Equipment Should I buy a decent camera?

Sorry if there have been loads of threads about this, had a look through the first couple of pages, and didn't see anything quite fitting the bill.

Basically as above, at the moment I don't have a camera of any sort with me at uni, got an older camera at home, although I seem to remember having issues with the batteries, cables etc.

So if I was to start looking to get a camera, what would you guys recommend, just a cheapo £50 point and shoot? Or spend a couple of hundred, get a basic DSLR which will be better, but also allow me to get into photography more in the future without having to buy a new camera.

It will be used to take photos of computer related things a lot of the time, but to be honest, if I were to get one, I can quite easily see myself taking photos when out on rides etc

Any advise? Sorry for being so vague

 

Got a budget? What kind of form factor would you prefer? Are interchangeable lenses important to you? Spill all the details

 

Haha ok.
Budget wise I'm not sure, in the end, the question is really is it worth me paying more to get a decent camera. But, even if I were to get a 'decent' camera (in my eyes) I'd only be looking at an entry level DSLR.
Form factor doesn't bother me too much, since it's not something I intend to carry around all the time, ready to snap a pic if needed, will only take it places if I plan to take photos, and as a result, will take a bag or whatever.
I don't really know, I presume the advantages are being able to photograph a far wider range of things, in terms of closeups as an example?

 

We can't tell you to buy a decent camera or not. The main factor is if you have the disposable income. As a student myself, I wouldn't say to buy one. But if you have the cash, get one. The advantages are more free reign over what, and how you can photograph, with usually a better quality, if you're never going to take it off auto mode, their is not much point in buying one.

 

but a point and shoot camera with good lens option and DSLR functions...
may seem a bit complicated but learning to use the lens and features will do you good.

dslr is great to have, but once you get hooked, it'll cost you.
if you have the time and money to invest, sure, get a DSLR... and learn to use it manual mode... you'll take some nice pics... er... amazing pics once you get the hang of it.

when i graduated from a point and shoot, i started with an XSi, now i have a 7D, 60D and a mess of lenses... and find myself taking pics of birds...

 

Pieface, I was merely trying to ask whether it would be worth it. I mean, I have the money available to buy a camera, if I don't spend it on that, most likely I'll end up spending it on something computer related. And a camera would probably be a better purchase in my opinion.

kinghong, so any particular cameras you'd recommend?

Any recommendations if I were to either get an entry level DSLR, or just a point and shoot, or something else entirely

 

Most entry level DSLRs will have pretty much the same image quality, with slightly different ergonomics. The main difference between each is the lens options available for each system, that is really what you are buying into. However, as you are just starting out, you probably won't have much of an idea what lenses you would want, or perhaps even the type of photography that will appeal to you the most. In that case I would just recommend buying whichever entry level DSLR you like the look of. It doesn't really matter if it's a Canon, Nikon, Sony or Pentax, just grab one with a basic kit lens and use it for a year or two. By then you will have a good idea of the limitations of both the lens and the camera, and will have a much better idea of what to look for. You also won't have much to lose if you decide to change from one brand to another as you won't have invested much, but as a general rule Canon and Nikon are the safest bets as they have by far the widest lens selections to choose from.

If you don't decide to go that route and go with a compact, I would suggest one with decent manual control. I would highly recommend picking up something like a Canon S95 if you can (will only be available used as it has since been replaced with the S100), though I'm not sure how many are still knocking about. If money isn't too much of a concern then by all means go for an S100, it's already come down a bit in price but is still quite expensive. However, it's probably the best compact available at the moment if you exclude the not-so-compact Canon G12/Nikon P7100, which I don't really see the point of since they don't offer noticeably better image quality than a much smaller compacts, only things like a hotshoe and more buttons/dials. The G1X may be an option but it's quite expensive when compared to other compacts and even entry-level DSLRs.

 

Ok, thanks.
The S100 seems to be £300+, and I could pick up a DSLR for a similar price, so why would I go for the compact? (genuinely don't know, rather than having a go at you for suggesting it)

 

Well, it's more.....compact

In all seriousness, if you just wanted something that you could take with you everywhere you went, then it's a hell of a lot more convenient than a DSLR. DSLRs are great if you often go out with the intention of shooting or use them for studio/location photography, but chances are you're probably not going to have it with you on a daily basis. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you

I can't really advise either way as I have no idea what you're looking for, so I will leave that up to you.

 

Haha, fair enough, I was wondering whether that was it's advantage

As I said above, in theory, as far as I'm aware, the size shouldn't be an issue, since in theory I'm not wanting it for taking whereever I go, but only intend to use it when I know I'll be taking photos etc, such as on bike rides, or just while at home, so I will take a bag with me or whatever.

I'll have a looksie at the Canon 1100D, Nikon D3000, they seem to be of a similar price.

 

talking from personal experience here George... i'm sure there are many folks more experienced than myself...

P&S cameras pretty much take decent snap shots... learn to use it w/o flash, you'll see amazing pics as the flash is not blowing everything out. but then again, you either have to carry a bean bag or a tripod because no flash = longer exposure time...

if you have a point and shoot cam, try it out... and check it out on your computer... the pics w/o flash is very nice...

when i recommended a mid tier camera, i was thinking of G12... i've never used a G-series but it's a nice package... i've seen many professional buyers (fashion buyers) carry a G-11 camera to take pics of products they buy.. detail is important and all...

