Help please! photog/gift question!

Ladies and gentleman, my wife would like to get started in amateur photography. I want to surprise her with a good beginners camera this year. Our christmas limit stands at 350 bucks but i would jump a little to get something good. Can any of you suggest a good "beginner/student" camera for me? Digital is a big plus, quick shutter speeds, vivid color, and maybe some easy settings just to get used to the art of photography. Would like something with a good zoom "she likes taking nature photos" and an autobrightness but that isnt totally necessary. Thanks in advance!

I've had good luck with Canon digital equipment. One of the digital SLRs with interchangeable lenses would probably be over your price range, but they make some high-end "PowerShot" cameras in the $250-300 range that are decent cameras for someone who is not terribly experienced, but wants something more than a simple point & shoot. They have sufficient megapixels and zoom ranges, and (depending on model) some even run on AA lithiums. (Long story, but I'm old enough to have had some bad experiences with rechargeable batteries. The AA lithiums have a long service life, and I like knowing I can always get more power at Wal-Mart and not have to throw something into a charger before I can shoot again. Just a thought.) You can research the different models on Canon's website, and they also have an online store (including factory refurbished cameras). I've had good luck ordering from Adorama and B&H. Or, once you have an idea of what you're interested in, check Wal-Mart, Meijer, and Target. When they run sales, the prices are good, and sometimes you'll luck into a clearance price on the last one in stock or something they've stopped carrying for a different model.

+1 on Canon I have a Canon T1i which is a SLR and out of your price range. I would recommend it if she decides to go to the next step.

I have also had good luck with the Powershot and with Olympus point and shoot.

Also get Image Stabilization and consider how far away you will want to shoot to determine Zoom amount.

Look at the candidates at Amazon.com to see user reviews and sample photos.

Also go to Digital Camera Reviews, Canon Cameras, Nikon Cameras, DSLR and SLR Cameras and look at the reviews there. On cool thing about this site is that they take photos of the same subject so that you can see the difference in color rendition and other features.

Digital Cameras: Digital Photography Review, News, Reviews, Forums, FAQ is a another great site to see reviews of cameras.

Also, the photography mags have reviews, and the UK one that I've read seems to have more honest reviews than do the US mags, which seem somewhat geared to pleasing advertisers, like the gun mags.

TigerDirect.com has a terrific deal on a Samsung 14 megapixel camera that has many of the features of an SLR for about $300. It has a 26x optical lens. I've bought from them before and they are reliable sellers. It might be something to look at for a more capable starter camera. It has a pentaprism viewer and even takes videos. Biggest downside is that it does not have interchangeable lenses, but the one on the camera has a wide range. Here's the link:

Samsung HZ50W EC-HZ50WZBPBUS Digital Camera - 14 Mega pixels, 26x Zoom, 3.0 LCD, Black at TigerDirect.com

They sold out on this one earlier this year, but they have a new stock.

John

I have a Nikon D3000 DSLR and I love it. I bought a less expensive model because it's with me in the truck all the time, but it still takes great pictures. I did lots of price shopping before I bought it, and finally found the best deal on eBay. (yeah, I know) I paid about $450 for the body, a basic auto-focus lens, and shipping. Maybe a tele-photo lens could be a birthday present.

The only advice I have is if you decide to get a camera with interchangeable lenses. Don't buy the kit lens, and put more money in the lens you do buy instead of the camera. They sell the features of higher priced bodies, but those go obsolete fairly quickly. A good lens can be used for many, many years.

I would suggest you up your budget to an interchangeable lens digital SLR by either Canon or Nikon. As for the other brands such as Olympus and Pentax, I believe these use a 4/3 image sensor which is a bit smaller than the 16x24mm sensors used by Nikon and Canon. This does permit the lenses to be smaller, however it comes at the price of poorer performance in low light.

While the point and shoots have improved in respect to shutter lag, in some cases they can still pause for a half second or more after the shutter release is pushed. In addition, the single unit cameras won't permit you to change lenses to fit a specific task and don't offer the "speed" of the interchangeable lenses. Also, the unit digitals only rarely feature an image sensor larger than 8x12mm and are really poor in low light compared to an SLR. Basically, those unit cameras will be noisy and grain up badly unless you use a flash. Bottomline, the SLR's have a distinct advantage in image quality and usability with a moderate increase in bulk and cost.

