so, when i graduated from college my parents promised me a new camara…a real one with all the good capabilities, not a point and shoot, so i can keep on taking black and white photos…a real good kind, do you get my drift? if anyone can give me some guidence, i would be so gratefull. (oh, my parents are buying it for me-and i graduated almost 4 years ago, so the guilt factor is huge) not just a point and shoot one either. Thanks
Your best bet is to do some research. Here is a good place to start http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=cameras. You may want to consider a digital camera.
Truth is, the SLRs (aka “a real good kind”)that are on the market are all very good. What it will ultimately come down to is the features…which ones you need and don’t need…such as faster shutter speeds, frames per second, metering capabilities etc. Keep in mind that with these cameras you have more lens options, and here is where quality varies…Nikon and Canon both have the best glass.
If you’re looking for a good, reliable, entry level SLR with more features than you probably need, the Canon Rebel (I think the current model is named Rebel Gold), IMHO, is the best one in terms of features, picture quality, value, and reliability.
Happy shooting!
you sound like my parents…thanks though, i will do some research, however, if anyone has a good camara that they know of, or a brand that they trust, please let me know
cool beans adam, thanks for the info
anyone else with some ideas?
Decide how much automation you want and/or need. If you really want to learn photography I think you could do well to get a manual camera or one that at least has fully manual capabilities. I think Nikon still makes the FE2 which has some nice features like shutter speed and aperture visible in the viewfinder, interchangable focus screens and 1/250 sec flash sync.
I’m not a camera buff, however I love my digital camera because I can play with the photos on my computer afterwards. Also I have instant photos [previewed on the camera itself and afterwards when I download onto the computer]. No more hassles with developing.
You probably can get quite “arty” with the right equipment.
Just a thought to share.
Yeah, JVC & other digital camcorders take still photos too. Im sure to get one some day soon. They even make a digital printer you can connect to, to print. I think film is almost on the way out. SLR cameras are a plenty & a camera store should tell you what to buy.
SLR’s need so many lenses. Yet, a digital camcorder needs only one.
For lower end consumer cameras, I think Cannon has edge of Nikon these days. Take a look at the Rebel or Elan II cameras. The camera body costs around $300 for the Rebel and $350 for the Elan, and they will give you the ability to take very good quality photos.
You’ll also have to buy a lens, and that’s where things get more complex. The lenses that come with the “complete camera kits” are the low end lenses made by Cannon (or Nikon or anyone else). You can spend some more money and buy a significantly better lens. Cannon (for example) makes a very nice 28-105mm lens that makes a great all around lens for about $250 or so. Or you can buy fixed lenses (non-zoom) which offer considerably better optics but without the flexibility of a zoom. There’s lots of choices to make, but the general rule is spend the money on the lenses, not the camera. The quality of the high end lenses ($3000) is amazing.
Also, spend the money on learning photography, take some courses.
APS cameras (those new Advantex film) have a disadvantage in that they have a negative significantly smaller than 35mm film. As a result, they have less to work with. It’s more than adequate for casual use, but it has limitations if you try to blow images up too large. Also, there’s just a lot more and better quality equipment for 35mm. They’re not a bad choice for some uses, but not the best for what you’ll looking for, I think.
Digital cameras are getting close to 35mm in the amount of information that can be captured. The latest 3 megapixel ones are amazingly good, and you can print an 8x10 image without being able to notice the difference. The top end prosumer (great new phrase) digital camera are the Nikon 990 and the Olympus C-3030. They both have good optical zooms (digital zooms are pretty worthless), nice storage capacity, and many features comperable to SLRs. They run about $1000, BTW. Add some more cash for a few sets of rechargable batteries and a good charger, plus some more onboard memory cards, plus a card reader for your PC. These two cameras and several others will also record up to 3 minutes of quicktime or mpeg movies.
Ignore camcorders. They produce a much lower quality image, they really don’t compare to the worst digital cameras.
Now if you really want the best possible images, take a look a large format cameras. That’s probably more than you are looking for.
Well, the digital vs. film is a tough choice. Digital is convenient because you can look at the photo immediately, and it is trivial to load it onto a computer for “digital darkroom” work. And since there is no “per photo” cost, you will take many more photos. On the other hand, digital SLRs (single lens reflex) like the Nikon D1 are still extremely expensive, and the cameras in the $1000 range are all point-and-shoot cameras. They usually have manual exposure and focusing these days, but you’re stuck with whatever lens is built in - usually a 3x zoom. Digital camera batteries don’t last all that long, and when the memory cards fill up, you need access to a computer to dump the contents.
For digital, Olympus and Nikon seem to have the highest reputation, though other companies are fine.
For film cameras, the choice depends on what you really want to do with it. Remember that you’re not just choosing a camera, you are choosing a camera system. Once you collect a few Canon lenses, for example, it’s expensive to switch to Nikon. Canon EOS series is the way to go if you want fast autofocus, like for sports photography. Many people say Nikon has the best flash system. In any case, Canon EOS and Nikon are by far the most popular - which doesn’t mean they are the best, but it does mean it’s easier to rent, borrow or buy cameras and lenses that work with yours. If that’s not too much of a concern, Olympus and Minolta are also worth looking into.
I only do photography as a hobby (and not very well), but I learned a lot when I bought a completely manual camera (Nikon FM-2). I used to have an EOS system but a manual camera forces you to learn and to make all the decisions. Nikon is nice in this respect, because their manual focus cameras are compatible with their autofocus cameras (i.e. can use the same lenses - though of course you only get autofocus if you have both an autofocus lens and an autofocus camera body).
