best beginner camera to get no experience

<p>I just want to take some really awesome pictures and wanted to know the best camera under 1,000 that will give me professional pics like of family and scenery thanks</p>

<p>You will not likely take really awesome pictures of anything until you start your photography education. Buying a camera, even a really, really expensive professional one, does not mean your photos will be good. They'll probably be different, but without education, they won't get any better. This is not meant as a discouragement but just a statement of fact.</p>

<p>So, with that said, here's my advice:<br /> 1. buy an entry-level digital SLR. Anything from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus will do. They're all between $500 and $1000. Find one that feels good to hold. One that you could see using instead of leaving at home because it's too big or too heavy or uncomfortable. Buy it with the kit lens. Maybe buy a compatible external flash. Probably buy a decent tripod.</p>

<p>2. start taking some classes at your local college.</p>

<p>3. read everything you can about photography.</p>

<p>4. practice. practice. practice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>x2 for everything Rob said. The differences between the different makes/models are very subtle, and all the products are competitive with minor tradeoffs and compromises--in all cases there's no substitute for learning the craft if you want "professional pics", even at $3000 or $5000.</p>

<p>I'll also add that when it comes to #3, this site is a great resource. Lots of helpful people.</p>

<p>Think of it like building a house. You can get all the best supplies, beautiful trim and fixtures, etc., but if you don't know how to build the house it will just fall down. You need to take the time to learn about the technical aspects of photography, and you can start with an entry level DSLR. In the end, it's the photographer, not the camera, who creates the photos. If you want professional looking photos, then you need to learn how to do everything manually--shutter speed, aperture, etc. <br>

Then there's lighting. Even if you only work with natural light and never get into studio lighting, that alone is a whole learning experience in itself.<br>

Find a camera you like (a kit lens is fine to start with), take the time to learn, and you won't regret it! Have fun with it!</p>

<p>Ironically, a camera that does everything for you tends to keep you from having to learn. A camera that forces you to do everything seems harder at first, but teaches you more. In the old days, the poster child for photography classes was the Pentax K1000. These days I don't even know if they start with film.</p>

<p>Plus you don't know what you want now. You're better off buying a cheap camera and using that to learn on. Then by the time you have gained some minimal skills, you will probably have an idea of what kind of camera you really want.</p>

<p>stan,</p>

 

<p>To build slightly on the chorus, I’ll echo everything from Rob and Andrew…but add a

suggestion to get the best lens(es) you can afford to, even if it means getting a dramatically cheaper (even used)

camera body.</p>

 

<p>I’m not as familiar with the smaller DSLRs as I once used to be, but I would, if at all

possible, recommend getting an f/2.8 standard zoom (it’ll start at around 18 mm at the wide end

and go to about 55 mm at the telephoto end). And it doesn’t have to be made by the same

manufacturer as the camera, so long as it’s compatible.</p>

 

<p>Add to that a 100 mm (or so) macro lens, being sure to get something that’s a true macro

lens and not just something with a flower icon on the barrel. It will be your “go-to”

telephoto lens, great for portraits, the zoo, sports, and the like. Image quality will be superlative. And,

oh-by-the-way, you can fill the frame with a dime.</p>

 

<p>Also nice would be a super-wide zoom, such as a 10 mm (ish) to 20 mm (ish). The 18 mm of the

standard zoom is wide, but not impressively so. A super-wide zoom will be good for sweeping

landscapes and other times when you want to cram an awful lot into the frame.</p>

 

<p>Lastly, it’s awfully hard to not get a 50 mm f/1.8. They’re dirt cheap, small, light,

have outstanding image quality, and can take pictures in near-darkness. They’re excellent for

portraiture.</p>

 

<p>Now, add all that up and you’ll eat up most of your “camera” budget. But

that’s okay. Use those lenses on a beat-up old camera (assuming the camera is still in good

working condition) and you’ll get far, far superior results than using a cheap lens on a great

camera. Offer a <i>Sports Illustrated</i> photographer a choice between using a $4000 lens and a

$400 camera or a $4000 camera and a $400 lens, and she won’t even hesitate to pick the lens.

