Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Best Camera For Getting Into Photography?
An anonymous reader writes "I've managed to go my entire adult life without owning an actual camera. I've owned photosensors that were shoehorned into various other gadgets, but I've gotten to the point where the images produced by my smartphone aren't cutting it. My question: what camera would you recommend for getting into basic photography? I don't mean that in the sense of photography as a hobby or a profession, but simply as a method for taking images — of friends, family, and projects — that actually look good. That's a subjective question, I know, but I suspect many of you have a strong grasp of price versus performance. For example, when I'm picking a new video card, it's easy to figure out which cards are the best deals for a given price point — then I just have to pick a price I'm comfortable with. I figure a decent camera will run me a few hundred dollars, which is fine. But I don't have the expertise to know at what point spending more money isn't going to do me, as a camera newbie, any good. Any thoughts?"
The Canon or Nikon entry level DSLRs...you can't go wrong, except for the fact they are made for really small hands seemingly. For a little more money, get the next step up from either of those brands so you get a camera body that actually fits average human hand sizes.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/25/engadgets-holiday-gift-guide-2011-digital-cameras/
If you just want to snap pics, go for the lumix. If you want low light photography, I'd go for the s100.
Buy a cheap digital SLR, cheapest you can find, and then invest your money in lenses as you progress.
A good cell phone camera... honestly. The best camera you can learn with is one that you will always have on your person. The latest cell phone cameras can make some really beautiful images: http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2011/06/time-and-space/
When you are ready to go beyond framing and composition, then step up to a basic SLR like a Canon Rebel or a Nikon D40.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Canon Ixus (or PowerShot SD in the US) is a really easy and good snapshot camera. Cheap, too. If you point it at things and click, you'll get decent photos most of the time. They're also easy to carry everywhere.
That's the right sort of camera to learn composition and take pictures of everything and see what you can do with it and so forth on. Once you're sick of its limitations, go to a DSLR. Do not start on a DSLR, it's what you get second.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
is the one that you carry with you.
for a photography newbie, i'm of the opinion that the specific camera doesn't really matter. They're all more or less the same anyway. what's most important is finding one that you'll want to carry around with you and use. the more you use it the less newb you'll become over time. you'll learn things and by the time you're ready to upgrade you'll know what to look for.
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
Just start taking pictures with your camera phone.
Fujifilm, Canon and Panasonic all make fine point & shoot cameras that will get you decent results without too much futzing about with the settings.
I recommend going to a proper camera store and playing around with them for a bit to see which interface(s) you prefer, and buying that one. Don't get too caught up in megapixel numbers or video resolution specs, concentrate on the one you think you'll actually use.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Other than the quality of the sensor and the photographer, there are two things that contribute to a photo looking "good": lens diameter (collects more light) and number of lens elements (fewer is better). Going from a pinhole-sized smartphone lens to just about anything else is going to be a major improvement. Personally, I use a Canon DSLR (mostly because I like Canon, and it fit all of the lenses from the 35mm system it replaced), but I also carry a Panasonic Lumix "super zoom" point/shoot. It takes great photos (and video), and still fits in a pocket (it was better than the point/shoot Canons of the time). Their micro-4/3 systems with interchangeable lenses are also good. These systems (I've also heard good things about Sony's) offer a pretty nice quality/price balance between traditional point/shoot cameras and DSLRs, too. But as others have said, you should probably bulk up on your photo knowledge, too. Understanding stuff like shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, rule of thirds, etc. can go a long way to making better photos, even with a smartphone camera.
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
It's a newer camera, great mix of features (including 1080P video and GPS geo-tagging). As a professional photographer, I'm a Canon fan-boy. (Nikon is good too.)
DP Review is a great geek-compatible site for camera reviews, here's their take:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canons100/
Get a Canon Powershot SX150. It's about $200 if not less online. I got myself a Canon Powershot SX110 a few years ago for the exact reason you describe. The SX-series is one of the least expensive digital camera lines that allows you full manual control over ISO, aperture & shutter speed, which allowed me to learn the practical differences amongst the various combinations of settings. You also get a nearly ridiculous stabilized zoom range of about 20-250mm (12x), which allows you lots of flexibility in composition. Unfortunately the camera doesn't tell you the focal length so you'll need to learn to read the zoom bar to do the conversion in your head, but the info is stamped in the EXIF metadata within the JPG. I've since stepped up to an entry level SLR having discovered I like photography as a hobby, but the great thing is that the SX remains useful as a compact camera. You won't want to lug the bag everywhere. Another plus is that the SX's run on 2 AA's so if you get some nice NiMH rechargeables you're set for general use and in a pinch any drugstore at a vacation destination will get you running again.
If you want a bit more options than a simple point and shoot, but don't want the full complexity of a DSLR, go for the middle and get a long-zoom point and shoot.
They have the options (aperature, shutter speed, ability to optically zoom to 300mm+ ranges) that the DSLRs have, but without the inconvenience of carrying around a bunch of lenses.
Then once you're comfortable, step up to a consumer level DSLR.