The downside is the bulk, which will be greater, and the cost. A starter setup for an SLR should be doable at 700 dollars with one starter zoom. At that price point you'll get high def video capability in addition to a fine basic digital. For about 500 bucks you'll get a fine basic digital without any provision for high def video or no video option at all. BTW, I suspect the video capability at this price point will have pretty poor AF performance, it's an add on to an existing platform rather than a designed in feature. However, if you work within it's limits, it should prove to be fairly useful. Basically, video is a nice to have feature but it's not essential, so if you need to drop your budget, go stills only without fear. BTW, video will also consume memory, so if you go for a high def video option, plan on purchasing 8 to 16 gb memory chips.

As for it's exceeding your budget, tell her it's a gift for the Family, not just her. You'll get Point and Shoot ease of use, so it won't be at all difficult to get started with. Downside is that on some cameras those ease of use features can sometimes "get in the way" for really serious users.

My experience with Nikons is that they tend to overdo the ease of use features on the low end consumer cameras, on some models using full Manual Control settings requires using the manual and scrolling 3 or 4 layers deep into the control settings. What I'm telling you here is she will love it for at least a year or two. However, if she really gets serious about photography, you can look forward to her asking for a D300 or higher level camera down the road, the consumer models have a bit too much "mistake proofing" designed in for a serious photographer. I also can't comment if Canon does the same, however I expect they do. I've been shooting with Nikons since 1973 and can gladly brag that lenses purchased back in the 70's still work perfectly on my D300.

I'll also tell you to not buy into the megapixel count myth. Quite simply, a 10 to 12 mp camera will produce very high quality prints as large as 11 x 17 inches with ease. You really don't need more than 12 mp unless you plan on making very large prints. Also, at the consumer level there is not one single lens on the market that can resolve more than 12mp on a 16x24mm image sensor, so you won't ever see any improvement in sharpness unless you spend 2 or 3 grand for a Pro level lens. In addition, higher mp counts come at the price of an increase in noise or a reduction in high ISO capability.

FYI, there is a distinct correlation between image noise and the size of each pixel site in the sensor. When you try and pack more sensors in an image sensor of a specific size, you have to decrease the size of each sensor site. Make the sensor site smaller and it require more light for it to trigger, so in low light noise becomes a real issue once the sensor gets too small. With current software and technology, IMO 10 to 12 mp is the "sweet spot" of the balance between image resolution and noise at low light levels for a sensor of 16x24mm in size. This will allow good looking images at ISO settings as high as 1600 and permit use at ISO 3200 to 6400 with moderately acceptable quality. Move up to 16 to 18 mp and you'll either see an increase in noise or a reduction in real sharpness due to the use of an aggressive noise filter. To be blunt, I would avoid a 16 to 18 mp camera UNLESS it featured a larger image sensor, such as the 24x36mm "full format" sensors available in the high end semi Pro and Professional models.

Bottomline, if some salesman tells you that you just "have to have" a 18 mp camera, tell him quite clearly you are NOT interested. If he keeps pushing, tell him you would like to speak to someone familiar with the relationship between pixel site size and image noise.

Now, one word of warning. Today's consumer digital SLR's are relatively fragile, they WON'T take the knocks that something like an old Nikkormat or Pentax Spotmatic would shrug off. They also aren't truly repairable like those ancient all metal hockey pucks I referred to. However, if you treat them with reasonable care, and DO NOT drop them, they will last a good many years. It you do drop one of these new cameras and break it, the best thing to do is remove the memory card and battery and just toss it, then go out and buy a new body and learn to be more careful.

any experience with the Fujifilm Finepix cameras? i may just break the bank and go with Canon EOS rebel T2i, it looks like everything she wants and then some.

A lot of good advice presented here. Canon's are great. Nikon's are also but seem to be over-rated. I bought a Pentax K200D when I went to digital. My film cameras and lenses were Pentax and I was quite pleased with the brand. I have had mine for about 18 months. It has been to Spain, Italy, and all over the United States in that time. Never a problem. I like shooting in natural light and despise using a flash. My Pentax has not let me down. Have some great shots of Niagara Falls lit up at night. And nothing beats nights shots of Las Vegas from the top of the Stratosphere or the Eiffel Tower at the Paris casino.

Some people will advise you to pass on the kit lens and buy something better to begin with. I would disagree with this until your wife gets used to digital photography. Most kit lenses are in the 18-55mm range which is a good place to start. I also bought a 50-200mm zoom with mine. I paid about $800 for the whole rig from B&H Photo. Pentax now makes a 50-300mm that I may get. And now they also make a 12-24mm that I may get but it list for around $600. Higher speed professional series lenses give you more flexibility but usually start out at around $1100 and go up from there.

Just to warn you, having an active interest in photography can be more expensive than having a S&W habit. Are you sure that you just don't want to buy her a new gun?

I too would join 357larry in strongly recommending the "kit" lens that comes with the decent digital SLR cameras.