She’ll be able to get her job done, even if she swears a lot at the camera. The other way

’round and she might as well not even bother removing the lens cap.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Most people want to photograph family and friends under poor light, like indoor birthday parties, reunions and stage play performances or concerts. So if this fits you I would suggest you focus on cameras that you can shoot at a high ISO and still look good. Under those conditions you will also be using slow shutter speeds so a camera body, such as those from Sony, Olympus and Pentax with the anti-shake function built in will keep you from having to spend extra money on the VR or IS lenses from Canon and Nikon. </p>

<p>Now no one camera company has the best of everything in one body so a compromise is usually required. There is a web site called dpreview: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/">http://www.dpreview.com/</a><br>

that has very good camera reviews that can help you with your decision. Having had a similar conversion for some time with a friend of mine, we came to the conclusion that as of today the Sony A550 is the best all around compromise, but of course this can change with each new camera release. Your best bet would be to read at least a few of the camera reviews so you will know what the tradeoffs are and can decide for yourself what compromises you want to make.</p>

<p><em>"I just want to take some really awesome pictures and wanted to know the best camera under 1,000 that will give me professional pics like of family and scenery thanks"</em></p>

<p>To repeat the other comments, what will give you consistently "professional pics" is a professional photographer, regardless of the camera. Short of that, you can study and practice the craft. If you are willing to spend $1000, you should probably get one of the entry-level DSLRs. As noted above, all of the major manufacturers make competitive cameras and kit lenses. The important differences tend to be personal preferences for the handling and ergonomics of one camera over another, rather than the technical specifications, and it's almost impossible for an inexperienced person to find the camera they will like best in the long term based on a quick handling in a shop. So, if you cannot borrow a DSLR for a longer period before making a decision, just pick one. As mentioned, the majors are Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony. The cheapest entry-level kits are all quite close to each other in price, too (around $500 including a 18-50 or thereabouts lens). Nikon and Canon put together have a very large share of the market, so either of those would be an obvious safe choice and would give you access to a large variety of lenses and other components for the system.</p>

<p>A Nikon D5000 kit + 35/1,8 DX lens have a great potential for your budget. I choose to mension the Nikon kit because Nikon are still alone to offer a fast high quality 35mm lens at a relatively low price. This is a good start but as you know by now there are a lot more involved to take those awesome pictures.</p>

<p>Since no one has said it exactly in so many words. The camera only "takes" the picture that the photographer has <em><strong>made</strong> </em> on it.<br /> One of the world's most annoying comments to a photographer is</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> "What swell pictures, you must have a really good camera."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> No matter how expensive or how good the camera is, a person who doesn't learn anything about photography will get only mediocre results, except by the lucky happenstance. At best, even the most automatic camera can only produce a technically correct image. It cannot choose, cannot compose, cannot be imaginative.<br /> Witness all those Leica photographers that were described on an earlier, more playful, Photo.net leica forum as "those Leica owners wondering why a $5000 camera can't take good pictures" (or some such).</p>

<p>There's an ongoing thread about Canon vs. Nikon entry-level DSLR at</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00Vur0</p>

<p>Bengt Rehn: <em>"Nikon are still alone to offer a fast high quality 35mm lens at a relatively low price."</em></p>

<p>I'm not exactly sure that that's true. The Canon EF 35 mm f/2 is practically the same price as the new Nikon lens, and Olympus has a Zuiko Di 25 mm f/2.8 Pancake, also at about the same price (the focal length is equivalent on the smaller Olympus sensor). Pentax has a good selection of fast primes, too, but they are more expensive.<a href="http://www.topshot.fi/product_info.php?pid=1768&sid=00346d98e68375892e6d8c37679c5fc2" ></a></p>

