera with "shutter lag" you'll have to anticipate the action to catch "The Moment"... If it's not as useful in low light, creatively rearranging the room lighting, or using a tripod can bring make the difference...
All that said, a $69 pocket camera beats even my Rolleiflex f2.8 film camera if one is back home in a box and the other is in your hand when things happen!!!
those pics of you in the bathroom in your best thong?
The best camera is the one you have on you. It's knowing how to use the camera that separates the good from the bad.Your capturing light so the first thing you need to learn is how light affects the camera and how you can manage that. Then there's a ton of other things to learn like composition and creativity. But the point is start studying there's tons of good info in books and online. Join an online photography community or a local club. And get out and take pictures. You give Joe McNally an iPhone and he will run circles around most people with a Canon DSLR. Why? Because he knows how to use it. One of the dumbest things you can say to a photographer is " Wow nice picture you must have a really nice camera." It implies stupidly that it is the gear and not the photographers knowledge and creativity that make a good photo.
" Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." – Henri Cartier-Bresson
“ Nothing happens when you sit at home. I always make it a point to carry a camera with me at all timesI just shoot at what interests me at that moment." – Elliott Erwitt
to go with a good bridge-camera or point and shoot with a good (as large as possible) sensor and a good fixed lens. they are about in the same price range as an entry-level dslr, sometimes below. care for short shutter-lag and an acessory-shoe (you don't want to use the built-in flash unless you really have to) shop for good low light performance and the option to add an external flash if necessary/desired.
think along the lines of a panasonic zf or canon g series (there should be comparable cameras from sony, nikon and olympus as well).
with this type of camera you get a fast, relatively small, portable camera with good automatic settings, a lot of presets and manual settings.
The Online Photographer: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
The Luminous Landscape: http://luminous-landscape.com/
Every camera has its qualities, good, bad, and otherwise. It's like investing: there is no best time or place or way to start. You have to feel your way along, but if you don't start you will never have started.
And any other post which tells you buy a Canon, or a Nikon, or a Olympus or a Panasonic or a sony...... and so on.
If there was one camera which was the best, then everybody would need to buy that camera.
Unfortunately there isn't
DSLRS, Micro 4/3. APS-C interchangeable lens cams(NEX series).... all have their strengths and weaknesses.
So... first decide what system suites you.
For example, is video very important....? In that case Panasonic Micro 4/3 is worth looking at.
If low noise is important, then larger sensors are needed.
For example, I often do 10 min+ exposures. So I can never go Micro 4/3 way.
dpreview.com is a much better site to research "which camera".
Slashdot is not.
Unlike a video card, where you can measure "scores", in photography, measurement is very subjective.
For example, one camera has a 5fps burst other has 3fps. The 5fps one gives you good pics upto ISO 1600, the 3fps gives you good pics upto ISO 3200. What to choose....? These are the questions you will be asking yourself.
So go to a photography site, read reviews, read peoples opinions., See what kind of photography you want. Is low noise a must, or is fast speed necessary. What kind of lenses you want. Is having cheaper wide angles important or cheaper zooms important. Will you ever shoot birds.... and so on
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
You can attach filters to that I think (including closeup or wide angle filters), but not lenses...
It looks like a nice camera but I still think is too much for what the original poster was asking for. He doesn't want anything that he can manually control, he just wants "nice pictures" - which as you noted this takes even just in auto, but it's a pretty expensive camera compared to what he plans to do with it.
Also I am honestly not sure if that camera would take any notably better pictures than the iPhone 4s which I recommended elsewhere...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Panasonic lx-5, olympus xz-1, or canon a95. Any one of these will take better pics than most compacts, won't break the bank, and will make a great backup if you ever decide to get an SLR. If you just want something to have with you that takes better pics than you are used to getting on a phone, and you aren't planning on getting into photography as a serious hobby, then this is the answer. They will all take better pictures than you will get with the crappy kit lens on an entry-level DSLR, and you probably don't want to start investing in lenses unless you are already invested in photography. Lenses are addictive, it's hard to stop buying once you get started. There's no need to go down that road unless you already know it's something you want to get into. If you aren't sure you're in it for the long haul, you can't beat the flexibility and compactness of a large sensor p&s with the option of manual control.
If you first read it as "pornography" like me you have to admit it.
The camera is the second most important decision. The most important is the lense.
For indoor, where you can get reasonably close 50mm F1.8
For portrait, 85mm (as fast as you can afford)
For general purpose, a 28/50/75 to 200mm, as good quality as you can afford.
The only reason a camera might come into the decision would be if you need to be further away for fast indoors. You can get a higher zoom fast lense, but you might as well get higher pixels and crop more.
So, price up the lenses you need on Nikon and Canon, decide which is best for you and buy the cheapest one you can. Honestly, I think the only genuine improvement since the Nikon D40 has been better ISO and that only matters if you're shooting indoors.
Oh, and camera mounted flash is evil, don't use it - find a way around (high ISO, tripod, open the curtains!)
This thread already has great posts in it. I'm an amateur who has recently done a good bit of research and made some purchases.
Prior to this 2011, I usually kept a small point-and-shoot around for a few years at a time. Each one took some great photos, and plenty of throw aways. That was until I had a chance to use a friend's Nikon D40, an older 6MP DSLR. I discovered with it that I had far more control, especially over focus and depth of field. All of the sudden, I could put the subject into focus quickly, and I found I was getting better results. From this experience, I went on a research binge and ended up making two purchases soon after. I bought a Canon ELPH SD4000 IS, a Point-and-Shoot that works well in low light, for my girlfriend. I got a Nikon D3100, an entry level DSLR. Here is a quick list of what I learned.
