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?"

Comments

Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

The Canon or Nikon entry level DSLRs...you can't go wrong, except for the fact they are made for really small hands seemingly. For a little more money, get the next step up from either of those brands so you get a camera body that actually fits average human hand sizes.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[nharmon]

SLRs are very forgiving to people who are inexperienced with taking pictures. So yes.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[tibit]

The problem with non-SLRs is that they seemingly all suck when it comes to turnaround time between pictures, and their autofocus is universally slow -- if you have ever had experience with manual focus. A decent 35mm film SLR from the 80s with TTL exposure control, IMHO, outperforms pretty much every point-and-shoot when it comes to how quickly you can retake a previously set-up picture. Most of them, at least with experienced operator, will outperform even starting from scratch (focus way off, aperture/iris way off, etc).

Entry-level SLRs seem to be really a class above point-and-shoots, especially that you regain control of the focus adjustment and aperture. This really is a make-or-break when taking multiple pictures of the same subject, like you often do (bits are cheap!).

Re:Canon or Nikon

[quarterbuck]

That or Micro four thirds/ Micro four thirds.
Two things to consider when trying to learn photography are 1) Interchangeable lenses and 2) Getting the largest possible image sensor you can get (Noise decreases with image sensor size, not with megapixels).
Micro four thirds (or similar formats from Sony/Samsung) have a larger sensor than a typical point-and-shoot. So they work better in low lights and generally have a higher Signal-to-Noise ratio.
Olympus EPL line is a pretty good and cheap micro 4/3 camera. Sony makes their NEX series which are the full blown APS-C (DSLR) sensors squeezed into a small camera. Olympus and Panasonic both make micro-4/3 cameras, so the lenses are easier to come by. Also they can use adapters for various other kind of lenses. On the flip side, the micro 4/3 sensor is only 60% or so in size compared to a DSLR sensor.
All the above also have pre-set modes to increase/decrease brightness, contrast etc. -- they are useful to start. Once there you can set the camera to full manual and learn the physics part of photography. I've been told that Samsung makes the easiest to use interface , but I have never used it.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The trouble is that SLRs(while undoubtedly extremely capable) tend to suffer very heavily from 'the best camera is the camera you are carrying' syndrome.

By virtue of the more complex optical path, the modular lens options, and the various other bits and bobs that SLRs end up with, they get big enough that 'bringing the camera' becomes a decision, not an automatic thing.

With the fairly impressive capabilities of contemporary point-and-shoots(yes, admittedly, the capabilities of SLRs have enjoyed the same technological improvements, only more so because they have more space and a bigger budget), you really start to hit the wall of diminishing returns pretty quickly(It takes surprisingly few good megapixels to spit out a butter-smooth 8x10, and a 2560x1600 display is only a smidge over 4 megapixels, and those are $1,000+ Serious Screens).

There are some genuinely ghastly point and shoots out there, to be sure, and the weaknesses of the entire genre will start to bite if you need low light performance, run into situations where you need a somewhat atypical lens, or are really serious about your manual settings; but it isn't hard to get a ~$100 P&S that'll happy-snap just fine, or a 200-250 one that will have a nicer optics package, some of the more useful historically-SLR-only features not removed from the firmware(histograms, RAW, some manual options), and generally compete pretty well with the low end DSLR and shitty kit lens of the moment...

Re:Canon or Nikon

[tirerim]

Um, that's true of Pentax, too. The lenses that work with my K1000 (fully manual film SLR, production started in 1976) still work great with my K10D (digital, released in 2006). The newest lenses that lack aperture rings won't work with the manual body (at least not other than wide open), but that's true of Canon and Nikon, too. This also means that you can get some very good older lenses on eBay for very reasonable prices ($50-$100 each), as long as you don't mind some manual control (which is not that hard to learn -- before all of the automatic stuff came out, anyone who wanted to take pictures had to deal with it, and without even the benefit of instant feedback that you get now with digital). I haven't tried the entry-level Pentax dSLRs, but I've heard good reviews of them, and I can say that the mid-level is great. They don't make a "pro" level dSLR (in other words, full frame), but I don't think that matters much for most people. The one disadvantage of SLRs is that they're big. Even if you're just carrying the camera with a single lens, it's still going to be pretty bulky, weighing in at over a pound. Definitely not something you can slip into a pocket "just in case you want to take a picture". For that, I recommend something like the Canon S90/S95/S100, which combine a good lens and sensor with a small size and some optional manual controls (very useful as you learn more about photography and become smarter than the camera). They still don't compare to an SLR, but there's an adage in photography that the best camera is the one you have with you.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[penguinstorm]

Canon G12 or whatever the most recent iteration of it is.

I normally shoot with a Canon 5d MkII and owned a G11 before when I was still shooting--shocking!--film, up until last year. Honestly, the average person couldn't tell the difference between the shots I took with the G11 and the 5d from a *quality* perspective. (I swapped for an S95 when I bought my 5d, purely for the smaller size.)

There are differences to be sure, and work I do with the 5d that could NOT be done with the G cameras. The most notable difference is the greater depth of field afforded by the full frame sensor and how I use it, but from an "I'm just taking pictures..." perspective the Gs are excellent and you can exert as much or as little control as you want with shutter and aperture priority modes.

MOST and by MOST I mean ALMOST ALL people who buy a Rebel wind up shooting with the kit zoom anyway. It's a crappy, slow lens and I'd argue that MOST people would be better off shooting with a G--which is also free from the dust on the senor problem--seeing if they like it and then deciding to move to a Rebel or a 60d or a 7d or whatever suits their budget.

You'll carry the G much more than you'll carry a rebel. Though it's not tiny, it's noticeably tinier.

Engadget just did a review

[HFShadow]

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.

Canon S100

[richardtallent]

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/

One thing really matters: shutter delay

[gaijin_]

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.

Re:the best camera

[Teun]

Yes and no.

You should at least pick a camera with the option of full manual control and a good picture quality in automatic mode.
When the last one sucks you quickly lose interest!

I would suggest one of the top of the line compacts of Canon or Nikon, new serves no purpose except poser status and maybe warranty.
I can strongly recommend the Canon G-series like the G10 or the Nikon P5000, others mentioned the Lumix series but I hate their low-light noise reduction.

Common question

[AncientPC]

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:

• budget: DSLRs and lenses are a huge money sink.
• portability: Are you OK with carrying a bag of lenses? Do you want something to throw into your backpack / purse?
• subject material: People? Sports? Landscapes? Events? Macro?
• movie mode: 1080p @ 30fps a must?
• durability: Do you plan on shooting in the rain? In sandy conditions?

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.

As someone who used to sell cameras...

[damn_registrars]

When I sold digital cameras back in the bad old days (mostly pre-y2k) I observed that most people fall into one of two categories of photographers:

• People who want to take pictures of other people they know
• People who want to take pictures of everything else

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.