<p>One nice thing about the D5000 is the swivel screen. I have one on a point-and-shoot, and I use it all the time.</p>

<p>To build on what Mike said about the swivel screen, I have to think this would make the transition from P&S a bit easier. The ability to shoot using the live-view screen would help one not feel alienated by the new format - DSLR.</p>

<p>Also, the fact that the screen swivels would encourage trying more shots from varied angles, such as from ground level, or held high above your head. These angles alone may help to give your shots a look that is different from your friends; if not quite 'professional.'</p>

<p>As others have said, the box you hold in your hand does not give professional pictures. The abilities and technique you control it with does that.</p>

<p>The difference between a really awesome picture and ordinary picture is that the person that took the awesome picture put some thought into framing, composition, depth of field, and exposure. A person that doesn't put some thought into it is generally just going to get a ordinary shot. Getting a really good camera will not get you great pictures if you leave the camera in automatic. </p>

<p>Stan<br>

I don't know what you've been using up to now or how much photography experience you already have (you didn't say), but when I first wanted to learn more about photography, I bought a high-end point-and-shoot because as the blurb said "the creative performance of a professional digital SLR camera and the compact convenience of a point-and-shoot."<br>

This has allowed me to learn about exposure (aperture/shutter speed/ISO) as well as in which direction my photographic interests are taking me without breaking the bank. For example, the Canon Powershot SX120 IS which has a 10MP sensor and a 10X zoom (Equiv. 36mm-360mm), is about $200 on Amazon. Now I know the smaller sensor image quality isn't quite as good as a DSLR, but it is still excellent especially if all you're likely to do is put pics on the web or print out some 5"x7" photos. What has really made my pictures better has been learning about exposure, composing, framing and lighting. Yes, I will invest in a DSLR at some point, and my wife is hoping sooner than later. She's now really keen to learn having seen some of the photos I've taken and she wants to play with the Powershot! My point is that by then I will have a much better idea of what I really need, body and lens-wise, for my style of photography. $200 spent on something like this may save you $$$ further down the line, especially when it comes to investing in lenses. Just an alternative thought...</p>

<p>Mike Hollander: You cant really compare Nikon 35/1,8 DX with Canon 35/2,0 at the larger apertures. The Nikon lens is a new design for the DX format with quite exceptional performance. I dont know about the Olympus lens but its not as fast to begin with. Panasonic make a good 20/1,7 but at a high price point.</p>

<p>I don't think this thread should be about comparing 35mm lenses, but the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/157-canon_35_2_50d">Canon 35/2</a> doesn't seem to test much differently than the new <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g">Nikkor</a> . Pentax has a number of excellent designed-for-APS-C primes that are a little pricier but offer top-notch, extra-compact, all-metal builds, including a 35/2.8 Macro, 21/3.2 pancake, and <a href="http://www.photozone.de/pentax/124-pentax-smc-da-40mm-f28-limited-review--test-report">40/2.8 pancake</a> (the most reasonably priced of the three). There was also an excellent recently discontinued <a href="http://www.photozone.de/pentax/123-pentax-smc-fa-35mm-f2-al-photozone-review--test-report">35/2</a> . Agree that the Nikkor is pretty good and is actually priced to be accessible to pretty much any Nikon shooter who wants one, so Nikon deserves praise for that.</p>

<p>Lots of good advice here about the importance of knowledge over gear. That said, if you're serious about really leaning how to do this, you need a camera that will give you enough control. My recommendations would be a Nikon D90 or a Canon 50D, either one with a kit lens. You could skimp and go for a D5000 or a Digital Rebel, but you're going to grow out of those models quickly if you want to pursue photography seriously.</p>

<p>Forget about expensive or specialized lenses in the beginning. You do NOT need a 35 mm prime lens despite the fact that many of the contributors to this thread seem to think that it's a really cool thing to have.</p>

