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

[HFShadow]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[nharmon]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[FaxeTheCat]

Agreed. You cannot go wrong with Canon or Nikon. My family have a Canon compact and a Nikon SLR. Both are super for their class.

On the other hand, for a newbie, I am not so certain that the difference between the brands (Sony, Panasonics... lots of them) are that great anyway. For a few hundred dollars you should get a decent compact.
Just remember to get a memory chip with some capacity. Look at price per capacity, but I assume a 4 GB should cost next to nothing these days, and it will keep more than a thousand images.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[spazmonkey]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[indeterminator]

+1. Entry-level DSLRs are bulkier and a bit more expensive than point-and-shoots and ultrazooms, but the difference in price is not that great. In return for the investment you will get something the small stuff lacks in: larger image sensor. In image quality, size does matter.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[migla]

A problem with DSLRs is that you wont have it with you when the photo opportunity presents itself.

For a compact camera, I'd look at the size of my pockets to find how big it can be and then find the one at that size with the largest sensor, not minding the pixel count as much as sensor size and see if I could afford that one.

Ability to shoot in some RAW format would be a definite plus also, in my opinion, in case I accidentally take a photo that I should be able to make look as good as possible.

RAW will let you take pics without the blurring (or whatever it is) of jpeg compression and also the camera won't be "developing" the image with any white-balance set, which can throw away a lot of useful information if it happens to be wrong.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[shoehornjob]

Yes while that is true for the purposes of the discussion we really don't need to go into that.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[benjamindees]

Yes. Even the cheapest SLR will produce good quality photos even if you know nothing about the technical details and never bother to learn.

If your price range is at all close to $400-$500, go ahead and get an SLR. Personally I have had good experience with a Canon Rebel.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Pneathery]

You can't go wrong with the Canon Rebel, as a matter of fact the newer ones also shoot he video that is good enough to shoot a hd tv show (one entire season of House was shot on one, and I just worked a movie that quit shooting last week "Arthur Newman Golf Pro" and they were using one in addition to some VERY expensive cameras. But the downside to these cameras is the cost of the lenses. You can easily tie up thousands in lenses for a three hundred dollar camera. I bought my wife one, and have personally hit that wall hard. I however use a Panasonic Lumix and have gotten some AMAZING shots with it. Plus it truly is designed as a point and shoot, as opposed to the Cannon which takes ALOT of skill, experience, and just dumb luck for me to get the same outcome. The point and shoot quality out of a true dslr camera isn't where it's at, they are designed for you to adjust everything for every shot, while the Panasonic I use will allow me to do either and has ALOT of settings in between as well. Good luck! And don't forget a tri pod. It makes those night shots turn out sooo much better. I love going to the beach at night with the Panasonic on a tripod and choosing the star setting and leaving the aperture set for 30 seconds to get great star shots!

Re:Canon or Nikon

[whoever57]

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!).

What about the "superzoom" class of cameras? You can get cameras in this class with excellent lens systems (but not swappable) and with control over aperture. They just don't have manual focus.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Richard_at_work]

Talking as someone who was heavily into amateur photography until a year or so ago, the main reason you see Canon and Nikon "worship" is because they are the only two manufacturers where you can start out with a very cheap DSLR at the low end, and migrate your way right up to the top levels in equipment without ever having to dump your current kit and replace it - you can achieve that steady progression by buying lenses and bodies individually, there is no point to reach where the previous level of kit won't work with the next.

It's really quite a nice position to be in.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[whoever57]

larger image sensor. In image quality, size does matter.

This is a simplification that is not always true. What you want is a sensor size that is properly matched to the lens. In SLRs, cheaper bodies have sensors that are smaller than the total image projected onto the focal plane, so that light through the lens is wasted. If the sensor size is properly matched to the lens, you will get the best quality.

So, yes, if you buy an SLR, probably sensor size matters, but what is more important is matching the sensor size to the lens system.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[ewilts]

Actually the superzooms these days do have manual focus if you want to use it. I've been pretty happy with my Canon S5 IS and my wife just ordered me an SX40 for Christmas. I don't use the manual on my S5 often but it's nice when I do need it. Some objects just won't focus automatically.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[rvw]

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!).

What about the "superzoom" class of cameras? You can get cameras in this class with excellent lens systems (but not swappable) and with control over aperture. They just don't have manual focus.

DSLR has in general two advantages over superzoom: manual zoom, which is much faster and accurate, and a bigger sensor. A bigger sensor means that it catches more light when using the same diafragma. A bigger sensor has one disadvantage: superzoom is not possible or lenses are much bigger. Take the Sony NEX-5 with a 3x zoom - that zoom lens alone is 3x bigger than your average superzoom.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[johan_from_cape_town]

I would recommend the Canon Rebel T3/ 1100D. The fact of the matter is you get all the "settings"/options to play with that real photographers get so that you can actually learn about taking photographs. From a theory perspective you can do pretty much anything with these cameras, and if you really get into it you have a upgrade path. There are also other pluses to DSLR: 1) AMAZING battery life (if you use the optical viewfinder instead of life view). On a trip to Japan I took 1000 photos over two weeks without requiring a recharge. 2) Optical view finder is the bomb. It actually makes it possible for you to see the result much better. 3) They use AF sensors instead of trying to use digital processing to determine focus point. Much easier to get the right focus. 4) You have an upgrade path if you like it - including lenses. The best thing is that I can actually loan lenses from my camera geek friends every once in a while, including telephoto lenses - and it works fine on my camera. 5) you do get a satisfying THUNK sound each time you take a photo when the mirror moves out of the way, instead of an electronic "click" noise you get with point and shoots.

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

[stewbacca]

Yes. I am. You don't learn anything about photography using point-and-shoot. A used Rebel costs less than many point-and-shoots.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[migla]

I forgot one thing: A lens with as wide an angle as possible (within limits).

If you're going to take pictures of people indoors, you will fit more of them and the room if you have a relatively wide lens. I'd sacrifice zoom-ability for a wider starting point, like about 24 mm (equivalent to about 35 mm, iirc, on old-school cameras).

Then I'd grumble when I want to take a picture of that squirrel a few meters away, though.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

I suggested Canon/Nikon solely because you can't go wrong. Sure Sony, Olympus, Pentax, et. al. make some good gear, but it's a crap shoot. Plus, with Canon or Nikon, you can see if you like photography, buy some nice lenses, and if you like it, upgrade your camera body while keeping the lenses.

Then there's the whole used market advantage for Canon and Nikon. It's much easier to find good used gear for Canon and Nikon than it is the other brands.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[jjohnson]

He was recommending a DSLR, not an SLR (i.e., digital, not film). Canon/Nikon entry level DSLRs offer an immediate jump in image quality because they have far better lenses than any point and shoot, and you don't ever have to take them off their automatic mode that's as point-and-shoot as anything smaller.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

It's not a myth if you buy entry-level Canon, buy an L-lens for your entry level Canon, then upgrade to a better Canon body. If you jump ship to Nikon, then you just sell your gear on eBay/Craigslist for not much less than you bought if for and start over. Good luck with that if you start with Sony.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[whathappenedtomonday]

The submission mentions "price versus performance", and for that reason, even though I'd like to own some SLR, I still stick with my Canon Powershot (SX100, was ranked "superzoom" when I bought it for its 10x optical zoom). And I'm still happy with it. Point-and-shoot + manual modes/settings for experienced users + CHDK firmware mod for (lots of) additional features. IMHO. if you go for CHDK support you'll definitely get a decent camera at a decent price, with the added feature that if you really get into it and need more/better/more flexible features and settings, CHDK will keep you busy for a Long, Long Time.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[fbjon]

I'd say the opposite: anything that is a few hundred bucks but not a full DSLR. That level of technical sophistication is wasted unless you know why it is needed in some situations, and even then it's not mandatory just capture an image. Hence it's better for a novice to go with a pocket camera. In fact, it can be better for advanced and novice users alike:

• Easy to carry anywhere: more opportunities to take photos
• Less expensive/lighter weight: fewer worries about the hardware
• Fewer functions to fiddle with: fewer distractions from the goal of taking a picture

There are many good pocket cameras that take good quality pictures, in general it should be enough just to pick a price point, and go with recent models from known brands: Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, and a few others.

I should point out that the size of the camera is very important. If you ever have to think "should I take the camera or not", your camera is not the right size for the job.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[indeterminator]

This is a simplification that is not always true. What you want is a sensor size that is properly matched to the lens. In SLRs, cheaper bodies have sensors that are smaller than the total image projected onto the focal plane, so that light through the lens is wasted. If the sensor size is properly matched to the lens, you will get the best quality. So, yes, if you buy an SLR, probably sensor size matters, but what is more important is matching the sensor size to the lens system.

in a sense, you are correct. However, entry-level DSLRs typically come with a glass that's meant for the sensor size of the body it's sold with. And even lenses that are meant for larger image area typically exhibit their best properties near the center of the image, so one could say that the mid-size sensor is right in the sweet spot of the projection.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[dgatwood]

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!).

Not to mention that most non-SLR digital cameras won't do RAW output except with hacked firmware. It's amazing how much more damage you can correct after the fact (color balance errors in particular) if you shoot exclusively in RAW.

Also, DSLRs have a decided advantage in photographic quality because of their lens size. The amount of light gathered and the maximum effective resolution are both proportional to the diameter of the objective (front) lens. (I realize that this is glossing over a lot of details, but it's a good first approximation.)

Re:Canon or Nikon

[nomel]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[rocketPack]

I agree with him. A compact camera has a compact lens, and compact lenses suck. DSLRs produce awesome photos because the camera has more light to work with, better optics, and more sensors to automatically determine ideal exposure settings. Based on the description, I think whatever this person buys they're going to use for a long time and a DSLR is a great investment.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[nomel]

For me, it has to do with which company has more cameras out in peoples hands...becaues this determines how easily I can find kick ass gear on craigslist for 1/2 price.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is generally right. But the climb to 500 to 5000 can take more than 10 years. I started in 2001 with a 300$ Nikon, and my last was 1200$. True, I do not use my first lens on the new camera, but in the meantime I purchase a long range remote, a good lens doubler, a 200mm lens, a nice flash, a good tripod, and so on. Except for the original lens and the remote, I still use all of these, and should do so for years to come.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[ci4]

Seconded.

I was in the same position some 6 months ago, eventually buying a Samsung EX1 (AKA TL500 in the States, I am told). Oh, boy, what a problem - now I can't find any excuse to buy myself a DSLR or a MFT camera... And yes, I know of the deficiencies of this particular camera, but they do not matter to me at this stage. I carry the camera all the time with me, ready to shoot any moment I see something remotely interesting.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[zippthorne]

I would still go with recommending the SLR for anything that involves shooting pictures in low light. Those tiny apertures in the point-and-shoot cameras just don't cut it for anything taken indoors in the evening unless you're willing to put up with only getting the nearest 4' in the shot, or having horrible motion blur.

The two rules not taking awful pictures are 1) don't use the highest iso number all the time, and 2) don't use the flash (*)

*unless you're dealing with shadow, or there just isn't going to be enough light to take a picture at all.

It's not like the SLR isn't going to have a "for dummies" mode. Also, there are some good "prosumer" models with large apertures and fixed lenses that aren't quite as big as an SLR that might be a better fit, but their price approaches the low end of the SLR models.....

Re:Canon or Nikon

[capsteve]

this is the best advise i've seen so far... the best camera to start out with is one that will always be with you.
WTF moderators, why did this get a low score?

OP, unless you're dedicated to becoming a photographer and don't mind carrying around a DSLR all the time, you'd be better off carrying a small compact point-and-shoot camera. get something in the $200 range(8-12MP, 3x optical zoom) they're all pretty comparable, but i've always been partial to the canon xilim or canon powershot series. my criteria was a camera OS that was usable as well as quick and responsive. i've spent time in several stores testing various brands for what i felt were important features: power on to shutter ready; switching capture modes; the ability to turn off startup sounds/animations; size or a pack of cigarettes; sd card. once you've got narrowed you choices down to a couple/three cameras, go to http://www.steves-digicams.com/ and compare your impressions against someone whose tested many evices.

IMHO, if you want to learn how to take photos, you do it by taking pictures. don't get an DSLR. don't get a micro 4/3. you can graduate to these later, when your comfortable taking pictures. don't buy a camera that you haven't actually touched and toyed with.

1) carry a camera with you all the time.
2) take lots of pictures. if you get a one good picture out of 20-36 exposures, you're doing well.
3) not every picture is sacred. capturing the moment with all it's flaws is better than to miss the moment.
4) keep taking lots of pictures
5) don't be afraid to edit out crap images
6) learn the various functions of your camera(night shot, red eye/no red eye, flash/no flash, etc)

i take between 6000-10000 pictures a year(the camera is with me all the time). i replace my camera every year or so(depends on how beat up it gets).
and i get surprisingly good images from a stupid little canon powershot. i have a lot of reject images, but i also more than my fair share of keepers. eventually i'll get a fancier camera, but in the meantime i'm looking at a new refresh(canon s100 is looking sweet) for my daily shooter.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[bedonnant]

If you buy a cheap 50mm for your camera, it'll work from entry level to pro body. I only use Canon since I got the 350d, but since then I steadily upgraded my gear, lenses and bodies. I never was at a point where a lens was not compatible with my camera. At one point of course you can choose to sell a lens to get a better one, but that doesn't mean all of your gear has become useless. So I don't get where you think this is a fallacy -- it actually is one of the strongest selling points for DSLRs, image quality aside.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[marcroelofs]

bla to undo wrong mod, sorry

Re:Canon or Nikon

[dgatwood]

Manual zooms also give you much, much better battery life. The only reason to ever use a powered zoom is if you're shooting video. For still shooting, it's horribly inefficient in every way.

BTW, "superzoom" cameras generally have a decided disadvantage in terms of picture quality at one or both ends of their range. That's why most DSLR owners buy lenses with smaller zoom ranges most of the time, even though larger ranges are available.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[he-sk]

Worst. Advice. Evar.

The OP simply wants to take good pictures of his family and friends. He does not need a big camera that he has to haul around, he needs a camera that is small enough to have always on him, i.e. a point-and-shoot. I have heard good things about Lumix (IIRC, a Panasonic brand) although I've never owned one.

Secondly, you pay a hefty premium for Canon and Nikon gear. They do have advantages (mainly availability of secondary accessories), but you get the same features and quality for less money if you buy Pentax, Olympus or Minolta.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Em Adespoton]

If you want entry level with no upgrade path and a relatively short lifespan (2-4 years), Samsung's probably a good choice. Decent interface, compact, and half decent CCDs and lenses.

If you want to go to the next step up, the Canon superzooms are probably the best choice.

After you hit SLR, I'd personally recommend skipping the entry level, and going with the next level up Nikon -- you'll get superb interfaces, a nicely weighted body, a SOLID body that can take a beating and exposure to the weather, and an excellent upgrade path.

If you go the SLR route, make sure you get a few prime lenses (no zoom) -- I find that for quick shots on a decent DSLR, not having to fiddle with zoom until you hit photoshop is actually an advantage. You'll also want a decent zoom lens or two so you can get just the right boka in those artsy shots ;)

Re:Canon or Nikon

[dwywit]

Testify, brother. It's all in the glass. I'd be happy with better lenses on a lower-model body. My wife bought a Canon kit with body, 50mm, 18-55, and a 75-200 (IIRC). My kodak DX6490 - at 4MP and a Zeiss lens - takes sharper pictures than the Canon 18-55 (which crapped out recently - autofocus she no work no more - and not worth fixing). The latency is a PITA though. I wish digital cameras had a "just take the damn picture" mode, using the last settings and don't-worry-about-the-focus. I'll rely on depth of field when I need to get the shot NOW.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[chmod a x mojo]

Even that is a fallacy. A myth of marketing. While true that a canon camera lens can be physically be mounted to any Canon, Nikon lens to Nikon body, etc, that doesn't mean they actually work. Many don't. Nikon has all sorts of levels of unintentional physical and intentional artificial firmware locking to prevent their own lenses from working on their cameras interchangeably. Canon doesn't gimp their cameras firmware, but physical issues still apply with lenses not meant to work on the pro cameras due to optical limitations. Even if you have a lens you can keep and move from a $500 to a $5000 body, by that point you ostensibly no longer desire to use those original plastic, slow, $100 amateur lenses on that pro body. The fact of the matter is that you have to dump your initial gear and lenses (often several times) on that upgrade treadmill, same brand or not. Assuming you even are one of the extraordinarily rare individuals that does eventually climb up into owning 5 figures of pro gear. The 'upgrade path' is a myth, and a useless one to almost every consumer even -IF- it were remotely true.

Only if you are stupid and don't plan ahead. The "lenses won't fit" is ONLY applicable if you buy all EF-S lenses for your entry / midpriced gear without thinking about down the road. Not to mention good luck finding a "L" series GOOD lens with an EF-S mount.... you absolutely have to buy the EF mount lens, which by the way fits ALL of Canons bodies from the last ohh 10+ years, including analog film SLRs, DSLRs with APS-c sensors ( these can take the EF-S lenses), and full frame DSLRs ( pro level EF mount only).

TL;DR version: It's a myth that your lens kits won't work with higher models- only applies to user stupidity IF they buy only EF-S lenses that should NEVER be mounted to a pro level camera anyways.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[SharpFang]

I'm seconding the opinion of Powershot + CHDK. It's a great combo for learning the basic-to-intermediate topics - composition, exposure, ISO, focus, basics of RAW processing, long exposures - and still allows to shoot "idiotenkamera" when there's no time to set things up.

When the Powershot stops being satisfactory (primary limitation: poor color matching), get a middle-shelf 2-3 years old used EOS, a couple decent lenses - a set that combined will give you focal lengths between 15mm and 200mm, and the essentials: tripod, basic filters, remote. This will get you into "advanced" with combining focal length, aperture, time and ISO to limit depth, get motion blur exactly where you want it, reflect flash from surfaces, use focal length for artistic effects and not just cropping, play with manual focus etc.

Note you CAN do most of this with a compact+CHDK, but... only if you know what you're doing. The interface is way too clunky to use it for -learning- the advanced stuff, things you do by a twitch of wrist in SLR require navigating two menu levels down and using the +pad for entering numeric value in CHDK.

Still, it's good 2 years of learning using the compact till you should think about switching to SLR.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[hedwards]

Indeed, I'm waiting for my Canon PowerShot SX40 HS to arrive for simply that reason. I'll be spending a lot of time outside the country during the next year and I don't realistically have the space to lug around 30-40 lbs., of gear with me everywhere.

The camera doesn't have a couple things I really think it should, like raw, but it does allow manual control, has a wide range of view, IS and usable pics at high sensitivity. I might not get quite the images that I would have gotten with my other set up, but it's something that I can reasonable carry with me without having to carry a huge bag.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[tibit]

The autofocus seems to take roughly same time on the one's I've had in the last 6 years (a Sony, a Canon and two Olympus models). That's a real bummer. Also, the save times on most point-and-shoots are abysmal (half a second on this year's $250 model).

Re:Canon or Nikon

[hedwards]

That's true, but some of the bridge cameras are pretty damn impressive these days. Definitely a world better than the dSLRs were back a decade ago.

As for lens size, that's somewhat debatable. The problem being that a 100mm lens is a 100mm lens no matter what format you're dealing with, you get no more magnification on a 4/3 body than on a FFS or 1/2.3" for that matter.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[chmod a x mojo]

>If you go the SLR route, make sure you get a few prime lenses (no zoom) -- I find that for quick shots on a decent DSLR, not having to fiddle with zoom until you hit photoshop is actually an advantage. You'll also want a decent zoom lens or two so you can get just the right boka in those artsy shots ;)

Primes give you better bokeh than zoom lenses..... you just have to adjust where the lens is in relation to the subject to fill the frame how you want. Zooms come in handy when you want to adjust the frame fill without having to change lenses or get closer / farther away.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[mwvdlee]

Indeed, despite being called "point and shoot", those small camera's usually aren't quite as fast as a DSLR.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[element-o.p.]

Yup. And it determines how easy it is to dump your current gear when you are ready to upgrade to the next level.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[alexandre_ganso]

It seems olympus went bankrupt.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[heathen_01]

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

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[alexandre_ganso]

He wants to learn. So yes, a dslr. Or a rangefinder, which has the advantage of being small and fast.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Dracophile]

Absolutely. I'm no pro, and I do like to buy (albeit infrequently) prosumer-grade stuff, but having said that I would totally recommend an SLR. And "but I've gotten to the point where the images produced by my smartphone aren't cutting it" is very unlikely to stop at just-better-than-smartphone-camera. If all you want is something that's only better than a smartphone, then you'd just save the money and make do with a smartphone.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[symbolset]

While I would in general agree, sensor size has a lot to do with it also.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[theshowmecanuck]

What you say is true in only two ways: 1) if you are only capable of taking pictures in the camera's 'automatic modes'. 2) if you buy lenses meant for anything less than for a full 35 mm sensor/film (what you are talking about with respect to consumer/pro digital lenses).