Sure, they aren't as sharp, nor do the images "pop" as nicely as the same focal length "professional lens from the same maker. HOWEVER . . . the kit lens still takes jaw-dropping photos compared to the point and shoots.

Rather than costing $1,500-$2,000 for the heavy "pro lens" version . . . the "kit" lens that is offered in the maker's "kit" version of the camera is economical, light . . . and is perfect on casual shoots and/or vacations where you wouldn't want to see a $2,000 lens bouncing like a ping pong ball down the walls of a cliff . . . or disappearing quickly into the crowd in the hands of a thief.

This are some typical photos I've made with my Canon t1i and its 18-55mm "kit lens." I'll eventually get a lot of the expensive Canon lenses for my t1i body . . . but I'll always have a place for my kit lens too!





My recommendation . . .

I'd recommend looking for a Canon EOS Rebel digital SLR with the 18-55 kit lens. It doesn't have to be as expensive as a t1i or such. The basic EOS Rebel will do the job quite well! It will be a little more than you are budgeting . . . but the camera will do a great job and may be all the camera she ever needs!!!

Good luck,

Tom

This is not a hobby for the faint of heart. There is no such thing as an amateur photographer, only a beginning photograher.

I have made over 2 million photos since 1970. Some have been posted in galleries, many have been used in court, a few have been shown on television and more than a handful have been posted in magazines.

Jump in head first. Get the best there is and your wife will already have an advantage in the quality of her work.

Nikon makes the best glass in the field.The also make the best cameras on the market. Go to a major media event and look at all the Nikon cameras being used by paid professionals.

Get her a Nikon D3. If you order one, you can get a nice packaged bundled with lens and strobes. As time goes on you will order more lens.

Yet look at it this way. She is starting at a time when photography is cheap. Back when I was starting off, I have to pay for the printing of photos that was junk, unusable, blurry, too dark, too light or just plain bad. Now if I do not like a photo, I simply delete it.

Whichever camera you select, please get a quality photo program for your computer. There are many out there but I suggest Fast Stone as a viewing program and it does a lot other than just offer sorting and viewing, if someone cares to learn it.

Then get her Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2. She can master that and do wonders with it.

thanks for all the great advice! we have the corel program you mentioned and she uses it often, edited all of our wedding photos and they looked great! Tom, those are beautiful pictures, strange that you have the same name as my high school football coach. I do think ive decided on the canon, but we will see.

Canon EOS Rebel XS 18-55IS Kit this is what im getting, thanks for all the help guys/gals.

Jswiney9 said:

Canon EOS Rebel XS 18-55IS Kit this is what im getting, thanks for all the help guys/gals.

Click to expand...

I think you'll be happy with it. As money and interest permit, you can add different lenses. Once you have the lenses, you can also upgrade to different bodies with more megapixels or different features. Have fun!!!

oldman45 said:

Get her a Nikon D3. If you order one, you can get a nice packaged bundled with lens and strobes. As time goes on you will order more lens.

Click to expand...

Talk about jumping in with both feet, holy smokes. That D3 will run around 5K just for the body and the 24 mp D3X comes in at about 7500 from a reputable retailer.

On a more serious note, if you don't look for a digital video capacity, 500 bucks will get a starter package that is very capable. As for the kit lenses, my experience with the kit lens I purchased with my D70 ages ago has been nothing but positive. Prior to the D70 I didn't have one single zoom lens because zooms in the 70's and 80's lacked in image quality. That kit lens was a complete and total shock, in a side by side comparison to my 50mm f1.4 Nikkor, the kit lens was obviously much sharper until the diffraction limit was hit, then they were dead even.

I can tell you that revelation took a massive load off my shoulder, instead of a large bag with 2 bodies and 9 primes ranging from 18mm to 300mm, I now carry the D300 with that 18-70 and a 70-300 VR. About the only time I haul out the large bag is when I need speed, Macro capability, or my 12-24mm superwide.

Quite simply, the optical quality of the kit zooms today is simply stunning. Where they are a bit lacking is in construction, unlike the all metal Pro lenses they won't tolerate much abuse. However, if you handle them with care they work well and the prices are low enough that if you break one you just toss it and buy another.

As for brands, IMO Nikon and Canon are dead equal, you can't go wrong with either. Fuji has also just announced a fixed lens compact in the APS-C format that features an optical viewfinder that looks to be todays interpretation of the classic Canonette rangefinder, very interesting.

As for Pentax, Olympus, etc.. I'm not a fan of the 4/3 image sensor, it's too small for good performance at stupid high ISO settings. On the plus side that smaller sensor does enable the lenses and cameras to be a fair bit smaller.

I would ask Paris Hilton or Tiger Woods.