I’ve always been very disappointed that Consumers Report just ignores low-end stuff, in most cases. There are perfectly serviceable consumer products sold at stores like WalMart, and I wish CR would at least address how much better (if any) their upmarket brand names are, than the stock at WalMart. For example, I bought a 19-inch TV at Walmart three years ago, for $99 including shipping to my front door, and it has performed perfectly well for my needs right to this day.
I have no doubt that a $300 TV from a major brand would be “better” in some respects, or at lest offer more features, but CR gives me no guidance on what I’d be giving up (if anything) on the cheap brand.
I’m going to attempt to make a statement on this topic of which we can all agree. I may fail, but here goes:
Different people have different needs, photographically speaking. Some will manage just fine with a phone camera and nothing else. Others need (and learn about and use) all the bells and whistles and buzzers they can get their hands on. The key is to learn what your own needs are (this is not a quick and easy process) and match your equipment accordingly.
I bought a treadmill a year ago. It has several custom programs, it inclines, it plays music via an iPod, it has a heart rate monitor, and it tracks my progress via a thumb drive and computer software. I have not used a single one of these features. I walk or run on it, and that’s it.
So, believe it or not, I can relate to those who simply need to point and then shoot.
My personal choice is to use gear that has as few bells and whistles as possible, while still being high quality.
This has brought me to Fujifilm X-mount gear with prime lenses. These cameras have their roots in the original X100 and Xpro1, cameras that were aimed more at the Leica crowd than the Nikon crowd–to use one you must spend more time in thought and preparation. Fuji X cameras are a terrible choice for sports photography.
The reason I prefer these cameras to many superior DSLR setups is because they have manual controls and provide a very visual way of checking if the three critical factors (ISO/Aperture/Shutter Speed) are set the way I want them. In addition, the lenses are very high quality.
My three different Fuji bodies all have the same controls in the same place–an old-fashioned aperture ring on the lens, a shutter speed dial, and an exposure compensation dial. One of the cameras has the added bonus of a manual ISO dial on the top.
I do many family and event shoots, and studio work with off-camera flash.
I use an earlier Powershot with a “mere” 6mp. I have mere in scare quotes because if you aren’t enlarging the print to wall size that’s close to plenty–an 8"x10" print is only 7.2mp. If you compose in the camera, which I can because my crappy old camera has a smaller rear display that can be swung and rotated so you can see it better, but you don’t need to because it has a bloody digital viewfinder! I wish it had faster glass and more manual adjustments, but it gets the job done.
Do some photo teachers still insist their students use a common, featureless, cheap camera, like a Diana, so they learn composition?
I don’t know… my ca. 2012 Canon s100 still beats the crap out of my Galaxy S5, even if it does give up a few megapixels in image size. The glass is better, the metering is drastically better, and the software is better.
But… I have my phone with me almost all the time I’m out and about, so it does get used.
That’s it right there: you’ve got glass, then three decisions, and a sensor.
We’ve had pretty good glass for a hundred years, the sensors keep getting better. In the end, it’s those last three factors: ISO, f-stop and shutter speed will determine if you have a usable photograph.
After That, you can compose and shoot the photograph and it should ‘Come Out’ pretty close to what you were looking at.
Are you shooting the Grand Canyon in broad daylight? Almost any camera can handle that. Are you trying to shoot your daughter’s indoor volleyball game? In that case you’re probably screwed; that’s why professional photographers can still earn a living.
Two more critical success factors for me are the ability to shoot RAW, and the ability to crop.
I care about these because they determine how much latitude I will have in Lightroom to rescue a potentially lost photograph.
If it has enough pixels I can rotate and crop more, probably the easiest way to turn a good photo into a great one.
RAW isn’t necessarily about geeky tweaking or resolution; in fact, camera JPG files usually look better than the unadjusted RAW files. The real reason I want this is that the RAW file gives a far better chance at rescuing a photo that was over/underexposed, or that was taken with the wrong color temperature.
Sure, take the right photo in-camera, but stack the deck in your favor so that you can rescue that perfect shot of the family that just happened to be heavily blue cast because you forgot to change white balance when shooting flash.
I agree with this, but as someone who earns his entire living from photography, I would have to say that getting a basic dSLR (as opposed to a point-and-shoot) is a good way to start learning photography.They’re not expensive these days, and an entry-level dSLR with a kit lens and perhaps a cheap 50mm (the “nifty fifty”) should be a reasonable start for a budding photographer. And, like you said, they can grow from there once they figure out the limitations of the equipment and start pushing against it.
Even better, pick up a quality used DSLR that is a generation or two out of date. You can get a mid-level older model for less than 200 clams, maybe much less.
I was going to trade in my beloved mint Nikon D80 and it broke my heart when I was offered just $75. I’m hanging on to it.
mmm
I just had an experience this weekend shooting a trail running race with my advanced P&S camera that usually does quite well in low light. It was an overcast and rainy day, and the camera just couldn’t get decent low light shots of runners moving fairly quickly in the woods. While it probably would have been barely acceptable for snapshots of the kids, it really showed the limitations of my (fairly high end) P&S cameras.
The used DSLR path is not a bad one, but prices on new DSLRs at places like CostCo are pretty amazingly low (Canon T5 w/ 18-55 and 75-300 lenses) for $500. Granted, that’s the T5 and not the T5i or T5s, but still a good entry level DSLR.
I do want to note that the major improvements in the recent Canon consumer-level DSLRs are more video-centric and rear-screen centric, and not really focused around still photography.
If you look at the specs of the 2010-era T2i and the T5i, they’re not that far apart- the T5i has slightly better auto-focus (9 cross type sensors, as opposed to 1 cross and 8 regular), and slightly faster performance for continuous shooting, etc…
The video performance is much different though, and so is the rear screen functionality, and that’s where most of the improvements have been.