I have manual lenses that work just fine for me, but I do have to use them full manual. They are 20 or 30 years old, were purchased for 35 mm film, and work on film or digital Nikon cameras. Once you get to a certain point, it is the photographer and not the fancy features of the lens that make the difference. And what is nice here, is that if you can deal with it, you can get very high end (great glass) 35 mm film lenses second hand for cheaper because they aren't "digital compatible". Which really means they don't work with all the automatic features on digital camera, but they are still functional lenses often with very good glass (which is what is the most important part). If you know how to metre a scene yourself, that won't matter.

I know it is an extreme example, but look at the absolutely amazing photos Ansel Adams could do with an 8x10 camera doing landscapes... and those lenses only allowed for manual setting of f-stop; the focus was in the camera bellows! But of course even in full manual, a 35mm camera will allow you to shoot much more quickly than a large format camera, even if slower than in any automatic mode (including the various automatic metering modes). But being forced to shoot slower can also aid you in developing your skill in shot selection and composition. It can force you to be a better photographer, able to find good composition quickly instead of relying on being able to shoot dozens or hundreds of shots just to get one or two good ones. Ansel Adams for example often would be able to look at a scene and know exactly how he wanted to shoot it, right down to how he would process the film and print the paper. He had to get good at it given how much a pain working with the extremely large 8x10 format cameras that he preferred. He didn't often take quick shots. The only one I can remember him saying that he shot very quickly (that I read about in one of his books) was Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico

Now if you are taking a lot of action shots (sports for example) the automatic features are almost required, but guys back in the day took some really good sports photos without all that too. It just depends on how much automation you really need or want.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[GrandTeddyBearOfDoom]

Not to mention that superzooms have tiny (1/2.33) sensors. This causes much noise in the images which precludes blowing them up to anywhere near the size that the megapixel count would have you think.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[GrandTeddyBearOfDoom]

I have a bridge and, unless you really need the zoom, the picture quality is let down by the size of the sensor, resulting in much more noise than you get with SLRs or a high-end compact.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Vaakku]

The autofocus seems to take roughly same time on the one's I've had in the last 6 years

This is the reason why missus doesn't use our point-n-shoot anymore. When you are taking pictures from kids SLR is clear winner since you get picture taken when you want it, not when the camera has pondered the situation enough and situation is allready over....

Re:Canon or Nikon

[GrandTeddyBearOfDoom]

Though the flattening effect of telephoto must be taken into account. If you want to flatten the perspective, step back and zoom in, if you want the opposite, step in and zoom out. I find that 50mm is the shortest lens that's any good for people's faces, and 35mm is great for scenes. I have a 18-270 Tamron, which is fine when you want the zoom and quality isn't so important (photos are not as alive as those from even my original 18-55). Basically a couple of primes are great for those times when you want better quality and decent bokeh, whereas a travel lense (e.g. 18-270) is useful when you are going for a walk and don't want to have to change lens.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[hism]

Yeah, f that noise.

Leica M9 or go home.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[GrandTeddyBearOfDoom]

I find that the biggest advantage of a DSLR is in being able to get a shot of something that is changing -- when you press the button on a DSLR, that is when the photo is taken -- with every compact I've used, there is a roughly 0.5sec lag which means that what you get a shot of is not what was in front of the camera when you pressed the shutter release. On the other hand, a camera you can have with you at all times is terribly useful. For this reason I have a Nikon D3100, which for a first DLSR is ideal, and a Canon S95 which is a great high quality compact.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Skater]

Perhaps not, but they're very close. My wife has a Canon SX130is (I think the current model is 150), and it's a pretty nice camera - and I'm an SLR guy (I recently got a Nikon D7000, but I've taken over 10,000 pictures with my D70). The other thing is, as someone pointed out above, it's much easier to carry around, so you're a lot more likely to have it for that perfect moment. We were on a photo safari with it a while back, and the professional photographer commented to my wife that we were all jealous, because she was getting shots as good as the rest of us, but much more cheaply.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[anagama]

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

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Dracophile]

The one caveat I'd add to this is -- at least in the Nikon world where I live -- that you probably need to decide up-front on sensor size. Yes, you can put a DX lens on an FX body, but you're not using the full-size sensor to its capacity. Some people might be perfectly fine with owning both FX and DX gear -- a small DX body with a couple of lenses is pretty easy to lug around and you can save the FX and big glass for other jobs -- but not everyone wants to spend that sort of money on it. OP, definitely look into an SLR system. And as others have said, it's hard to go wrong with Canon or Nikon. I went Nikon (only because I already had a couple of lenses), but I otherwise might have been just as happy with a Canon. SLR gives you a metric arse-load of flexibility. I've shot stuff on my D3 that I would never have been able to shoot on a wee point-and-shoot thing.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[GrandTeddyBearOfDoom]

I have a Lumix FZ100 and the quality sucks compared to either my Canon S95 or my Nikon D3100. If you want to capture things that are moving, the shutter lag on a non-DSLR tends to get in the way: you have to be prescient to know to press the shutter half a second before the shot you want to take appears: DSLRs are much quicker to respond. As a starter DSLR there is no need for more than either a D3100 or a Canon 550D. If portability is an issue, get a good compact such as a Canon S95 -- I love the fact that this has a face-autofocus that focuses the faces in the picture wherever they are, something a DSLR will probably never do.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[billDCat]

This is a simplification that is not always true. What you want is a sensor size that is properly matched to the lens. In SLRs, cheaper bodies have sensors that are smaller than the total image projected onto the focal plane, so that light through the lens is wasted. If the sensor size is properly matched to the lens, you will get the best quality.

Or you could say that with the sensor smaller than the projected image you get the benefit of some extra optical zoom. You're not going to see significant degradation just because some of the light coming in is not used, there are plenty of photons coming in to get a nice sharp image from a 1:1.6 sensor. Such a sensor is still large enough that it doesn't suffer from the signal to noise issues in the very small and very high density sensors that are in many point and shoot cameras, so you are probably going to get a less noisy image in a partial frame sensor in a DSLR than you might get in a 15MP point and shoot.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[andyring]

As others have suggested, Canon products are great. For what I perceive to be your situation, a Canon pocket camera will be your best bet. You do actually get good images from them, and I say that with certainty as I have two pocket Canons, one DSLR and a couple dozen DSLR's at work, all Canon. I resisted the urge to get a pocket camera until a couple years ago, but since I did, there's truly no going back. Why? Because you always have it with you. A DSLR you will not carry with you very often, plain and simple. A pocket camera that does a good job and is always with you - you can't go wrong. Because you have it with you. I cannot stress that point enough. I suggest a Canon with GPS. The location features are nice - knowing where your photos were taken.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[AugstWest]

The camera is important, the piece of glass it comes with even more so.

I have a Panasonic Lumix that I've used for 7 years now, and I was just thinking yesterday that I'm amazed how well it has held up. The megapixel count of other cameras keep climbing, but this Leica lens keeps me in the hunt.

So yeah, the default answer is often going to be "Nikon" or "Canon," but this fairly inexpensive Lumix has never let me down, and I am continually impressed with its photo quality, even at only 4 megapixels.

They're under $100 used, too:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FZ1K-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B00008IHUB/ref=sr_1_5?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1322265477&sr=1-5

Re:Canon or Nikon

[hierofalcon]

The Fujifilm HS10 and HS20EXR aren't bad cameras either. They come with 30x lenses and have manual zoom. I really prefer the manual zoom to the powered zoom on my wife's Canon P/S. They're a great camera for most situations except low light w/o flash. The 20 is supposedly better than the 10 for these situations. I'd buy my HS10 again and am considering an upgrade to a 20. It's really nice to not have to carry around two or three lenses to cover the range of shots you'd like to take. There are a couple of other super zooms that do slightly better at the far tele part of the range for detail, and an SLR with a nice lens would do even better, but for general pixel exposure, they are a great learning camera without the cost of a serious SLR. You can use filters and add a 2x adapter on the lens if you want - and have a solid base to use to reduce shake if you use 2x + max tele.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[hedwards]

Depends on your perspective. I have no doubt that if you compare a current dSLR with a current bridge that the dSLR is going to win hands down, assuming that it was even halfway competently designed. However, if you compare it to an older one from a few years back, the images I've seen are much more favorable.

Ultimately, bridges really shouldn't be seen as a replacement for a dSLR unless one can't take that much gear on a trip. If one is just wanting to learn how to use a camera, they have a good selection of modes and controls and are small enough to carry with you. But, ultimately they are going to suffer compared with a full sized dSLR, it's essentially inevitable.

Out of curiosity which camera do you have?

Re:Canon or Nikon

[KORfan]

The original poster doesn't want to shoot RAW; he just wants to take easy photos of family and stuff. He doesn't even want to get to the hobbyist level. I agree that SLRs are better, I've extremely happy with mine, but they aren't what Soulskill wants.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[bakarocket]

That's a bit nitpicky, don't you think? GP refers to the rebel in the post."Digital" is assumed here, no?

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.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[penguinstorm]

Sorry about that Nikon there. Your wife seems like a nice lady though :)

Honestly, just to put my two cents in on a topic that's probably already com up: Nikon, Canon...who cares. I shoot Canon because I've shot canon for my entire life because my grandfather shot Canon. Shoot what you can borrow lenses for.

I do think Canon's all electronic and physically larger lens mount is better, but not at a level which would impact 99% of the people who own one. (Including, incidentally, me.)

Re:Canon or Nikon

[djmurdoch]

I agree. The poster said "a few hundred dollars". If "a few" is "three", that's a bad price point. Spend less, or spend more. You can get really fantastic point and shoot cameras in the $150-200 range. You can get really fantastic entry-level digital SLRs in the $450-600 range. (And then you can spend as much more than that as you like, but you aren't getting good "entry-level" value any more.) But I don't think anything priced at $300 is worth buying. They are crap SLRs, and overpriced point and shoot.

I'd say a newbie should start at the low end, If you're happy there, you're happy. If you find it frustrating due to lack of control, then upgrade.

Some specific advice:

- Get a viewfinder in the low end. Don't rely on an LCD or other display on the camera. It's not until you're in the $600 range that those are usable.

  - Don't pay for fancy "art filters" or other image processing in the camera. Get a few million pixels, and do your processing after you've downloaded the pictures.

  - Don't pay for too many pixels. You get good quality pictures starting at around 2 megapixels; more is better, but you quickly run into diminishing returns (and storing bigger images takes up more disk space, flash card space, etc.). I wouldn't buy a 2 megapixel DSLR (you should do better than that), but I wouldn't pay for more in a point and shoot camera.

  - Try it out in the store. If you can't figure out the menus to take a variety of pictures there, then don't buy it. You aren't going to read the manual. A variety includes: pictures with a flash and without; closeups, portraits, and landscapes.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[penguinstorm]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[KORfan]

I agree completely. OP says they have a cellphone camera, and want something better, but not hobby or pro. "Family, friends, projects, that actually look good." This screams point and shoot. One could make an argument for the "interchangeable lens cameras" or whatever they call the range between the p&s cameras and DSLRs this month, but I'd go with the point & shoot. Based on my research (do your own, visit your library and check Consumer Reports and some photography magazines) Canon and Nikon do cost more, but you're paying for quality. To me it's worth it; YMMV.

There's a lot of good, accurate information posted here about DSLRs, but they aren't what the OP wants. If the OP already understands setting IOS or using auto-ISO, then sure, go for DSLR. If not, get a point and shoot.

I bought a Canon Powershot A590 a couple of years ago, and it was great (and still is) until I started shooting roller derby, a sport that is high speed and often played under low light in facilities that were not meant to be sports arenas, so it wasn't up to the task, so I bought a DSLR. I've racked up 26,000 photos this year on my Canon 60D, but this is not the camera for Soulskill.

What the OP wants is a point and shoot with some amount of zoom and some advanced shooting modes (Program, Time/Shutter, Aperture, Manual) so they can learn about them if the standard modes don't meet their needs. Get one that's small enough that you'll actually carry it (mine fits in my jacket pocket), and one that's comfortable in your hand (yes, go to stores and handle them). Get maybe 10-12 megapixels; don't pay for higher (unless that's all that's on the current market). Pay some attention to the memory system -- does it use SD/SX cards, flash cards, or Sony power sticks? You won't be happy with some weird proprietary memory media. I'd suggest starting to look at the Canon A590 (or whatever the current equivalent is) and adjust based on desires and constraints.

Also, download the photos off of your camera. If it takes too long with the supplied cable, you can get a card reader (mine was $12) to convert it into a USB drive and download ~10 times faster. But get the photos off your camera so you don't lose them, and you can actually look at them, learn from them, enjoy them, and take more. If you want to improve your photos, take lots of them, and get a book such as Digital Photography for Dummies (or reasonable facsimile thereof).

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Pulzar]

If we're going to be calling bullshit, then I'll pitch in... The S95 is f/2 only at widest angle, 24mm, which is useless for portraits, unless you're going to put it a foot from someone's face. And I doubt that your primary goal is to take wide-angle full-room shots in low light.

On the other hand, it goes up to ridiculously slow f/5.9 at 120mm zoom, and I'm sure your "good glass" does do a lot better than f/5.9 at 120mm.

So, there's no way that S95 is usable in low light without flash, except for the most contrived scenarios. (I'll also call bullshit on the GP's "never use flash" comment... if you have an SLR, you might as well learn how to light things.)

I'd throw my 3200ASA concert photography from my 5d up against your shitty crop-sensor medium ISO shots

I doubt anyone would disagree that your full-frame $2K+ camera will take better high ISO shots than a budget SLR -- what's the point of bringing that up, at all? All he's saying is that if you can use a faster lens instead of maxing out your ISO, it's going to look better.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[dgatwood]

That's not the way I would interpret the original poster's question. It sounds to me like the original poster wants to get significantly better quality photos without necessarily learning how to use a camera in manual mode.

That doesn't mean the original poster doesn't want to shoot RAW. If anything, shooting in full auto makes it a lot more important to always use RAW, as the fully automatic modes on cameras tend to get color balance and aperture wrong more often than they get it right. RAW can often make the difference between usable and unsalvageable.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[ShakaUVM]

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

+1.

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

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[arose]

I have the HS20EXR and would recommend it as an entry level in a heartbeat. The manual zoom alone is worth it. It is really odd around the edges if you look closely, so if any of the following are deal breakers for you, stay away.

The tripod mount thread is plastic, no idea why. Worse, it is right next to the battery cover, so you can't leave a quick release plate on all the time.

Manual zoom is not on a discreet range, so it can be a bit tricky at times.

You will be able to shoot in most low light situations (but you won't like the noise). However at some point it hits a threshold and just can't perceive any light at all. I've tried stars and a night horizon with 30 second exposure and it's pitch black.

Things can be somewhat "wavy" at 30x zoom. I'm not sure if this is due to motion compensation or not as I've only shot 30x freehand. OTOH you can easily shoot 30x freehand.

Raws are huge, yet only half resolution. Consequentially they take a while to write, so shot-to-shot time is slower than jpeg.

Bursts are fast (both jpeg and raw) considering the price, but they take a bit to write out. Worse with raws.

As mentioned raws are only half resolution, they also show the (significant) lens distortion. The camera does an excellent job of fixing the jpegs though, so it isn't noticeable otherwise. I'm in the process of creating correction data, but without that some focal lengths suck. At least the colors are true to the jpegs with the color matrix applied.

Auto white balance, while generally spot on, tends to be blue with the pop-up flash. Oddly enough a white pop-up flash diffuser fixes that while taking of the worst of the glare, highly recommended if you are going to use the flash.

I think that's most of what I've found. With that out of the way the camera performs admirably in most common shooting situations. I guess I should also list some of the better surprises.

Feels great in the hand, well balanced, doesn't tend to jitter much.

30x zoom, starting at a 24mm equivalent wide angle. In one small bag. With a manual zoom ring. Just about nothing else gives you that kind of flexibility. If you can only afford one camera the quality is a trade off well worth considering.

Auto white balance is very good in all outdoor lighting conditions and good otherwise.

The high-speed video modes are great fun.

Has cat/dog face recognition, while this may seem silly (and it is!) the auto release actually does capture really good pet portraits.

The electronic viewfinder has a proximity sensor, so you don't have to worry about switching between it and the display, put it up to your eye and the camera will take care of you. Don't know how common it is but it's nice no matter what.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[dwywit]

Hardly the worst advice. Point-and-shoot cameras have many good points, and are good for an introduction to photography. BUT - their limitations will be quickly reached and the OP will probably want to upgrade sooner rather than later. If the OP is happy to own a P&S for a year, then upgrade to a dSLR, well and good. The best lenses, image sensors, RAW processing, and the rest of the technology will count for little unless the photographer has or manages to develop a sense of composition, lighting, timing, etc. And Nikkor lenses have long enjoyed a reputation for consistent high quality. The premium price is what you pay for high-quality lenses and rugged construction, as well as things like secondary accessories. I've seen 2nd-tier brands give up at the sort of treatment given to Nikons.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[garyoa1]

Uhh... actually Pentax does have a pro line. Most don't realize they've been around nearly 100 years. Pentax, Canon and Nikon were born just at just about the same time. And their intermediate K20D or K5 (at $1k plus) runs rings around canon and nikon IMHO. At any rate for a simple point n shoot, virtually any modern camera even under $100 (on sale) will run rings around any phone cam. And anything over 8mp is really over kill for the average user.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[garyoa1]

Heh, or just buy a Pentax and don't sell a thing. Every lens every made for Pentax STILL fits the pentax.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[nategasser]

If your smartphone has an acceptable camera on it, then you are never without a camera. If you consciously decide to bring any camera, you might as well bring a good one.

Every 2-3 years I buy what my research shows is the best P&S at the time, and they continue to produce worse images than my original Digital Rebel - the very first generation consumer DSLR. On full automatic, the Rebel is better indoors, better in tight spaces, has a longer zoom outdoors, and fires much faster than my current P&S. There are very few scenarios where the P&S gives significantly better pictures than my iPhone 4, so it basically collects dust.

Bottom line - good smartphone camera + entry-level DSLR gets my vote.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[crdotson]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[St.Creed]

I have a Canon s95 as well and for the question that was asked (just taking pictures) it's a great camera. I bought it a few months ago when I needed a compact camera. Checked all the reviews and stuff.

As for the flash: my default is "off". I rarely need it on the s95. Even in a dark theater, most pictures are better without flash. I recently went to a show and most of the flashed images are too light. And I don't like postprocessing. The no-flash images were quite nice, but ofcourse with fast movements of players you get blur. Which has its own charm because it gives a more dynamic picture. But ymmv on that. For daytime pictures or pictures in a well-lit room, no need for flash on this camera at all. Iso 400 still looks great for family pictures.

A photographer looked at my pictures recently because he wanted to buy a small camera too (parttime photographer/IT worker) and he's now going to buy one too. It's small, fast enough, has nice tricks (love the support for panorama shots and the HDR because I don't want to buy a software package for it) and a very decent lens and sensor for a compact camera. The s100 has just been released and the specs are even better (lens-wise).

And also: check out www.dpreview.com - really nice site. Also check the galleries and see what people actually use to shoot with.

Otoh: the original question could probably be served with a Casio Exilim just as well as anything more expensive. Only when you get interested in photography will it be worth the money to buy a better one. The zoom on the exilim actually gives you some nice depth of field as well.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[nategasser]

Don't discount the wide availability of used and aftermarket products for Canon/Nikon as a benefit. A Pentax or Minolta body might initially be a better value for the price, but with a Canon or Nikon you can pick up lenses, flashes, and other accessories much more easily and at lower cost since they're so much more abundant.

Not all Canon/Nikon owners are brand snobs. Some are smart and practical.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[St.Creed]

He just wants to take some pictures of family and friends. That screams "compact". Now the canon S100 has been released, you can get an S95 much cheaper. If you like fiddling with settings, you can always sell it for about the same on ebay and get a DSLR.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[MightyYar]

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

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[mk_is_here]

F-mount (for Nikon) and K-mount (for Pentax) are indeed very old mount; these two companies did a very good job for preserving backward compatibilities while adding new features to the newer lenses. K-mount is about 30-40 years old while F-mount dated back to the late 50s. Even so some higher-end cameras can get AE with the old lenses without electronic contacts!