I have a Sony H5 for essentially kicking around with (and that I learned on), and a Sony A55 with an 18-55/F4 kit lens, a 55-200mm zoom telephoto lens, and a 35mm/1.8 prime lens for low-light situations, when I want to try to get really good pictures. Carrying around all that is usually impractical, so I only bring it when I purposefully want good pictures, and not just snapshots.
I'm by no means a good photographer, but I've been very happy with the results of both setups.
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
If you want good pictures of children. It is really only one thing that is important and that is the delay from pressing the button to taking the picture.
I got a D40 from Nikon just when they released it four years ago and have gotten tons of great pictures with it.
It has a rather small sensor and not that many functions, but the shutter delay is measured in milliseconds.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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...
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.
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.
4 years ago I was in your shoes, wanting to take better pictures (of my kids primarily). I received a Nikon D40 as a gift, and have gone on from there to using all manner of cameras
There are lots and lots of tradeoffs to consider, unfortunately. Generally speaking the SLRs will set up, focus, and click much much faster than anything point and shoot. Larger sensors perform better, especially in Low light. See this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
You don't need the latest generation of DSLR to get started, and I don't really recommend that you start with a lot of features. There are a lot of things to learn if you get into it. I know you want to keep it simple, and every _photographer_ (as opposed to gearhead) wants their stuff to get out of the way so they can take pictures. Unfortunately there are a lot of decisions to be made, gear and otherwise with each click and making better decisions with more capable gear means better pictures. Pro pictures look pro for a reason.
Having enough gear to make those decisions is important, but learning what they are is more important. Things like composition and lighting, and how to bounce-flash when you can get away with it.
You can always buy gear on CL and sell it the same way when you have exhausted its limits. You can more or less try gear out "for free" with a deposit that way. Especially if you stick with "popular" (hence semi-liquid) brands/items.
With all that said, buy either a used D40 or D3100 off of Craigslist with a kit lens (or the canon equivalent), or get an Olympus E-P3, E-PL3, E-P1 or Panasonic GF3 (with kit lens). The new m43 bodies set up and shoot much much faster than previous "small" cameras and the m43 sensor is big enough to be "good". And they are a heck of a lot less bulky than the SLRs.
Fantastic deals on those today
http://www.43rumors.com/black-friday-brings-superdeals-on-e-pl3-e-p3-e-5-and-gf3/
The Sony NEX C-3 or N5 are mirrorless large sensor camera -- the sensors are as big as you'll find on many DSLRS -- in a compact body. It's menu system is designed to be simple. You can use it as a pure point-and-shoot and still get DSLR quality photos, but the camera has most of the same controls you'll find on DSLR. It has an interchangeable lens system and is 16 megapixels. (Megapixels do matter if you plan to make prints beyond 8x10s.). There's no through the lens viewer, but that doesn't bother me at all. I've been taking photos since the era of the Nikkormat and do not miss viewfinders.
IMHO you would be remiss if you didn't look at and consider Pentax.
Skip all the features...zoom is marketing. Go for image quality, which isn't measured by a feature listed on the box.
I'm surprised that this question came up on Slashdot, but I regularly see and answer this question in other photography communities.
Use these two links to determine which camera to buy:
Snapsort
DPReview
There are a few things you need to decide:
My question: what camera would you recommend for getting into basic photography? I don't mean that in the sense of photography as a hobby or a profession, but simply as a method for taking images — of friends, family, and projects — that actually look good. That's a subjective question, I know . . . I figure a decent camera will run me a few hundred dollars, which is fine.
(emphasis mine)
You state that you don't want to get into photography as a hobby or profession, but you just want to take good family portraits? Good portrait photography is not really that subjective and is a combination of good lighting, subject isolation, and timing (for non-posed shots). A camera is just a tool, you have to gain some basic mastery of the tool in order to use it well. Dropping a few hundred dollars on a camera and leaving it in Auto / Program mode will not get you the photographs you're looking for.
Without more information, these are the suggestions I'd offer:
Non-DSLR, non-superzoom route:
- Canon S100 or S95
- Panasonic LX-5 or LX-3
Canon if you want more zoom range, Panasonic if you want better low light capabilities.
DSLR route:
- used Canon Ti1 or Ti2
- used Nikon D90
Pick up a 50mm f1/.8 when you feel limited with the kit lens.
And these people need significantly different kinds of cameras.
People from the first group want fast shooting, small cameras with minimal fuss. 99% of these people buy point-and-shoot cameras. They might or might not be technical people. They will probably get their pictures developed at the drug store or just post them to their favorite web site. Red-eye reduction is more important to them than long zoom or the ability to manually do much of anything.
The second group want a zoom lens longer than the longest you have on hand. They want to take a picture of the nose hairs on Mount Rushmore and they want to count the feathers on baby bald eagles. They have plenty of time to get their pictures "just right" and they will pay more for professional grade media. 99% of these people buy DSLRs (or the closest things we had to them back then). You can sell a tripod to these people but they don't really care about facial recognition or red eye reduction because they aren't looking to take pictures of their best friends since they already know what they look like. These people are not necessarily anti-social they just see photography as being about remembering things more so than events.
