Camera recommendation for young teen learning photography

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I recently replaced my 6MP Pentax K100D DSLR I paid around $600 new back in 2006 with the same used model for $150. Takes the same quality pictures and with the kit lens which can be had for under $100 is a very good budget DSLR system for learning basic photography. I also snagged some film legacy Sigma zooms for about $30 apiece on eBay. Great lenses.</p>

<p>Newer, more expensive models of any brand camera are going to be so much more complicated with more options and menus than older cameras for a teen just learning to navigate the basics.</p>

<p>I'm not saying you should get the Pentax but I'ld look into getting used, older models which are just as capable. Also don't get hung up on mega pixel numbers. Not something to be concerned about for a teen starting out in photography.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'd also suggest a D7000-series. They can make full use of manual lenses if she wants a cheap way of attaching cheap glass, having replaceable lenses makes options like fish-eyes, macros, lensbabys, etc. an option. If there's a chance of her wanting to get creative, that makes it more tempting than one of the pentamirror Nikon DSLRs - although they're certainly cheaper and lighter. I do agree that being able to share lenses with you might be useful (I first picked Canon because friends shot that system, and switched to Nikon only once I was comfortable with building my own set of equipment). While there are good compact cameras with manual control, some of which have the advantage of being very portable (I have an RX100), they're much less expandable, probably more of a pain to control manually (the D7000 series dials are just more convenient), and you'll need something bigger to get the same DoF control.<br />

<br />

Nikons also have a nice little mechanical lever for aperture, which is handy when explaining how an aperture works to someone. (For the sake of future forum questions about depth of field, please teach her that aperture is the fraction "f-over-number", where f is the focal length. People who learn "f4" and "f2.8" tend to spend forever trying to remind themselves that "a smaller number means a bigger aperture", which is a problem that goes away if you think in fractions. I'm trying to train the world...)<br />

<br />

Pentax make bodies with unusually nice handling for the money, but I kind of think people should make their own choice to go with Pentax - the system is appreciably smaller and less available than Canikon. Apart from anything else, the teacher is less likely to be familiar with the system. But yes, absolutely talk to the student - apart from anything else, Canon and Nikon have very different handling that's a matter of preference, and if she's been playing with her friends' Canon cameras she may already have a preference for that system.<br />

<br />

It might be worth mentioning that only recent film cameras handle like a DSLR, in case the course covers film. In Nikon's case, the F5/F100 and later will be familiar to any DSLR shooter. If someone dumps an F3 or F4, or a more recent "traditional" film camera like an FM3A (or the traditional student-friendly FM), in the hands of someone used to a DSLR, it'll take some thinking to get used to it - less so coming from a Df, but I wouldn't go there. Canon bodies since the Eos system appeared handle fairly similarly, give or take the difference between one-dial and two-dial bodies, but you end up with a completely different system if you want to go for a fully mechanical/manual body. The D7x00 series will be fine with any lens from the AI system onwards (1970s). Hopefully a modern course won't get too obsessed about the FM and the like - an F75 is perfectly capable if a film camera is needed. But honestly it's much easier to learn with a DSLR, if only because you can see what you're doing.<br />

<br />

If you want to go full frame, a used D700 isn't all that expensive (and an original 5D is even cheaper), but it <i>is</i> quite big and heavy, which might be something it's worth running past your friend. That said, a 28-200 on a D700 is a very capable general-purpose camera, and paired with a 50mm f/1.8 it's pretty flexible for DoF control. Just don't expect those lenses to hold up as sensor resolution increases, but they're cheap enough that they won't make much of a dent in a D800's cost anyway.<br />