Canon current EF-mount is a lot younger. They created the EF-mount in the 80s, which is incompatible to their old line of lenses. Though so Canon they produces a lot of EF-lenses nowadays so you would find it abundant on the market.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

SLRs are the the camera everyone should learn on.

Anyone interested in taking pictures should understand the mechanics and science involved with photography. This benefits users who use tiny point and shoots as well.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[guyfawkes-11-5]

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

Have you dealt with the shutter lag on a point and shoot? They are largely useless if you want to take a photo of anything that moves faster than a grandmother.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[deniable]

Agreed. I'd also mention the Canon Ixus series. Easy to carry, easy to keep charged and easy to start taking shots when the mood strikes. Taking lots of shots is probably the key. Trial and error with lighting as well as learning composition. I've seen too many technically excellent photos that had no life in them.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[jjohnson]

That's what I thought, but HFShadow is the one who seems to think that suggesting an SLR is an absurd leap into technical sophistication. My point (and Stewbacca's) is that entry-level DSLRs are extremely accessible both technically and price-wise.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

That's can't be true. I had a Pentax in high school (1980s) and my grandfather's Pentax lenses wouldn't fit my new fangled Pentax.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[xystren]

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

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

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

The questions one really needs to know:

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

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

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

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Carnivore]

You should look at CHDK and see if they come out with a version for your camera. It will probably enable raw mode, among many other features.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[ArundelCastle]

Indeed. As an experienced shooter I've recently made the decision to get rid of my 12MP Pentax point and shoot -- a camera I carry with me often but rarely use -- and "upgrade" my iPod Touch to 4th gen with a camera. Quality debates aside, they tend to be rather good with video, and there are umpteen apps to creatively "buff" the look of still images. Besides, I normally shoot DSLR, and up to medium and large format film when the motivation calls for it. Arguing over a few noisy megapixels is utterly pointless when faced with not getting the shot at all.

No, the advantage is simply that I will very often have the iPod in my hands, and that people in general are now quite comfortable with having a mobile device held up to them for candids and snapshots. P&S aren't known for being responsive, aren't equipped with aesthetically pleasing flashes, and compared to an iPhone *all* of them are bulky and obvious, even the Optios and Elphs. Plus I get to bypass the "download" step and tweak images immediately before sharing them. I'm looking forward to how it changes my photographic habits and eye.

If I ever buy another P&S for myself it will likely be a waterproof Pentax for actual underwater photography. Watertight casings for SLRs are madly expensive.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[bakarocket]

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to be nitpicky myself, I just didn't understand your point.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[cthulhu11]

I've demos that indicated that Pentax AF tends to be on the slow side, and as indicated above, *modern* gear for Canon or Nikon systems is much, much more available than for Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Samsung, etc. This also means that when one wants to sell gear, it's correspondingly easier to find a buyer. One sees decades-old gear used by some shooters for several reasons -- inheriting a set of lenses is one. Another is that even Nikon's current lens portfolio is kinda thin, and it can be difficult to actually find a new instance of some lenses, and they haven't manufactured others for years. Nikon's mount hasn't changed incompatibly since 1959 or so, so there are millions of old lenses out there that can be used as well on a new D3 as they ever were with film. Canon changed from the FD mount to the EF mount in 1986, which means that older FD gear is of limited value. That said, a zoom lens from any manufacturer from the 70's or 80's isn't going to make many modern shooters happy, nor are quality prime (single focal length) lenses that have to be focused manually. Sure, people used them back then, but there are notable wrinkles: 1) Photography on any level wasn't nearly as widespread. Wedding photos shot medium format film, and mostly staged portraits. Mass-market photography was something like a Kodak Disc or 110 format, so even poorly-focused film shot through a crappy early zoom was better by comparison. I submit that widespread availability of digital cameras and quality glass has raised our standards substantially. 2) People today readily shoot stuff that nobody would have dreamed of back in the days when ASA 100 film was common, and ASA 400 was fast and grainy as hell, eg. indoor candids, people dancing at weddings.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[CycleMan]

Just remember to get a memory chip with some capacity. Look at price per capacity, but I assume a 4 GB should cost next to nothing these days, and it will keep more than a thousand images.

Agreed. Get 3 4 GB cards. That way if you forget to empty your card (or go click-happy), you have another one waiting. And why 3 4 GB cards instead of 1 16 GB card? First, if you get busy, you can be downloading pics from one card to a laptop while still shooting (mostly affects wedding photographers, but we've known unpaid amateurs photographing weddings who were in that situation), and second, if your friend forgot to empty his card for his camera, you can hand him a loaner without stopping your photography. Third, sometimes you can get the multi-pack at your local warehouse store for much cheaper than the one mondo-card.

Finally, know one thing: card size isn't the only factor; write speed can matter too, especially if you end up with a point-and-shoot. Until it stores image #1 of your baby doing a cute thing, it won't let you take image #2 -- and a fast card can make the difference between "got it" and "almost..."

Re:Canon or Nikon

[cthulhu11]

Except on the 37th shot, though -- the P&S gets that one much faster than the film SLR that needs to be rewound and a new roll stuffed in. Advanced compacts like the Canon S100 allow great degrees of manual control in a smaller form factor that's easier to pocket, but the small sensor size and fixed lenses that are often slow at the tele end limit it's utility to an extent. As with so man things, there are tradeoffs -- what's important to a given shooter, and what isn't. Don't ever ever shoot stuff that moves? Then AF features don't matter, etc.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[wisty]

Why not take it to the logical extreme, and say that if he's not using a 4x5 and scanning it in (at a massive resolution), or a scanback (for landscapes), he's not interested in photography?

It's a matter of trade-offs.

There's specialized cameras - scanbacks, and large format film cameras. But these cost about as much as a small plane.

Heavy, expensive, good quality (especially in poor conditions - like low light or moving targets, or both) - there's DSLRs. You need to make 2 choices - what brand (Canon or Nikon), and what size. If you choose a APS-C size by Canon, then there's no real difference between the models (though the more expensive ones may have a few better features). If you want a recommendation, get a low-end Canon APS. If you like taking photos from medium distance (animals in a zoo), get a 50mm prime. For "family photos", the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS is heavy and expensive, but very very good. Then there's long lenses (for long range shots - something like a 300mm if you want to shoot birds), and wide lenses (for artistic landscapes, a 10-20mm can practically photograph itself, it's that wide). I don't know about Nikons, but a low-end Nikion APS-C would also be fine.

  Mini-DSLRs - cameras with interchangeable lenses, that aren't as big as a APS-C DSLR. You won't get a good choice of lenses, so why bother messing around with them? Just get a superzoom.

Good quality (except in really bad conditions) - big, chunky point-and-shoots, like superzooms. These can be in something of a no-man's land (as they are a bit bulky, but no-where near as good as a DSLR), but pretty good in all but the most adversarial conditions. Superzooms will be a little distorted (there's a trade-off between zoom range and quality), but more flexible. Anything by a recognizable brand would be good. A good zoom range (i.e. 35X optical zoom) is flexible. A good apature (i.e. 1 : 2.0 - 4.5) is *probably* a better quality lens.

Good quality in most conditions - Canon S95. Lacks flexibility, and not nearly as good as a DSLR in bad conditions, but fits in a pocket.

Convenient - the latest iPhone camera.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Fnord666]

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.

Just to throw something else into the mix, I have noticed that more and more public venues are drawing the line for cameras at interchangeable lenses.

Someone else mentioned the Canon G12. I would second that line. I still have a G2 from that line (it's a monster but it still takes great shots).

Re:Canon or Nikon

[khipu]

. The most notable difference is the greater depth of field afforded by the full frame sensor and how I use it,

Ummm... how do you use a bigger sensor to get a greater depth of field?

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Beetle B.]

I never was at a point where a lens was not compatible with my camera.

This has been repeated ad nauseum by others, but it seems I'll have to repeat it again:

ALL lenses made for Pentax SLRs (film or digital) work with Pentax digital SLRs (no adapters needed). This is not true for Olympus, Nikon or Canon. If you bought a Pentax lens 30 years ago, it'll work right out of the box on a Pentax DSLR.

So it just seems silly that so many people replying to his post keep pointing out lens compatibility. Pentax is king in this regard.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[TheLink]

I think point and shoots are going away, or they'd be replaced by MILCs.

For those who need the high resolution (for printing or zooming in a lot) they'd be using DSLRs or the "MILC"s (whatever they are calling it nowadays) cams which are smaller because they don't have the mirror/SLR stuff, but use large sensors and have interchangeable lenses.

For those who don't (e.g. pics for PC screens) the newer smartphones are getting pretty good.

The "in-between" will thin out a lot. Why carry around a digital compact that's not much better than a phone camera for most purposes?

Re:Canon or Nikon

[slasher999]

Agreed. Pick up a gently used one - a Nikon d70s or d50 would be good choices. Check out the forums at dpreview.com. Can't go wrong over there from beginner to expert.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[durrr]

Due to the presence of the reflex and dedicated autofocus system working with lightning fast speed.
But given the Mirror-less SLR setups around nowdays you can find something that is a bit more portable, have acess to better lenses, yet doesn't quite perform like a DSLR.

No matter what the guy buys I'd recommend a articulated hot-shoe flash, the on-body flash of everything is abysmal and serves only for taking legal documentation and other things that have a complete absence of the "looking-good"- criteria.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[thsths]

> 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.

Spot on. Get the best camera you can afford and you can carry around all the time. A camera will not help you learn how to take pictures if it is sitting at home on the shelf.

That being said, DSLRs are great. It takes some time to figure out how to work all the options, but IMHO it is absolutely worth it. And a good viewfinder is the best feature for learning there is.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[NJRoadfan]

Very few people will bother seeking out a nice 50mm prime lens for shooting. There are some good P-n-S digicams out there, the Olympus XZ-1 is pretty nice, and has a fast f:1.8-2.6 zoom lens and supports a lot of the PEN camera add-ons. If you need portability with the flexibility of an interchangeable lens, the mirrorless SLR "Micro 4/3rds" mount cameras are an option.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[mysidia]

To "get into" photography, a point in shoot is clearly superior for its portability. I would suggest something such as Fujifilm FinePix F550EXR. And just getting started, you should shoot in sunlight.

As for low light situations; those are not really situations for people getting started to take pictures with entry level equipment. To take pictures in low light when you cannot bring your own lighting, without a tripod, you really need a decently fast shutter speed when a flash is not suitable to the situation, you need ISO 3200, 6400, or higher, which means you require the more expensive, larger CMOS/CCD sensor arrays that are found on high-end cameras, to achieve proper exposure at a shutter speed that will enable mortals to take the picture without blur from shaky hands.

With the compact cameras or inexpensive SLRs, if the high ISO rates are offered, there will be much noise in the image; they just aren't right for low-light. Shoot in daylight, use a flash, use artificial light, or stick with shooting inanimate objects using a tripod for the camera. A $2000+ Camera setup is really not a reasonable proposition for someone "getting into" photography.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Malc]

Yeah, there are some really good small cameras out there. What eventually pushed me in to SLR land was constantly fighting the camera to do what I wanted. The interface on the little cameras is just not quite there when you start constantly playing around with EV compensation, manual focus, aperture adjustments, etc. Then of course the SLR really improves the low-light performance, shutter lag and continuous shooting. By then one's spent thousands of pounds instead of a couple of hundred for a high-end P&S. The irony being that one will rarely have the SLR with them in those low-light social settings that would benefit the most from having an SLR, but according to Facebook with all the grainy, blurry photos, most people don't care.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Sqr(twg)]

You're neglecting the fact that a smaller sensor needs much lower ISO for the same signal/noise ratio. An s95 at f/2.0 is only as "fast" as a 35 mm camera at f/9.3 when the ISO sensitivity is set so that signal/noise ratios are comparable. At the other end of the zoom range, the s95 is equivalent to a 120 mm f/27 for equivalent signal/noise ratios.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[maxwell demon]

currently my favorite is the Cannon S95.

Seems you took the term "shooting pictures" a bit too literal. :-)

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Keen Anthony]

Pentax might not offer a full frame dSLR, but we Pentaxians have some of the best lenses ever made, not to mention a digital medium format.

What the original poster needs to consider is the benefit of accessibility of a point & shoot type camera vs the flexibility and performance of an SLR. If he goes with a P&S, he needs manual controls. Most P&S cameras don't have manual controls. He'll want to be able to manually adjust his aperture, shutter speed. A problem inherent to all P&S cameras is poor low-light performance. P&S cameras have small lenses and a small sensor. There's never enough light getting in. If you're like me and you do available light documentary style photography, you don't want to mess with flashes, and you don't want to have to bump up the ISO level, which is another limitation of P&S cameras. They tend to be noise free only around ISO 200. Finally, most P&S cameras only shoot JPEG. I shoot using RAW, essentially a digital negative. I can non-destructively adjust my shots in post so that I can recover a photo that was over or under exposed. The good news is that a couple of companies offer pro-sumer grade P&S cameras that have very high quality photos at ISO 800, manual controls, and RAW support. Canon has the G series. I love my G9. It's a heavy camera that resembles a rangefinder, and the controls are fully accessible via physical dials as well as in-menu on the screen. I forget what the Nikon version is called. P-something. There is also the Ricoh GR which I love for black and white street photography. However, it's a fixed focal length. I think Panasonic's Lumix has one too. There is also the Leica (which is actually a Panasonic manufactured product but with the addition of Leica glass and Leica software).

For SLRs, I own many as a result of shifting from film to digital, and then from Pentax to Nikon then flirting with Canon. I love Pentax SLRs for the quality of the hardware and the firmware. I've had numerous issues on my Nikon D300 which at the time I got it was best in class. My Pentax's have always been reliable. What makes Pentax my favorite are the lenses. This is something the original poster will have to think about when choosing an SLR. He is buying into an SLR system, so he needs to look at the lenses that are available to see if they meet his needs. Pentax K-mount lenses give me decades of backwards compatibility with some amazing lenses. I'm fond of older manual focus lenses like my Russian Jupiter, my Ricoh Rikenons, and my Asahi Super Taks. Next to Pentax, Nikkor and Canon lenses seem bland. However, Nikon and Canon offers the most accessories, and often the most features, but these features are things like 3D matrixing, HDR, etc. Stuff that is great until it gets in the way. When it comes to shots per second, the Nikons and Canons tend to be the fastest. The K100D for instance was notoriously sluggish when shooting RAW. I would get like 3 shots before the buffer had to write.

All this said, there is a third option: Pentax Q, Sony's Nex, and the increasing number of systems using micro four-thirds lenses give you a hybrid option. You can get a P&S camera that has replaceable lenses, allowing you to experiment with primes, and really taking advantage of the features of SLRs without carrying around a bulky camera.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Cederic]

So you take your DSLR to work, to the local shop shopping, on the train to London when you already have a laptop and other crap with you, out dancing in the evenings, to the swimming pool when you go swimming, when you're participating in an active sport and to every party and event you go to?

Because that's where I've had my camera so far this year, and trust me, I wouldn't have had the carrying capacity/room to take a DSLR to all of those, even if I had wanted to risk losing/breaking/having it stolen at all of them.

If indeed you can't be bothered to bring a DSLR with you, then this entire thread should just be deleted.

The next time you leave the house - even to empty your bin - without your DSLR then please act with integrity and put it up for sale on ebay on your return home.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Chysn]

> On the other hand, it goes up to ridiculously slow f/5.9 at 120mm zoom, and I'm sure your "good glass" does do a lot better than f/5.9 at 120mm.

Just to clarify, the S95's lens goes to f/4.9 at full telephoto, which is 105mm, not 120mm.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Cederic]

You forgot the makers of the camera I wish I could justify buying:
http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/special_editions/m9_titan/

It's beautiful. I _know_ it's not value for money, but I want one anyway.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Cederic]

At the high end point and shoot range, I'd probably go for the Leica rather than the Panasonic.

Sure, it's the same camera, the same body, the same lens and a higher price tag. But one you'd use then sell second hand, and one you'd use then put on your shelf for the rest of your life.

I'm sorely tempted by the new d-lux 5 titanium. I just know I wouldn't use it often enough to justify it :(

Re:Canon or Nikon

[gl4ss]

i'd recommend those only if he's getting into nature photography. otherwise any point and shoot. _any_.

if he wants to get into _photography_ I'd recommend just starting to take a lot of photos with something, cellphone camera or whatever. if he wants to get into chemistry then film. and keeping an eye out. or just framing things with fingers. and checking out stuff like http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm01.html (time life's 100 most important photographs, the subset at this link isn't actually the best of whats in it at all, a print version was in magazine shops a while ago again) - what makes a good photo? very rarely it's your kit.

if he just wants to document family moments etc, then again some slr is good since they can be more forgiving for getting somewhat decent photo out.

but you don't just "get into photography" by buying a kit and then become better by adding more to that kit, it just doesn't work that way.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[MightyYar]

Well obviously I remember it, or I wouldn't be able to relay the story. But I like photographs - it's OK if you don't.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[MightyYar]

LOL, I always do that. Google always corrects me, why can't Slashdot! :)

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Lumpy]

Yes you can. as a canon owner. I reccomend Nikon.. you get a lot more with Nikon for the same $2000 spent.

The Nikkor lenses are cheaper, the camera bodies are cheaper. and both are just as good as Canon.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[MagusSlurpy]

I have a Nikon S3000, and for a point and shoot, I absolutely adore it. Many cameras are moving towards touchscreens, which drive meup the goddamn wall, but the S3000 still has decent hardware while giving me buttons that click. And for a cheap camera, it is pretty damn versatile.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

Who said anything about price? Notice I was talking about the entry level Rebel (and whatever Nikon makes). I happen to think the Nikon electronics are better, but that doesn't stop me from NOT recommending a Canon.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

Very few people will bother seeking out a nice 50mm prime lens for shooting.

But it is the single most important thing he can do if he wants to get into photography.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

No extremes needed. There is nothing extreme about lugging a Canon Rebel with a prime lens (the cheap 50mm one I mentioned).

If anyone tells me they are interested in photography, that is what I recommend. Room to grow, professional quality images, enough tech to have to learn the ropes. If you whip out your cell phone or your point-and-shoot. You aren't interested in photography, you are interested in taking pictures (nothing wrong with that, btw).

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

It's hard to learn about depth-of-field, manual focus, tough lighting situations/backlight, bracketing, aperture - shutter relationship, etc. etc. with a point and shoot. And by hard, I mean "not possible".

Those finest photographers in the world are using optics that are 100 times better than most point and click cameras today, regardless of how "primitive" you think their gear is. My grandfather took pictures with an old 1970s era SLR and has covers on Alaska and National Geographic magazines, because of his skill and the optics of his gear. You can't get pictures like his with a modern point and shoot. The electronics on modern DSLRs are what make them advanced. Good optics are good optics, regardless of the tech.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[bat21]

I definitely concur with SLR. Using a point-and-shoot and moving up to an SLR is a difference of night and day. Shooting with an SLR and then trying to take a decent picture with a point-and-shoot is... frustrating, to say the least. SLRs are a lot more accessible than they used to be.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Registered Coward v2]

2) take lots of pictures. if you get a one good picture out of 20-36 exposures, you're doing well.

Your advice is good - although I'd add a few comments:

1. Digital cameras have made it easy to shoot hundreds of pictures in hopes of getting one good one. The problem with that is people never learn composition, lighting, etc. - things film forced you to consider due to cost and limited exposures per roll. Sure - take lots of pictures but read up on the basics of exposure and composition - learn the rule of thirds. light zones, etc. Experiment with different settings - aperture, shutter speed to see what happens. Look at photos and decide what you like about them. Learn to look behind the subject - 30 photos with a branch growing out of someone's ear doesn't do you much good. Ultimately, it's the brain behind the lens that makes the difference.

2. The biggest advantage you get from a dSLR is depth of field - but it's not worth it if you leave your camera at home. I have a number of dSLRs and a bevy of lenses; but 80% of the time it's a 5 year old Canon point and shot that I have on me, simply because fit early fits in a pocket or briefcase.

3. Consider a ruggedized point and shot - one that you can take to the beach or in a pool. Buy extra batteries. Buy several smaller memory cards instead of one really large one. You can swap them out and if one dies you don't lose everything.

4. Don't get caught in the hype over megapixels or zoom length. Every name brand point and shot today has a good quality sensor and lens that will work just fine for a hobbyist photographer.As with any hobby, some people spend more time measurabating over specifications than actually enjoying the hobby.

