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?"
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.
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"
You have to understand that for some the gear itself is a religion. They own dozens of camera yet take no pictures. The brand is the thing. Even if OP wanted an SLR, Pentax makes far better entry level/consumer SLR's, and there are other companies as well. The mantra of CANON/NIKON is due solely to the fact they are the only two companies that make full-bore pro level products costing many thousands. Not that that should be relevant to someone wanting a consumer camera, but for the brand worshipers, having one of those two nameplates is the single most important aspect of camera ownership.
Do not buy a DSLR unless you must have changeable lenses. Compare the weight of a DSLR to a fixed lens camera. The best camera to start out is the one that will always be with you.
On the plus side, it is asserted that "The secret to good photography is lots and lots of bad photography" and digital shooting has made lots and lots and lots of bad photography cost virtually nothing...
Point-and-shoots can't replicate the quality SLRs because of the lenses. A Rebel + $100 "nifty 50" 50mm lens cannot be duplicated by a point-and-shoot.
Point and shoots can't replicate the usability of an SLR either. The time between pushing the button and when the picture is taken is usually 4-10x longer.
However, I do agree with you, the nifty 50 is an awesome lens.
Absolutely correct. I have a DSLR and a few lens which I love and I use when I'm looking to do real photography. But I also have, or had till I misplaced it, a small point and shoot camera about the size of an altoids tin. Of all the photos I have, I probably used that one for 90% of them. It would fit in a pocket, I had no qualms exposing it to potentially destructive conditions, and I almost always had it with me by keeping it in my computer bag.
Anyway, I'm really missing it and will need to replace it. I'd suggest looking at the reviews here:
http://www.dpreview.com/
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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 get surprisingly good images from a stupid little canon powershot"
+1.
I went hiking in Yosemite with a friend a couple months back. I had my superzoom powershot, he had his four-digit DSLR. We ended up taking a lot of similar shots (hey, a bird!) and the images were pretty comparable. Some instances the powershot looked better. He was obviously much better at the macro / shallow depth of field shots. That said, it was possible for me to take a photograph of a waterfall while scrambling on hands and knees up a cliffside, but it was impossible for him to maneuver the DSLR into place safely.
I'm not saying DSLRs are bad or anything, but a lot of the things that you need to take good photos (exposure and shutter control, white balance, ISO control, etc.) can be done in most mid-grade P&S cameras. I've taken some really nice photos with my powershots, that I'd have otherwise missed since I wouldn't have been able to carry a DSLR around in my pocket.
No, what's lame is thinking that you can't learn the basics of photography (composition, lighting, etc.) without an SLR. Some of the finest photographers in the world used equipment 100 times more primitive than most point and click cameras.
Just to kind of echo what you said, I like to have 3:
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.