<br />

And yes: four-thirds is roughly to DX as DX is to FX (about half the size of an FX sensor in each direction, although the aspect ratio is different so it's not quite exact). Most recent cameras in that system are actually <i>micro</i> four-thirds, which is the same sensor size but a shorter mount distance (original four-thirds cameras have a mirror). If you're looking at mirrorless, the Sony A7 series have full-frame sensors (but check the lens costs before you get excited), as do some Leicas; the other Sony NEX bodies are crop-sensor similar to the Nikon DX bodies (as is the Canon M mirrorless series and the Fuji mirrorless cameras) that's 1.5-1.6x smaller than a full-frame sensor; micro 4/3 is (2x) smaller than full frame, and Nikon's 1 series (probably don't go there) is even smaller, with a 2.7x crop. Pentax Q cameras are even smaller. Bigger than FX you have some medium format cameras for silly money.<br />

<br />

Good luck, both to you and the student!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Newer, more expensive models of any brand camera are going to be so much more complicated with more options and menus than older cameras for a teen just learning to navigate the basics.</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, that depends. Menu systems have been improved over time - navigating an old camera can be much more complicated, especially if you go back long enough. A higher-end camera with more "scary dials" actually does a much better job of hiding the need to get lost in menus or change the wrong thing. Plus this is a teenager we're talking about - I doubt a menu system will scare her. The worst thing to do is to pick a "beginner's point and shoot" camera; I have one bought for a pittance that has over fifty scene modes, and I know what none of them do. It doesn't give you direct control over shutter, aperture and ISO, which are the only things a beginner needs to care about - especially if she can learn about raw processing.<br />

<br />

I agree about the megapixels, though.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>The teacher of the class will have a recommendation and you should follow what the teacher suggest, not because the teacher is so wise but because that will make learning in the class easier.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Using a digital means taking a lot more pictures than we did in the old days with the cost of film and processing. Yet that was (is?) a pretty cool part of photography and it really focused the mind and forced you to understand the technology and what was going on since you didn't see your images till you get them developed.</p>

<p>If I had to pick one I'd pick an older DSLR like Nikon or Canon or Sony BUT I *might* also buy an older film camera (Lots of good Nikons) and a little film and black and white development chemistry just to focus the mind, make me think about what I'm doing and just for the experience. Printing the pictures is just going to be too much trouble unless schools still do darkroom classes but developing black and white is easy. Don't spend too much.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>It would absolutely do me a lot of good to pay more attention to each shot and frame carefully - I keep meaning to get a 5x4 for this reason. But there's also a lot to be said for a learner in seeing the immediate effect on the image that are made by changes to exposure settings. I pretty much learnt with a digital camera, and - while I also shoot film - waiting hours to weeks to find out whether you got the effect you wanted has to be painful, especially while learning. Besides, I'd argue we're past the point where it's useful to teach people how to use a film camera - most students are going to end up shooting digital. A challenge of "take no more than 36 exposures this week" (checked with EXIF) would do most people as much good as forcing them to shoot a roll of film. That said, I still have some rolls of film in the fridge from a few years ago; I should work out which ones I've exposed and find out what's on them...</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, that depends. Menu systems have been improved over time - navigating an old camera can be much more complicated, especially if you go back long enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm going by my DSLR against brand new (over $500) modern Canons & Nikons at my local retailer. I gave up trying to figure out their menu systems. I needed to have a lengthy read of their owners manual.</p>

<p>Comparatively my 2006 Pentax DSLR menu and button system looks almost Fischer Price in its simplicity.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>The teacher of the class will have a recommendation and you should follow what the teacher suggest, not because the teacher is so wise but because that will make learning in the class easier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good advice because I suspect the teacher will be more familiar and have an easier time to teach how to navigate a menu/button system that's a bit more standard.</p>

<p>I mean where do they put the OK button, what menu option and size of font for readability does each camera have so everyone's on the same page in the class?</p>