5. Visit some photography web sites. I like Fred Miranda's site (fredmiranda.com) - posters will give good advice and critiques of your work, no flaming or gear wars; just a group of people interested in photography.

6. Start saving money because once you get hooked...

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

You have described a whole bunch of things that I'd never take pictures of. Who takes pictures of the trash bin? Who takes their camera to work (other than photographers)? Shopping? Seriously?

None of the things you describe, other than the party or dancing, lend themselves to photography. What you are talking about is taking pictures, when this thread is asking about learning about photography.

So I'll rephrase...if you can't be bothered to take your compact DSLR with a small 50mm lens with you, then you aren't interested in photography, you are interested in "taking pictures". By spouting the "best camera you have is the one on you" line, the only thing you are contributing is, "keep doing what you are doing, mate. The camera on your mobile is the best camera you have because it's the one on you".

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

I believe he said he wanted to learn about photography as well. Point-and-shoots don't do you any favors in that department. You point it and shoot. You "learn" about photography in that point-and-shoots in low light make horribly blown out images with bad red eyes, and that every nature picture has the exact same depth of field, because the person taking the picture is not in control.

With a DSLR you at least learn the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, and how those affect motion blur and depth of field, which is probably the most important thing to learn in beginning photography (maybe after basic composition?).

Re:Canon or Nikon

[tibit]

Rimshot! We're in perfect agreement. My missus needs to learn how to use an SLR, though, but she has strong leanings towards one. I've used russian and german SLRs as a kid. Even the russian ripoff of the Hasselblad 60mm camera. It was heavy like a brick ;)

Re:Canon or Nikon

[budgenator]

My favorite Cameras are the Lubitel 2 for portrait work and really rough environment; that camera is as tough as a Russian Tank and my Canon FTb almost so. When you really get interested in taking more than snapshots, nothing beats a manual film camera and a darkroom.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[buzzsawddog]

I mostly agree with this comment. You don't need a massive camera. Many wonderful well known photos have been taken with point and shoot cameras. What I don't agree with is point number 2... If your even simi-serious about taking photos you should learn the ins and outs of photography. Shutter speed, aperture, iso and framing the photo. It is not complex at all. While its true your not going to get an award winning photo every time 1 good picture out of 20-36 is piss poor... Take the time to set up your photo and be comfortable enough that you can manipulate your camera in a matter of seconds to get what your looking for. If your just guessing and pushing a button at random sure your only going to get 1:36 good photos. But you should shoot for 1:2-1:5 good Photos. As time goes on upgrade the camera. But its true, look for speed in the camera and settings. After you learn to shoot with manual settings and think in camera settings its difficult to go back.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[fyngyrz]

Unfortunately, it does generate sales, though.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[fyngyrz]

Ummm... how do you use a bigger sensor to get a greater depth of field?

Technically, if you use the same focus distance, you don't. But that's not what happens. Because a full frame (~35mm) sensor, for example, has much more image area than an APS-C sensor, the image isn't framed the same, given the same lens and shooting locus -- you have to get closer with the FF, all other issues being the same. And because you are closer, the lens settings have to change, and the actual depth of field alters (which it would also do with the APS-C sensor if you got closer with it -- but then you'd have different framing.

Basically, because the FF sensor offers different framing, the lens is adjusted differently to get the same photgraphic subject, and that changes the effective DOF.

It's not so much an inherent optical property as it is an optical consequence of identical framing. If you forgo making the framing the same, that is, put up with a closer crop, then the DOF will be the same.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[fyngyrz]

The G series is f2.8 which is as fast as most of my good quality glass for the 5d.

It isn't as fast as mine, though. My daily drivers are f/1.2, f/1.4, and f/1.8. And the only thing I regularly wish for is a faster camera. Because I like to shoot at night. You go with /2.8, and you lose 1/2 the hours of the day or put up with a lot more grain than you have to. Still waiting to see what Canon's 5DmkIII will be like... and how the samples from production units of the new 1Dx hold up.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[cayenne8]

Agreed.

I'm saving now...to get a Cannon D5 Mk II DSLR.

I want it for superior still photos...but also, for move quality HD recording!!!

I've seen these on commercial video shoots, and it is amazing...so, one camera, 2x great video modes.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[jythie]

Which is exactly what the OP is asking about, taking pictures.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[crdotson]

You probably know more about photography than I do, but I'm pretty sure that most point and shoot cameras have modes where you can manually set the aperture, shutter speed, etc. Mine does, and armed with that plus a photography book I feel like I have learned some of the basics of photography -- which is what the OP was asking.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Cederic]

Thanks, nice to get confirmation that you're full of shit.

If you want to do studio photography then sure, don't take your camera anywhere. If you want to do photography, then you don't know when the right image, the right situation, the right weather, the right light's going to appear.

Driving to collect my pizza last year I found the light magical, the sudden frost beautiful and ended up with a load of fantastic photographs. Had I left my camera at home, none.

But sure, whatever works for you. Just don't impose your restrictions on others.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Radworker]

Two minor quibbles but overall I agree with you. One, the Nikon 35 AFS is a 1.8 not a 2. Two, there is much to be said for being able to zoom to the desired framing vs sneaker zoom. I wholeheartedly agree about Petersons' book. It has been updated to cover DSLRs btw.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[cayenne8]

Still waiting to see what Canon's 5DmkIII will be like...

I"m saving to get a 5D mk II.....should I wait for the mk iii? Is this something supposed to come out in the near future?

Re:Canon or Nikon

[khipu]

Thanks for the explanation, but doesn't work out. If you choose equivalent focal lengths (same perspective) and the same exposure, you get a lower depth of field. If you take advantage of the larger sensor area and increase sensitivity to the same noise level you would have gotten on a smaller sensor, you still get somewhat less depth of field.

I don't see why you would choose "different framing" depending on sensor size. Maybe you mean that use use the same focal lengths with different sensor sizes. You can do that, but that's comparing apples and oranges; you're just not taking the same picture. For these comparisons to be meaningful, you need to compare DOF at equivalent focal lengths, not at numerically equal focal lengths. And when you do, the larger sensor still loses in terms of DOF (but wins in terms of noise and gradation).

Re:Canon or Nikon

[ChrisMaple]

My PowerShot doesn't allow manual focus, and that is a severe limitation that causes about 1 shot in 10 to be lost or spoiled. I consider it an essential feature.

True optical image stabilization is a great feature and it's fairly common.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[AmiMoJo]

This is where micro 4/3 cameras come in. Full size sensor and optics but a much smaller body because they do away with the mirror and optical viewfinder. I have a Limux GF2 which when fitted with the supplied pancake lens will easily fit in a jacket pocket or small handbag.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[terjeber]

Unless you are into professional video, DO NOT get the Canon D5 for video. When I mean professional video I mean: You have a dedicated focus puller or a very good add-on focusing system - most DSLRs do have auto focus in video mode, but for technical reasons they are somewhere between junk and utterly useless. The people who use DSLRs for those really cool videos you see, can not produce what you see without a team of somewhere between three and ten people (actors not included).

DSLRs are probably close to the worst thing you can get for video unless you are willing to do as the pros do. Manual focus, all manual shooting, an investment of at least three to five times the price of your camera in support systems, and at least the price of the camera for a single lens.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[terjeber]

Eh, that's a contradiction in terms. A micro 4/3 camera uses a micro 4/3 sensor, which is smaller (about 40% smaller) than an APS-C sensor which again is smaller than a full size sensor. A MFT camera will, in general, not produce the same quality results a DSLR will, all else being equal. On the other hand, a good photog with a MFT camera will significantly outperform a mediocre photographer with a Hasselblad medium format.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[terjeber]

I'll try to explain. You take a picture, let's just say a head and shoulders portrait, with an APS-C and a full frame, using the same lens, you will have to be further away from the subject to get the same image on the APS-C than the full frame due to the 1.6x crop factor. Assuming the same distance from the subject to the background (you want blurred), as you move away from the subject, the background (all other things held the same) will get sharper, in other words, DOF changes, and perhaps not in the way you want.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[cayenne8]

Unless you are into professional video, DO NOT get the Canon D5 for video. When I mean professional video I mean: You have a dedicated focus puller or a very good add-on focusing system - most DSLRs do have auto focus in video mode, but for technical reasons they are somewhere between junk and utterly useless.

Thanks for the reply.

Yes....I've been on video shoots with the D5 before, and I know about the autofocus being non-existant for the video.

I've seen and been researching videos put together without having auto focus and without focusing systems...you gotta take a series of shots with no movement, etc...

I'm looking to shoot kitchen shows at first...so, not a lot of movement, and with shots sketched out in advance and storyboarded (somewhat at least)...I think that would be ok.

That and I've planned to get the rigs you put the camera on, with the focusing system, for manually doing it during shots that require it.

I'm wanting also, to learn and get into still photography...so, why not get one camera (albeit a pretty sizeable investment) for one investment in hardware...you know?

But I'm doing my research, and like I said, I have been in shoots using this camera.

I thought I heard of a mark III version coming out...maybe it will have auto focus for video?

Re:Canon or Nikon

[tadas]

ALL lenses made for Pentax SLRs (film or digital) work with Pentax digital SLRs (no adapters needed).

How do you make Spotmatic-era M42 screw mount lenses fit on a K-mount Pentax bayonet (K1000 through current) - duct tape?

I agree that I can use my old screw mount lenses on my K100D digital, but it *does* require an adapter....

Re:Canon or Nikon

[kamathln]

no chdk for sx40?

Re:Canon or Nikon

[marxzed]

having a number (3) prosumer Canon DSLR bodies (including a still working and still being used 2002 era EOS D60 and a near new 5DMK11) a whole collection of L series lenses including fast 300mm+ primes (and yes I do have a nifty 50), owning several Leicas, having 5 medium format film cameras... and a collection of about 30+ classic Japanese 35mm film cameras my personal recommendation for someone wishing to enter in to the world of photography is:

a mid level point and shoot

currently the camera I always have on me, even when I'm dragging a 5D II or a Mamiya RB67 pro SD around, is a Canon IXUS 220 HS (may be called something else in the US market). this does for 90% of all shooting opportunities it is so small that it fits in to the coin pocket of me jeans yet give good enough images to print and display, I have 11x14 inch size prints from this camera that look absolutely great. Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus et al all make cameras of much the same ball park quality and price.

if you don't want to start at a point and shoot look at the Micro Four Third system or Sony Nex they are all good but with added lenses they can often be as bulky as, if not as heavy as, an entry level DSLR.

for entry level DSLRS entry level Canons, Nikons and Pentaxs are all good (though personally I don't have any love for the Canon 1000D), I've shot with most of them and in the right hands, they all can make good images.

but even if you go fro a NEX/M4/3/DSLR I still say that a god point and shoot is an essential part of any photographers kit.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[marxzed]

Oh My!!! you think 70's optics are primitive? sorry to burst any bubbles but unless you're talking zoom lenses most 70's pro lenses are pretty damn good, far from being primitive most current lenses sold today are little more than these lenses's optics with a revised coating, new mounts and autofocus added. For primitive think more of the Leitz Elmar and similar lenses Henri Cartier-Bresson and others used. I have these lenses, good ones too, not hazed and scratched ones. And sometimes for fun I mount them on one of my leica screw mount cameras and go out shooting to remind us how far we've come in 100 years of optics, it's a real challenge to compose and shoot a good image with these keeping its low contrast, weird OoF effect and susceptibility to flare in account when shooting.

Also actually learning what can't be done and with what is of as much importance as learning what can be done and with what.
limitations also allow one to expand skills in to other areas, inabilty to isolate a subject by pulling a shallow depth of field forces you to think of the overall composition, plus I've seen too many photos where a person/object is so isolated by narrow DoF that for al intent and purpose it no longer exists with in any context. this is fine some times but the obsession with narrow DoF and Bokeh with total disregard to basic compositional skills is a pox upon Flickr etc.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[marxzed]

there are limitation though that are inherent in the physics of the optic design of small sensor cameras. a smaller sensor requires shorter focal length lenses for the same field (angle) of view but these then, when it comes to depth of field, act the same as wide angle lenses on larger cameras. changing the aperture on a wide angle lens has far less effect on DoF than on a longer focal length.
also the issues with diffusion limit the minimum aperture usually to no more than f/8 and the maximum aperture is limited by other factors (chromatic aberration distortion etc) to not much more than 2.8 (or f/2 on "large sensor" P&S)

how ever these limitations are not really deal breakers and for some types of shooting are actually benefits, group shots, landscape, architectural shots often these want very deep DoF's, and one reason a point and shoot can often be the ideal travel camera... often the end result of a tourist shot with a DSLR and someone who knows just enough to know about DoF to know he/she "has to use" a large aperture is a "lovely portrait shot" of your travel partner with some blurred out back ground that could... possibly be... the Eiffel Tower half a mile away ... of maybe just some cobwebs on a blue wall half a foot behind

Re:Canon or Nikon

[marxzed]

having lugged one of my DSLRs and a couple of lens for 4 weeks backpacking I can tell you that there is something extreme about DSLR's and that is that their weight and bulk can very quickly become extremely annoying and inconvenient

Re:Canon or Nikon

[marxzed]

eh? you're full of something... what ever it is I'm not sure, but it sure isn't knowledge about photography.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[marxzed]

Ditto, I feel naked without a camera on my (well not quite more just annoyed at my stupidity) as many of my best and/or favourite photos have been taken with what ever P&S digital or old film camera I happen to have on me at the time rather than one of my pro DSLRs or medium format film cameras.
even going to do grocery shopping theres always a digital P&S camera in my pocket and often an old 35mm like an Olympus XA or a Leica III in my jacket pocket.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

Perhaps you were trying to reply to the guy I replied to, otherwise you need to reread my post. If you are indeed replying to me, then you just had your Romney moment by taking what I said out of context, when I said,

regardless of how "primitive" you think their gear is

That would be me disputing the guy above me claiming that old kits are 100 times more primitive than most point and clicks. No, actually, a good lens for an SLR camera from the 70s is 100 time better than any modern point-and-click lens (with a few exceptions).

So no, I don't think 70s optics are primitive, which is why I put "primitive" in quotes. I even said my grandfather has magazine covers because of the quality of his optics (60s and 70s).

Also actually learning what can't be done and with what is of as much importance as learning what can be done and with what.
limitations also allow one to expand skills in to other areas, inabilty to isolate a subject by pulling a shallow depth of field forces you to think of the overall composition, plus I've seen too many photos where a person/object is so isolated by narrow DoF that for al intent and purpose it no longer exists with in any context. this is fine some times but the obsession with narrow DoF and Bokeh with total disregard to basic compositional skills is a pox upon Flickr etc.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure why you are following me around in this thread and arguing with me.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Cederic]

Oooh, interesting. Do you do much film photography these days?

Emotionally and aesthetically I love the quality and texture and tangible nature of film, but at the same time I know that I'm a far better photographer digitally because it's so much cheaper and easier to take dozens of photographs of something and only keep the good one.

So I miss the days of film, but not enough to keep shooting with it :)

Re:Canon or Nikon

[AmiMoJo]

Depends on the camera, some m4/3 models use full size sensors. Olympus and Panasonic both do them, as I believe does Sony.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[Skater]

I have Nikon equipment only because the day I went into the camera shop to buy my first SLR (a Canon, mind you), the guy at the shop showed me that the competing Nikon SLR had a metal mount ring, while the Canon had a plastic ring. Seriously...it was that close. So, I really don't have a Nikon>Canon mentality...it's just what I happened to buy first. And like I said, my wife's point-and-shoot Canons have been pretty decent cameras.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[xaxa]

You have described a whole bunch of things that I'd never take pictures of. Who takes pictures of the trash bin? Who takes their camera to work (other than photographers)? Shopping? Seriously?

A couple of months ago I looked through all my photographs and chose 30 to print as postcards, for Postcrossing.

10 were taken specifically to get some postcard-like shots (city skyline, etc). 15 are from day trips and holidays.

Five of them were taken unexpectedly. When I walked to university in the snow, and noticed the graveyard looked pretty. When I was on a train at dawn, and the light over the mountains lit everything up magnificently. When I was driving to my parents' house, and noticed the centuries-old cottage a mile or two away would make a good picture.

Also, I actually have a picture of a rubbish bin. It's titled "14 days in the USA, and I finally found a recycling bin!". It's not a good picture, but it helps tell a story.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[marxz]

if I'm going out to take pictures its mostly film.
Apart from snapshots with the Digital p&s I use digital for a few things though, street parades, marches, demonstration that sort of thing where I'm in a fast moving/changing group of people the DSLR and a fast lens and a big CF seems more suitable, Fireworks I find a less hit and miss and less prone to lab development issues (though I sometimes do my own C41 colour film processing)
Not sure why I've gone back to film particularly as I quite professional photography in the early 90's out of frustration with the processing side, I guess I just like it, the whole process from loading the camera to hanging up the final print (though I do often scan and inkjet print images captured on film or go the other way and use a digital negative to print something from one of my digital cameras on to Silver Gelatine paper).

Re:Canon or Nikon

[terjeber]

The 5D is clearly a very capable video solution when you are aware of its limitations, just as long as one realizes that it is not something the average consumer should invest in. Things have been moving fast in the DSLR video camp though, and the 5D might not be worth the investment at the moment, again, depending on a lot of things. If video is the main thing, many would argue that the 7D and the 60D have some advantages over the 5D (but obviously not the sensor).

The thing about photography however is that there is something that has an even stronger influence on your pictures than your camera body. The lenses. You should spend (significantly) more on glass than you do on the body. Twice as much or more. This means that you should take your total budget, divide it by about three, and spend that on the body, the rest on glass. Approximately. When starting out.

With a Canon 5DII costing about $2,300 these days, that means your total budget would be in the neighborhood of $7,000. Depending on a lot of factors, I would spend that on something like:

• EF 24-70 f/2.8L - at about $1,200
• EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM at about $2,400 (you could go with the non-IS or f/4 versions here, but would probably regret it)
• Two fast primes, for example the 50mm f/1.2 and the 85mm f/1.2L - they'll be around $3,000

Glass is, by far, the most important investment you make, more so than the body. On a budget, you'll get a lot more if you invest in glass than if you invest in body. A 60D and great glass will get you better results than a 5D and mediocre glass. Of course you need light too :-)

I thought I heard of a mark III version coming out...maybe it will have auto focus for video?

For technical reasons, a DSLR will probably never have good or great autofocus in video mode. This is because the mirror needs to be out of the way in video mode and the mirror is needed to get good (DSLR quality) auto focus. The alternative is to go for a solution similar to Sony, using a semi-transparent mirror that is always down. In that way, for video, the Sony Alphas are great. In professional video, autofocus is basically unheard of.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[terjeber]

Yeah, some of the new system cameras, I am not sure what to call them, use m4/3 mounts and stuff, but APS-C chips. That means they are not m4/3 cameras though, since the format specifies the m4/3 sized chip.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[gullevek]

If you buy a Canon L lens you can mount that on any canon body from the cheap entry level to the high end cameras. And I doubt Canon will change their mount any time in the future. When I look at my camera/lens purchases, the best "investment" are the lenses, because I still use the same ones I bought 7 or 8 years ago whereas the bodies have changed in between.

The same is for Nikon, the only difference is that the lowest Nikons do not have a built in motor and so cannot use stone old lenses. Thats normally not the lenses people buy or have unless they inherit them from someone.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[cayenne8]

I was reading for the 5D...best to get something called the "L" lenses? I heard on still shots...they auto focuse faster, etc?

Are the EF lenses a step below the "L" lenses? I'm still trying to figure that out.

I"d likely get one body and one GOOD lens...what would the best general purpose lens to start out with be?

Re:Canon or Nikon

[terjeber]

they auto focuse faster, etc? .. Are the EF lenses a step below the "L" lenses

An L lens is an EF (usually) lens. EF is the mount, and they come in two variations, EF and EF-S. The latter for crop cameras (basically anything that is not the 1D and the 5D). The EF-S lenses should not be used on the 5D.

There are many things that determines whether your picture will be good or less good. The primary thing is the photographer. A good photographer can take better pictures with a cell phone than a bad photographer with a Canon 5D or even a Hasselblad. Ignoring that obvious thing, a hugely important thing in image quality is not the number of pixels (or mega pixels as some say) but the glass. Good glass on few pixels is better than mediocre glass on many pixels. In fact, bad glass combined with a high pixel count will probably make your pictures look worse, since the high number of pixels will reveal the low quality of the glass.