If you do landscape and other “slow” photography and enjoy darkroom work, maybe medium format is worth looking into? I haven’t done it myself but I’ve seen some stunning results by other people.
You can find more info on http://www.photo.net/ - I don’t agree with everything in there (especially the “get the most high-tech camera” advice) but it has good information.
If you go digital (I think you should), and close to a grand is in your folks price range, I recommend the Olympus C-3030 Zoom. It’s very cool. You can find plenty of stats and reviews with a search engine.
If you don’t want to go digital, the Canon Rebel is a rocker.
Seconding scr4’s recommendation of Philip Goldspun’s Photo.net site, particularly the "What camera should I buy? article, for information (though slightly dated by now) on the respective merits of various types of cameras and lots of great advice on photography in general.
You won’t go far wrong with any of the major brands these days – Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, etc. all make good equipment. But if you even remotely suspect that you may want to pursue photography as a serious hobby, then I’d strongly advise in favor of Canon or Nikon, simply for the widespread availability of good used equipment (lenses, mostly) later on. This is something I learned too late myself and regret. While the Minolta body and lens I bought have served me very well over the last four years with no problems at all, there have been times when I’d have liked to rent special purpose lenses; you just can’t find anyone who rents Minolta lenses.
I’m not a fan of digital for serious amateur photography – at the low end, for people who’re content to take snapshots and print 'em out on their ink jet printers or e-mail them to family, fine (and I’ve considered buying a cheap digital for exactly that sort of thing). They’re also great at the high end (but we’re talking thousands of bucks). In between, though, you pay twice to three times as much as you would for a comparable film camera, and you end up with a lot less flexibility and fewer features.
My advice boiled down: look for a good serviceable Canon or Nikon body and a 50mm/f1.8 lens. Take pictures and figure out where you need to go from there.
That’s my usual advice as well. But since jaytini is getting a on-time gift, it may make sense to buy a couple more lenses together. If it’s for landscape work, a wide angle lens (24, 28 or 35mm) may be useful. For portrait, a very bright lens in the 80-150mm range - like 105mm F/2.8, or maybe even a F/1.8. For sports or nature, something even longer and reasonably bright. Wide angle lenses are useful for travelling as well. Macro (or “Micro” as Nikon calls them) lenses if you’re interested in small things.
Be sure to buy good lenses. Don’t spend too much on the camera body. Zoom lenses are useful when quick response is important, but tend to be of lower image quality and “darker” (larger focal ratio, which means less light). There are some bright, high quality zooms, but they tend to be expensive. I wouldn’t buy off-brand lenses - if you’re using Sigma and Tamron lenses anyway, why buy a Nikon or Canon camera? Actually, some off-brand lenses are very good, but you need to do some research to find out which ones those are. Name brand lenses are also worth a lot more if you decide to sell them later.
The lenses I use most often are 50mm F/1.8, 24mm F/2.8 and 75-150 F/3.5 zoom (constant aperture - that is, F/3.5 throughout the entire zoom range). The gap between 24 and 50 is pretty big though, a 35 or 28 would be a nice addition. For travelling, I like the 28-70mm F/2.8 autofocus constant-aperture zoom. The 80-200mm F/2.8 is wonderful for portraits but expensive and heavy.
…ok, not every one is goin’ to agree with this but here goes… if available light B/W photography is what you’r into, get a Nikon F-3 HP and the fastest three prime lenses you can justify…at least a 50mm f/1.8 ( or f/1.4 if you can swing it) a wide angle , maybe a 24mm f/2.8 ( or f/2 , again, if able) and a 105 f/2.5 (or f/1.8 , tho’ this is MUCH heavier glass) I use my 105 ALL THE TIME for portraits and other situations where I want the b’ground to drop out. Looks great, gives a good working distance from the subject, it seldom disapoints me, if you need a closer focus than 1m try to get the 105 f/2.8 macro…you will not belive your eyes…hope this helps!
For what its worth, these are my choices for higher end digital that compromise between quality and price:
Olympus C2500L digital SLR:
http://www.olympusamerica.com/product.asp?c=57&s=12&p=16&product=380
Epson Stylus Photo 870, 875DC(if you don’t have a computer or don’t want to use one), or 1270 printer(wide format):
http://www.epson.com/printer/inkjet/sty870/
http://www.epson.com/printer/inkjet/sty875DC/
http://www.epson.com/printer/inkjet/sty1270/
I have blown the C2500L pictures up to 11X14 size as well as the equivalent of 16X20 with stunning quality. 8X10 is a no-brainer. No post-processing is needed to get the colors right.
This is the camera I have:
http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/35mm/slr/eosix.html
with a Sigma 28-80 lens.
The picture quality is superb (professional looking), it’s really easy to use and lightweight enough for me to carry around everywhere.
The best thing about it is that it can be used manually or automatically.
I’m not completely thrilled about the Advantix film, but I’m warming up to it.
I forgot to mention that Advantix system film does come in black and white (it’s not hard to find, either). But like a 35mm camera, when using black and white film, the photo should be taken using the controls manually to eliminate a gray washed print.
I would avoid a digital camera if you want to take photographical photos. In my experience, digital cameras take photos that look pretty flat.
I just got the newest Casio 3.34 megapixel. It holds 245 high quality photos and shoots 30 second video clips.
I got into using an SLR last year and have shot ton’s of pictures and framed many of them for display in my house. But the film cost was prohibitive. A big downside to a film camera is that you can’t tell what the pictuure will look like until you have it developed.
I haven’t touched my SLR since I went digital. Teh quality is superb and Inever have to drop off film. I can preview and delte teh photos by vieing them on the screen on the back of my camera.
Fo me there is no comparison. Digital is it.