<p><br />Back with film SLR's like my '80's Yashica I only had to deal with top roto-dial that had a basic list of parameters and an ASA/ISO selector on the other side. No LCD menu screen to have to read small fonts. I managed quite well teaching myself how to use it and the manual was only 1/8 inch thick.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I bought my daughter a Canon SL1, which is the smallest and lightest DSLR ever made, and she loves it. It's almost as small as a point and shoot, but of course has the functionality of a DSLR. It comes with a really good kit lens, the 18-55 STM, and she could add the ultra-compact, super sharp, super inexpensive 40/2.8 STM prime if she likes.</p>

<p>I confess that I sometimes borrow my daughter's camera when I don't want to lug around one of my "pro" DSLR's. :-)</p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>You might want to try an earlier version of a particular model. For instance, I’m sure you can find a relatively cheap Canon T3 used. If she takes to photography, maybe someday she invests in a different camera but the T3 should be fine for quite some time...good luck...</p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>You might want to try an earlier version of a particular model. For instance, I’m sure you can find a relatively cheap Canon T3 used. If she takes to photography, maybe someday she invests in a different camera but the T3 should be fine for quite some time...good luck...and Nikon probably has an equivalent of the Canon T3...</p>

[richard_meyers]

<p>I'd like to offer an alternative. Today's smartphones can produce images to rival a very good DSLR. An important part of photography is having the camera with you when you see a great image. That's much more likely for her than dragging a bag of camera body, lenses and accessories around. So I suggest giving her the money to upgrade her phone to an iphone or galaxy s6/s7</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Smartphone doesn't actually allow you to shoot manual focus or exposure. You might learn about composition, but I contend you need to learn all about light, too.<br /><br />Imho, you learn very little about photography and the way light and sensors work with one. You don't force yourself to learn the difference between shooting at 1/60 @f5.6 and 1/250 @ f2.8 for instance.<br /><br />If I were teaching the course, I'd want the student to be able to go full manual, focus, shutter and aperture. If I were the student and it wasn't defined, I'd want to force myself to be able to do that.<br /><br />When I bought my first camera, I wanted to really learn about all this stuff, so I actually bought one that had no automation at all, but that was actually before anybody but Minolta had AutoFocus even.<br /><br />Today, I STILL, when shooting non-action things, will often just go to full manual to shoot because I got comfortable with it.</p>

[richard_meyers]

<p>Well my galaxy s6 (w/ android mashmallow) has a pro mode which allows considerable latitude with manual adjustments. No, it won't do everything my D3 will but it does a lot.<br>

My main point is that if you have the camera with you, you'll have more chances at great shots as opposed to planning a specific time and taking your 'gear'.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Richard: Agreed about the portability and capability of the modern smartphone (and as a Samsung employee, thank you!) - while I take lots of photos with my phone, for learning I'd probably still start with a dedicated camera, if only because physical controls over physical characteristics are easier to get at, control and understand. Besides, getting someone to swap phones is quite a negotiation - I've had a new one in my house for a couple of months while I find time to port everything... But I'll be interested if the course teacher decides a smartphone is a viable camera option!</p>

[sarah_lange1]

Thanks again everyone. Turns out her folks have a D90 and lens. Would that be a good choice for her for now? I know

that model is a few years old but should still be compatible with everything? And sophisticated enough for the time being?

 

Also, she does not have any requirements or guidelines from the school, it's a little more open ended than that.

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D90 is fine for a teenage beginner. It is indeed older, from 2008 with similar technology as the 2007 D300, which was very popular in its days. The D90 has two command dials, which is a plus. Its 12MP should be fine.</p>

<p>There are two main limitations for the D90:</p>

<ol>

<li>It has no aperture follower tab to meter with old manual-focus, AI and AI-S lenses. Most likely this is a complete non-issue.</li>

<li>It cannot control the aperture on the latest E lenses that use an electromagnetic motor instead of the traditional mechanical coupling to control the aperture diaphragm inside the lens. This is also not likely an issue unless they get some very new lenses such as the 16-80mm/f2.8-4 E AF-S VR.</li>

</ol>

<p>Also the D90 uses the older Multi-CAM 1000 AF module that has only 1 cross-type AF point, and its high ISO capability is fairly dated by now.</p>

<p>The D90 is a decent starting point in 2016, but the D7000 (series) I mentioned earlier will be somewhat better. If this girl isn't happy with the D90 later on, they can always upgrade then.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>A friend of mine had a D90 as his first DSLR, and found it to be a good camera and excellent learning tool.</p>

[sarah_lange1]

Thank you Shun Cheung and Mark Pierlot. That's kind of what I was thinking so it's good to know this would be good

option for now. Good to know about the new E lenses just in case they want to get one.