Making good lenses (glass) is expensive. So, more expensive lenses (for example L lenses) "paint" better pictures on your cameras sensor. They may not focus any faster, they may even be slower. Some really good lenses may even be manual focus only, particularly video lenses. For example the Distagon CP.2 lenses. Great glass. They cost more than the 5D body. In short, better lenses, all else equal, give better pictures. This is particularly important for full-frame or better cameras.

So, what should you purchase as the first lens for a 5D? Depends on what you want to do. Video? Pictures? Landscape? Portrait? Daytime mostly? Night mostly? For general photography I might say that the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. It doesn't have image stabilization, which some might find to be a problem, but it is a very good lens. The 24-105mm f/4L IS USM has stabilization and is about $200 less, but I would trade IS for the f/2.8, since I am on a tripod mostly.

On the other hand, if my budget only allowed for one lens, I would trade the expensive body for a less expensive body and more and better glass any time of the day. The 7D or even the 60D and a good selection of good glass will serve most photographers better than a 5D and a single zoom.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[LunaticTippy]

I have about a dozen Pentax lenses, but haven't bought a digital body yet. I thought the focal length was different and the old lenses act twice as long as they are. My "super fast" 1970s wide angle zoom would act like a 58mm at its widest, so I'd have to buy a new wide angle lens. I guess doubling the length wouldn't be all bad but it's made me hesitant.

In the meantime I have been using super cheap cameras and fairly happy with the results. Cameras keep getting better and cheaper.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[LunaticTippy]

I've been considering buying a digital body and using old glass at first. It seems much better than film since there is instant feedback of how the shot turned out. How easy is it to see if the exposure/focus are acceptable with the lcd display?

Re:Canon or Nikon

[cayenne8]

Thank you for all your information!!! Very helpful!!!

I guess I need to start saving a little more.

:)

Re:Canon or Nikon

[godefroi]

I think that's the opposite of true. SLRs were complex enough that a whole new category of camera was invented to make photography simple for non-professionals, namely the "point-and-shoot" category.

Go with just about any point-and-shoot from Canon, Nikon, or whatever happens to be on sale at your local wallyworld today. They're all going to take much better pictures than your smartphone.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[godefroi]

The OP specifically stated he did not want to take up photography as a hobby. That means he doesn't want to have to learn about depth-of-field, manual focus, aperture, or any of the things the SLR would teach him. He just wants better pictures than his smartphone gives him. Just about any no-matter-how-cheap point&shoot will do that.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[theshowmecanuck]

If the camera allows interchangeable lenses it is likely an SLR, no? If so, when you are looking through the view finder, you are also looking and focusing through the lens like you already do. You can manually focus and, if you eyesight is normal, if it looks in focus it will be. Also, even though there are no motors or other mechanisms in the lens, all digital SLRs that I know of also have 'focus assist' aids you can see in the bottom of the view finder. For example, on Nikons there is a little black ball to the bottom (usually) left that stays solid when the composition in focus. You can also see in the display on the back, but normally I just check this for camera shake on long exposures when I don't have a tripod, or if shooting fast moving subjects. But often when I am shooting fast moving objects that are at some distance (like planes or sports), I will often shoot with the autofocus off, set at infinity, and stop down to ensure depth of field is maximized as much as possible (via f-stop that is). I think the only time you really need autofocus is when the subject is within a distance where the lens focus is less than at the infinity distance. So for indoor stuff it is very convenient. And say in the backyard. But still, it doesn't take long to focus manually, especially as I say, your eyesight is normal, or looking through the viewfinder with glasses on isn't and issue.

One thing though, if all you are really looking for is convenience, it probably makes sense to pay less and buy an inexpensive point and shoot digital that you can put in your pocket. Or use your smart phone. The only real reason to use a more expensive camera these days is if you want to push the boundaries of normal family or 'happy snap' pictures. And as one person said, you will also not be as adverse to taking a happy snap camera with you, so will have it with you often, as opposed to worrying about someone stealing your expensive SLR, or losing it, or damaging it.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[LunaticTippy]

I used to use film SLRs and have a bunch of lenses. I have been growing weary of the limitations of phone/cheap p&s cameras and thinking of easing into higher end digital by buying a body compatible with my existing lenses. They won't be autofocus, which isn't a big deal to me, but I'm curious how well I can expect to see things like how the depth of field or motion blur or exposure levels worked out through the screen. My crap cameras don't give me very good feedback. Many times they look OK on the tiny screen but when I get home they look too noisy or blurry or over/underexposed.

Of course it is way better to have that than the old days when you had to visit the darkroom to see how you did.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[theshowmecanuck]

Well as I said, SLR's are SLR because they only have one lens and you look through it while focusing. So the focus should be a piece of cake. The decent ones will have a depth of focus preview button that you can look at in the view finder as well. And most will allow you to zoom in the shot you just took on the display on the camera back, in case you need to look closer at what you did. The biggest thing that bothers me about digital is that unlike film where you meter for the shadows and process for the highlights, it is the opposite. You have to meter for the highlights because if you meter for the shadows you will have a lot of burned out areas on the photo where whites just get obliterated due to the higher contrast of digital. Shadows are where the interesting things happen in photos, I think. At least in the various shades. There are tricks to overcome the limited contrast but that requires multiple shots and blending... not very good when shooting people. But stills are OK I guess. But that is besides the point. If you want digital, and don't care much about autofocus, you'll do OK. BTW, some autoexposure features likely won't work either, but if you know what you're doing, it won't matter. And then again, you have the display on the back to double check exposure anyway. Good luck.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[uncledrax]

You wouldn't have missed the moment, as you were there to witness it.

Re:Canon or Nikon

[MightyYar]

Are you my 8th grade English teacher??? LOL, fine: "I would have missed the opportunity to photograph the moment."

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.

Re:Engadget just did a review

[Pope]

Dang, beat me to the link! I was just reading that :) I totally agree with your recommendations.

Re:Engadget just did a review

[SpzToid]

I've owned a Canon s95 for a year, and that's the precursor to the s100, and I give it a solid thumbs-up for these reasons off the top of my head:

- Affordable in that once paid for, you don't need more accessories, mostly. Well okay I bought an eye-fi card and love the wireless workflow it brings.
- blue-jeans pocket-able
- on 'Automatic' every photo 'works' and looks good. Great for n00b owners with little time
- nice manual controls for when you have more time to play and learn.

Note the s100 has better image stability and zoom than the s95 but I am still amazed at how well mine does, even under street lights. I enjoy setting zoom maxed out and try photos that should not develop, but do. As a web developer I really enjoy the videocamera, and will probably buy a s100 not because I need a new camera, but because the s95 is so nice, I'd like another one like it for a 2 camera video recording setup (with the eye-fi wireless transfers).

Re:Engadget just did a review

[madprof]

The S95 is superior in some ways to the S100 and is a lot cheaper right now due to being discounted. Worth buying on a price/performance standpoint IMHO.
Goes down to f/2.0 which is unusual for a compact and performs relatively well in low light.
Plus you will always have it with you due to its small size, so you're more likely to be able to "capture the moment" when you need it.

Re:Engadget just did a review

[Caesar Tjalbo]

And whatever you buy: RTFM and try to understand what it's about. Then practice with the camera so you know when to use exposure correction, spot metering and all those gimmicks. You might not need that stuff for 90% of your pics but when you do, you might make greater pics.

Re:Engadget just did a review

[blinking_at]

I would get the S100. I owned a Canon Rebel something or another, but I bought an s90 because I wanted something that would fit in a pocket. I take the s90 everywhere; my daughter now has the rebel. I recently bought a canon g12 that I use when I have a photographic agenda, but in fact the s90 is still in my pocket even then. It is simply a great little camera that takes great pictures.

(I didn't know the s100 was out -- I may have to look into it, though, since the s90 is a bit old now...)

Re:Engadget just did a review

[madprof]

I bought the S95 for 225 pounds, instead of 380 pounds for the S100. Not sure what this works out as in your local currency but you get the idea. Yeah the S100 is technically overall better but for 60% of the price I think the S95 represents a better deal right now.

Re:Engadget just did a review

[Kernel Krumpit]

I love my Lumix DMC-ZS7 Leica Lens, 16x Zoom/12x Optical, HDMI, Tons of features and auto modes or, just use the "Automatic Intelligent/Ai" mode. Great Battery life, GPS, Large 3inch screen. Bought it at Costco for about $300 US. That was 6 months ago. It's probably $200 by now!

Cheap Digital SLR

[nharmon]

Buy a cheap digital SLR, cheapest you can find, and then invest your money in lenses as you progress.

Re:Cheap Digital SLR

[Brian Ristuccia]

I'm gonna second this recommendation. You can get last year's entry level DSLR and a normal zoom as a refurb or open box for under $400 and it'll take better quality pictures than pretty much any current pocket camera model. If you're frustrated by modern smartphone cameras (which are on the low end performance wise as far as pocket-sized cameras go), most compact P&S models aren't going to be a huge improvement. The cheapest DSLR will make a night and day difference in terms of focus speed, focus accuracy, exposure accuracy, and image quality. Compared to a pocket camera, a DSLR (even in full auto mode) will get you more keepers and fewer photos ruined by the camera being too slow, bad exposures, poor dynamic range, and so on.

Also, don't be fooled by bogus megapixel and ISO ratings. While many pocket cameras claim to have enormous numbers of pixels, the optics and focus accuracy are very rarely good enough to make every pixel count. As a result, the effective usable resolution could be be half or even a quarter of the advertised number. ISO sensitivity is similarly exaggerated, with most pocket cameras producing snowy, washed out looking pictures well below the claimed maximum sensitivity. On the other hand, a 6 or 8 megapixel DSLR really does provide the claimed number of distinct pixels and on last year's DSLR models, ISO 1600 and often ISO 3200 and beyond will produce perfectly usable pictures. Even if the lighting is bad and you totally mess up the composition and have to crop out 80% of the photo you'll still have enough left to post on the web or make a small print that's not embarrassingly bad.

Make sure you have it with you.

[BWJones]

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

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

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[moonbender]

Beautiful images... in thumbnail sizes... if the lighting is generous.

They are better than nothing in a spot, but if you're expecting to take photos, say on a trip or family photos, a good compact P&S will give you a better shooting experience and far better results, while still being pocketable. A decent compact with at least some manual settings is also a much better way to learn the basics than a smartphone camera.

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[dbc]

This.

The camera that you will have with you. Whatever that is. In the old days, we used to say "f/8 and be there." -- in other words, 90% of getting the portfolio that you want is having a camera at hand when the action is happening.

You need to ask yourself what exactly is the limitation of your current situation? Resolution? Low light capability? Control over focal length? And you also need to ask yourself how much more hardware you are willing to carry around all the time.

But really, understand exactly what is limiting you in achieving what you want. I once had a lunchtime conversation at work, and a former coworker who had spent his college years working the sales counter in camera shops started going on about Leica lenses and how much better they were than Nikon or Canon. So I said this: Take a look at your last vacation photos. Now look any any random issue of National Geographic. Ask yourself honestly: "Am I being limited by the glass?"

Go learn composition. Learn how to analyze photographs. You'll know soon enough exactly what camera you want.

But have it with you.

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[stewbacca]

I'm just going to go ahead and assume this guy already has a cell phone camera. Why would you suggest something he already has?

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[BWJones]

I used to say that and carried a P&S with me wherever I went... Until the iPhone 4 came along. I've been really, really happy with the iPhone 4 camera never before posting images to Jonesblog from anything other than a dedicated camera until then.

A fading light shot is here: http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2011/10/evening-light/

and an indoor shot of the inside of an instrument is here:
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2010/12/gravity-probe-b/

To get me back in the point and shoot camera buying club, the camera companies are going to start to have to do something exciting again, like Olympus and Fuji are now doing with the larger sensor sizes.

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[BWJones]

He *might* not have a good camera in his cell phone... or he might not think about using it do learn more about photography... Why would you assume that he has?

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[BWJones]

Indeed. I regularly use two Canon 1D bodies and the associated lenses that can add up to over 30lbs of gear when on assignments, but I am not going to haul those bad boys around with me wherever I go. For lots of places, particularly when doing something like wearing a suit, a 1D and 70-200 f/2.8 is not always going to make the fashion police cut. ;-)

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[dbc]

Not just the suit situations.... I am partial to landscapes and wildlife -- just the sheer weight of a body, a bag full of lenses, and a tripod is something I am less inclined to carry as I get older. The knock-around point-and-shoot is with me a whole lot more often.

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[fgouget]

A good cell phone camera...

That's an oxymoron. Really a medium-range point and shoot will be a huge step up from any cell phone camera and probably sufficient for a newbie and small enough to fit in a pocket or small hand bag so you can take it with you everywhere. Then if the point and shoot turns out to be too limiting (typically due to low light quality, speed or zoom range) then upgrading to a DSLR will be another huge step up.

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[nightfell]

Why wouldn't he make a suggestion like that? First off, you're basing your reply on an assumption, which could very well be wrong, and is reason enough to bring up the point. But even if your assumption is right, the poster might not have a good phone camera, or might have a good one and not realize how useful it really is.

Sometimes it takes someone pointing out what's right in front of you before you realize it's there.

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[moonbender]

While those are great photos, they are still tiny: reducing the image size can appear to dramatically improve image quality. It's hard (for me, anyway) to tell if the shooting conditions were that difficult, e.g. how bright the interior of the instrument or the outsides in the other shot are -- of course, that may just be testament to the quality of the shots! The iPhone won't take photos with a small depth of field like in the sphere photo, though most compacts won't either under non-exceptional circumstances, so I guess that's a moot point.

Also, aren't Canon (S90, S95, S100) and Panasonic (LX3, LX5) pretty much the ones who've been getting the larger-sensor-compact thing started? And those have been available for years, now, 2008 for the LX3 if you're considering it compact.

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[BWJones]

The image quality is nowhere near what an SLR can deliver, but you are getting away from the original posters intent and my point of using the camera that you have to learn how to compose images. Sure, cell phone cameras are not going to have as many conveniences or the same image quality as a camera with a sensor larger than a pinhead (about the size of cell phone camera sensors), but you have it with you.

Ideally, I am waiting for a camera company to comet head on with Leica, but at lower prices. I just cannot justify a digital rangefinder in the $7-9 thousand range for the body alone when the image quality out of my Canon's is better. I wish I could as they are remarkably compact and discrete. The Fuji cameras are sooooo close. They need interchangeable lenses and slightly larger sensors, but I can easily see going with a solution like that when available.

Re:Make sure you have it with you.

[quacking duck]

I agree, a shot that looks spectacular on the screen of my iPhone 4S (which has even better low-light capture than the iPhone 4), even zoomed in, can look grainy and motion-blurred once it's on my computer screen. But, this is the case with any digicam with a built-in screen.

However, the low light, flash-less shots I do take with the 4S kick the pants off those taken with my Canon Powershot A570. There's absolutely no comparison; the A570 cannot take flash-less pictures of friends at a pub, or a small stage performance. Granted the A570 is 4 years old and the latest models will be greatly improved, but no replacement P&S would be light or thin enough, *in addition to* my phone, that I'd take it with me all the time. So unless I'm going on a trip where I'll want optical zoom and image stability, or manual control over settings, the camera stays home.

Canon PowerShot ELPH 300HS 12.1 MP

[S810]

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

Re:Canon PowerShot ELPH 300HS 12.1 MP

[plover]

The 300HS is my current point and shoot camera, and my recommendation, especially for someone who wants to start getting into photography.

I have owned several subminiature cameras, and I have loved them all. They are great for convenience. The ELPH is smaller than my iPhone. I toss it in my pocket for family gatherings like birthday parties, and it's always accessible. A larger point and shoot, like the Canon A series, just isn't as small and carryable.

The next plus is simplicity. My wife has no problem using the ELPH, but doesn't want to learn how to use the DSLR. I can put the ELPH into manual mode to fine tune the settings. A really nice feature for someone just learning is that you can let the camera be as automatic as possible and still take good shots, or you can switch everything to manual mode and take really good (and really bad) shots.

And the optics on the Canon are really good for the size. I don't use digital zoom (there's not much reason to crop in the camera) so having a good quality optical zoom is important to me.

Over the years I've also owned a series of SLR film cameras, and I currently own a fairly decent DSLR (Canon EOS 40D.) The DSLR is great for the really nice shots: portraits, landscapes, anything where people are going to pose for a photo. But bringing the DSLR is a production: it usually means a tripod, lighting, a flash head, a couple of lenses, way more than I want to carry to Thanksgiving at the in-laws. On the plus side, people seem to associate a DSLR with Serious Photography, so they're more ready to pose for you.

I also keep my older SD750 ELPH in my backpack, just to have something for those shots at work or on the go; although with the quality of the pictures from the iPhone 4 I haven't really used the old ELPH much anymore.

As far as brand, I've owned several, but when I bought my first digital I went with Canon, and have never regretted that choice. Check the brands out for yourself, but you'll find that some are much easier to use than others. I think the Sony menu navigation system is possibly the worst consumer interface in the marketplace, yet other people obviously love them. Something else to consider is shutter release lag - the difference between when you press the button and when the circuitry takes the picture. With a slow camera you'll find yourself pressing the button, then lowering your hands before it actually takes the picture. All the Canons I've used are very fast. Battery life and technology are another decision point: the AA batteries are easy to replace on the go, but make the camera really bulky. Also consider your friends and family: if they have experience with certain brands, they might be better able to help you when you're struggling to figure something out.

Good luck, and have fun.

Snapshots? Canon SD.

[David Gerard]

Canon Ixus (or PowerShot SD in the US) is a really easy and good snapshot camera. Cheap, too. If you point it at things and click, you'll get decent photos most of the time. They're also easy to carry everywhere.

That's the right sort of camera to learn composition and take pictures of everything and see what you can do with it and so forth on. Once you're sick of its limitations, go to a DSLR. Do not start on a DSLR, it's what you get second.

Re:Snapshots? Canon SD.

[semi-extrinsic]

Actually, you want the PowerShot line, which gives you the option of using manual controls. This is essential for learning and improving your skills.

Re:Snapshots? Canon SD.

[David Gerard]

Mm, you could be right there.

A second-hand older Ixus is cheap enough to do things like put CHDK on it and get quite a bit of that fine control.

Re:Snapshots? Canon SD.

[Cruciform]

I loved my Powershot A620 with the CHDK firmware. Best point-and-shoot I've ever laid hands on.
The A620 also let you attach extenders so you could mount filters or other lenses in front of the existing hardware, which I did with a Raynox macro kit.

I even recorded video using the macro setup, though it has a very narrow DOF. Sample of a crested gecko baby here.

Re:Snapshots? Canon SD.

[semi-extrinsic]

Yes, CHDK is very nice, and gets another vote from me. I use it on my current Powershot SX10, and the ability to run scripts (e.g. motion detection) and to extend the range of apertures and shutter speeds available is extremely handy.

However, the manual controls on an Ixus with CHDK take roughly 3-4 times longer to adjust when doing "Shoot image->Check if it worked->Nope->Adjust->Take another image" than the manual controls built into a Powershot. It is often important to be able to adjust these quickly, so I would still recommend a Powershot over an Ixus if you plan to use manual controls more than once a year.

Re:Snapshots? Canon SD.

[David Gerard]

Hah, I haven't actually tried CHDK. I have an ancient Ixus 50 (SD400) I should give it a spin on.

Re:Snapshots? Canon SD.

[semi-extrinsic]

If the motion detector scripts work (haven't tried on ancient cameras, but no reason why it should not work) a cool thing is to put the camera on the ground in a forest, turn on motion detection, leave some nuts/food in front of it, and walk away for half an hour. You could have some really cool photos when you come back. (Manual focus recommended BTW)

the best camera

[Imabug]

is the one that you carry with you.

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

Re:the best camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding to this, there ARE bad cameras in that some of the cheaper models won't let you manually adjust any settings.

Whatever you buy, make sure its got at LEAST some kind of Program mode, if not Shutter/Aperture Priority and Manual modes.

But make sure it's a camera you can easily take with you, too. A bulky SLR camera, while definitely full of the above-mentioned features (and then some!) isn't something you can just grab and go, or throw into your bag on the way out the door. A mid-high end point&shoot camera is most likely what you need.

For an ex-girlfriend (yeah yeah i know) a few years ago, I got her a Fujifilm EXR F70. It appeared to be great bang-for-buck and was small enough not to inconvenience her, and had all the manual modes if you choose to use them but decent enough auto modes so that you didnt have to. It seemed to have very good low-light (ie, high ISO) performance too, which makes it "easier" to take better pictures even when lighting conditions aren't ideal. Her ability to turn out decent pictures vastly improved after she read the manual.