G-11/12 offers nice 2.8 aperture that is going to allow you to take some nice pics w/o use of tripod or extended exposure indoors... but everyone has different standard for indoor lighting...

what a DSLR offers... lenses, lenses, lenses and tons of options.
i'm a canon person, my first was
XSi with kit lens (which is nice but not really used much)
Sigma 30 1.4 (my go to indoor lens... love this lens... miss it)
Canon EF 50mm 1.4 (longer focal length... equiv of a 85mm on a full frame, as i was shooting on a crop body)
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L (my go to walkaround lens, perfect range, crisp pics)

that is a bit confusing start, you're going into primes and zooms... but you'll love the capability of the combo... you really don't need the 50mm, as you can really foot zoom...

to take pics of pcs, yea, you can learn to use flash, bouncing and whatnot... but you can also go to a hardware store, pick up cheap clamp on lighting, put in some flourescent bulbs, and mess with some tissue paper+ masking tape for color/light... some foam boards to bounce if needed... then you can take nice pics.

a decent tripod is nice/handy (for product pics)
a decent flash is also nice... granted you're learning to bounce the flash

i've been dabbling photog for about 3 or 4 years now... love it... only wish i did this earlier...

i love taking pics of kids and it's fun for traveling...

Tokina 12-24 f/4 (loves blues!!!)




Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro (another amazing lens... )

Birding...

 

I would strongly recommend getting a bridge camera. Although they are pricey for what they are (compact body with big zoom lenses and a hanful of manual features), they usually have reasonably good glass in them and are more versatile than a dSLR with kit lens: you can get a half decent 30x optical zoom on a bridge camera which equates to, say, 700mm at the telephoto end, which is A LOT of zoom. You'd pay hundreds of pounds just to get a lens for a dSLR that would allow that kind of focal length.

Now I'm not saying bridge cameras are "better" than dSLRs, because after all they don't really produce much better image quality than the best compacts; however they do allow you to be more creative with your photography than a basic compact and often feature more advanced controls (like exposure bracketing etc.) which are normally only found on dSLRs.

I once had a Panasonic FZ38 - here are some shots I took with it. To take all these shots with a dSLR I'd have needed at least three lenses worth hundreds of pounds.

 

very true... DSLR lenses are expensive... i'm shooting my birds with a 400mm f/5.6 lens or a 100-400mm f/4-5.6 lens... both are dependent on good light... and so i am forced to bump up the iso or save up $6000 for a 500mm f/4 lens... one stop... couple of thousands of dollars.

but the rewards... it'll give you some fun moments...


and some eyebrow raising wow moments...

hahaha

 

oh, one more thing tho... good quality lenses last you a while... body, see if you can get a used body with lower shutter count...

not sure about where you live but in the USA, we have canon loyalty program... they give you additional discount on a factory refurb body, if you trade in a old canon... working or not.

 

So Lenny, are there are bridge cameras in particular you'd recommend?

I like the idea of the DSLR, where I can spend as much as I want on it in terms of extra lenses depending how much I want to get out of it kinda thing.

And I'm in the UK

 

I would say go into a local camera shop, like Jessops, and have a play with some camera's.
You will get to know if a DSLR or a compact is right for you when holding them.

Take an SD card with you and pop it in the camera and take a few shots, when you get home you can look at them and decide what camera gives you the results you are after at the budget you have.

 

The best camera is the one with you.

It's as simple as that. While going DSLR, Mirror-less, or bridge is entirely your choice- you need to keep one thing in mind: If it's going to sit at home and collect dust, don't buy it. I have a Nikon D700 + 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 + 105 Macro + SB-900 Flash - the whole lot takes up a large backpack and weights 5-6kg, takes up a lot of space, the tripod can get in the way (or monopod), and I'm always paranoid about leaving it anywhere, even if it's with a friend. On the flip-side, I also carry around a Panasonic Lumix LX-5 with at 24-90mm f/2-3.5 lens which fits snugly in my pocket, out of sight, out of mind, and is there when I need it. I also have a Panasonic Lumix ZS-11- and the same thing applies.

Guess which ones I carry around more? Before you talk about lenses, sensors, flashes, grips, think about actual practical, daily usability. If it's at home, it's nothing more than an expensive paperweight.

 

Well, as I said, I don't want a camera that I will carry about all the time, I'm not wanting a camera because there have been moments I've been out and about and wished I'd had a camera on me.
I'd like one because there are things I wish to be able to take photos of, often at home, and if I did have a camera, then I would take it on bike rides etc.

And that kinda post isn't helpful in the end, unless you were to actually suggest some cameras which you think would be good, which in your case sound like go for a smaller camera?

 

If you don't need manual control- I did mention the Panasonic ZS-11. Or if you want some manual control but small form factor with a larger sensor, but sacrificing zoom then the Panasonic LX-5 (though its replacement shouldn't be far along now). The ZS-11 was replaced with the ZS-14 I believe.

In the point in the shoot range I would stay far away from: Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, Olympus, and concentrate on Panasonic, Canon and Sony.

If you're not budget strapped but want a "smallish" camera that will look sexy and produce some great images? Probably the Sony NEX-7 though the lens selection leaves much to be desired compared to the Micro 4/3rds system from Panasonic/Olympus.

As far as DSLRs go? I would opt for Nikon- many say it's due to personal preference. In my case it's having dealt with Canon directly, and having dealt with the head representative for Canada- in both cases I was disgusted with the individuals and their approach to their clients. My dealings with Nikon on the other hand? Brilliant- love the Nikon Canada staff.

Panasonic's bridge cameras are also a great option. But once again, even if you think you'll just be using it around the house- it doesn't change the fact that the best camera is the one you have with you. That's not something you'll probably understand until you own a camera system and live with it.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-FinePix-HS20EXR-Digital-Camera/dp/B004G8Q61E
Very, very versatile and an introduction to manual photography while being relatively cheap.