So my advice is first figure out which group you fall into. Then you can quickly rule out a good chunk of the cameras on the market. And don't let someone tell you there is one camera that does both well, because that is a lie. There are small cameras with good zoom but they are nowhere near being equals to DSLRs, and no DSLR is ever going to fit into your pocket.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'm amazed that noone has suggested this yet.
Get a Canon PowerShot. For one thing, they're great little cameras (I started out with one), but that's besides the point. We're on Slashdot here, after all.
The point is that you can make it a lot better with a firmware hack called CHDK. It is loaded into RAM from the memory card without touching your original firmware, and gives you full manual control over your camera.
In addition to getting features normally only seen on DSLRs (such as bracketing, saving in RAW, and a live histogram), you can write and run Lua and uBASIC scripts on the camera, allowing you to program it to do whatever you want (such as motion detection to trigger photo or video capture, sophisticated timelapse scripts, intervalometers, USB remote triggering, etc.). You can take exposures far longer than the factory limit (mine went from a max of 15" to 64 seconds with CHDK), or far shorter in fact, allowing you to take both very low-light or very high-speed photographs that were simply impossible with the camera as it came out of the factory.
You can even play games on the thing. It's ridiculous.
If you can really say no to all that on a simple compact, you can buy me a DSLR and I'll give you your geek card back.
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS
" manual zoom, which is much faster and accurate"
Come on, you are advocating use of a camera for manual zoom to a person who said explicitly they do not want to photograph as part of a serious hobby or profession?
That makes NO SENSE. People who are not seriously into photography DO NOT WANT to manually focus a camera, DO NOT CARE about a critical point of focus. You guys are ill-serving this poor questioner with confusing responses like this, which will in the end deliver unto him a bag of frustrations.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For a point and shoot I personally feel that the Panasonic TZ series is all the camera most people need. My mother is a skilled photographer and this is her carry everywhere camera and her shots often rival most of her DSLR shots, even some macro work.
Otherwise buy a Pentax, Canon, or Nikon DSLR, used even, and in the most basic range megapixel-wise even a year or two old model that can be had for a steal will outpace most point and shoots and allow you to learn and grow if you choose.
4/3rds cameras are decent but I've not seen enough to make the extra cost worth it to not go the TZ.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Some thing like a Fuji X100 or Even canon S100 is good to get familiar with all the fun stuff, shutter, aperture priority, macro etc. Also no interchangeable lens means you can slowly break into how costly this hobby can be. Good lenses cost upwards of $1000. Good SLRs upwards of $2000-$3000
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 picked up a Lumix LX5 a few months back, I was basically looking for the best compact camera I could find. I've been very happy with it, it has a large sensor (1/1.63") for a compact, a decently wide angle (24mm equivalent), and bright F2.0 aperture. Full manual/shutter/aperture controls. Can even get some nice depth-of-field effects (ie, "bokeh"), something I've never really seen in a compact before.
I'm a firm believer in "the best camera is the one you have with you", this is what drove my purchase, as I'm not really interested in carrying around lenses. The LX5 takes great quality shots (including in poor lighting, I've even compared it head-to-head against some friends' DSLRs), and has all the manual options you could want to experiment with.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
A DSLR is the easy answer to your question. But what do you want to do with your photography and what does that tell you about what you need? I have two types of cameras - one set that I use if I'm doing serious work, Nikon (D)SLR's with multiple lenses, external flashes, etc. / medium format Rolleiflex with filters, tripod, etc. These are my work cameras; my kit carried in a bag I find comfortable but certainly not portable.
For fun and art, I like a small versatile [quick] camera that I can carry around.
My old love was a film camera, a Rollei 35S, a brick the size of a pack of cigarettes, sharp optics with great bokeh. After trying a series of portable, yet satisfying (from the perspective of electronics that give me control of the image) digital camera, I settled on my new love, the Canon G12. The electronics give me the same control as a DSLR and they are more intuitive to use than many DSLR's. The camera's size is compact (not tiny.) I carry it on my belt, over my shoulder, or around the neck. I can compose shots on the LCD screen or, in bright light use the viewfinder. The D12 can be used in automatic modes or any number of priority modes (aperture, shutter speed, JPEG/RAW etc.) - so if you are trying to learn photography, you can grow into the camera.
I don't get the quality of image that I do from a DSLR or medium format camera. That said, the G12 optics are more than fine for prints up to 8x10 and all my web work. Have had a pro assume that a G12 image on the web was taken by my Rolleiflex 2.8F - it was cropped near square but the camera's quality sealed the deal. Because the camera is light and has stabilization built in, I can handhold down to a full second and avoid using flash. The zoom lens is more than adequate - keeps the weight/size down and optic quality up.
One last point. Because I can easily carry this camera everywhere, I get shots I would have missed because I didn't have my kit with me. If you are looking for a portable fun camera that gives you full control over your image (exposure, focus, and more), I recommend the Canon G12.
--- http://9is9.com "The bottoms of my shoes are clean from walking in the rain." - Jack Kerouac
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 :-(
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.
... Cartier Bresson know.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
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.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
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?
Beetle B.
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.
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.