I'm not saying buy that camera, but these are the kinds of things that differentiate a useable camera from trash.

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.

Re:the best camera

[cachimaster]

is the one that you carry with you.

That's why I have a Sony NEX. Small size, but giant DSLR-like sensor (APC-C actually better than some Canon DSLRs), 1080p stabilized Video that doesnt sucks. Manual controls and modern interface that even has simple tutorials (has a moder cpu with linux inside). Quality is great. All-metal.

Battery kind of sucks, but then I have an older NEX 5 model.

Re:the best camera

[Stone316]

I second this one, the camera you have with you is the best one. Its very true, you never know when that "moment" is going to happen.. My iphone 4s takes great pictures outdoors.. Low light and indoors aren't the greatest but what do you expect from an LED flash and pinhole lens.

I have too many cameras. A canon rebel Xsi with a number of lenses, a Canon S3, my wife has a small Canon ELPH or whatever they are called. I have 2 waterproof cameras.

So it depends on what I want to take a picture of. If I know I am going out to take pictures, say a birthday party or the local tulip festival, I bring my Rebel. If I am going to a concert I bring my S3 because it has a long zoom and isn't considered a professional camera (ie detachable lense) so they let me bring it in. My wife's small Canon ELPH I bring with me when I know I may be somewhere I want to take pictures but not entirely sure or where I don't want to lug around a big camera.. ie, the local museum i've been too a dozen times before.

The trade between point and shoot and a DSLR really comes down to recycle time, focusing, low light and changing lenses. Point and shoot are good for quick decent shots.

So which camera you are interested in really comes down to what you want to do with it. You mention family, friends, etc but thats pretty vague. Say you have kids, and you want to take pictures of them playing sports, then your probably going to want a DSLR. You can get away with a point and shoot but your not going to be happy with it. If they are in alot of school plays your going to want to find one with a good zoom and low light conditions.

You sound like your going to be a casual user, not looking to use any advance features such as setting the shutter speed, aperture, etc.. so I would go with a small point and shoot with a decent zoom just in case.

So Canon - PowerShot SX230HS, or a NIKON - Coolpix S8200.. You can get them on sale now for around 200$. Go to the store, see how it feels in your hands, if it feels "too big", ie that you won't take it with you, then go with something smaller like a Canon - PowerShot ELPH 300 HS.

If you stick with a name brand like Canon or Nikon in the 150-300$ range then you'll be happy with the pictures.

Re:the best camera

[alexo]

Get a "travel zoom" camera.
Small enough to carry anywhere while very versatile.

Re:the best camera

[zippthorne]

Although the ELPH line doesn't allow full manual control, it does have spot-metering and focusing, and allows you to lock the focus and/or the metering. You can also set exposure compensation values. And there is a mode for taking exposures of more than 1 second.

I own a film Rebel that I no longer use due to the dearth of processing options, but I'd found that I generally just took the camera's metering suggestion for "the other one" of either the shutter or aperture stop. Since a pocket camera doesn't really have a whole lot of aperture stop range anyway (I suspect my SD 790 has only two settings....) I think the metering lock is pretty good for the purpose - if you want darker photos, just point the camera at something in the scene that's bright before locking.

There's a lot you can do to play with even a camera that wasn't really designed for fiddling.

New serves another purpose than just warranty - Accessories. I've found that certain accessories become unavailable pretty quickly after cameras are out. Particularly waterproof enclosures with depth ratings suitable for taking on recreational scuba dives. You don't really want to get a used waterproof enclosure, either....

Re:the best camera

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

I'm thinking about getting one of those, but don't you find the lenses to be on the big side?

Canon T3i

[djdbass]

I bought a Canon T3i several months back. It takes great pictures and my photos get compliments. Couldn't be happier!

Decide on features first

[travisco_nabisco]

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.

Re:Decide on features first

[stewbacca]

Skip all the features...zoom is marketing. Go for image quality, which isn't measured by a feature listed on the box.

Re:Decide on features first

[travisco_nabisco]

Are you implying that there is no case for a good optical zoom? Or maybe you think manual focus or aperature/shutter priority are useless on a point and shoot camera? Do you want to be tied to MMC cards or do you want to be able to use SD cards? Maybe AA batteries rather than a L-Ion pack is better because you expect to be away from a charger for long periods of time.

Saying skip all the features is ridiculous, there are features that may not be beneficial to you, but saying skip all the features is not a good way to look at buying cameras.

Re:Decide on features first

[stewbacca]

No. I'm implying it's the quality of the optics that matters, not the zoom factor, not the type of battery, not the megapixel count, not the type of memory card it takes, not even the form factor (although I'd say that is the second most important feature).

All of the other features are minor convenience/inconvenience and cannot overcome poor lens quality. It's kinda like Microsoft Windows -- just because you have a long feature list on the box doesn't mean it's any good. But that will sell a lot of copies, and putting 12x zoom and (insert megapixel count here) will get most people to buy one model over an optically superior other model.

I'll say it again...no other feature on a camera is important enough to overcome bad optics.

Re:Decide on features first

[klx]

I carried an Olympus with a 12x zoom for several years. It was great for outdoor shots, landscapes, nature close-ups, and nighttime city photography with a tripod or a lot of patience. It was absolute balls for events involving people; it was super slow, plus the lens seemed to block a lot of light so that candids were almost always blurry.

For the kind of everyday P&S use that the OP seems to be asking about, I've been much happier with my tiny image-stabilized Powershot. Mine's an Elph model, so it fits in just about any pocket. I haven't mastered its manual mode, and I suspect that it isn't worth the effort -- but this camera has been a heck of a lot more *fun* than the Olympus. I don't plan on going the ultra-zoom route ever again -- I'm fine with having one tiny simple camera and a separate serious-ass camera that I only haul out for personal projects.

Annie Leibowitz sez

[stevegee58]

Just start taking pictures with your camera phone.

It isn't the camera

[dschl]

It's the person behind the camera that matters. Get some training, read and learn the basics, and most importantly, practice.

photo.net is a good starting point.

Books and buy used.

[Neil Watson]

Start with some books on photography. "The digital photography book" 1,2 and 3 by Scott Kelby helped me a lot. This assumes you want a DSLR. You might start with a point and shoot. There is a great market for used photography gear. Buy used and learn as you go.

Olympus isn't too bad.

[ehrichweiss]

Olympus' "Four-thirds" system is supposed to be great for n00bs at giving better color toward the fringes of the image, though it gives more noise at higher ISO levels. I use the Evolt E-510 and it's pretty decent. There's a "micro-Four-thirds" system that's supposed to be better but I have zero experience with it.

A cheap P&S around US$150

[Pope]

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.

Canon 1100D DSLR

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Lumix LX-5

[kytreb]

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)

Re:Lumix LX-5

[wetpainter]

Good suggestion. The camera doesn't really matter that much. I am a professional photographer and I get asked this question a couple of times a year by friends. I started on film 35 years ago and switched to Nikon digital 10 years ago. My iPhone 4s takes better images than my first Nikon DSLR. If you are starting out with a small budget you only need a basic camera. You are the most important part of the process. Your challenge is to use a basic tool to create great images. I strongly recommend you do a lot of reading, both online and books. Try and learn how to look at and think about the subject before you even get a camera out of your bag. Photography is obviously about trying to frame a subject into a great composition but just as importantly it is about light. Look at the subject and think "how can I move the subject or the camera to make the most of the lighting" If you cannot move the subject (such as a mountain) can you move the camera. If you cannot move the camera can you choose a better time of day (eg dawn or sunset). If the subject is a person is the light on them flattering? Is the subject a pretty girl or weathered old man? How would that difference influence the lighting style you should use. Modern cameras let you take hundreds of shots and then delete 90%. This is not actually helpful. As a useful exercise when learning pretend you are shooting rare and expensive film and only have 5-10 shots available each day. Only shoot each exposure when you have really thought about the composition and lighting and are sure you cannot improve on that. This imposed limitation will completely change your way of thinking about the creative process. Photography is a huge topic and there has never been a better range of affordable, high quality equipment available. In a couple of years you will have learned some basics and will be ready to migrate to a DSLR. When you do that remember to spend more on a few really good lenses rather than an expensive body with lots of cheaper lenses. Have fun.

Re:Lumix LX-5

[rvw]

Lumix LX5, Fuji Finepix X100, Canon Powershot S95, Nikon Coolpix500 (a bit bulky)

Except for the Leica, $$$$$??? That X100 is quite as expensive: $1200, no zoom, fixed lens. I think you meant the X10, which is more like the others...

Re:Lumix LX-5

[kytreb]

Yup. you're right. I hit one too many 0's

Definitely subjective, but...

[forevermore]

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.

Re:Definitely subjective, but...

[werepants]

Sorry, but... lens diameter doesn't matter. Aperture diameter (a relative measurement based on focal length) does. Look for f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8 and you'll be in good shape. Sensor size kind of matters, insofar as it lowers noise generally and allows higher ISO's to be used. Panasonic makes a point and shoot with a wide aperture and it is highly regarded by many photographers. Fewer optical elements isn't necessarily a plus, either. A lens that includes aspherical elements to compensate for spherical aberration will outperform one with no correction, for instance.

The most important thing is to have a camera with you when you need to take pictures. The second thing is to have complete manual control over your camera so you can get an intuitive feel for the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity, etc.

Finally, it isn't necessarily the case that a point and shoot (or even a DSLR) will do better than a smartphone. It all depends on what you're using it for. The iPhone 4 camera is scary good, and it can out-macro many stock DSLR kits, and shoots sharper, more dynamic images than many point-and-shoots. This is partly because the fixed lens ignores all the inevitable tradeoffs that come with a zoom lens, so it can be simpler and have a wider aperture. However, there are obviously cases where an DSLR is the only thing that will get the job done. In that situation, I prefer Pentax, because you get quite a bit for your money, and the build/ergonomics are nicer than Canikon IMO. The recent K5 really blew away the competition in terms of image quality, as well.

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/

Re:Canon S100

[Fishbulb]

I can second this. I've got an S95 (previous model) and love it. Full automatic to full manual mode and fits in your pocket. Has the sensor of the low-end Canon SLR's - much better than the sensor used in many point-n-shoots. The S90 was also very good, but only does standard video, not HD.

I bought it after owning a Canon S230 for 8 years. I loved that one so much (built like a tank, and got some great shots out of it) I got the S90, then upgraded to the S95 shortly after. Find one of those if you don't want to pay full price for the S100.

CHDK also works on the S90 and S95 (don't know about the S100 yet), if you want to do some advanced hacking (like writing scripts!)

Examples:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonpowershot_s95/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonpowershots100/

CHDK:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

Re:Canon S100

[Ecuador]

This is a great recommendation. Modern P&S cameras take great pictures with no fuss, so if you get one that also has full manual control, you can see if you are really interested in having more control over your shooting before investing on a DSLR. And DSLRs are for very few people, if you find out that something you can put in your pocket takes great pics, you won't like to carry something larger.
And the great advantage the S100 has over most compacts is the lens. 24mm wide angle is VERY useful and the fact that it is f2.0 makes it usable in low light conditions (the big sensor helps there too).
However, the S100 is not cheap. So there is a little gem called the ELPH 500 HS (not the new 510), for less than half the price ($200 currently on amazon) that has almost all the features of the S100 including a fast 24mm lens and manual modes. The lower cost is due to the sensor being smaller and the lack of gps geo-tagging. However, as a thrilled owner of the ELPH 500 HS I can tell you that the grain is little even at ISO 1600, so I would definitely not call the sensor inadequate.
So, another vote for the S100 if money is no object otherwise you will enjoy the ELPH 500HS almost as much.

I was in the same boat

[Chilijohn]

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.

Re:I was in the same boat

[Fnord666]

Get a Canon Powershot SX150. It's about $200 if not less online.

They are selling for $149 today on Amazon.

This guy has some good info

[ksd1337]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm Scroll down a bit for the section for Casual Photography.

What I did...

[Nexzus]

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.

Re:What I did...

[C0L0PH0N]

I completely agree with the "super-zoom" idea. You can get a good camera with a long zoom (I have 30x) which also does macro photography (4 inches) with the exact same lens. SLR's would cost you hundreds/thousands to get the same lens combos you can get with a single super-zoom. A regular zoom goes out to about 10x, which is also fine. But I have been really happy with the extra "zoom". I personally bought a Sony HX100V. I debated and coveted the higher quality of image from a DSLR, but the extra thousands to get there just aren't worth it for someone like me at the beginner level. Someday :).

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:One thing really matters: shutter delay

[Poorcku]

the D40 is also a perfect example why megapixels DON'T count. it has a 6MP 23.7 x 15.5 mm CCD. it is a rather small sensor, but only compared with the higher DSLRs. Fewer MPs on a relatively big CCD is less noise and better pictures. D40 is one great camera for little money.

Re:One thing really matters: shutter delay

[Bram Stolk]

Shutter delay is important, but only one part of the equation:
The autofocus needs to be fast as well.

I have a 1yr toddler, who moves around all the time.
I like to shoot really shallow depth of field (think: eyes in focus, ears already out of focus).

The autofocus on my Fujifilm X100 is too slow to keep up with my toddler:
Once focused, she will already have moved her face out of the focal plane.

So no matter how fast the shutter delay, the image will be out of focus because the focusing is too slow.

any camera will do

[heitikender]

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.

Nikon D7000

[Ikkyu]

I was in the same boat 4 months ago, a nikon D7000 was the right choice for me.

Re:Nikon D7000

[GrandTeddyBearOfDoom]

Though for starting out, it will be a while before you need what the D7000 gives over the D3100. The D5100 is also worth a look if you have the cash, though if you plan on spending more than a D3100 and don't need the tilting screen of the D5100, possibly the D7000 is the next step up.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC TZ-10, -20 or (sans GPS) -18

[ivi]

Sturdy, pocket-size compact with 1-lens-fits-most needs, GPS, etc.

$210-250, incl S&H, from Hong Kong [via eBay].

This question has been asked, and answered...

[bware]

in 25 easy steps:

at The Online Photographer

Re:This question has been asked, and answered...

[werepants]

Mod parent up! The Online Photographer is a pretty great resource for any aspiring photography enthusiast.

$$$ does not mean

[justdiver]

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

You're not ready for a DSLR.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You're not ready for a DSLR.

[stereoroid]

I have to disagree. An entry-level DSLR also has picture modes similar to a P&S camera, so you can get the shot if you're in a hurry and don't know exactly how to do it manually. I've had Pentax SLRs for 15 years now, and while the bodies get old, the lenses don't, as long as you look after them. I have a lens that's at least 30 years old but still works on the latest Pentax bodies. I'm never going to be a professional sports photographer or papparazzo - which are the only reasons I could need (or afford) the top Nikon or Canon bodies. For everything else, and especially for enjoying photography as an art form, I would not dream of switching away from Pentax now.

Why do you need the larger SLR lenses? Because they offer wider apertures (lower f-stops), and that gives you two things: better photos in low light (for a given sensor), and more control over depth of field (DOF). If you really want to get in to photography, you want to learn DOF control (which includes manual focusing skills): these days it is, in my opinion, the thing that can make a photo great (or not), and is a core creative tool to have. It is one way you make a photograph tell a story, making it about more than just the objects in the photograph.

Lastly: there's no shame in letting the camera help you at times - don't believe camera snobs who tell you're not a "real photographer" unless you go all manual, all the time. I make an analogy with driving: a stripped down car with a powerful engine and a manual stick shift makes for a rewarding experience on a racetrack ... but you still have to drive to and from the racetrack, and you don't want to be fighting your car when you need to be watching the traffic. With a camera, sometimes you want full creative control, and other times you want to be talking to the people you're shooting rather than futzing with your camera.

If you do use picture modes, though, learn what they do, and why, and that can be educational in itself. For example "Portrait mode" will open up the aperture to offer a shallow depth of field, so that the subject is in focus but the background is nice and soft. However, the camera can't tell you which lens or zoom level to use: portraits are usually better with longer lenses, in the 80-100mm (full frame equivalent) range, since that tends to flatten the features a little (not too much), flattering the subject. That's a guideline, not a rule, and anything goes creatively - but if you ever see a wide-angle close-up of your face, you'll understand why that's not really done except for comic effect ..!

Re:You're not ready for a DSLR.

[w4rl5ck]

Well, the first camera I have hold in my hands was an SLR. That was around 1982. Did not hurt, even if I could not grasp the full concept until maybe ten years later.

Of course, the camera does not matter that much, and there are so many brilliant cams out there now, including the iPhone 4/4S - they can all do "the trick". I've seen people taking pictures with their iPhone 4 that I still can't produce with my ~4000$ DSLR equipment (well call it "drug" ;))

If you want to get into Photography as opposed to "taking pictures", I strongly vote for a DSLR, though - you still get the most flexibility, you can easily scale your system to whatever you want to, and the current DSLRs are absolutely simple to use, too - just like a P&S. And they are not expensive anymore.

Just my 2 cents :)

Re:"that actually look good"

[Dan Dankleton]

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

Re:iPhone 4s

[danbob999]

Not bad but not the best smartphone camera either.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/241955-2/smartphone_camera_battle_iphone_4s_vs_the_android_elite.html

Point and Shoot

[WillgasM]

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).

Re:Point and Shoot

[Jeremy Erwin]

I've got an SX120. Good camera. I have CHDK installed on it, though I've yet to figure out a decent free Raw toolchain for my mac.
One major sticking point, though. There's no viewfinder, and the LCD tends to wash out during the day. As result, manual focus is difficult.

Go by features

[Quila]

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.

Difficult to recommend

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Canon S90/S95/S100

[tonytnnt]

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.

DSLR is the way to go

[macwhizkid]

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.

Re:DSLR is the way to go

[GiMP]

I say either take the kit lens of 18-55mm and hold-off on buying additional lenses... OR skip the 18-55mm kit lens and buy a 55-200mm and a 50mm/f1.8 lens. Some stores will offer bundles on the body + 55-200mm lens, which makes this an affordable option.

Its kind of strange, an 18-55mm lens is a good range if it is your *only* lens (which is why it is a kit lens), but I find that if I'm outdoors I'm most likely to carry the 55-200mm and if indoors, I'll definitely have the 50mm/f1.8 on.

I haven't done it yet, but I do plan to try using my 18-55mm with a reversing ring & bellows for cheap macro. It wont match a good macro setup, but I expect it should do decently for the sub-$50 price-tag.

buy the largest sensor your budget will allow

[Surt]

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.

Two suggestions

[jschottm]

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).

Re:"that actually look good"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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

Depends on what you want to photograph

[vadim_t]

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.

Lots of things you can buy. Don't.

[jimicus]

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.

Re:Lots of things you can buy. Don't.

[Pirate_Pettit]

^ This IS good advice, particularly at this stage. Buying a full featured DSLR because the smartphone's pinhole camera isn't very good is basically brute forcing your way into better quality pictures - with money. While I WOULD recommend stepping up from where you are (in terms of lens size), all it sounds like you need is device that's primary purpose is taking pictures. The rest is technique - and if you want candid shots, a fast finger on the button. Better to toss 20 digital pictures for the one great shot than to take one OK picture, and wish you had more.

Re:Lots of things you can buy. Don't.

[Lorens]

No, he is not dangerously close. He is aware. He realizes that he does not need to spend lots to get photos good enough for him.

*This* is a guy bitten by the equipment bug: The 1 percent takes up photography

Canon S95

[Sarusa]

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.

Depends...

[dHagger]

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.

DSLR, unfortunately.

[nblender]

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.

Re:DSLR, unfortunately.

[Ecuador]

You will be surprised at how much compacts have advanced since 2005. My compact Canon from 2005 was great at snapshots, but, as you say, could disappoint at low light conditions. Before the digital era I was into SLR's (Again Canon, I had a nice oldie - the F1 - mainly for astrophotos and an EOS for daily shots), so I had huge lenses that could shoot in dark places and I kind of missed that ability. What I did not miss is the weight of the lenses and the SLR, so I simply waited. This year the ELPH 500 HS came out, a compact with a 24-106mm F2.0 lens and the promise of usability up to ISO 1600. Well, at just $210 (now $200 on amazon) it proved to be a really amazing little camera, really capable at low light conditions. For example, last week I was in Rome. I found out that without flash, even in the darkest museum rooms, I had no problem getting great clear pics. The Vatican museum was not one of the dark ones, so I could walk down the isles and shoot pics left and right without stopping, just shoot while walking - the camera focuses instantly and the IS along with the fast lens lead to unshaken images!
So, my point is that I would bet that if you try a recent canon with an f2.0 lens like the ELPH 500 HS, or the S100 if you are not on a budget, you will start carrying your DSLR less and less.