<p>You can plunk down $<a href="http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/photo?photo_id=10568003&size=lg"></a>6K for a Nikon D3x and still take lousy photos. No house, no matter how expensive, will stand without a strong foundation.<br>

I would strongly suggest you find either an online photography course or two or enroll in a photography class at a junior college. It's a personal opinion, but I think <em>all</em> photographers should start out learning with film so they better learn the <em>fundamentals</em> of photography. </p>

<p>I am always amused when these threads lapse immediately into the "any camera can take bad pictures" vent. And I frequently peek at pictures from people who say this, expecting their exif data to list their cell phone camera, and typically instead the camera listed is a $3-4000 model. If just "any camera" can take good pictures, and it's all about the photog, why aren't these people just using a point and shoot?<br>

The reality is if you want the best pictures, get a DSLR. It doesn't have to be an expensive model, but a DSLR with a decent lens will always produce better output than a point and shoot. The sensor is larger, the viewfinder for composing shots is better, the colors are better, the autofocus mechanism is typically better, the shutter speed performance is better, and the low-light performance is almost always better. Purely on a picture quality basis you will more likely get pro-quality results. The mechanical aspects of your work will be more of a no-brainer, your "keeper" rate will be better, and you can focus on creating good composition instead of on getting around the limitations of your camera. The idea that some others have that you learn more if your camera isn't as good is ridiculous as well. If you were learning to drive would you rather have a compact new car with auto tranny (uhhhh, with good brakes and accelerator of course) or a beater Oldsmobile boat? The tool should not be a hindrance in any way to your work. Yes, you can bake a bad cake with a good mixer, but all things being equal, a nice Kitchenaid makes your life much more enjoyable than a $20 cheapie. You get my drift. In just about every area of life, better tools yield better results.<br>

I very recently (3 months ago) bought my very first DSLR camera and just today I was having my doubts that going the DSLR route was really worth the money, especially given that so many have said that the camera means so much less than the photographer. So I got out my old but very highly rated Canon S80 "pro-sumer" point and shoot and went out and took direct comparison pictures using that and my new Canon 50D. Well the results from the DSLR, using a highly under-rated lens (Canon 28-135mm) were ridiculously better than those from the point and shoot. 90% of my DSLR shots were WOW in terms of color, clarity, etc whereas I only had a few Wow's from the point and shoot. For instance because I had a faster shutter speed and frame rate on the DSLR, I could freeze motion on the DSLR where in the same conditions, the point and shoot was simply unable to do so. <br>

If I were in the market for a camera right now, I'd get the Canon 50D again (unless the 60D were available!) If my budget were under $1000 for camera and lens, I'd go with the Canon T2I with the 18-55 kit lens and I'd save for another lens with a longer range (I love my 70-300mm IS USM). The T2I is loved for, among other things, its low-light performance, its improved white balancing and its extra wide screen (for viewing your pics and histogram while photographing).<br>

As far as learning tools, I've really enjoyed the Photography Workshop series on composition, portraits, lighting. (search Amazon for "Photography Workshop"). The books are informative and have jump-started my understanding of photography. And of course, much can be learned by browsing places like Flickr, finding pictures you think are great and looking at exif data to see what the photographer did to achieve the results you like.<br>

Good luck in your search. Photography is a wonderful world. </p>

<p>My new best advice:</p>

<p>Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Photography Field Guide". Probably the best $16.49 ( Amazon ) you'll spend on photography stuff. I know it's not the camera recommendation advice you wanted, but, learning the stuff in this book will help you more. Until you know this stuff well, it really won't matter what DSLR or any camera, for that matter, you get.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I do have to say that learning about photography is very important. The more photos you take the more you will learn. I like to take several of the same shot on different settings and make a note of each one. I don't think you have to be a professional photographer to get professional results. It may not happen each time you take a photo, but over time you will learn what works. Practicing not only helps you improve but it's also part of the fun. Just get out there and capture what inspires you. I recently purchased my first DSLR, a Nikon D3000. It has been great so far. I would recommend it or the D5000 as well. They are in your budget range.</p>