So if you’re looking for a still photography camera, the older Canon consumer DSLRs are not too far off from the latest and greatest ones, and probably a LOT cheaper.
Casual family shots, right? You’re suggesting that a person who wants casual yet quality family shots should rely on skills rather than available tools, because that is so much more important? What’s important for a person that wants casual family shots is that they get the shot. None of this purist bullshit. Whatever helps people get the shot - they should do that.
You say you’ve done photography work professionally for family shoots - like posed shots? That’s great and all, but your 0.8 fps is going to struggle with rapidly moving children. And unless you’re a Jedi you can forget about anticipating the facial expression of a child. And how the hell is a person wanting casual family photographs supposed to concentrate on anticipating? That’s an unrealistic expectation.
The one piece of advice I give to all new parents is to get a dSLR if they do not already have one. The next is an external flash gun and radio triggers.
I am an amateur photographer, have never been published except for my own web site, and have never entered contests or shows. So I’m a pretty good amateur but I doubt anybody would pay me for my photos (although I just got an unsolicited license offer for a video). I have generally upgraded my cameras and lenses over the years. As my skill improves I find my equipment to be limiting. I can afford good equipment (currently have a Canon 7D Mark II and three Canon lenses). There are certainly better photographers with cheaper equipment. Better cameras don’t make me better but give me more range. If I didn’t have the cash I could still be happy shooting my 20D, my first DSLR with kit lens and third-party lenses.
This is a grossly unfair criticism. If someone asked me how they can shoot family photos most economically I would have one answer. If someone said they want to use family photos as a way to learn about DSLR photography I would have another answer. But there is no reason to shoot someone down after they have made their choices.
I agree. Kit lenses are a way to provide an entry-level lens and make the kit price look like a better deal. For some people it is a better deal. They are not terrible lenses, to be sure, but low-end, typically lower-speed with optics issues that would be unacceptable to serious photographers.
We have all met the rich guy who has a $5,000 camera and barely knows how to use it (or the $20,000 guitar, or the $500,000 car, or whatever) and it drives us crazy because we know we are better at photography/music/driving but can’t spend that kind of money. But they’ve got the right to buy what they want without criticism.
We also have read about the fine art photog who used a disposable camera or an iPhone to take dozens of gorgeous photos that have won awards. That also drives us crazy because we can’t get photos that good out of a full studio rig.
The choice of what equipment to buy and how much to spend is very personal. We should help people who want help choosing equipment based on their budget, skill, goals, and desires. One size does not fit all.
Another thought…
No matter how good Apple’s cameras get, nobody can make an iPhone photo look like a professional portrait without substantial post processing, for two hardware-related reasons: sensor size and focal length.
First, the little lens has a 31mm (effective) focal length, which is a good middle-of-the-road lens for all kinds of stuff, but it will distort faces that are relatively close. That’s why everyone has larger noses and distorted features in iPhone photos.
The second problem is that the sensor is so darned tiny that this gives the camera amazing depth of field, just by the physics of DOF, which is a great thing for landscapes but not always desired for portraiture. This is more traditional portraiture, with the background blurred out, causing an effect often referred to as “bokeh”
A point-and-shoot with zoom lens takes care of the focal length problem, allowing you to use better portraiture focal lengths (e.g. 90mm effective), but they still often have tiny sensors, such as the 1/1.7" size in the diagram at this site, which bring great depth of field.
A proper DSLR, with the “nifty fifty” on a cropped sensor (e.g. 75mm effective) would can provide a reasonable amount of background blur with almost no facial distortion. That’s something worth paying for IMHO.
Hopefully by the time they are doing off camera flash they are into it enough to work out the nuances. If they do like what they are doing, it will really improve their shots.
Of course, this can be easily solved by stepping a few paces away and then cropping the resulting image. Unless you really need a huge print, you have megapixels to spare.
There are some image filters that will fake this for you, though they aren’t all that convincing at the moment. It’s actually possible to do this really well if you have multiple cameras available; very few cell phones have this now, but there’s nothing stopping them in principle.
Most cameras with good glass will take a decent distortion-free portrait at twenty feet, regardless of the focal length.
But it’s a bit of a stretch to expect to be able to blow up a face from a wide-angle lens into a tight portrait.
Unless they have the most phenomenal lens and sensor there will be no detail in the eyes, which are arguably the most important part of a portrait.
The point I was hoping to make is that there is a definite reason why a DSLR might find itself in the hands of a beginner depending on the look they are trying to learn. Professional quality portraiture like the bokeh examples I linked to is pretty evasive when working with the wrong kit.
The same can be said for people trying to do sports photography or nature photography with P/S gear–they are likely going to be disappointed.
2, maybe 3 of the shots on that page can possibly be achieved with a P&S. But stick a 1Dx with a 135mm f2.0 in the hands of a amateur with about 5 minutes of coaching and they have a shot at getting it.
Understood; I’m just saying that for portraits, technique matters a lot. Also, there is a non-linear effect going on. The (effective) 30 mm lens works like a 50 mm with lower resolution if you move 60% farther away. And although you’ll see further improvements going to 75 mm or more, the difference is much less than the first jump. You’ll still have a few megapixels to play with, which is more than enough for most computer-based purposes, even with downfiltering.
Yeah, this is undoubtedly an area where not only DSLRs have massive benefits, but where absurdly expensive glass is also a win. You need a long focal length and wide aperture. You can’t get that without the kit being heavy, and with cameras, heavy means expensive.
Actually, “light” means even more expensive. Big lenses use special glass and titanium to cut down on weight. Canon lenses went up 50% in cost in the last iteration, but shaved a much appreciated pound or two off the bigger lenses.