He may not need an SLR

[shoehornjob]

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.

From a turning Pro photographer

[PhilLong]

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/

Sony NEX either C-3 of N5

[dcblogs]

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.

Re:Sony NEX either C-3 of N5

[Hodapp]

(Megapixels do matter if you plan to make prints beyond 8x10s.)

[citation needed]

Re:Sony NEX either C-3 of N5

[djmurdoch]

I'd disagree about the viewfinder, but these cameras are at the high end of the "few hundred dollars" specified. The only way I'd buy a mirrorless SLR is with an electronic viewfinder, and you won't find usable EVFs in the specified price range.

And of course, I'd personally never buy Sony. But that's just a matter of not trusting them.

Re:Sony NEX either C-3 of N5

[toddestan]

If you're getting a used camera as some have suggested, maybe. With my 4.1 MP P&S camera from 2006 I can definitely see digital artifacts above 8x10. Nowadays the quality of the lens is a bigger factor than the MP count of the camera for anything 35mm or smaller.

*** Pentax ***

[U8MyData]

IMHO you would be remiss if you didn't look at and consider Pentax.

Re:*** Pentax ***

[werepants]

Agreed, at least if the submitter is interested in SLRs. The point-and-shoots aren't anything special IMO, but the K5 is stinking fantastic. The entry-level DSLR's are also really good from what I know of them. I've been shooting Pentax since the K100D with no regrets.

Camera Phone

[fermion]

First, to answer the question more directly, i.e. price performance, there are several issues. A better lens is not neccesarily going to be a better picture at this level, as discussed below. I grew up taking picutres on box cameras using cheap plastic lenses. They still look good. Paying for more pixels is not always going to be a good value. More pixel with worse software is going to result in a worse pictuture. Pay for optical zoom, light balancing, low light performance. For action shots pictures per second is well worth paying for, as well as the number of consecutive photos that one can take. This later is a critical number, and may depend on the speed of the memory card.

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.

you missed Sony

[Chirs]

They bought out Minolta's camera division, so all autofocus Minolta lenses will work with modern Sony digital SLRs.

Re:you missed Sony

[Vaakku]

I guess it's intentional... You never know when Sony declares that pictures you take gear manufactured by them is their property.

It is about he Lens not the camera body

[FlyingGuy]

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.

From a semi pro

[johnjaydk]

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.

Canon Rebel

[erica_ann]

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.

Sensor is more important than anything else

[Richard_J_N]

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

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.

Re:Common question

[GiMP]

Pick up a 50mm f1/.8 when you feel limited with the kit lens.

+1 on this

nikon s9100

[Spiked_Three]

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.

The “Ask Slashdot” decline continues.

[sidragon.net]

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?

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.

Re:As someone who used to sell cameras...

[TwobyTwo]

> So my advice is first figure out which group you fall into.

Pretty good advice, but also figure out what you want to learn, and there are two groups there too, I think:

1. People who want to take better and better pictures, but who would really be just as happy not to learn about the underlying mechanics or theory. This is a perfectly legitimate path, and whether DSLR or point and shoot, you'll want one with terrific automatic function that's good enough to handle the situations you intend to deal with. E.g. if you're mostly taking those pictures of people you know outside, or up close inside, a point and shoot may be just fine. If you'll be taking them in dim light, or larger rooms inside, then you'll need a camera with some kind of flash arrangement that's both powerful and automatic. That might move you toward a DSLR, possibly with good automated flash attachment.
2. People who are happy to learn about exposure, focus, and the other building blocks that give you more control over how an image looks, and that let you take pictures in more challenging situations (e.g. on a tripod in low light without flash). For someone with those goals, make sure the camera has controls that make it easy to override automatic exposure, focus, ISO, and other such settings, one that lets you look at histograms of your completed exposures, etc. (Yes, some of this won't make sense if you're a novice, but a good camera store can help).

Also, one other dimension: how much do you care about the quality of the final image. The small sensors used in cheaper point & shoot cameras get pretty mealy looking in low light, and often have such limited range that highlights get blown out on sunny days or with flash. (Check out things like the bright spots on a subject's cheeks or forehead). For snapshots and Web-photos, you may not care; for better quality, the absolute smallest sensor you'd want is a micro-4/3, or a DX size, which is better yet. Pros tend to go for full-frame, but for anyone who's not very serious and experienced, that's likely overkill. The size of the sensor is a characteristic of the camera: you can check reviews and specs to see how big the sensor is in a particular camera. Panasonic, for example, has a line of micro 4/3, whereas Nikon's smallest DSLR sensor is DX (somewhat bigger).

If you want a light camera to carry everywhere and don't care so much about the most beautiful images, then go for something smaller; smaller sensors tend to wind up in smaller cameras

Re:As someone who used to sell cameras...

[k6mfw]

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.

[ snip ] 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.

Good summary, probably as others mention to not first blow lotsa money on a expensive camera and later find out photog is not your thing.

Canon S95 or S100

[kbrian38]

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.

Actually it is

[SuperKendall]

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.

Dude, you're holding it wrong

[xpccx]

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.

Re:Dude, you're holding it wrong

[Beeftopia]

I have to second this. I once took a photography course and it was exceptionally useful. I'm the farthest thing from a professional photographer. But the average person knows next to jack and squat about how to take pictures. And I know much more than the average person, from my experience.

CHDK!

[GodGell]

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.

Canon G series

[TeknoHog]

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.

My two cents as a semi-pro

[The Bringer]

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.

Really bad response to original problem

[SuperKendall]

" manual zoom, which is much faster and accurate"

Come on, you are advocating use of a camera for manual zoom to a person who said explicitly they do not want to photograph as part of a serious hobby or profession?

That makes NO SENSE. People who are not seriously into photography DO NOT WANT to manually focus a camera, DO NOT CARE about a critical point of focus. You guys are ill-serving this poor questioner with confusing responses like this, which will in the end deliver unto him a bag of frustrations.

Re:Really bad response to original problem

[element-o.p.]

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...

I don't know about that. I wouldn't say I'm seriously into photography (I shoot with a Canon Powershot A570...how serious could I possibly be with that camera?!?!), but I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of manual control compared to the 35mm Minolta SLR I used back in the late '80s and early 90s. I've tried getting macro photos and the Powershot consistently focuses on the wrong part of the subject (stem rather than flower, etc.), no way to exposures longer than 15 seconds, etc.

Re:Really bad response to original problem

[CycleMan]

" 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.

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. We can all agree that manual focus is for serious folks to play with, not someone who is upgrading from a cell phone camera. But manual zoom and manual focus are totally different things.

On camera selection, I would recommend a used Canon Rebel DSLR for its great price-to-performance, and they're always available from folks wanting to upgrade to the next many megapixels. For his described needs, even the original 6 megapixel camera will be fine -- more megapixels is just more hard drive space per individual image and experience, and he's not going to be in PhotoShop all the time. Unless you also want video (which the original poster didn't mention) in which case there are a dozen point-and-shoot cameras that will meet your needs -- the Canon Powershot A570 is one I use and enjoy for that.

Re:Really bad response to original problem

[LordKronos]

" 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.

Wow, you were so quick to post your outrage, you failed to even comprehend that manual zoom and manual focus are not the same thing.

Re:Really bad response to original problem

[tibit]

Yep. I personally see no reason for a home use camera to have more than 8 megapixels, as long as the sensor is decent. All those megapixels, as you've said, only take more storage and are wasted in presence of noise. Heck, if I could have a big sensor (say 40mm across), I would gladly settle for 6 megapixels.

for Point&Shoot: Panasonic Lumix LX5 or Canon

[xarope]

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.

The where and when is more important than the what

[AdamHaun]

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.

Annie Liebovitz says...

[Zcar]

...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.

Re:Annie Liebovitz says...

[wetpainter]

How sad that there may be younger readers who don't know who AL is. I now feel very old.

Best guide

[tahuti]

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/best-digital-slr-camera.html First step what photography style: Action/Sports, Macro, Portraits, Landscape, ...

Best camera you can carry on your belt

[Beeftopia]

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.

Pentax K5 top gun

[bricko]

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

Nikon Coolpix S8100

[dickens]

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.

You have to ask yourself . . . .

[9jack9]

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.

A few ideas...

[rAiNsT0rm]

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.

Fuji X100 or Canon S100

[mrops]

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

Re:I've never had a slow P&S.

[element-o.p.]

Canon Powershot A570IS from 2008, with multiple SD cards. Push the button, count "a thousand and one", take the picture...by which time, the subject has moved, and all you got was a blur. While on vacation in California a couple of years ago, I tried doing some macro photography of bees on flowers in a garden, and never got a single shot to come out because of the very noticeable delay between pushing the button and when the camera actually took the photo. Similar problem when trying to shoot photos of my dogs -- they are playing, I grab the camera, and by the time the shutter snaps, they've noticed I was standing there looking at them, and stopped playing.

Basically, all the gripes I've seen about P&S cameras in this thread are pretty much spot-on, IME.

Some haven AF/AE lock mode

[bigtrike]

The AF/AE lock on some point and shoots will do pretty much what you're asking for.

From a Photographer...

[steevven1]

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 had a lumix lx2 and it sucked

[bigtrike]

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.

Re:I had a lumix lx2 and it sucked

[backwardMechanic]

Really? I have an LX3 and it is excellent in low light. I have a photo showing the Milky Way somewhere that is a bit noisy - but it was taken by pointing the camera straight at the sky - no telescope!

Your top-range choice...

[GiMP]

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?"

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.

Re:Your top-range choice...

[xaxa]

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.

I bought a Sony A55 on this basis, and I'm pleased with it. I went for the A55 because it's slightly higher spec, and has an integrated GPS. I like seeing my pictures on a map (I think other people do too), but I really don't like having to spend lots of time in front of a computer when I get home after a trip somewhere.

While I'm still learning about photography it's really useful to just stick the camera on one of the auto modes (landscape, night portrait etc) and let it figure out what to do. I can see what it's done (in auto mode the settings aren't hidden, just locked), and tweak it in manual mode if I want to.

It doesn't matter

[houghi]

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.

Re:It doesn't matter

[toQDuj]

there isn't nearly enough of this common sense around in this thread. I stick with film cameras to be out of the world of "measurebators" - trying to find the best camera based on specs alone. A good picture is not a function of the camera.

My only advice

[koan]

Focus (no pun intended) on the quality of the lens before you worry about Megapixels.

Panasonic Lumix LX5

[Wraithlyn]

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

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

Re:Panasonic Lumix LX5

[AmiMoJo]

I was looking at the LX5 too but decided to go for the GF2 micro 4/3 camera instead. With the 14mm pancake lens it isn't that much bigger than a compact and will fit into a typical jacket pocket. Plus it has all the really good automatic modes like a compact does, but you also get interchangeable lenses and most importantly a proper DSL sensor.

The step up in quality from a compact to a DSLR sensor really is worth it IMHO. Compare the fine detail and edges which tend to have colour aliasing on smaller sensors and optics. The LX5 is just about the pinnacle of compacts and a micro 4/3 is significantly more expensive, but if you are serious about getting into photography then I'd say it is worth saving up. You could also get a second hand one of course. There is the cheaper GF3 as well but it is quite a bit more limited, although the older GF1 is still a really good camera (just a bit larger).

Re:Panasonic Lumix LX5

[feraudy]

I wholly agree with this. A good quality small camera like the LX5 allows you to apply all sorts of adjustments if you want to and it's always on hand. I just came back from Paris with an LX3 (previous model) and I was able to have it very discreetly in my bag without it weighing me down.

As others have said...

[segfaultcoredump]

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.

Re:As others have said...

[Alien Being]

That's a waste of money. He wants a camera.

Re:As others have said...

[nightfell]

How exactly is it a waste of money?

Starting out got point and shoot

[alfredo]

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.

Slashdot answers from 2003

[TibbonZero]

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.

Re:Slashdot answers from 2003

[werepants]

It's worth noting that Pentax is still around and kicking, and all those old lenses (super cheap now) still work perfectly with the latest digital bodies. I've got a couple of K1000's and several Pentax DSLR's and it is pretty neat to be able to swap old lenses onto the new cameras and (in some cases) vice versa.

Photography

[tarzeau]

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.

LX5

[wiedzmin]

Panasonic Lumix LX5

See article in New York Times

[Art3x]

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

Support a Light Field camera.

[Khyber]

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.

Re:Support a Light Field camera.

[nategasser]

Ummm. Wow.

Do want.

Re:Support a Light Field camera.

[anomalous3]

I came here to suggest this. I personally plan until the tech matures and the second or third (consumer) generation of this technology comes around before I get one, but it looks like as big a leap forward as the transition from film to digital.

Go to dpreview.com

[p51d007]

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.

Any camera will do

[zoffdino]

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.

Re:I've never had a slow P&S.

[Radworker]

I can take my D1H (circa 2004) and hold the shutter down and take 6 frames a second for 40 frames. I can do the same with my D300 (circa 2007) and get 6 frames a second for 100 frames (8 per second if I am using the vertical grip). I use both of these cameras in low light conditions that would show the weakness of a point and shoot. Namely a point and shoot with its smaller sensor ends up with a much higher noise level than any of my dslrs. All the OP needs is a camera that will outperform his cellphone camera. A used DSLR would only run about $300 and be much more expandable in my opinion. I shoot Nikon but respect any other persons camera. It is not so much the equipment as it is the photographer that takes a good picture.

What do you need? What do you want to do?

[foxywcuw]

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.

Ban all PHOTOGRAPHY Questions from Slashdot!

[JakFrost]

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.

Re:Ban all PHOTOGRAPHY Questions from Slashdot!

[St.Creed]

I can recommend dpreview.com.

But a few months ago I had the same question as OP and with aid of this site resolved it to "Canon Powershot S95 or Panasonic Lumix LX-5". Given that the S100 has been released, I'd say the choice should be easy :)

Or spend a bit less and buy a casio exilim until you decide you want better pictures than that. It still beats any smartphone hands down.

Re:"that actually look good"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the "lots and lots of bad photography" refers to more than just the action: it involves the cost.

Making mistakes with film is costly; you tend to learn from those mistakes because they cost in time and money. The constant exposure-making you see with digital rigs doesn't incur a real cost and therefore has little, if any, of the learning value, comparatively.

I learned on digital, late in life. As I move into fully-manual film rigs, I get more out of the process, and my signal-to-noise ratio sees a wonderful increase. (Another great reason to be a Nikon fanboy; all the glass I researched and didn't skimp on is even more useful now than ever. One presumes the Canon/Pentax setups to be similar, but I can't say from experience.)

Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Will.Woodhull]

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.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Beetle B.]

And the flip side is that the P'n'S that you bring to everything can never take a really decent photo.

Sorry, but utter BS.

I was once part of a photography club. The members would regularly have internal competitions. The winning entries were more often than not from high quality non-DSLRs. The photographers had years of experience, owned DSLRs, but ultimately found smaller cameras to be more convenient.

Technical aspects (camera features, optics, etc) do help, but they are merely one reason among many that you get good photos. Other factors are opportunity, photographer skill, and yes, the number of photos you take.

As someone once said:

Most of Ansel Adams's photos were crap. I know that because most of all photographers' photos are crap - you just see the good ones.

If you're buying a camera that will reduce the likelihood of you taking photos, then you're likely going to get fewer good photos than with an inferior camera with which you take a lot more photos.

To get to the rest of your comment:

The quality of the P'n'S image will limit what can be done, sometimes severely limit it. A DSLR camera will let you go further since the raw image is better.

Many non-DSLR's offer raw. This isn't 2001.

At this point I believe all DSLRs offer a .tiff or .raw format that the Gimp can work with, or an uncompressed .jpg format which is usually just as good as a .tiff.

First, almost all good point and shoots offer TIFF. When I bought my first digital point and shoot in 2001, all the "good" cameras offered uncompressed TIFFs.

But that's all irrelevent because: A TIFF format is almost useless. You simply have a huge file with no lossy compression. This does not give you the extra manipulation headroom that you get with RAW. The benefits of RAW do not carry over to TIFFs.

These uncompressed files give you all the detail that the camera actually saw.

Not true. Uncompressed TIFFs have less information than RAW.

Seriously, how did this comment get moderated up?

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Will.Woodhull]

Parent post has wandered off the original topic by discussing the difference in quality between good and average photographers rather than the original request about the qualities of cameras.

The points about becoming a good photographer are valid. Basically if you want a few good photos, you need to click the shutter a few thousand times. And then learn to be really brutal in tossing out everything that is not quite perfect. That is now a lot easier to do with digital photography. Well, taking lots of photos is cheaper, being severely critical about your own art is still hard. In the process of taking those thousands of shots, if you are paying attention to what you are doing, handling the composition, lighting, and other aspects of the art properly will start to become habitual. At some point you become able to make good art consistently even with a disposable box camera, such as the photographers mentioned in parent post who were getting lots of excellent results with their P'n'Sers

The more expensive P'n'S cameras probably do have .tiff and .raw formats. But the big point of getting a P'n'S is to buy something cheap that you will be willing to risk on that rafting trip through the Grand Canyon. Or carry in your pocket anywhere you go. Without feeling like you need to protect your investment by keeping it in a case that keeps you from getting it out and using it.... For me, that means something under $100, but then I am just one of the 99%.

On the lower cost P'n'S cameras, .tiff and .raw are out of the question. The processing needed to write these big files to permanent memory is more than the low power processor can reasonably handle. We are talking about 3 volt systems running on 2 AA batteries: not much to work with. The camera uses .jpg compression to reduce the overheads of writing the image file. A moderately good DSLR will be at least 6 volts. With this it can offer several levels of .jpg compression (image quality) and either a .raw or .tiff option.

Whether .tiff or .raw is the better format depends on several factors but in many forums is mostly a religious war. I have worked with both at one time or another. I recall that .tiff was easier to work with in layers in the old PSP and early Gimp, but now with the huge hard drives and 4 GB of ram to play with, I can work with huge image files directly in the Gimp's native format without having to load and unload separate layer files. If my interim image expands to 900 megabytes, so what?

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Malc]

Why would you be faffing around with PS/Gimp for basics like that when Lightroom/iPhoto/Picasa all do most of that basic stuff faster, and much cheaper than PS?

I'm seriously eyeing up the Canon S100. Shoots RAW. Fairly decent interface for such a small camera with full manual controls. Very bloody small. Cheaper than an SLR.

I honestly don't really see the point of entry level SLRS with a kit lens. If you're going to have an SLR, spend the money on decent glass, and upgrade to the body from the most basic model. By then you have several kilos of gear that is inpractical at times. And BTW, I'm talking from experience as I normally haul around a backpack with an SLR, including four lenses, flash, small tripod, filters, etc, and I spend hours dealing with the GBs of RAW shots I've taken.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Will.Woodhull]

Why would you be faffing around with PS/Gimp for basics like that when Lightroom/iPhoto/Picasa all do most of that basic stuff faster, and much cheaper than PS?

I had many years of experience with the Gimp before Picasa, etc, showed up. There is no reason for me to change. Another point: the Gimp has a long history of continued improvements, and a community behind it that assures that it will keep getting better and better. Picasa cannot yet say that. Oh, a third point for those not in the know: Gimp is FOSS and you cannot find a lower cost high end digital darkroom.

I'm seriously eyeing up the Canon S100. Shoots RAW. Fairly decent interface for such a small camera with full manual controls. Very bloody small. Cheaper than an SLR.

I honestly don't really see the point of entry level SLRS with a kit lens. If you're going to have an SLR, spend the money on decent glass, and upgrade to the body from the most basic model. By then you have several kilos of gear that is inpractical at times. And BTW, I'm talking from experience as I normally haul around a backpack with an SLR, including four lenses, flash, small tripod, filters, etc, and I spend hours dealing with the GBs of RAW shots I've taken.

Back in the wet days, I had a Minolta 35 with 28mm, 55mm, 125mm lenses. Today my best camera is a Minolta A2 with a single lens that is the equivalent of a 28mm to 200mm, plus macro. The glass is good quality (since the actual focal lengths are a LOT shorter, it does not need to be as large or as fancy as the 35 had). The electronic image stabilization lets me get good handheld shots at its extreme telephoto: back in the day I would have had to use a tripod and cable release to get good shots with a 200mm.

So why would I want a camera with interchangeable lenses when this one will do everything I need and all I need to carry around is the camera, the flash, and the tripod? If I am reading parent post correctly, we are in agreement on this.