<p>Stan,<br>

The way you phrase the question kind of invited a lot of extra discussion. All valid points, but first things first. Yes, get a DSLR. Go to a shop. Hold cameras in your hand, see how they fit your hand (some will be large and cramp fingers, others small and make you squeeze too much to hold them). Get one that feels right to you: that is the best camera within your budget. Get a decent lens to go with it.<br>

Next, read the manual, and a book like 'Understanding Exposure' by Bryan Peterson to learn photograpghy basics. Get started. Shoot photos of what you like. Be critical towards yourself, and try to identify how you can do better. Keep learning, we all do.</p>

<p>Shooting awesome pictures - if you like them, they are.<br>

Shooting professional pictures - if the person paying you likes them, they are.</p>

<p>Have fun, most of all.</p>

<p>You don't even need a camera to get no experience :-)</p>

<p>Not to knock the other brands at all, but I am a Canon kind of girl...My advice would be Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi (450D) SLR Digital Camera (Black) with Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Normal EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. This is a great starter package and is only about $540. This is about the most basic Digital SLR system you can get, but will be more than enough for someone just starting out. Check out Photo4less.com. They are about the cheapest around. If you have a $1000 budget, you may want to add another lens, such as a 50mm 1.8 which are around $100 and well worth it for low light situations or a telephoto lens, which you will need for scenery and/or landscapes. Also you may want an external flash such as a 430ex speedlite (bout $250 or so). If you want to spend this much money, I would recommend spreading your budget around like this and not putting so much into your "first" digital SLR body, as this Rebel will be all the camera you need for a beginner. You will want more lenses, a camera bag (I found a Canon Photo Backpack on Amazon for $41-WHICH IS CHEAP!), more batteries, memory cards, and the list goes on. So just use that $1000 wisely as you will likely keep finding accesories that you will want.</p>

<p>HOPE THIS HELPS!</p>

<p>As others have suggested . . . do some reading/research, go to a camera shop and select whichever brand appears to have the features and feel <strong><em>you</em></strong> like best.<br>

If you are truely interested in learning photography to obtain those consistantly professional looking shots . . . do some more reading/research and study. Consider a camera with both "Manual and Automatic" settings. Learn what "f-stop, aperature, shutter speed, and depth of field means, take lot's of pictures, ask questions (this is a good place for that), experiment with the manual settings to actually learn what the camera is doing and how to control the light etc., etc., but at the same time use some of the auto settings so that you don't get discouraged. You will still get some great shots! Maybe not "exactly" what you are after, but thats what the manual setting use will teach you! And . . . "you have got to have some fun along the way!"<br>

You might consider starting with a "point and shoot" camera with the manual overrides. Then, if you are still interested, you many want to advance to the expense of the SLR & Lenses. I would strongly advise "buying used" initially, but make certain you can obtain the "user's manual" for the camera. You would be amazed at just how much you can learn about "f-stop, shutter speed, depth of field etc., etc., from the User's Manual alone! Don't just browse through it, <em>It is a good place to learn some basic's. </em>(This site is also a good place to buy "trusted" used equipment.)<br>

Yes, I would agree with the earlier posts that "film, & manual SLR bodies" would be the best, but this is 2010! I started with <strong><em>all</em></strong> manual bodies & film back in the late 60's, then complicated that learning experience with "Underwater Photography" in the 70's, "Wildlife & Nature" in the 80's, "Portraits & Family" in the 90's, and just when I thought I had become "an effective photography enthusiasts" . . . digital came along!<br>

Serious photography, (at least in my case!) is a continious and expensive "learning experience," but I love my gear, the changes in light & techqniques and the time I spend (as now) studying, learning, and maybe helping others to enjoy the "capture" of images. If you get "hooked" you will never get bored!<br>

My .02 worth,<br>

Best wishes,<br>

Jim J.</p>