i've got a really old camera (well, from 2005) and it's a canon, but it's like got a video camcorder on it too, and it only holds about 50 photos at a time. also, it doesn't have all the cool bells and whistles that i want for my photography. i have heard that good cameras don't cost that much, but i don't know what a good camera is! does anyone have any preference on cameras?
When you say "don't have much" give us a ballpark. You seem to be living in Americaland so, to give you a rough idea, if I was buying a small, single-lens compact "point and shoot" I'd probably spend $450. If I wanted an SLR, you know, bigger, being able to swap lenses about, I'd look to spend $750 (but the sky's the limit, here).
These are all prices I'm converting from GBP via xe.com so take them as very broad brush strokes.
haha okay:) well i have about 70 or 80$ right now saved up for extra things. i am working on saving up for a camera... but it's not going anywhere fast. i think i'd probably just want the simple one, the single lens compact point and shoot? i'm not professional or anything, and i just want a better camera. thank you for the advice!
You can get good simple point and shoots for fairly cheap... I have a $180 Kodak that can take good pictures and HD video. I also have a Canon SX20 IS, which is one of those point and shoots that are kinda like a SLR, but with no interchangeable lenses (and still very point and shootish). It was $350 when I bought it new, and also takes awesome video (only thing I use it for honestly).
I wouldn't really pay $400+ for a point and shoot when consumer/amateur DSLRs can be found in that range...
I'll play devil's advocate to Heidi (but not because I strictly disagree, Heidi!) - stick with a PAS camera. PAS cameras tend to take better photos out of the box than entry-level DSLR cameras because kit lenses are so, so bad. While you can get a DSLR for $500, you'll want to spend double that again for a decent lens, and then you'll find you want more than one lens.
That said, I don't even own a PAS camera. My DSLR kit goes almost everywhere with me, and is the first thing I pack when going away from home.
Jinx, I respectfully disagree with the comment that kit lenses are so, so bad. I used my Nikon 18-55 for a few years with excellent results. It is also a very highly regarded lens even though it is a kit lens.
However, if budget is an issue Thileil, then a p&s might be the way to go. Just recently purchased a little Canon p&s for my wife for about $150 and she is quite happy with it. Her pics have come out pretty well.
I've always heard the 18-55mm is highly regarded as well (can't say personally, I've never had a kit lens). The 28-80mm lens that came as a kit with the D70 back in the day is still thought of as a high quality, but cheap (meaning price) lens that's great for FX and film work. I'm looking to get my hands on one of those for infrared photography, because it out performs my more expensive lenses when it comes to that type of work.
I guess I'm just biased because I started my serious photography on a DSLR, and when I did get a $350 point and shoot I was nothing but constantly disappointed with it and the limitations, and just ended up picking up a used D80 for $400 which I consider my "point and shoot." I like my $180 Kodak over the pricier Canon point and shoot, it fits in my purse/pocket/jacket nicely and still produces great shots (yesterday's photo I posted was taken with it)
I've never been impressed with any kit lens I've used, Canon or Nikkor glass. To my eye they are invariably soft wide-open, and wide-open isn't very wide-open. Horses for courses, certainly, and people can achieve remarkable results with what I would call a poor lens. But if your lens can't resolve the light well enough for the sensor (and those sensors are improving rapidly - far beyond the old 6 megapixels of a few years ago), I just tend to wonder what the point is (of having it). Not arguing the point - just saying how I arrived at my opinion. It pains me to see people buy DSLR kits and then give up because they can't create something as clear and sharp as they could with their old PAS. Some of it is just operator-error, of course, but seeing their eyes light up when they try a cheap prime in place of their kit zoom tells me otherwise more often than not.
And IR work? Ugh! Tell me about it - none of my good glass is much use with an IR filter in front. I'd spend a lot more time on IR if I had a dedicated, converted IR DSLR with the sensor filter removed. MF is so expensive now, and I just don't have the time or inclination to do my own film processing for that or 35mm.
Well, I hope that makes more sense than my last sweeping generalisation. I certainly didn't mean to step on any toes - everyone I've met here seems to be respectful and respected, and I'd hate to seem like I've dragged everyone over to the ILP forums or something. ;)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
These are all prices I'm converting from GBP via xe.com so take them as very broad brush strokes.
I wouldn't really pay $400+ for a point and shoot when consumer/amateur DSLRs can be found in that range...
That said, I don't even own a PAS camera. My DSLR kit goes almost everywhere with me, and is the first thing I pack when going away from home.
However, if budget is an issue Thileil, then a p&s might be the way to go. Just recently purchased a little Canon p&s for my wife for about $150 and she is quite happy with it. Her pics have come out pretty well.
I guess I'm just biased because I started my serious photography on a DSLR, and when I did get a $350 point and shoot I was nothing but constantly disappointed with it and the limitations, and just ended up picking up a used D80 for $400 which I consider my "point and shoot." I like my $180 Kodak over the pricier Canon point and shoot, it fits in my purse/pocket/jacket nicely and still produces great shots (yesterday's photo I posted was taken with it)
And IR work? Ugh! Tell me about it - none of my good glass is much use with an IR filter in front. I'd spend a lot more time on IR if I had a dedicated, converted IR DSLR with the sensor filter removed. MF is so expensive now, and I just don't have the time or inclination to do my own film processing for that or 35mm.
Well, I hope that makes more sense than my last sweeping generalisation. I certainly didn't mean to step on any toes - everyone I've met here seems to be respectful and respected, and I'd hate to seem like I've dragged everyone over to the ILP forums or something. ;)