One thing I like about DSLRs that I have not seen mentioned here yet is that I can use the eyepiece to compose a shot when glare or bright sunlight get in the way of using the screen of a point and shoot. I don't know whether this applies to the Canon S100.

When I see an obvious amateur with a brand new big body Nikon, bigger than my old wet film 35, with a huge lens on it, carrying a case with half a dozen other lenses, I do wonder whether it would be appropriate to say "You're doing it wrong." I don't really know; I have not tried to keep up with the market. It just seems like keeping up with market would require shoveling a lot more BS out of the way than I really want to take on.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Cederic]

A decent photo is one that can you work with in Photoshop (or the Gimp, which is better for everything except a few types of professional work). The kinds of things you want to be able to do are cropping and rescaling, selective blurring of background distractions, selective sharpening with the "unsharp" capability, often some tweaking of colors. In this day and age, a photo is not finished until it has been photoshopped at least a little bit.

A great photo is one that doesn't need any of that (except maybe cropping - which can be done on any photo from any source).

Learn how to use your camera, how to frame a shot, how to focus, how to use depth of field, how to choose and achieve the right exposure and take better photographs from the outset.

Feel free to post-process your photographs, and there are a lot of really nice pictures that have resulted from people doing just that, but please, don't pretend it's essential. It's not.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

I disagree here - if you have to do all of that to get a great picture you really need to work on composition and exposure on the front end. True, photoshop can fix some errors or improve a picture; especially with good cropping, but nothing beats getting it right at the moment of exposure.

I may be old school because I started out with film, where you were forced to setup the equipment and shot right at the start; and you learned basic rules of thumb for exposure, depth of field, composition because fixing things in the darkroom was hard and time consuming. End the end, however, you developed an instinct for what was needed at the moment you pushed the shutter button; something the run and gn and photoshop later crowd is missing out on, IMHO.

Now, GET OFF MY LAWN>

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[fyngyrz]

There is no reason for me to change.

Speaking as an image processing software developer AND a photographer, yes, there is a reason to change.

Lightroom and Aperture (the latter being OSX only atm) offer non-destructive editing that is a huge improvement over any other approach. Don't say no one told ya when you finally get one of those in your hands.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Will.Woodhull]

If you did any of your own darkroom work back in the wet film days, then you remember making careful adjustments to the enlarger, deciding just which paper to use, and giving due consideration to how long to leave the paper in the developer bath before the fix. And so on.

Or you might have just sent your roll of film to the nearest Kodak shop where an automated machine did all that stuff for you, using the settings that are most often adequate for the thousands of snapshots it gets fed every week.

But either you or a machine was doing the post-processing that we now can do so much better in today's software. You should really look into what Gimp can do for you with its unsharp mask (the digital equivalent of focusing the enlarger), and its HSV settings (equivalent to choosing different papers and development timings). Not to mention using masks to process different parts of the image differently, and do not get me started on the wonder of layers.

The photo that comes straight out of the camera is an unfinished work. It might be adequate for some purposes, but it is never as good as it could be.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Will.Woodhull]

Looks like that will be a long time coming. It was not easy for me to escape the clutches of Microsoft; I am not going to jump into Apple's walled garden.

I am confident that anything of momentous value in either the Apple or Microsoft ecosystems will be done in the land of FOSS sooner or later. Generally sooner, if the improvement is more than just another shiny.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Malc]

It sounds like your ideology is getting in your way. It's not just the non-destructive editting that the other person mentioned though, but the work-flow improvements that software like LR/iPhoto/Picasa give over full-blown editting software like PS/Gimp. I can go through a batch of photos and do the most common tasks much more quickly in LR, including straightening, cropping, fill lighting, white balance adjustment, etc. Maybe a pro like you gets your photos right with the camera every time, but us amateurs who want good looking shots need to some extra work. Picasa is free BTW, generally good enough, and rejecting it because it isn't FOSS is asinine. You can keep waiting for a FOSS alternative, but good luck: Gimp has been around for years, and it's still crap compared with Photoshop. FOSS people don't seem to understand UI and user experience either.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[terjeber]

I can promise you, there never will be anything of the kind. Gimp will never catch (or play in the same league) as PS, whenever the FOSS community has created something approaching Lightroom it will be unusable, with a terrible interface and at least two camps of developers warring with each other over whether the menus should have round corners or not. I love FOSS software, and FOSS can deliver on some things. High quality software like Lightroom? Nah. Never. FOSS has yet to deliver a usable GUI for an OS in a timely fashion.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Will.Woodhull]

Well, at least we agree that having some post processing tools and learning to use them is a good thing.

I have no religious attachment to any photographic or computer tools; my approach to both has been totally pragmatic. Figure out what will have the lowest cost in terms of both money and time lost in learning and maintaining the tools and go with that package. It is a broad spectrum approach. Which currently is Ubuntu v10.4 for the OS, the Gimp for all raster image work including photography, Inkscape for all vector graphics, and Blender for my experiments in 3D modeling and video compositing. Yes, this is a hobbyist's tool kit. But that is what I am, a hobbyist. I do not have a boss who requires me to use PhotoShop so that when he fires me, he can drag somebody off the street to take over the projects I had been working on. Which seems to be the main reason these days that PhotoShop remains so popular: managers want their commercial artists to be expendable.

I looked at Picasa a couple of years ago and I did not see anything in it that would make the bother of changing my workflow worthwhile. YMMV. The Gimp comes with the assurance that it will always be free, and the large community of developers contributing to it assure that it will just get better and better for the foreseeable future. Picasa on the other hand... well Google has shown that it can drop any of its products any time it is in their best interests to do so. Not knocking Google; I'm just saying.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[AmiMoJo]

Without feeling like you need to protect your investment by keeping it in a case that keeps you from getting it out and using it.... For me, that means something under $100, but then I am just one of the 99%.

I used to feel that way too but managed to break out of it. It's like buying a nice car and then not driving to work in it for fear or it picking up the odd scratch. I realised this when I was listening to a pair of expensive AT-W5000 headphones that I normally kept in the box and was wishing that I could have that sound all the time. I can have it all the time, I just had to accept that stuff gets used and worn a bit and that even if such things decrease the resale value they don't decrease the value to me, in fact they increase it dramatically.

A good micro 4/3 DSLR will fit in your picket and won't break the bank, especially if you get a second hand one. The step up from a small point-and-shoot to a larger DSLR sensor really makes a huge difference. I actually found I enjoyed photography more when I upgraded from a Canon Powershot p-n-s to a Panasonic Lumix GF2 because the initial results looked so much better, especially when viewed on a large screen. None of the aberrations around the edges of objects, especially things like trees against the sky.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[Registered Coward v2]

If you did any of your own darkroom work back in the wet film days, then you remember making careful adjustments to the enlarger, deciding just which paper to use, and giving due consideration to how long to leave the paper in the developer bath before the fix. And so on.

Far to well. You can still chose papers in today' s digital age.

But either you or a machine was doing the post-processing that we now can do so much better in today's software. You should really look into what Gimp can do for you with its unsharp mask (the digital equivalent of focusing the enlarger), and its HSV settings (equivalent to choosing different papers and development timings). Not to mention using masks to process different parts of the image differently, and do not get me started on the wonder of layers.

The photo that comes straight out of the camera is an unfinished work. It might be adequate for some purposes, but it is never as good as it could be.

Some of your comments made me interpret your point as "don't worry about such things as composition, lighting, etc. since you can fix all of that in post-processing." While I agree with you that post-processing is part of the overall process; it's not a substitute for creating a good image when pressing the shutter. Understanding composition, lighting, DOF and other fundamentals are as, if not more, important than post processing. Today's digital systems makes it to easy to gun off a bunch of images in hopes of getting one good one or leaving you to try to fix it in photoshop; when a little bit of skill at the start would result in a far better picture.

I'm not a big GIMP fan; the Mac has a number of inexpensive products that have a much better interface than the GIMP, IMHO. Layers and curves are cool; but for minor tweaks, not wholesale fixes of bad images.

The photo that comes straight out of the camera is an unfinished work. It might be adequate for some purposes, but it is never as good as it could be.

Sure, just as a selective light dodge or burn, or getting the right paper and exposure in the dark room, helps a film image; digital post-processing helps a digital image (without the need to mix chemicals). We're probably in closer agreement than this exchange would indicate; if I misunderstand your position mea culpa.

Re:Get DSLR and a point'n'shoot

[xaxa]

But the big point of getting a P'n'S is to buy something cheap that you will be willing to risk on that rafting trip through the Grand Canyon. Or carry in your pocket anywhere you go. Without feeling like you need to protect your investment by keeping it in a case that keeps you from getting it out and using it.... For me, that means something under $100, but then I am just one of the 99%.

I have amateur photographic insurance, which should cover me if something happens. I have a DSLR. I'd take it to a street party or festival if I'm going more to play with photography than participate. If I want to join in, or go for a night out afterwards, I'll take my old PnS.

(And $100 isn't that much, is it? I'm not American, so your costs and income are different to mine, but I'd have to spend a good chunk of $100 to visit somewhere that isn't local. If I didn't have a job, the government would give me £67.50 = $104 a week to help find one.)

Point and shoot

[deimtee]

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.

$100 to $150

[rssrss]

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.

Re:"that actually look good"

[fgouget]

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

Well, the cost is the hours you spend going through your photos to trying and pick the best ones to keep. Sometimes it feels like more time is spent on labeling, categorizing and sifting through the photos than in the whole trip :-(

Your question is underexposed.

[Alien Being]

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.

Your Camera Doesn't Matter

[Leemeng]

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.

Kodak C633 - old but still bloody good

[Tastecicles]

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.

Light and Tradeoffs

[nick_davison]

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.

Read Ken Rockwell

[BenEnglishAtHome]

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

S95

[Chysn]

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 will let ...

[jotaeleemeese]

... Cartier Bresson know.

Re:I will let ...

[Will.Woodhull]

He was fantastic.

My only disappointment with digital photography is that the cameras I have worked with have too much lag for his kind of candid photography. Using the multiple shot setting sort of works under some conditions on my fancy DSLR, but even with it I can only get a few frames before it has to do some internal housekeeping and I have to just sit back and cool my heels for about a minute. Nothing at all like the machine gun photos of a 35 mm wet film camera with auto advance. (Not that I could ever afford one of my own, but the few times I was able to borrow one were memorable.)

Re:I will let ...

[darkonc]

Older DSLRs have this problem. The Nikon D100 truly pissed me off with the problem. If I knew that I'd likely want a 'fast' series of pictures (i.e. more than 5 in 5 minutes), I'd just switch to JPEG mode and eat the loss in quality.

More recent DSLRs are generally fast enough that this isn't an issue. Even the D70 (the next camera after the D100) manages to sustain about 1 image/second almost indefinitely. After that, the next limit in getting rapid photo sequences is being able to charge the flash fast enough. For that issue, you may need to use an external flash -- and if you're really extreme, an external battery pack.

Not such great advice, actually ....

[King_TJ]

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.

Typical geeks and nerds: all over the tech

[jotaeleemeese]

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.

Great Function for a Great Price

[cc.kynv]

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.

Whatever you'll actually carry and use

[asudell]

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."

There are adapters

[dbIII]

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.

Just buy a camera and get going

[dsmithhfx]

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.

Re:"that actually look good"

[toQDuj]

it's the sifting through the photos that is the learning experience. Even with film (which I exclusively shoot still after having bought and abandoned a 400D a few years back) I still throw away at least 90% of my pictures. Learn to keep only the best.

Whoosh!

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Whoosh!

[Anonymus]

I have a Canon PowerShot A650 and love it. It perfectly hits the niche between brain dead morons and tech tweakers. I bought it because my PowerShot A80 died a couple of years ago and I found out they stopped making them, so I went with the closest thing I could find.

I'm convinced it takes the best pictures of any camera on the market for a "brain dead moron" if just left on the "Auto" setting. But if you want more, you can attach lenses to it, and you can mess with about 80% of the same features of a DSLR.

Re:Whoosh!

[tibit]

This discussion is very useful. I'll try and find that one in the store somewhere and see how it feels.

Re:Whoosh!

[LordKronos]

But whichever side the argument really originated from is irrelevant to my point, which is that he would not care to control either.

What do you mean, he would not care to control either? You always have to control zoom. There's no such thing as automatic zoom. You either have manual zoom, or you have power zoom. Neither is automatic...you have to do both of them yourself. The difference is, with power zoom you end up with a very slow and imprecise zooming mechanism. Your subject is too small in the frame, so you press the zoom in button/level...wait while it slowly starts to zoom, and then....oh it just went to far. Now the subject doesn't fit in the frame. Ok, so zoom out...it takes a slight delay before the zooming kicks in and...oh, it jumped too far out again. Repeat this a few times and it gets really annoying.

The recommendation of a DSLR may have certainly been overkill for what the guy wanted, but there's nothing inherent about the feature of manual zoom that the guy would have objected to. Of course, that may be purely academic, since (as far as I know, but I may be wrong) there's no P&S on the market that has a manual zoom feature, but you aren't taking issue with the DSLR suggestion in general. Even after I pointed out your error and you corrected yourself, you are still taking issue with the concept of manual zoom, and that just doesn't make sense to me.

Re-read the ORIGINAL POST

[SuperKendall]

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.

Different origin

[SuperKendall]

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.

Your Questions

[folstaff]

What camera would you recommend for getting into basic 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.

P&S seems best for you

[reiko13]

" 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 !

Sony Alpha, For The Used Lenses

[cmholm]

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.

Canon Powershot S95/S100

[G3ckoG33k]

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

Lenses, off-camera flash, and a book

[Sqr(twg)]

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.

Any DSLR will do the trick

[w4rl5ck]

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.

Re:Any DSLR will do the trick

[Lumpy]

Most entry level DSLR's made today are good enough for high end pros. The Canon T2i takes photos as good as the 5D and I use that camera body more in the field than the overpriced 1DS I have in my closet.

High end bodies and lenses are worthless if you are afraid of breaking them. In that line of thinking, my t2i takes far, FAR better photos than my 1DS because I'll hand over a railing risking the camera for that incredible shot with it.

Honestly, the only reason I have a 1DS is for weddings, indoors for portraits. It's mostly for show so they are happy with spending $12,000 on photography.

It is not your camera

[Arrepiadd]

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.

Re:It is not your camera

[Lumpy]

Ken Rockwell is an idiot, or you are taking his comment way,way ,WAY out of context.

a Piece of crap $19.95 Shiny happy fun digital camera that takes 640X480 images compared to a decent quality real glass lenses pocket camera that costs $299.00 is a HUGE difference for a newbie.

if your camera cant take an in focus photo with decent color you will never produce a great photo. your first digital camera should not cost any less than $300.00 if you want to be able to learn to take better photos. That level of camera has almost no lag in pushing the shutter to when the photo takes compared to the $99.00 garbage that has nearly a 1/2 second lag and anything with ceramic lenses to make it super thin is garbage. Thin = bad as well. you need decent large glass on a camera so if the camera is less than 1.25 inches thick it's a toy not a camera. The primary lens element needs to be at LEAST 1 inch in diameter on a pocket camera. the tiny ones shoot crap.
Megapixels are nothing , the glass in front of it is everything.

Re:It is not your camera

[Arrepiadd]

You sir are taking my comment way, way, WAY out of context. Please tell me which cameras nowadays will take you a 640x480 picture... are you walking around taking pictures with the webcam of a three year old computer?

If you are not good at photography, it doesn't matter if you have a professional grade (D)SLR camera, you still will not take perfect pictures.
Learn how to take pictures with a decent camera. You don't need a $1000 camera to make something your friends and family will appreciate as well as something that could be exhibited. But you do need to be able to frame and composite and play with the subjects. And that is independent of the camera you have!

That half a second leg stuff sounds like a total load of crap. What are you, a professional sports photographer? If the guy who made the thread wants to take pictures of buildings, of landscapes, of nature or even of clouds, half a second vs instant hardly makes a difference. Want to take a picture of a bird flying? Instant doesn't do you much since it's there's luck involved in taking the picture as the bird moves faster than you. Want to take a picture of a lightning? Instant is no good because by the time you notice it it's already too late to press the button. There you need a camera with a half a minute, one minute shutter opening time or lots of smaller exposures to actually get anything at all. Here it's perseverance that does it!

No one carries around a DSLR at all times. A smaller camera not making perfect pictures in "total darkness" because it has a slightly smaller sensor is better for taking pictures if you have it with you than the perfect SLR that stayed at home.

.

Good resource for the decision....

[jg900ss]

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.

Any camera

[backwardMechanic]

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.

Panasonic Lumix

[mmattson]

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.

dpreview.com

[terrab0t]

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.

God, not an SLR.

[pjr.cc]

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.

How truely disappointing

[pjr.cc]

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.

Re:How truely disappointing

[proud american]

My compliments to you on a great response. My faith in slashdotters is somewhat renewed.

Re:I've never had a slow P&S.

[Anonymus]

That's why you push the button halfway down to focus, then when you have the shot you want, push button the rest of the way. I've taken tons of macro photos of ants, bees, and pets that all turn out fine.

It would be nice to have a "screw focusing, take the photo now and I'll accept what I get" button though.

You may want two cameras.

[ResidentSourcerer]

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.

Re:I've never had a slow P&S.

[tibit]

The problem is that, contrary to how an SLR would work, the stupid camera forgets the focus when you take the picture! So it will refocus from scratch no matter what you're doing. And I'm not quite sure how advanced the focus software is on most cameras, but it seems that it's generally done to just about work and left there. For example, there's no reason why an already focused camera would have to move any optics to determine that it's close enough to being focused. You get this info from doing image analysis alone. The CPUs on most cameras are way underpowered to do serious image analysis -- tracking/detecting a face is about as much as you can expect of them. It's hard to beat a competent human at focusing.

Alas, my other gripe is that on an SLR, in decent light, you can close down the iris and set it for good depth of field and center the focus based on what you're shooting, and you may get decent pictures without touching anything. If I'm chasing my toddler in a sunlit room, I'd, say, set it for 1.5m, f/6-f/8 and click away -- if you have a decently sized sensor, it will look fine. There's no way to set it up like that on most point-and-shoots, even if the hardware is there. The designers of the software seem never ever to have taken a picture with a real camera...

Re:I've never had a slow P&S.

[tibit]

That's almost what I could do with a Pentax SLR with autowind attached. It would snap about 3 pics per second until the film ran out, and I could manually track focus while doing that. And I'm not a pro, not even a very competent amateur. On a point-and-shoot -- forget it.

Here are a few possibilities.

[The_Great_Outdoors]

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.

A Link Everyone Needs

[Thumper_SVX]

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.

Best Camera

[tchall]

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!!!

Learn

[Sheik Yerbouti]

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

Re:"that actually look good"

[Idarubicin]

it's the sifting through the photos that is the learning experience. Even with film (which I exclusively shoot still after having bought and abandoned a 400D a few years back) I still throw away at least 90% of my pictures. Learn to keep only the best.

Not only that, but learn from the photos that you didn't keep. Do you have problems with camera shake? Are you not using your autofocus correctly? Are you composing your shots carefully, or do you often have trees and flagpoles growing out of people's heads? Do you think about where shadows, highlights, and reflections appear?

Learn which shots failed because of the photographer's limits, and which shots were beyond the reach of your equipment. Learn how to improve the former and work around the latter. Learn when you're inside or outside your camera's envelope--and learn that when you're on the edge, you should keep shooting because sometimes you get lucky. Learn about acceptable compromises between image noise, depth of focus, and exposure time. Learn that when you're shooting at an eighth of a second, you need to brace yourself--and probably take two or three attempts--and that exposure lengths you can get away with using a wide-angle lens won't wash with a telephoto.

Failure is always more educational than success!

A couple of good references

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ignore parent....

[tanveer1979]

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

Attach "lenses"?

[SuperKendall]

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...

for getting into WHAT

[Cratylus_DS]

If you first read it as "pornography" like me you have to admit it.

Re:I've never had a slow P&S.

[element-o.p.]

^^This^^

And the fact that, even if your software does support $randomFeature, it's buried so deep in a menu that you can't find it in time to take the shot you are trying to get anyway. While I have no desire to return to 35mm media, I really do miss the ease of use of my old 35mm SLR sometimes.

Figure Out Your Uses and What You'll Love About It

[rhadc]

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!

Read this first

[der_alte]

"A $150 Camera vs. a $5,000 Camera" http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

Point And Shoots

[rally2xs]

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.

Misread the title at first

[Anonymous Coward]

Read it as "Best Camera For Getting Into Pornography?"

Think I should log off for a while.

Check out the Lytro!

[niftymitch]

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.

film or digi?

[uncledrax]

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.