Ask Slashdot: Best Camera For Getting Into Photography?

An anonymous reader writes "I've managed to go my entire adult life without owning an actual camera. I've owned photosensors that were shoehorned into various other gadgets, but I've gotten to the point where the images produced by my smartphone aren't cutting it. My question: what camera would you recommend for getting into basic photography? I don't mean that in the sense of photography as a hobby or a profession, but simply as a method for taking images — of friends, family, and projects — that actually look good. That's a subjective question, I know, but I suspect many of you have a strong grasp of price versus performance. For example, when I'm picking a new video card, it's easy to figure out which cards are the best deals for a given price point — then I just have to pick a price I'm comfortable with. I figure a decent camera will run me a few hundred dollars, which is fine. But I don't have the expertise to know at what point spending more money isn't going to do me, as a camera newbie, any good. Any thoughts?"

Comments

Canon or Nikon

[stewbacca]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[nharmon]

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

Re:Canon or Nikon

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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!

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.

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.

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

[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.

Canon S100

[richardtallent]

It's a newer camera, great mix of features (including 1080P video and GPS geo-tagging). As a professional photographer, I'm a Canon fan-boy. (Nikon is good too.)

DP Review is a great geek-compatible site for camera reviews, here's their take:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canons100/

One thing really matters: shutter delay

[gaijin_]

If you want good pictures of children. It is really only one thing that is important and that is the delay from pressing the button to taking the picture.

I got a D40 from Nikon just when they released it four years ago and have gotten tons of great pictures with it.

It has a rather small sensor and not that many functions, but the shutter delay is measured in milliseconds.

Re:"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...

Common question

[AncientPC]

I'm surprised that this question came up on Slashdot, but I regularly see and answer this question in other photography communities.

Use these two links to determine which camera to buy:
Snapsort
DPReview

There are a few things you need to decide:

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

My question: what camera would you recommend for getting into basic photography? I don't mean that in the sense of photography as a hobby or a profession, but simply as a method for taking images — of friends, family, and projects — that actually look good. That's a subjective question, I know . . . I figure a decent camera will run me a few hundred dollars, which is fine.

(emphasis mine)

You state that you don't want to get into photography as a hobby or profession, but you just want to take good family portraits? Good portrait photography is not really that subjective and is a combination of good lighting, subject isolation, and timing (for non-posed shots). A camera is just a tool, you have to gain some basic mastery of the tool in order to use it well. Dropping a few hundred dollars on a camera and leaving it in Auto / Program mode will not get you the photographs you're looking for.

Without more information, these are the suggestions I'd offer:

Non-DSLR, non-superzoom route:
- Canon S100 or S95
- Panasonic LX-5 or LX-3

Canon if you want more zoom range, Panasonic if you want better low light capabilities.

DSLR route:
- used Canon Ti1 or Ti2
- used Nikon D90

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

As someone who used to sell cameras...

[damn_registrars]

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

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

And these people need significantly different kinds of cameras.

People from the first group want fast shooting, small cameras with minimal fuss. 99% of these people buy point-and-shoot cameras. They might or might not be technical people. They will probably get their pictures developed at the drug store or just post them to their favorite web site. Red-eye reduction is more important to them than long zoom or the ability to manually do much of anything.

The second group want a zoom lens longer than the longest you have on hand. They want to take a picture of the nose hairs on Mount Rushmore and they want to count the feathers on baby bald eagles. They have plenty of time to get their pictures "just right" and they will pay more for professional grade media. 99% of these people buy DSLRs (or the closest things we had to them back then). You can sell a tripod to these people but they don't really care about facial recognition or red eye reduction because they aren't looking to take pictures of their best friends since they already know what they look like. These people are not necessarily anti-social they just see photography as being about remembering things more so than events.

So my advice is first figure out which group you fall into. Then you can quickly rule out a good chunk of the cameras on the market. And don't let someone tell you there is one camera that does both well, because that is a lie. There are small cameras with good zoom but they are nowhere near being equals to DSLRs, and no DSLR is ever going to fit into your pocket.

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: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?