1 - The world is full of great cameras. A good photographer can make great work with most or all of them, and the best camera can't make up for a poor photographer.
2 - The DSLR world is as much about lenses as camera bodies. Canon and Nikon seem to be the two that most folks are religious about, and both have their mutually-incompatible lens styles. Every dollar toward one lens style gets you further invested in that family of lenses. It's not a bad thing, but you'll want to school up if you go the DSLR route. Have a sense for how the UIs work, the lens options (including compatibility with cameras), the relative prices, etc.
3 - Despite my Nikon D3100 having 14MP and all around "better specs" in most regards, I have little practical benefit to having my DSLR vs. the one borrowed. I get the joy of having more control with both, and I know I can shoot photos that could be printed to be somewhat larger. Scaling images down, my photos might be slightly more forgiving than those of the D40. In truth, if I were taking the same photos with either, I would have the same keepers.
4 - DSLRs carry a stigma in crowds. Carrying a point-and-shoot, you can take your pictures and put them away. Pulling out a DSLR means everyone around knows they're on camera.
5 - The Canon SD4000 IS does the best of job of no-flash low-light shots of any point and shoot I have seen. It does better than my DSLR with stock lens due to having a lower aperture. If your shots are mainly of people indoors at their homes, in restaurants, at clubs, or in other night settings, pulling out a DSLR will not only inspire poses or turned backs, but will probably require more tuning. I am not endorsing this camera as the best at this, but only that I was satisfied that I matched the camera to the kinds of shots that would be taken. I would have been less happy with a general purpose point and shoot.
6 - I have no experience with the "DSLR-like" cameras in the mid range, except that very good photographers I know downsize to these to have a camera that they can take with them anywhere.
7 - Borrow a camera if you can. I was very happy that I did.
Once you know what you'll use it for and what it is that encourages you, you'll be in a better position to figure out what camera will fit you.
Good Luck!
"A $150 Camera vs. a $5,000 Camera" http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm
I'm going to buck the trend and suggest a couple point-n-shoots. I have a Nikon S-10. Not in production now, it has a 10X optical zoom and a 3x electronic zoom along with a vibration reduction lens. The lens rotates forward and backwards, making self-portraits easy, and is a serious hunk of glass - that is, a serious Nikon hunk of glass. The camera makes incredibly great pictures. Its major drawback is being a point-n-shoot, and so has a pretty severe shutter lag, meaning there is a delay between the time you press the shutter button and the shutter does its thing.
If you're not averse to buying a used or refirb camera, the S-10 is an amazing camera. Otherwise, I think the Nikon S9100 is probably close to it now, although I have never held it, it doesn't have the swivel lens to shoot forward and backward, and its a later model so maybe they did something nice about the shutter lag.
The most amazing thing about the s-10 is that equivalent 30X zoom combined with the vibration reduction. You can sit in a room, and just steadying the camera on a table, turn off the flash and shoot available light for candid after candid, without tipping off everybody that you're taking their pictures.
Oh, I have a Nikon D1x, too, heavy as sin, doesn't have the zoom range of the S-10 in one lens, big, etc. and there's about 1000 ways to take a bad picture with it. You need to be very careful that you have all the little knobs and switches set right or something's going to need correcting later if that's even possible. Its an amazing camera too, if a bit old, cost $4K new but you can get 'em for about $600 on ebay now. The one thing that it does far better than the S-10 is the shutter lag - there isn't any. I'm not recommending the D1x, its too heavy and complicated. But just offered that for comparison.
Read it as "Best Camera For Getting Into Pornography?"
Think I should log off for a while.
Start with a prime lens. Nothing teaches you composition better.
Check out the Lytro!
It solves one of the nasty problems
that beginners have with quality
cameras.
It is too new and I have yet to try one but
if it works as expected casual photography
is going to see some serious innovation.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
A lot of people are trying to tell you that the best camera is the one that you have with you. To be more accurate, I would say that the best camera is the one that you use.
But you are asking the question wrong. You want "to take pictures that actually look good" and you're inquiring for a camera that does that. The guys at "What the duck" had a great explanation of this misconception: "Your camera takes so nice pictures" is like complimenting somebody about "Your mouth says the nicest things".
The thing is that you can take great photos with an iPhone and you can take crappy photos with a 20k $ Hasselblad. So forget the camera and just use whatever you can afford. Because it's not the camera that takes good photos, it's the person behind the camera that does that.
If you want to improve your photography skills you should invest in learning how to take a good photo. This means: read tutorials, go for classes, ask for tips from people that you know that take better photos than you do. There's plenty of material online (both free and paid) that can help you improve your picture taking abilitie. From the top of my head, Digital Photography School, Kelby Training and CreativeLIVE are some of the places to start. Join Google+ and add to your circles all the great photographers out there; the photographic community on Google+ is crazy dynamic and educational. And most of all, practice.
Practice using whatever equipment you already have. In time you will discover yourself the limitations, if any, of that equipment and you will know if you need better hardware to take a certain photo. But right now, as far as I can see, it's not your camera that needs upgrading.
Assuming you're not interested in Film: check out DPReview.com, I think it's really a good solid place for things like $/performance.
This is a recommendation, not an advertisement.
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be