[andylynn]

A D90 would be a great choice. Add some 18-whatever lens and a 35mm and you're good to go. Don't worry about E

lenses. There are not a lot of them out there.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Last year, I started a thread on Nikon E (electromagnetic aperture diaphragm) lenses (not to be confused with Series E lenses from the AI-S era in the early 1980's): http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dSpx</p>

<p>As part of my D500 review, I had a loaner 16-80mm DX E lens. I found it to be a very good, general-purpose lens: http://www.photo.net/equipment/Nikon-D500-and-16-80mm-DX-Lens-Review<br>

However, while I have my own D500 for wildlife photography, I don't own that lens myself. For more general photography, I mostly use FX bodies.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>There are two equally important things to learn to understand photography. The simplest in the interrelationship between aperture, ISO, EV, shutter speed, etc., and the effects on the image. The other and maybe more challenging is understanding and developing the photographer's vision and understanding composition, creativity, etc.<br>

I have taught photography at the university level. If I were teaching a photography course today, particularly to beginners I would try to remove the importance of the equipment from the equation. Today I think some of the most creative photography is being taken with smartphones and tablets. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly, I completely agree that a D90 is a perfectly adequate starting point - I almost suggested it as a budget alternative when the D7000 series was mentioned. The sensor doesn't have the resolution, low-light sensitivity or dynamic range of the newer sensors, but unless the student is going to be taught a lot of post-processing, that's no big deal.<br />

<br />

It's true that composition and lighting are much more important than the equipment (I feel much more confident in my control of the equipment than of the other two), and that smartphones (and, if you must, tablets - though most tablets are unwieldy and have sub-par cameras) are used very creatively. The limited interface on some smartphones and the level of control you have over the sensor output would still put me off in a course, though. There are things smartphones do well, but controlled subject isolation and exposure/flash control aren't among them, even if you have one with acceptably short shutter lag. And good luck editing the raw file afterwards. There's great stuff that can be done quickly, conveniently and efficiently using a phone (and a large touch-screen interface); for flexibility and precision, I'll still take the dedicated camera, at least for now - though I may have been burnt a bit by the generic effects that Instagram started out with and therefore be cynical. In reality, obviously I'd actually have both devices with me.<br />

<br />

For some reason smartphones do seem to have started to get the hang of decent video faster than dedicated cameras, though - when I was in Yellowstone recently it was my phone I used to record Old Faithful; I used the DSLR just for stills.</p>

[Brian1664876441]

I would first suggest that the parents figure out a budget. The last time I helped a friend pick out a camera for her daughter

to take a class the budget allowed for a Nikon D50 and me to give them an AF-Nikkor 35~70/3.3. In other words, ~$100.

 

The nice thing about a Nikon DSLR is that you have a large used lens market, and some are very cheap. If the parents can

swing a DX format camera that takes Ai lenses, manual focus, AF-Nikkors that require motor-in-the-body, and new AF-S

type lenses can be used. A Nikon D7000 (~$425 with battery and charger at KEH) on the used market, or even a D7100 (~$600) on close-out is less than a new u43

camera.

[2Oceans]

<p>Sarah, the D90 has a smaller 12 megapixel count than newer cameras that are in the 20s and can be used with most lap tops that have been made in the last 10 years without bogging them down. New high pixel cameras will fill up camera and computer storage rapidly as well as challenge your computer's processor. Good hunting. </p>